1959-05-27

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax) presented the twelfth and thirteenth reports of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the twelfth report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Howard: How many, if any, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police went on pension for each year since January 1, 1945, under (a) part 2; (b) part 3; (c) part 5, of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act?


R.C.M.P.-PENSIONERS' CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Howard: For each year since January 1, 1945, how many, if any, of those members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who went on pension pursuant to part 3 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act made contributions pursuant to part 4 of the said act?


R.C.M.P.-STRENGTH AND PENSION STATISTICS PRIOR TO 1934
Mr. Howard: How many, if any, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, other than commissioned officers, were members of the force prior to October 1, 1934, and of this number (a) how many elected to make; (b) how many elected not to make, pension contributions under the provisions of part 4 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps with the consent of the house I might deal with questions Nos. 84, 85 and 86 together.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to speak to these three questions together?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: These three questions-particularly the first two of them-ask for information which is of a purely statistical nature
and which involve quite lengthy answers giving statistical information. There is no objection whatsoever to giving the information but I think I should say, in view of the nature of the question and the length of the reply, that I have some reservation as to whether this is an entirely proper subject to be covered by a starred question at this stage.
I make that reservation, Mr. Speaker, but subject to any objection which you may raise I would be prepared to supply the answers on this occasion and would suggest that I might be allowed to table the answers to questions Nos. 84 and 85 now as they are purely statistical, so they would appear in Hansard at this point.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house willing that the suggestion of the minister be adopted, namely that the answers to questions Nos. 84 and 85 be tabled at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: To appear in Hansard at this point.


Mr. Speaker:: And that they appear in Hansard at this point.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Editor's note: The answers to the questions referred to above are as follows:)
84. January 1 to December 31	(a) Part 2	(b) Part 3	(c) Part1945 	9	79	NIL1946 ....	22	98	NIL1947 ....	9	111	NIL1948 	1	69	NIL1949 ....	5	81	NIL1950 	6	97	NIL1951 ....	5	56	61952 ....	5	115	91953 ....	3	99	31954 ....	3	58	71955 ....	2	95	91956 ....	6	56	121957 ....	6	86	131958 	2	79	13January 1 to May 13,1959	1	19	NIL
Starred Questions
85. January 1
to December 31	Part 3, R.C.M.P. act	Part 4, R.C.M.P. act1945 	79	41946 	98	161947 	111	171948 	69	121949 	81	161950 	97	311951 	56	121952 	115	311953 	99	361954 	58	221955 	95	421956 	56	281957 	86	371958 	79	56January 1	to	May 13,1959	19	8


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to question No. 86, Mr. Speaker, I have taken this to mean how many, if any, of those members on the strength of the force as of May 13, 1959, excluding commissioned officers, were on strength prior to October 1, 1934 and served continuously since the latter date. If any of those members still serving who engaged prior to October 1, 1934, left the force and subsequently re-engaged after that date, they became compulsory contributors to part IV of the act and consequently are not included in the reply as they had no option of electing.
On that basis the answer to question No. 86 is that. On May 13, 1959, there were 143 members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on strength, excluding commissioned officers, who were members of the force prior to October 1, 1934. Of this number, (a) 73 elected to make pension contributions under the provisions of part IV of the R.C.M.P. Act; (b) 70 members did not elect to make pension contributions to part IV.


Mr. Speaker:: To make sure the record is clear, the minister asked to have the answers to questions 84 and 85 inserted in Hansard. I take it that has the consent of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


AVRO AND ORENDA-DEFENCE PRODUCTION PERSONNEL
Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Were any civilian employees of the Department of Defence Production working at Avro Aircraft Limited and/or Orenda Engines Limited as inspectors, liaison officers, etc., on February 1, 1959?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	How many on May 1, 1959?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the reply to question No. 1 is that the aircraft branch

of the Department of Defence Production maintains a Toronto regional office located at the Avro Aircraft Limited plant at Mal-ton, Ontario, which acts as a liaison group with all aircraft and associated contractors in the Toronto-Hamilton area. The answer to question No. 2 is, three. The answer to question No. 3 is, four.



AVRO AND ORENDA


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Were any Royal Canadian Air Force personnel working at Avro Aircraft Limited and/or Orenda Engines Limited as inspectors, liaison officers, etc.. on February 1, 1959?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	How many on May 1, 1959?
4.	Were any civilian employees of the Department of National Defence working at the Avro Aircraft Limited and/or Orenda Engines Limited as inspectors, liaison officers, etc., on February 1, 1959?
5.	If so, how many?
6.	How many on May 1, 1959?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this question is
divided into six parts and the answers are as follows: 1. Yes; 2. 56; 3. 47; 4. yes; 5. 57; 6. 50.
[Later:!
On the orders of the day:


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence based on his reply to question No. 90 today. In view of the fact that the Department of National Defence has maintained most of its liaison and inspection staffs at Malton and at Orenda Engines Limited in Toronto, does the minister expect that their services will soon be required there again?


George Randolph Pearkes: Their services are required at the Avro plant at the present time. They would not be there if they were not required. There are other projects going on; for instance, the inspection of the aircraft spares which are being sent over to Belgium, for the CF-lOO's. This is the sort of duty on which these staffs are presently employed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister trying to convey to the house the impression that all these people were employed on the present projects before the cancellation of the Avro Arrow?


George Randolph Pearkes: 

NATIONAL DEFENCE PERSONNEL, GOOSE BAY AIRPORT

Mr. Tucker: 1.	How many casual and prevailing rates employees were employed on the latest available date, by the Royal Canadian Air Force and/or the Department of National Defence at Goose Bay airport?
2.	How many of the said employees were hired in the province of Newfoundland?
3.	How many of the said employees were ordinarily resident in Newfoundland before taking up their present employment?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, this question makes inquiries regarding the prevailing rate employees at Goose Bay. The answer to the first question is that there are 201 employees there. The answer to the second part, which inquires how many were hired in the province of Newfoundland, is 100. The answer to the third part is 100. I might add that on February 18 last I announced in the house that arrangements were being made to recruit all personnel for employment at Goose Bay within the area covered by the national employment office at St. John's, Newfoundland. These arrangements became effective at the beginning of this month.



APPOINTEES UNDER SECTION 3, BROADCASTING ACT

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the government appointed anyone to the three full-time positions set out in section 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act?
2.	If so, whom?
3.	Has each of these appointees since appointment been working under the provisions of section 3(8) of the Broadcasting Act?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to No. 1 is yes. The answer to No. 2 is: Dr. Andrew Stewart; Mr. Roger Duhamel; Mr. Carlyle Allison. The answer to No. 3 is: I have been so advised by the parties concerned.



CITIZENSHIP COURT, HAMILTON, ONT.

Mr. McMillan: 1.	Has a citizenship court been established in Hamilton?
2.	If so, who is the presiding judge, what is his salary and what was his previous employment?
3.	Who is the clerk, what is the salary for this position and what was his or her previous employment?
4.	What is the estimate of the total annual cost of said court and the number of cases to be dealt with annually together with the number of employees?


Hon. Ellen L. Fair dough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is
Inquiries of the Ministry that a citizenship court has been established in Hamilton on April 15, 1959. The answer to the second part is that Mr. Beamer William Hopkins, Q.C., former magistrate, has been appointed as president of the court at a salary of $11,000 per annum. The answer to the third part is that the position of clerk of the court is still vacant. The salary for that position is from $6,380 to $7,020. The answer to the fourth part is that the cost of furnishing and equipping the court is $10,917.10. The total salaries for the four employees provided on the establishment is $24,360. It is estimated that a minimum of 5,000 applications under the Canadian Citizenship Act would be handled by that court, which would produce revenue of approximately $35,000.
ILater;]
On the orders of the day:


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: With respect to the answer to question No. 93 given by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, could I ask the hon. lady whether the position of clerk of the citizenship court in Hamilton is a civil service position, and whether there will be a competition?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The answer is yes to both questions.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Argue: 1.	Have any work orders been issued by the St. Lawrence seaway authority since January 1, 1955?
2.	If so, what is the total number issued in each year since 1955, January 1?
3.	What is the total number of work orders issued on each contract, and the name of the company holding the contract?
4.	On what date was each order issued, for what amount, what specific work was involved, what official of the authority authorized it and what official signed each?
5.	Have any of these work orders been completed?
6.	If so, which ones, on what date, by what company, on which contract?
7.	Has payment been made by the authority on any of these orders?
8.	If so, which ones, the amount paid, on what date, to what company?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposiiion):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he

Inquiries of the Ministry has any comment to make on an editorial which has appeared in the American technical aviation magazine called Data, and which is reportedly based on information supplied almost verbatim by a ranking officer of NORAD, which states among other things that the United States, both politically and militarily, regards as "utterly silly" Canada's claim that the North American air defence command is merely an extension to this continent of NATO.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think the statement alleged to have been made in this paper is utterly silly.
[Later:!


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether, in regard to the article I have just brought to his attention, he considers also as "utterly silly" the statement in that article that a dozen United States officers assigned to the R.C.A.F. air defence command at St. Hubert for NORAD duty had to appear as liaison officers in civilian clothes because of political implications.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. I consider that even more stupid than the first part.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Tremblay (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister aware that a letter from the Episcopal council of the civil province of Quebec has been sent to a C.B.C. director in Montreal, protesting against certain French T.V. programs? If so, would he care to comment on the matter?
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: I have no knowledge of any such letter. If it has been sent to the director, then of course it would not have come to my attention anyway; it would be a matter for the corporation. I will make inquiries and inform the hon. member whether such a letter has been received.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Further to our exchange of

yesterday, is the minister now in a position to advise the house and the country what action the government proposes to take at this time to alleviate the shortage of mortgage funds for house construction?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this is the same question as the hon. gentleman asked me yesterday, and I submit that it is not in order to put the same question again in the same form.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the minister realizes that a 50 per cent reduction in house construction in Canada this year would, by the minister's own statement, eliminate 200,000 jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not open to the hon. member to make statements and give information under the guise of asking a question. I believe what the minister says is correct; this is precisely the same question, and unless there is some addition or variation it would be out of order.


John Richard Garland: I gathered the impression from the minister's reply yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that he was meeting with the National House Builders' Association today and that we might expect some information.


Howard Charles Green: I am meeting with the National House Builders' Association this afternoon. In the meantime I have found that the figures quoted by the hon. member yesterday were just about half what the proper figures should be.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I ask the acting Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to introduce at this session amendments to the Bank Act which would allow the raising of interest rates to the banks of Canada?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister been informed of the charges made by the Port Arthur city council that the council of the city has been

betrayed and sold down the river in the appointments to the lakehead harbour commission? If so, has he any comment to make or any information on the matter?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To which question? NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD



PROVISION FOR ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION, APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Churchill for the second reading of Bill No. C-49, to provide for the establishment of a national energy board, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Peters.
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before the house is that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to a standing committee of the house. We would hope that hon. members would support the amendment as a means of getting this subject before a standing committee of the house so that witnesses could be called to discuss the provisions of the bill and the major omissions in its provisions so that as a result of the meetings of such a committee we could hammer out a national energy policy that would meet the needs of the Canadian people.
In view of the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition that the bill should be referred to a committee of the house, and in the light of the reply made by the government to that suggestion, that the bill would not be referred to a committee, I would hope the members of the official opposition will support the C.C.F. amendment now before the house. It seems to me that they would place themselves in an impossible position by advocating at one time that the bill be referred to a committee and then voting against this amendment which seeks that very procedure.
A great deal has been said about the speculative stock holdings of certain promoters of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and other pipe line companies. The history of the Trans-Canada speculation is set out very clearly on page 62 of the report of the royal commission on energy, where it is pointed out that some 1,926,182 shares were issued at $8 per share and, according to the royal commission report, on the basis of the selling price of these shares in August of last year these outstanding shares would mean to their holders capital gains in the order of some $60 million.
Therefore it is very evident that the action of the former administration in providing 66968-9-259
National Energy Board money for this company enabled tremendous capital gains to be made. This is the point we have been complaining about, that when public money was placed at the disposal of this company Canada's national interests were not protected. Speculators were allowed to reap fabulous profits, and instead of this government, which promised action against the buccaneers and speculators, taking appropriate action it has brought in a measure that will not only permit but appears to guarantee that this nefarious scheme will be maintained in perpetuity.
The Prime Minister attempted to draw a red herring across the debate yesterday when he referred to some of the things that had been done in the province of Saskatchewan. As I said last evening, he did not point out, as he should have, that in the field of transportation of natural gas, in Saskatchewan natural gas is under the control and operation of a publicly-owned corporation, the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. But he endeavoured to bring in two examples of industries that have been brought to Saskatchewan with the assistance of the industrial development office of that province. I hope to be able to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the assistance of the government of Saskatchewan in this regard is very different from the action of the former administration and the condoning of that action by the present government.
The first company to which the Prime Minister referred was the Saskatchewan Cement Company, which came into the province of Saskatchewan to set up a new industry at least partly because the Saskatchewan government guaranteed a loan of $5J million to that company. I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that for Saskatchewan this is a new industry and a new company; that in view of the general cement monopoly in the country this was not an action that created a monopoly but was intended, at least to some extent, to break an existing monopoly and provide certain competition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he is having a good deal of competition from various parts of the house. Notwithstanding his strong voice I find difficulty in hearing him. I wonder whether hon. members who are transacting business in the aisles and other places would moderate their tones.


Hazen Robert Argue: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This seems to be a regular chore a few minutes after the first speaker takes the floor following the orders of the day.
I was saying that the Saskatchewan government had provided a guarantee to assist

National Energy Board this company to come into the province of Saskatchewan. One of the reasons it provided such a guarantee to assist this company was an endeavour to bring in a new industry which would provide some competition for an existing monopoly. It was much different from the creation of the trans-Canada pipe line, which brought in a monopoly. This was the very opposite; it was brought in to provide certain competition.
Another point in which there is a great deal of difference is that the national treasury of this country, through action taken by the former administration and now condoned and supported by this administration, in fact has supplied a very substantial monetary bonus to the trans-Canada pipe line company. This has been done, and it continues to be done today, through the crown corporation by having advanced to it sums in excess of $100 million at a rate of 34 per cent. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited has an option to purchase the Ontario section of the line, and in fixing the rental terms Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited has calculated, as a basis of fixing those terms, an interest rate of just 34 per cent.
We all realize the very rapid increase in interest rates in this country. I find that on February 18 of this year $200 million of government bonds were yielding rates of 4.76 per cent and 4.94 per cent. At the rate interest rates are advancing in the country it will not be long, apparently, unless something is done to halt them, until interest rates on government borrowings may reach the 54 per cent that the Saskatchewan Cement Company is paying for the money it obtains. But so far as the provision to which I have referred is concerned with the federal government, there is a bonus to the extent that the interest rate exceeds 34 per cent, a bonus to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. The Saskatchewan government, on the other hand, in guaranteeing this loan to the Saskatchewan Cement Company obtains for itself an interest rate of 2 per cent; that is, 2 per cent of the 54 per cent interest is paid by the company into the provincial treasury.
What has happened in Saskatchewan, therefore, is that not only has the Saskatchewan government been successful in encouraging a new industry to locate in that province, but in exchange for its guarantee on loans of $5.5 million at an interest rate of 54 per cent the Saskatchewan government receives a fee of 2 per cent and the bank concerned receives an interest rate of 34 per cent. The Saskatchewan government has added to its provincial income $110,000 per year by this action. This type of action is certainly far removed from the


type of action taken by this government in bonusing the buccaneers and pirateers.


Mr. Churchill:: Why does the hon. member not answer the Prime Minister's argument instead of skating around the edges? The Prime Minister spoke about the fact that the Saskatchewan government in this instance, and I quote his words, "... allowed the promoters to take 130,000 shares at 60 cents a share," while there was a public offering to the average person at $6 per share?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Minister of Trade and Commerce could read, and I thought when he read that he would be able to understand. His question has to do with another company. I shall answer the question, but he should have kept his question until the company concerned was under discussion. No shares of the cement company so far as I know, and the Prime Minister did not say so, are in the hands of the Saskatchewan government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I turn to the arrangements with the steel company. I want to point out just how different this is-I will answer the question-from the position of this government which condones the action that was taken by Right Hon. C. D. Howe, something that was called "old stuff" last night. I have already said that the almost 2 million shares passed around by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited at $8 resulted in capital gains of some $60 million, according to the royal commission report. The federal treasury has received nothing. The people of Canada have obtained nothing. As a matter of fact there has been a drain on the federal treasury.
Now, that is a different attitude from that which was taken by the Saskatchewan government in exchange for the guarantee they provided for the Interprovincial Steel Corporation. The Saskatchewan government retained for the people of Saskatchewan 180,000 shares at a rate of 60 cents per share, and the promoters of the company obtained only 130,000 such shares. The people of Saskatchewan, therefore, in return for a guarantee that was given to this company retained for themselves a greater number of shares than were provided to the promoters of this industry. On the basis of the current value of these shares the Saskatchewan government, if it so wished at this time, could obtain for the people of Saskatchewan the sum of $1,200,000 for its guarantee and for the shares it now holds.
There is the difference, Mr. Speaker. The Saskatchewan government, in assisting this company to come to Saskatchewan to set up a new industry in that province, to assist in

the employment of the people in that province, obtained for itself 30 per cent more of the promotional shares than were obtained by the promoters themselves. We feel that if this government or the previous administration had taken the same attitude they would not have been going all the way we would like to see them go in the field of public ownership, but the Canadian people would have had a substantial amount of stock in this pipe line and would obtain substantial monetary returns.


George Harris Hees: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: I will permit a question when I have concluded my remarks.


George Harris Hees: I do not blame you for not
wanting to answer.


Hazen Robert Argue: Your questions are not so
tough.


George Harris Hees: I know you cannot answer it.


Hazen Robert Argue: When you are hurting them
a little, then they start to complain.


George Harris Hees: You are not hurting us, you
are hurting yourself.


Hazen Robert Argue: All these barks are coming
from hon. members in the recesses who say nothing, and who are not able to get up and take part in the debate.


George Harris Hees: Why not answer a simple question?


Hazen Robert Argue: It would probably be a simple one, coming from the minister.


George Harris Hees: Why not just answer a straightforward question?


Hazen Robert Argue: On the basis of the shares
having been divided in the same way for the trans-Canada pipe line the people of Canada, instead of providing a large sum of money, instead of providing an interest bonus, would have an ownership of stock today to the value of $80 million. There is the answer to the Prime Minister. Here is the action of the government of Saskatchewan which protects the legitimate interests of the people of Saskatchewan when a guarantee is provided by obtaining for the province a substantial block of shares at a low price-


George Harris Hees: You still do not want to answer a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: All right; I will hear from the minister.


George Harris Hees: I should like to ask the hon. member this. Do we take it he agrees that it is quite a satisfactory practice so far as his party is concerned for promoters to retain for
66968-9-259J
National Energy Board themselves, or give to other promoters concerned with the deal, stock at considerably lower prices than those at which the stock is offered finally to the general public?


Hazen Robert Argue: I think when it comes to a national pipe line in Canada-


George Harris Hees: Answer the question.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will come to the question. You asked the question; just let me answer it. When it comes to a pipe line going across this country in connection with which the federal government has ample resources, that kind of action is not necessary. I did say, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat, that if this government had gone even that far it would have meant a substantial improvement for the people of this country.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member please answer my question?


Hazen Robert Argue: I will.


George Harris Hees: You have not done so; you are afraid.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, don't be so childish.


George Harris Hees: Answer that question; come on, let's go.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member has the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Transport thinks he is back in the opposition.


George Harris Hees: Let us have a yes or no answer, if you are capable of such an answer.


Hazen Robert Argue: I could ask the minister a
question on a straight yes or no basis which he would rather not answer. These people are interested in hearing a reply, yet there are 100 of them giving the reply themselves.


George Harris Hees: We are listening.


Hazen Robert Argue: It sounds like it. I think when it comes to the development of a new industry within a province, action taken by the provincial government within that province where it has not the financial resources of the federal government, and where it retains for the ownership of the people of Saskatchewan more than half of the shares, is sound and sensible. I say that on that basis the answer is yes to the question of the minister.


George Harris Hees: Thank you very much. That is just fine.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is an amazing transformation-


George Harris Hees: It certainly is.


Hazen Robert Argue: -since 1956 and what was said about Coates and Tanner, and the Texas

National Energy Board buccaneers. This government >was against what was being done then. Now that they are in office they are protecting everything that was done, and they are protecting what has been done even in face of recommendations of the royal commission they set up which would provide some effective controls for these companies.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation that is being proposed does not really set up a national energy board at all. It does not set up a national energy board that has control of the energy resources of this country. The energy board that has been set up has been given a certain minimum jurisdiction with regard to gas pipe lines and oil pipe lines and the possibility of certain control over electrical energy, but this is a minimum of control. This board, a creature of the government, a creature of the cabinet, will not be allowed to function as a board should be allowed to function, namely as an independent tribunal removed from immediate control and manipulation by the cabinet, and removed so far from that control and manipulation that only when major decisions are made could an appeal be made to the cabinet.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the phrase "manipulation by the cabinet" is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn by the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Rubbish.


Hazen Robert Argue: How thin can their skins get, Mr. Speaker? I say it would be manipulated, mangled and torn asunder by this government for political reasons.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the government did not wish to do these things for political reasons it would not have kept to itself all the power that it ostensibly says it is placing in the hands of this board. From the very minister across the way who has asked this question we used to hear about an all-powerful government with an all-powerful minister, and that parliament was being cast aside. What the former administration has done in this regard this government is maintaining and perpetuating in the bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is making the governor in council the master. It is making this board a plaything of the government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: When the Prime Minister complains that it is hard to get able men to staff such a board, I say no wonder. Who would like to be placed in the position of being just a pawn of this government? That is the

position in which people who accept the responsibility of serving on this board will be placing themselves.
This board has practically no power except as it is allowed to exercise that power by the government. This cabinet control, this cabinet dictatorship over the board is maintained even in areas of authority where you would think the board would be allowed to operate without question. The board can issue regulations for the protection of property and for the safety of employees, only with the approval of the governor in council. It is the governor in council who will say whether, in fact, there will be promulgated regulations that will protect property and protect the safety of the employees. The government keeps the power. The board has the power to issue a certificate for a pipe line if the board is convinced of a number of things such as the availability of gas, markets, economic feasibility and financial feasibility and whether or not it is in the public interest. The board can issue a certificate subject to the approval of the governor in council. It is the cabinet that will decide.
The board may, with the approval of the governor in council, revoke or suspend a certificate if there has been a violation of the terms on which it was issued. Why should the government be the judge as to whether or not there has been a violation?


An hon. Member:: Because they are
responsible.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is the cabinet that will say whether or not effect will be given to a recommendation by the board that a certain certificate be suspended even if there has been a violation of the terms. Hence the cabinet can condone a violation of the terms. The cabinet can condone the actions of a company that fails to abide by the terms of the certificate.
There is another part of the bill, Mr. Speaker, which says that lines of a shorter distance than 25 miles will not be subject to all these provisions, and that lines in excess of 25 miles can be exempted from all of part III of the bill by the cabinet or by the governor in council. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when one goes over this legislation one finds there is little room left for the operation of a board that wishes to do a job. As a matter of fact the board is not even given the authority to control tariffs and tolls in advance of their being set. A company shall not charge any tolls except tolls specified in a tariff that has been filed with the board.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take any part in this debate until the Prime Minister made that incredible political speech which he made yesterday, most of which had nothing to do with the bill. I hope we shall have freedom to refer to the Prime Minister's irrelevancies as well as to those very few respects in which he dealt with the bill at all.
Before I say anything about the Prime Minister's speech I should like to say that, in looking through Hansard, for 1957, I found a speech made by the Minister of Public Works on the amendment to go into supply, to which the Prime Minister referred yesterday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the page number?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The page numbers are 1171 and 1172; at least the references I am going to make are to be found there. I may say that, from reading this speech, the thought struck me that we were now seeing the end of a beautiful political friendship. Perhaps the speech to which we have just listened by the hon. member for Assiniboia is evidence of this unhappy end. Here are a couple of gems from a speech by the Minister of Public Works only two years ago:
The Conservatives and our C.C.F. friends, on the other hand, stood firm from the start for a Canada-first policy . . . Who was it advocated a Canada-first policy in bringing gas to eastern Canada? It was not anybody on the Liberal side of the house . . . No; again it was the Conservative and C.C.F. members who advocated that policy.
We remember the day when this beautiful friendship existed, and we are seeing the way in which it is being dissolved in recent times. I was very much interested in the rather feeble defence made by the hon. member for Assiniboia of certain of these corporations in Saskatchewan, but I do not intend to enter into that irrelevancy. However, what I suggest to the hon. member is this. Whatever may have been the case in 1956, I think in view of the financial policies of the government and the financial muddle in this country at the present time, for the minister to suggest that we have now ample resources to nationalize any great pipe line is, having regard to the present state of the bond market, a travesty on the facts. That might have been possible in the days in 1956 when this country was being well administered, but it would be a very difficult thing to do today. I imagine the hon. member for Assiniboia would agree with that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Excuse me, but I think my hon. friend used the word "minister" instead of "member".
National Energy Board


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is one of the reasons there has been such an about-face by the present government on this question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that in the course of his remarks, in referring to the hon. member for Assiniboia he used the word "minister", which I think might be indicative of me rather than the hon. member for Assiniboia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I did, it was by sheer inadvertence. I would say that the chances of the hon. member for Assiniboia being a minister are even less than those of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre remaining one for very long.


Hazen Robert Argue: At least I was not kicked out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.
I would now like to turn to some things the Prime Minister said yesterday, and I will deal with them consecutively. The Prime Minister referred in the first place to his queries in the year 1957 about the interim report of the Gordon commission and the recommendation in that report for a national energy authority. He said twice in his speech yesterday, as reported on page 4017 of Hansard and again several pages later at page 4022, that Mr. Lesage had been very disparaging about that suggestion. Of course that is not true at all. The fact was that a debate was under way on an amendment of the Prime Minister's on a motion to go into supply, and what Mr. Lesage did in fact say was-


Mr. Pigeon:: Who is Mr. Lesage?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Lesage is now very well known to the hon. gentleman, and he will be much better known in the future. All Mr. Lesage had to say about that matter, Mr. Speaker, was that there was already a committee, an interdepartmental committee, performing certain functions in this field. He simply made a factual statement and expressed no opinion one way or the other about an energy board, and for the very good reason that the final report of the Gordon commission had not yet been delivered; and until that report had been delivered it would have been premature to take any such action.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) had something to say about the Gordon commission in that same debate.


Howard Charles Green: What page?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Page 1171. The minister might like to have his memory refreshed about

National Energy Board that, and I will refresh it for him by reading a little bit of his speech. He said:
Mr. Speaker, It is a very sad thing to happen to a million dollar report. I feel extremely sorry for Mr. Gordon for the way the recommendations made by him and his fellow commissioners have been treated by the members of the cabinet. But there the report is and it merits study by all Canadians, even though the government tries to shove it under the rug.
I would suggest that the minister needs to substitute only one word and that is to put "Borden" in place of "Gordon", and it would be a very apt description, indeed, of what has happened to the Borden commission and the Borden report. The fact of the matter is, as the Leader of the Opposition said so very clearly, it seemed to me, the other day, that what the government has done after two years with the Borden commission is to go back to the Gordon commission and follow the recommendations, the sensible recommendations, which they made and which were in the hands of the present government just about the time the Borden commission was appointed in the autumn of 1957. It should not be forgotten-I shall not repeat this because it was put on record by several members on this side of the house-that the Prime Minister, prior to the election of 1957, had promised that this problem would be dealt with promptly and immediately, that it was urgent. Of course the word "immediately" is a word the Prime Minister is fond of using, and it seems to have in his mouth a singular meaning indeed.
I would now like to refer to another reference by the Prime Minister as reported on page 4020 of Hansard of yesterday, where he took exception to the Leader of the Opposition saying that the Borden commission had been an expedient, a delaying action. He suggested that because the Leader of the Opposition, quite properly, said the Borden commission was a delaying action, we should be arguing that this bill should be put through without any delay, and that we were the ones who should be demanding immediate action on this bill. If this bill had followed faithfully the recommendations of the Borden commission the government might have had some ground for saying that parliament should deal with it, because there have been a good many months now in which to study the recommendations of the Borden commission. But the government comes in with a bill which practically repudiates all the recommendations of the Borden commission and substitutes something entirely different, and then asks parliament to rush it through without any adequate or proper consideration. That is what we on this side of the house are objecting to and what we still object to.


Mr. Broome:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Ernest James Broome: Does the hon. member intend to vote against the setting up of the board?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has been made very clear that we do not intend to, and I can tell the hon. gentleman why. This bill, in its operative parts, is simply a codification of the existing legislation. It simply puts under one board and into one act powers which already exist, all of which were put on the statute books by the Liberal government. So why in heaven's name should we vote against the principle of the bill, because they are the very principles which were condemned by hon. gentlemen opposite and are very different from those recommended by their chosen commission, which they have disregarded.
The only thing we object to in a really fundamental way is the little "war measures act" in clause 87, this attempt by the government to clothe itself with unlimited arbitrary powers, and I will have a word more to say on that in a moment. Mr. Speaker, perhaps it might not be amiss, indeed, if I said it right now. The Prime Minister referred, in tones which did not sound very like the hon. member for Prince Albert of some years ago, when he was in opposition, to the wails about the danger of authority given to the governor in council under this legislation. He now calls them wails when people object to government by order in council. If that is what they are, there never was a wailer in this house like the Prime Minister.
I would like to read to you, sir, a few things, in case a lot of people have forgotten about them, the Prime Minister had to say in another debate about a proposal to give the government certain powers to act under order in council for the national defence and security of Canada.


Mr. Lambert:: Make sure the circumstances are the same before that is done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The circumstances are by no means the same, and I am glad the hon. gentleman made that interjection.
What we were dealing with in 1959 was the national defence and security of this country, and whether the course recommended by the government of that day was right or wrong; that was its purpose, and if there is any purpose for which emergency powers can properly be asked of parliament, it is for that purpose. But here this government is asking for unlimited arbitrary powers to do something in an emergency which the government itself says it is not satisfied may arise, in connection with an ordinary commercial activity-powers

whose application would be unpredictable, or at least, I thought it was unpredictable until I heard the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) speak last evening. He really let the cat out of the bag.


Howard Charles Green: Before the hon. member leaves that point, may I ask whether he is in favour of having control over the export or import of oil included in this bill or not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not in favour of having control over the export and import of oil included in the bill until the government defines the precise nature of the controls it proposes to exercise, and we in parliament, who are elected by the people of Canada, have our say about what they should be. It may be that circumstances will arise when controls are necessary, but they are certainly not necessary now in my submission.


Howard Charles Green: Would the hon. gentleman say-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister would make his speech when I have made mine. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) said himself the other day that controls were not necessary. I will be very glad to answer any questions when I have finished. I have a lot of things I want to say, and I am limited by time.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: A lot of things you want to read.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, a lot of things I want to read, and I might say it would profit the hon. member to hear some of the things which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) used to say when he was on this side of the house. Here is another of the things which the Prime Minister had to say on June 9, 1955. I notice that there is a singular reluctance on the part of hon. gentlemen on my left to hear what the Prime Minister had to say before he became Prime Minister, and I must say that I cannot blame them. The hon. member for Prince Albert, as he then was, had this to say:
I ask the Prime Minister now: do you have to circumvent the rule of law in order to achieve power under this legislation? Nothing of the kind! Have the powers, but in order to assure that no individual shall be discriminated against and denied equality before the law, to assure that the individual shall not be a puppet in the hands of the minister, give to the individual who is able to establish that he has been discriminated against a right of review by the courts of the land.
Here is a power to prohibit-a power to prevent-absolute, unlimited power, and that is what we object to. And then the Prime Minister said as reported at page 4564 of Hansard:
Have we come to a condition of affairs in this country where any person occupying the almighty position of a minister of the crown in the federal parliament can. with the assistance of the cabinet, fix prices-
National Energy Board
As they certainly can, under the powers for which they are asking; that could certainly be done by order in council. And then the hon. gentleman went on:
Have we arrived at a position in Canada where gluttony for power will permit the governor in council to say, "I fix the price of essential services on hydroelectric"-
It is extraordinary how these things come home to roost. And then, on page 4566, the hon. gentleman said:
1 ask the Prime Minister why the inclusion of arbitrary powers such as these? The answer given is: we do not use them.
That is exactly what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said-we do not use them; we do not even know what we want them for. But in 1955, the right hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister continued:
What have you them for-a club, a threat, intimidation? Do you want the sword of Damocles to hang over everybody? Oh, we do not use these powers! Why have these inexcusable powers? . . . Where is the rule of law? Have we placed the rule of law in the refrigerator of security?
It is not in the refrigerator of security today; it is just in the refrigerator of protecting commerce. And the hon. gentleman went on:
The tyranny of the majority is a multiple tyranny. No better answer can be given today than that. It is no excuse that you have a big majority.
I could read more, but I think that is enough to illustrate the point I am making.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What was the reference? I have the pages, but I did not get the date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: June 9, 1955. I am surprised the minister should have forgotten. I was reading from pages 4562-4566.
Until the hon. member for Calgary South spoke last night we did not know why the government wanted these powers. But the hon. member told us why these powers were wanted. He said we might have an emergency; an emergency might arise very suddenly; oil might be dumped from some other countries. It is only a few months ago that we fought bitterly against legislation to give the government powers which we did not think were justified to prevent something which the administration was pleased to call dumping. We felt those powers went far beyond anything that was required. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) is already armed with what we consider to be arbitrary and excessive powers to prevent what the government is pleased to call dumping-powers which are virtually sufficient to exclude almost any kind of import from entering this country.
Now the government wants another individual to be clothed with even greater powers-power to prevent import, power to

National Energy Board prevent export, power to regulate the flow of this commodity in any undefined way which suits him. Such power, were it to be given to the government to use, could have a very detrimental effect indeed upon many areas of this country. There are many parts of Canada which cannot possibly be supplied by any pipe line from the Canadian oil fields and while we agree that in certain circumstances we would feel, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) pointed out yesterday, that steps might have to be taken to protect the interest of the people engaged in this industry, as in any other great Canadian interest, we do not feel that an emergency of a kind which anyone could reasonably foresee at the present time is likely to arise so suddenly that parliament could not be called upon to deal with it.


Norman Platt Lambert: Nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We hear the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), one of the followers of these almighty and powerful ministers, with their big majority, say that an emergency might come so quickly that parliament could not deal with it. We do not give the government the power to declare war without calling parliament. Surely in these days of air transport, and with all the facilities which are available, no one could seriously argue that if an emergency did arise in the oil industry it would not be possible for parliament to meet and deal with it.
We all recognize the importance of this industry to the economy of the country. We all hope it will be of increasing importance to the Canadian economy, and I am confident it will be so. But surely no one could argue that any emergency is likely to arise so quickly that it could not be dealt with by means of the extensive, indeed, far too extensive powers already given to the Minister of National Revenue under the Customs Act; without it being necessary to superimpose this absolutely unlimited power over the import and export of this particular commercial commodity.
Oil is really quite different from gas. Continuity of supply to a community that has gas is all important. There is a public interest there that has to be preserved and protected and everybody in the house has always recognized that. But oil is perhaps one of the greatest commodities entering into international commerce, and to suggest that the kind of emergency might arise when there would not be a supply of oil for the few days required to call parliament is just absurd. The only conclusion one can reach is that the government and perhaps

the hon. member for Calgary South, who represents a constituency once represented by a former prime minister who was the greatest protectionist we ever had in this country, and perhaps this is the real nigger in the woodpile-


Howard Charles Green: Oil is under export control now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the real purpose in getting this arbitrary power is to do something in the secrecy of the closet by order in council that they would not dare to come to parliament and ask to have done openly. That is the only conclusion one can reach with respect to the demand for this arbitrary power. Perhaps, of course, since the Prime Minister dragged the Alberta provincial election quite unnecessarily and irrelevantly into the debate yesterady, it is to try to create the same kind of impression in Alberta as they tried to create in Ontario by calling the phony federal-provincial conference for next July. I do not think it will work very well in either case.
But what is really important, as the Prime Minister pointed out with such eloquence in 1955 and as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and all these other crusaders for the rights of parliament pointed out in those days, is the rights of parliament. But here this is being done without any excuse of national security, without any suggestion that there is any reason whatever for it. Indeed, the minister went further than that. He said that they could not do this until they get instalment two of the Borden commission report, because they may tell the government how they should do this, but in the meantime they want the power anyway so they will not have to have a debate in parliament. You know, we have been bitten twice in this session on that very point. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) got her estimates through and then the very next day she got an order in council passed whose sense was the exact opposite of the impression given here in parliament.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the energy bill, not with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I think the hon. gentleman should confine his remarks to the energy bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was reasoning by analogy and my analogy was strictly relevant, unlike some of the arguments we heard from a very exalted source yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not a narrow debate. It has ranged fairly wide so far and unless the hon. member wants to pursue the matter he alluded to I do not think I need to intervene.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had no intention, of course, to do more than make my analogy. Of course, the other analogy that comes very much to our minds I perhaps could not properly make under the rules because it has to do with another measure that is still under consideration. I will reserve it for the time when that measure comes back into the house but it will be in everyone's mind.
The plain fact is that this government twice in the present session has shown that it is not to be trusted, that it cannot be trusted with the power to make even the most ordinary kind of orders in council and to give parliament proper opportunities to debate them. A new and subtle form of closure has been imposed upon us and this is exactly what this looks like. Clause 87 is an attempt to get the power to do something that the government would not dare to come and ask to have done openly by parliament itself. They want to be clothed with these arbitrary powers these powers to circumvent parliament. What about? About something they do not even tell us is an emergency; at least, the minister does not. The minister-elect says there might be an emergency but the minister-elect has not succeeded the minister yet. Whether he will when the minister succeeds the Minister of Finance I do not know. I am not in the confidence of the Prime Minister.


Norman Platt Lambert: Not likely to be either.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Give us some more secrets.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is no great deprivation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But I want to say again that it does seem to me that this clause should not be in the bill and that the government should remember the position that was taken when they were on this side of the house and take it out of their bill when the time comes in committee.
I should like to say a word about the word "immediately". The Prime Minister said that it was very urgent to pass this legislation because there were some applications to come before the new board, and that it would be appointed immediately. The word "immediately" has come to have a different meaning in the mouths of members of the administration from the ordinary dictionary meaning. It took the government nearly six months to appoint an ambassador to the United States. They chose as ambassador to the United States the chairman of the civil service commission and that very
National Energy Board important post is still vacant although we have had repeated assurances that it will be filled as soon as possible or almost immediately.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is there an analogy here that we are missing?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is now straying off the beaten path.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not straying very far afield, sir, because the Prime Minister told us that these appointments would be made immediately and he also told us the kind of exalted people who were going to be appointed although he did not tell us precisely who they were. In our opinion there are more members of the board than there need be. It seems to us that three members would be quite sufficient to discharge these functions and that three members with the kind of qualities the Prime Minister described yesterday are going to be pretty hard to find unless, perchance, the Prime Minister is going to turn to that rather distinguished and growing number of former public servants who have left the public service since the present administration came into office. There are among them a number of people who could perform these functions with the greatest competence and I am sure that the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be the first to admit that because he has a close acquaintance with many of them.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: Are you
available, Jack?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that politicians should be appointed to these positions, to answer the hon. gentleman's question directly. I hope no politicians are going to be appointed because there is going to be enough political control anyway. We had this statement by the Prime Minister about how independent this board is going to be. It was really touching until the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), in an interjection with which I must say I completely agreed, though I do not always agree with him, said, "Eyewash". The hon. member for Vancouver East gave the reason why he said "Eyewash". He went on to say; "All the powers are subject to the cabinet." That is perfectly true.


Norman Platt Lambert: You are wrong.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This government is so passionately devoted to passing orders in council, this government led by a man who formerly denounced government by order in council, that they have made it necessary for every act of any consequence of this board to be confirmed or otherwise by the governor in council.

National Energy Board


Norman Platt Lambert: That is where you are wrong. You have not even read the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member might read it and he will find that is the case.


Norman Platt Lambert: You read about tariffs and tolls.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister said that in order to make sure that this board will operate for the benefit of all Canadians it will operate beyond any suggestion of any control in any way, except, of course, that anything it does is subject to the veto of the governor in council. It does not seem to me to matter very much-


Norman Platt Lambert: You have not read the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is an amendment before the house and the hon. gentleman has the right to speak again if he would like to, and refute my words. Let him go ahead and do so.


Norman Platt Lambert: I will.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But perhaps he might let me make my speech in the meantime. As a matter of fact, I was very interested to observe that the Prime Minister did not attempt to reply to the hon. member for Vancouver East except in the Prime Minister's usual way, by innuendo. He said:
When it comes to eyewash I do not want to compete with the hon. gentleman.
I do not think there is anybody anywhere in this country who can compete with the Prime Minister in that commodity.
I say that we support the principle of the bill because in fact it is just codifying the law under a new board which we as a party feel it is desirable to have for the purpose of advising on the development of this industry and for the purpose of the really necessary regulation of this industry, but not for unnecessary regulations. Moreover, with very few exceptions, in its operative clauses it simply takes the exact language from the Railway Act or the electricity and fluids exportation act, or the Pipe Lines Act. I think particularly of the clause the Prime Minister read yesterday which he said was establishing a new kind of control and safeguard. But the clause he read yesterday was taken, I am assured, verbatim from the existing legislation.
I say it would be absurd for us not to support the principle of this bill since the principle is to continue what was there before under a Liberal administration. But that does not alter the fact that the arbitrary, unnecessary and undesirable powers in clause 87 should be taken out of the bill. It does not alter the fact that the bill itself is in most

of those respects, not all, but in most of those respects in which there are innovations, capable of being very considerably improved, and it is our hope that in committee a great many improvements will be made.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Speaker?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the stand of the Liberal party that there should be no export or import control over oil in the country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir; I thought I
answered that question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall repeat my answer. I say that any controls over the export or import of oil should be imposed by parliament. They should be spelled out by parliament, and arbitrary and unlimited powers should not be given to the governor in council to do it by order in council.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a fact that there has been control over the export of oil under the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act for many years, I think since 1907. There is in the law of Canada today actual control over the export of oil and there was that control over the export of oil during the whole of the time my hon. friend's party was in power.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is perhaps true to say that in that statute there would have been the power to exercise that control.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Only through pipe lines.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It appears to me that the power was never exercised except in the case of the export through pipe lines. I understand also that there was no limitation upon the quantity to be exported, or anything of that sort. This was treated as an ordinary commercial commodity. The nature of the control of the export had to do with where it could be exported and where the pipe line would go. However, I do not pose as a great expert on this subject. What I am saying is I do not think there should be the unlimited powers to make controls, which have not been specified in advance, by order in council.


Howard Charles Green: Is the hon. member not aware that export licences are required at the present time and were required during the whole of the time his government was in power, and on an annual basis?


George James McIlraith: He is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We know an export licence is required for the export of electricity. I am perfectly well aware of that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And a lot of other things.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest this matter might be followed up in committee when we reach that stage. Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two comments that I should like to make on this particular motion. May I say first that I enjoyed very much listening to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), both his historical recount of the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his objections to the dictatorial powers which are given to the government to administer this matter in the bill before us. I am afraid that he spoiled what would otherwise be a well-prepared and well-documented speech by starting off saying that we had a good administration in this country in 1956. If he had left that out he would have been on much safer ground. He may have convinced himself that we had a good administration in the government of 1956, but he was not able to convince the Canadian people to that effect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At least we could float a bond issue in those days.


Frank Howard: You could float a bond issue if you had the opportunity to do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But we paid off debt instead.


Frank Howard: By increasing the debt, which the Liberals did also. You are not above criticism in that regard.
I listened to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate complain about the powers that were demanded in this particular bill. He then went on at great length and prefaced his objection by saying that he was going to vote for it anyway. I do not know, but he has become just as much a political paranoid as Premier Smallwood. He is trying to get on both sides of the issue at the same time.
I have but one comment to make about the speech-I should not put it that way-the oratorical act that we saw put on yesterday by the Prime Minister. If ever there was a single unqualified admission that the Tory party were a great bunch of liars when they sat over on this side of the house in opposition it was made by the Prime Minister in his admission yesterday, because their position has changed entirely. They espoused certain ideas when they sat over here, Mr. Speaker. When they got over there-
National Energy Board


Mr. D. J. Walker (Hosedale):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I ask- and I think all hon. members would support me in asking-my hon. friend to withdraw his reference to the Conservative party when in opposition when he described them as liars. Of course, when one considers the source of this remark one can have some appreciation of it. It comes from one who has little appreciation of parliamentary duties and an understanding of them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I think the hon. member has made his point.


Frank Howard: I would like to comment on it. What I said was this: in effect, the Prime Minister admitted that when the Tories sat over here they were liars because they are not carrying out what they promised they would. I am not saying they are liars now; they will have to decide that for themselves.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Withdraw.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I am sure the hon. member for Skeena realizes that perhaps he should rephrase his remark.


Frank Howard: All right, I will attempt to rephrase it and say that they lied when they sat over here and they lied to the public on this question in two elections.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I think the hon. member can find a better word than that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Withdraw.


An hon. Member:: A false statement.


Frank Howard: I am waiting for those barking dogs over there to slow down a little so that I can say that I withdraw the remark classifying the Tories as liars when they sat on this side of the house. I will not go into the question of what they are at the present time.


David James Walker: A person in a glass house should not throw stones.


Frank Howard: My thin-skinned friend over there would object to what I said no matter what it was.


David James Walker: We consider the source.


Frank Howard: We consider the source of any remarks which come from the other side of the house. We have had the assistance of the open mouth of my friend on quite a number of occasions.
Let us deal with the question of the referral of this particular bill to a committee for study, and so on. The objection has been made that for a number of reasons we cannot do that. It has been said that the question

National Energy Board has been exhaustively studied by commissions. It has been said also that complaints have been made in the house that there are too many committees functioning at the present time and that there is not sufficient time for hon. members to carry on all of their parliamentary duties, and so on.
If we could have a bill on the Unemployment Insurance Act referred to a committee for study, regardless of the fact the chairman of that committee is trying to stifle the proper functioning of it, then surely this question of a national energy board is equally, if not more important and should be sent to a committee for consideration and study. Veterans' legislation falls into the same category. The question of the humane slaughter of animals is also being considered by a committee. Certainly a bill of this nature which entails the financial slaughter of many citizens in Canada should be given some serious consideration by a committee.
I submit that the reason this bill is not being sent to a committee for study to allow interested people to present their ideas, their suggestions for changes if they are necessary, their complaints or their commendation of the bill or sections of it, is that the minister has not got the guts to subject his own piece of legislation to the light of day. He would rather that the docile majority on that side of the house-


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I suggest that the use of that phrase "has not got the guts", should be withdrawn by this member who is apparently unfamiliar with parliamentary practice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I do not
believe that remark is parliamentary, and I think it might be better if it were withdrawn.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has an hon. member the right to rise in the house in any place except his own?


Frank Howard: If I may say so, that expression has been used in this house on a number of occasions and no objection has been taken. These people want two sets of rules, one to apply to them to allow them to do what they want, as the Prime Minister did the other day, and another set of rules to apply to the opposition to prevent them from saying anything. If my delicately-skinned friend, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), feels that term "has not got the guts to subject this bill to committee study" is sufficiently objectionable to him for me to change it, then I will say he has not got the intestinal fortitude if that is a more euphemistic phrase.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am quite content to allow this man who shows none of these qualities himself to use this expression.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has withdrawn that remark.


David James Walker: Can the hon. member get out of the gutter for a few minutes and remember he is in the Canadian House of Commons?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order; the hon. member for Skeena has the floor. If anyone wishes to ask a question, he may.


Frank Howard: I had said the Minister of
Trade and Commerce would rather ram this bill down the throats of the members of the House of Commons with the help of his docile majority on that side of the house, than subject it to consideration by a committee of this house as it should be. A few years ago we had in this House of Commons a minister of trade and commerce who was well known throughout the country as an arrogant, despicable dictator, and my friend the present Minister of Trade and Commerce is a perfect apprentice to the former minister, C. D. Howe.
Throughout the debate on this bill to establish a national energy board the Minister of Trade and Commerce has interjected one phrase particularly and that has been, "Nonsense, nonsense", whenever objections were raised. I shall, therefore, use this phrase in return and say it is nonsensical to say that this is a national energy board. This is national Tory endorsation of thievery and corruption in the gas and oil pipe line industry; precisely that, and nothing else. The whole history of gas pipe lines in Canada, not only interprovincial ones but those within provinces as well, fairly reeks with the smell of political and stock market manipulations and corruption. This is a straight endorsation of that condition which has existed throughout the history of gas pipe lines.
The trans-Canada pipe line has been dealt with particularly on many, many occasions. The Prime Minister-"John" as he is affectionately known throughout the country- stated during the elections campaigns of 1957 and 1958 that he was going to fix this. He was going to change it so the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited would operate to the benefit of the general public. The phrases have been used, "these Texas buccaneers" and "reaping piratical profits", all that sort of thing. The Prime Minister even went so far as to embrace the idea of public ownership to ensure that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines would be operated for the benefit of the Canadian people and not for the benefit of foreigners to reap the profits.

Those are the phrases, words and attitudes of the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. This bill is an indication, if nothing else is, coupled with all the other betrayals of trusts and the promises that were made by this government, that John himself cannot be trusted any longer. He cannot be trusted any longer even with the intention of carrying out what he has promised he would do. This situation is not confined to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, but applies to many other things. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister, who yesterday gave his blessing to this particular bill, had any sense of decency and honesty I am sure they would not proceed with it or would put into it the ideas they espoused before they got into the seats of the mighty and became enamoured with this dictatorial power they now have.
There are a number of energy matters that confront Canada with which we will have to deal and with which we should be dealing now. This bill should contain a provision whereby we would be able to deal, when the need arises in the future, through what is classified as a national energy board, with the question of nuclear energy. An estimate contained in one of the studies made concerning Canada's economic prospects indicates that by 1980 some 10 per cent of the energy being fed into the distribution lines in Canada will originate from nuclear power stations. It is estimated also that by 1965 or 1970, somewhere in that period, the cost of nuclear energy will have fallen sufficiently to enable it to compete with other methods of generating electrical energy, such as hydro. This national energy board should be given authorization to deal with the question of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes such as the generation of electricity, and so on. However, there seems to be a complete abandonment of any thought of the energy board dealing with this question, and we are left floundering around as we have been in the past on this question of energy.
The matter of oil and the oil industry is not dealt with effectively in this particular bill. The question of international control of our oil industry in Canada-and the Tories were loud in their complaints about international control of other industries a few years ago-is not left to the Texas buccaneers and the Wall street pirates. It is all right for them to do whatever they want with Canada's natural resources. Again according to one of the studies made concerning Canada's economic prospects, it was indicated that at the end of 1956, 75 per cent of the oil reserves in western Canada were controlled by international oil companies and
National Energy Board 85 per cent of the refining capacity was under foreign control at that particular time.
It lists the international oil companies that control this great bulk-75 per cent or 85 per cent-of the oil reserves and the refining capacity in western Canada. It sets them out as companies whose record is extremely unsavoury when it comes to dealing properly or decently with the welfare and interests of Canadian citizens. That is a failure of the bill, namely failure to have any sort of control over or authorization to deal with this particular question of the international control of our oil industry and our oil reserves.
Perhaps coal is another factor or another phase of energy that has been dealt with slightly. All we have heard so far is the Prime Minister, in support of his bits and pieces policy on coal, make reference to the subsidies and subventions in the maritimes but without any indication or any thought of future needs for coal consumption which by about 1965-according again to estimates- will start to pick up again to the point say in 1980 where we shall be consuming twice as much coal as we are consuming at the present time. But no; the policy of the government in this regard also, as with others, is to wait until the crisis develops, hope that it will work its way out of it but if not, then to do something when conditions are so serious and have deteriorated to such a degree that it cannot possibly postpone any longer taking concrete action.
Coal mines have been closing left and right all across the nation. There are some excellent coal fields both in the maritimes and in the western provinces and all across the country. If the 1980 forecast is correct, that we shall be consuming approximately twice as much coal then as we are now, what is going to happen in the meantime with these mines that are closing and will be closing in the future because of the decline in consumption that is still taking place? The machinery will deteriorate. The timbered sections of the mine will deteriorate. Many of them will be flooded. There will be greater hazards from cave-ins and everything else when and if the mines re-open at that time following 1965 when our consumption will start to increase. There is no foresight used in connection with that particular problem.
The so-called national energy board-which to me is a misnomer; it should be called the the national gas board or maybe the national gas and oil board-has nothing to do with the question of coal as energy nor with hydroelectric power. In British Columbia we have quite a potential of hydroelectric

National Energy Board developments. We have a number of potential hydroelectric development sites out there. The estimate of the provincial government is that we have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25 million horsepower potential in the province. The Columbia river is one around which there has been a considerable amount of discussion and negotiation with the United States through the international joint commission with regard to the downstream benefit question.
The then government-not this one but the one that preceded it-indicated that it would agree to participate financially with the province of British Columbia in developing the Columbia river under the British Columbia power commission, that is to say develop it for hydroelectric purposes, for storage sites, storage dams and so on. I do not know what the attitude of this government is. I do not know whether they have carried on that same undertaking that was made by the previous Liberal government to British Columbia or whether they have reneged on that matter also as they have done on so many other things. But here is a fine example of something which this national energy board could deal with namely the question of the Columbia river. International problems are involved. The river flows through Canada and through the United States. Also federal and provincial relationships are involved. The previous federal government-and I hope this one will be just as generous-indicated that it would agree to participate financially in the development of that river. What could be more simple than to allow the national energy board to deal with questions of that nature and to give to British Columbia the amount of consideration that is necessary.
The Minister of Public Works was here a while ago. He is also the acting prime minister. He is a long time resident of and member of parliament for one of the British Columbia constituencies. I am sure that his desire to participate with British Columbia in the development of resources out there has not diminished one bit but I hope that his friends in the cabinet have not been able to over-rule him and swing their weight against this joint participation.
These are just a few of the things which the so-called national energy bill fails to deal with. Apart from the things which were covered so eloquently and at some length by my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate with regard to the dictatorial powers that the government is demanding in this particular bill-apart from these objectionable features-we should not want to give the right to this government to carry on in the same way-which they will do-as did

the Liberal party when they were in office, namely run everything behind closed doors, operate the country by order in council, dictate what is going to happen, never mind consulting the country or parliament. We should not be asked to give the government this power. The Minister of Trade and Commerce should have more sense, or if he had any sense of decency and honesty, he would not ask parliament to give him and his colleagues in the cabinet the control that he is asking for.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I regret having to call attention to unparliamentary expressions but I think we must have some sense of order in this house. As to this suggestion about honesty, if you will refer to Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, pages 130 and 131, you will find listed there various phrases which have been considered in the past not to be suitable for use in the House of Commons. Phrases that allege dishonesty are not permissible. I ask the hon. member to withdraw.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. You may recall that the day before yesterday, I think it was, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) used the expression "if the hon. member has any sense of decency". That expression was ruled by the Speaker as being quite parliamentary.


Frank Howard: That is the point I was going to make, may I say, speaking on the point of order. I thought surely I would be allowed the same right as was the Minister of Labour who made exactly the same charge in precisely the same words; namely if the hon. member had any sense of decency and honesty he would not say a certain thing.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: If I remember correctly, I think that phrase was allowed by Mr. Speaker when used by the Minister of Labour.


Frank Howard: I was using it in the same sense.


Ernest James Broome: Speaking on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I do not think the phrase was as stated, although the matter can be corrected by reference to Hansard. I thought the phrase was "a sense of decency". I do not think the word "honesty" was mentioned.


Mr. Winch:: Is there a difference between decency and honesty?


Ernest James Broome: The citation which was mentioned had to do with honesty. It was in that regard that the minister was taking

exception to the remarks of the hon. member. It is the implication of dishonesty that is objected to.


Frank Howard: If I may, I should like to say this, Mr. Speaker. I know you have ruled on the question but my friend the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) raised this question again. I should like to point out to him that as reported at page 3971 of Hansard of May 25 the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) said:
Therefore he cannot possibly charge with any sense of honesty and decency that the government has anything at all to hide-
And later on, when the question of order was raised, the Minister of Labour said this:
I think I said "If he had any sense of decency-"
But Hansard records his having said "with any sense of honesty and decency".


Ernest James Broome: The point is that the minister, in his explanation, said that he thought he had said "a sense of decency" and in effect was withdrawing any reflection on the honesty of the hon. member to whom he was referring. In this regard the minister is asking that the hon. member withdraw any reflection on the minister. I think the point is well taken.


Frank Howard: I think the matter has been fairly well exhausted. I might point out to my friend the hon. member for Vancouver South that Mr. Speaker rules on things that are said and not on what the minister thought he said. There is a great distinction between the two things. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) seems to have a delicate skin and an ear which is upset by words which drive home to him the actual condition which exists, both with respect to himself and his colleagues in the government, but in any event I had completed my remarks.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, the more we look at this bill now before us the more we realize what a farce it is indeed. This is a far cry from what the people of Canada were led to believe they might expect at the hands of a newly elected Conservative government. Over the years in this house Mr. Clarie Gillis asked for the establishment of a national energy board which would take into consideration and have authority over all phases of energy available in our land. He had, of course, particular reference to and concern for the welfare of coal enterprises.
We are now faced with the setting up of a national energy board that has no authority, and which is not even asked to consider the future welfare of one of our primary sources of energy, namely coal. We are now asked to consider the establishment of a national
National Energy Board energy board that will have no authority to deal with the future potentialities of nuclear energy. We are now handed a bill that will give to the government, not to a board but to the government, the right to determine all matters in relation to national development of energy. We regret very much the limitations that are imposed upon the board in that the board will not have any authority or responsibility to consider the possibilities of future nuclear energy development, and no responsibility to consider what will happen to one of our major sources of energy in years gone by.
Last week the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) very adequately expressed the essence of our position on the bill now before us when he said that the bill seems in the main designed to establish a board that will be nothing more and nothing less than a front; I believe he used the words, "a stooge for the government in office". I remember so very well, Mr. Speaker, when a number of years ago the Conservatives in this house were so very eloquent in their opposition to the extension of the emergency powers bill under the Defence Production Act. I would like to recall some of the words of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), now Minister of Finance, when he referred to the Emergency Powers Act. He said, as reported on page 1909 of Hansard for March 10, 1955:
These are not the times for permitting the continuance, Mr. Speaker, of powers so sweeping that those whose plants or whose materials are related in any way to defence must stand in fear of an omnipotent government.
Our complaint at this time is very much in line with the complaint registered at that time by the hon. member for Eglinton. He and other representatives of the Conservative party were arguing that the emergency powers as handed to the government of the day under the Emergency Powers Act ought to expire because, they argued, under this act it was within the power of the government to reward its friends and to punish its enemies. I heard a number of speakers argue that if the Emergency Powers Act were to continue the government of the day would be able to completely ruin any enterprise in Canada that did not tally along with the political opinions of the government of the day.
That is our major objection to the bill that is now before us. Under the authority of this bill we will have a situation, or I should say might have a situation, arising whereby any oil company, natural gas company or pipe line company will be at the complete mercy of the political whims of the government in office. I know that for a goodly

National Energy Board number of years the Conservative party has been most envious of the resources, and especially of the revenues, of the Liberal party, and there has been developing a feeling that there were too many crown corporations and other agencies of the government, or as they themselves call them, "pampered pets" of the government, who aided and abetted the cause of the Liberal party and who also, in the opinion of many, were responsible for the failure of the Conservatives to make any headway on the political scene. We have witnessed over the last year or more a desire on the part of this government to roll into line all the crown corporations. Heads have rolled.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member appears to have got away from the subject under debate.


Erhart Regier: No, Mr. Speaker, I am attempting to point out some of the dangers in connection with the bill now before us in that we have observed in recent months [DOT]a desire to undermine the independence of crown corporations and make them subservient to the government in office. And here the government is asking parliament to establish another board. However, they are not running any risks; they are ensuring by the terms of this bill that the proposed energy board would have no authority to do anything until it had received the advice and the consent of the government of the day to do what it felt ought to be done.
I should like to recall once again the words of the hon. member for Vancouver East last week to the effect that after reviewing this measure thoroughly it was obvious that no effort had been made to establish, as the government claims is being established, a national energy board. 1 say this first of all because this board is intended to deal only with certain phases of energy. One of our oldest sources of energy, namely coal, is being omitted, and one of our newest energy sources-nuclear energy-is also excluded. The board will be limited in the main to energy sources in the field of oil and gas. Moreover, the board will have no real authority to do anything except by the will and after the consent of the governor in council. We feel this is a regrettable move.
We are all in favour of the establishment of a national energy board which would be able to survey the energy needs of the nation as they exist today and as they are likely to exist in the years ahead; a board which would be able to take into consideration all the energy resources which are now available in all areas of Canada and which would in all likelihood become available in the years

ahead. We had hoped, too, that the energy board when established would have authority to formulate regulations under which enterprises might operate within the nation. However, we now realize that the board is completely helpless; each and every regulation must first of all receive the approval of the government of the day and, even after regulations have been established, each and every major decision will have to be approved by the government before it is announced.
We feel that the Tory party is now establishing for itself an instrument such as it used to oppose when in opposition. In former times they ascribed all kinds of motions to existing agencies of government. Now they have with some success hacked away at the authority and independence of existing agencies, and in this bill presently before us they are showing their true colours and claiming that any agency established in the interests of the people of Canada must necessarily be subservient, not to the House of Commons but to the whims, the wishes and even, we believe, to the political interests of the government of the day.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to state the position of the official opposition with regard to the amendment which is now before the house, but before doing that I wish to comment very briefly on two or three points which have arisen during the discussion last evening and this afternoon in the hope that the minister when he speaks later in this debate may deal with them.
I should like to ask this question in particular: does this bill offer any method for controlling excessive profits from, for instance, the financing of pipe lines, which is not now available to the government of this country? In other words, does this bill represent any improvement and, if so, in what particular, over the situation which has existed now for some time and which certainly occupied the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in opposition and concerning which they had some very hard words to say. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) dealt with this matter, or attempted to deal with it, yesterday in a way which certainly did not provide any satisfactory answer to this very important question when he said, as reported on page 4025:
As to the price to be charged for gas and power, it must be just and reasonable in relation to the public interests.
There is nothing in this bill as I see it to indicate how this desirable principle is to be carried out in a way which will constitute any improvement whatsoever over the provisions contained in the previous legislation.

Indeed, the previous legislation was in some particulars more satisfactory than the present bill.
Perhaps last night the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) gave some indication of the view of the government in this matter, for as reported on page 4040 of Hansard he had this to say:
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Canada has grown in its maturity to date on the basis that we have been able to maintain an attractive investment climate.
I could not agree more with any statement;
I merely point out that it is contrary to many statements we used to hear from the opposition when we were sitting on that side of the house. And the hon. member continued:
When we start stipulating the rate of return which is going to be extreme, in order to discourage the return which is required in an investment undertaking of the highest risk nature, we are indeed biting off our nose to spite our face and we are indeed going to over-control industry and thus affect the very shareholders who are themselves Canadian citizens.
And then the hon. member stated:
May I suggest to him-
That is, to another member
-that in his concern to restrict the profits of a handful of people we should not expect to place excessive regulation on industry in the development of the resource itself.
I am not quarrelling with that sentiment. It seems to make sense. But because the government has so often made a point of this in the past, I ask the minister whether there is any provision in this bill which would prevent the kind of thing happening with regard to financing about which they had so many harsh words to say on some occasions. That is one point.
Now there is another point. The Prime Minister, in his long speech yesterday, made some observations obviously aimed at Alberta. As reported on page 4025, he said that the matter of export permits would receive immediate consideration. Then again, he said:
In so far as those applications are concerned, they will be processed immediately by the board when it is set up. It will be set up immediately. There will be no need to wait for the mobilization of the board.
Whatever that may mean. The impression given by these words is that once the bill becomes law these export permits will be dealt with at once. But, Mr. Speaker, that may be creating a false impression, desirable though it is to deal with these matters with the maximum of speed, because the board will have to be established, the board will have to be set up, the board will have to be mobilized, in the words of the Prime Minister, and consideration will have to be given by new members of the board, some
National Energy Board of them perhaps not familiar with these matters in the past. With the best will in the world it is bound to take some time before all these applications can be cleared up and action finally taken with regard to them. The Prime Minister's observation would give the impression that it would be pretty routine, that it will be done immediately and everything will be settled and that that is one reason why we must get this bill into operation at once. I merely want to remove the impression that this is quite as simple a procedure as the Prime Minister indicated.


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: May I ask the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) a question? Does he not feel that the suggestion of the Prime Minister can in fact take place? Most of the detailed information has already been processed; first, by the province of Alberta; second, in the Borden commission report having regard to its limitations; and, third, by the board of transport commissioners in that it has already given some consideration to the matter with respect to one of the three applications. In view of this, does he not feel that this body of information will facilitate early consideration as suggested by the Prime Minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, indeed it will. There is no doubt about that. The work that has been done previously in the manner indicated by my hon. friend should facilitate the final decision of these matters. I am not suggesting anything to the contrary. I am suggesting that the impression that might have been created was that all the board would have to do would be to meet after it was established and process these export permit applications and that that could be done very quickly. I would hope it would be done as quickly as possible. But the new board is bound to look into the work done previously by other agencies concerning this matter if that board is to be as responsible as the Prime Minister said it must be in considering these matters. The Prime Minister also said as found on page 4025:
I agree that it is essential that these matters be thoroughly investigated. I am not complaining at all.
He was talking about what he said might be a delay on the part of the government of Alberta. All I am trying to point out is that, with the best will in the world, once the board is set up it will require some time to take final action with respect to these matters.
There is one other point that has a bearing on this question of what is a just and

National Energy Board reasonable price. The Prime Minister said, and I quoted this a few moments ago:
As to the price to be charged for gas and power, it must be just and reasonable in relation to the public interests.
Just and reasonable as determined by a board and subject to confirmation by a government. Then he went on to make this very important statement which I think should be put on the record again and perhaps confirmed by the minister if it is to be confirmed. It is found on page 4025 at the bottom of the second column and is as follows:
With the implementation of this legislation, no longer will there be any suspicion that the Canadian consumer is being forced to subsidize the foreign markets or that Canadian industries will be asked to pay higher prices for their industries-
I think that word must have been "energy".
-than those paid by foreign industries using Canadian energy.
In other words, the Prime Minister in those words, and I think I am being very fair to him in this interpretation, has given the assurance-on what basis I do not know-that the price paid by United States consumers of Canadian gas will not be less than that paid by Canadian consumers of Canadian gas, without any qualification or condition attached to that assurance. Perhaps the minister will deal with what I thought was a pretty rash statement on the part of the Prime Minister having regard to the conditions surrounding the export of gas the conditions of sale and the varying circumstances that enter into the pricing of gas for export.
Finally, may I mention the situation regarding section 87 having to do with oil imports and exports. It has already been dealt with in great detail and I do not propose to do so in detail at this time. Last evening the hon. member for Calgary South complained that in my earlier statement I had given no indication that I appreciated the fact that emergencies might develop with regard to oil which might require governmental action. I know that he was no doubt thinking of an emergency which would require action with regard to imports so that western oil could be moved east under certain circumstances.
My own position and the position of our party on this matter is quite clear. I have said previously and I am glad to repeat it how that the economic market for western Canadian oil is the northwestern part of the United States. In a well-ordered economic society that is where it would be going at the present time and that is where it is going although not in the quantities we hoped notwithstanding the removal of the restrictions

the other day. That is where it would be going in a well-ordered economic society. However-the Prime Minister quoted words to this effect that I have already used-if ever the policy of the United States makes it impossible for us to market our oil in the United States no Canadian government is going to let that oil remain in the ground and any Canadian government is bound to take the kind of steps which may be required to market that oil in Canada, indeed, in the east.
I am not complaining about that. I hope that will not be necessary because it is not the most desirable way of marketing that oil at the present time. If it is necessary, it will have to be done. I also add that that kind of government policy is of a very far-reaching character indeed and goes beyond the commercial in its implications, just as the building of a transcontinental railway involves something far more than a commercial venture. That kind of situation would require government action at the time perhaps with regard to the import of oil but it would be of such a far-reaching character that our complaint is that this action should be taken with the knowledge and consent of parliament.
There is no likelihood of that action being required at the present time, at least if we believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). When the Minister of Trade and Commerce says that the case with respect to licensing imports of oil, contrasted with exports, is different and more complicated and he does not propose to argue that case fully because it would be premature to do so until the second report of the Borden commission in respect of this matter has been received and considered; if the Minister of Trade and Commerce says it is not necessary even to explain to the house why this might have to be done in the future, surely we have the duty and the right to object to a clause in the bill which gives the government that particular power which the minister himself says does not need to be argued at this time because there is no immediate emergency which might require that power. That is the burden of our complaint with regard to this particular clause and we will come back to it when we are in committee.
So far as the amendment is concerned, the official opposition will not, of course, be able to support it because it would surely be entirely inconsistent for us to support an amendment on second reading which is opposed to giving second reading to the bill itself. I know it is not possible to move an amendment on second reading to send a bill to a committee although it is possible to move an amendment that the subject matter of a

bill be sent to a committee, which is the nature of the amendment before us. The effect, however, of supporting this particular amendment would be to kill the bill and the principles involved in the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question. Would he agree that it would be possible for the government to re-introduce a bill covering this same subject at a later time during this same session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, of course it would, but what we are trying to do is to get this legislation through, to improve this particular bill, to get the government itself, after second reading, to send it to a standing committee where the interests concerned could be heard, have the bill altered in accordance with the evidence, brought back to the house and passed during this session.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Leader of the Opposition does not really think they will do that.


Arthur Smith: May I ask the
Leader of the Opposition a question? Is he aware of any demands by any group of people, either from industry or elsewhere, that this bill should be sent to a committee so that, as he says, they will have the opportunity to give evidence?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have had in my own office a request to do what we could to ensure that this bill should be subject to an examination by a standing committee of this house, before which witnesses could be summoned. Therefore, we have asked the government- and I repeat the request now-that perhaps that course could be followed. That would not be a course which would unduly delay the passing of this bill, but might make it a better bill than it is now.


Arthur Smith: Will he say who it was that suggested it should be sent to a committee? It was not a representative of any body, I assume?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. gentleman knows more about my correspondence than I do myself perhaps he will come up to the office and I will show it to him.


Arthur Smith: Did the Leader of the Opposition reply?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman does not speak for all the industrial activities in this country and all the interests that are concerned with this bill. I have given my own view on that matter and perhaps we can let it go at that.


Arthur Smith: Fine.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The nature of the amendment is important. It seems to me if it is carried the bill will be killed. That is shown
Division
in the purport of the amendment. It is explained in citation 386 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition. Paragraph (2) which reads:
An amendment, urging the setting up of a select committee to consider the subject matter of a bill, might be moved and carried, if the house were averse to giving the bill itself a second reading and so conceding its principle.
There are the	words, and, of course, if
we voted in favour of this amendment we	
would be voting	against the principle of
the bill. We have already said that we are in favour of the principle of the bill, though we are opposed to several provisions of it. Therefore, naturally, we will not be able	
to support the amendment. The house divided on the amendment (Mr. Peters) which was negatived on the	
following division:	YEAS
	Messrs:
Argue	Martin (Timmins)
Fisher	Peters
Herridge	Regier
Howard	Winch-8.
	NAYS
	Messrs:
Aiken	Denis
Aitken, Miss	Deschambault
Allard	Dinsdale
Allmark	Dorion
Anderson	Doucett
Asselin	Drouin
Balcer	Drysdale
Barrington	Dubois
Baskin	English
Batten	Eudes
Beech	Fairclough, Mrs.
Bell (Carleton)	Fairfield
Belzile	Fane
Bourbonnais	Fleming (Okanagan-
Bourget	Revelstoke)
Bourque	Flynn
Broome	Forbes
Browne (St. John's West) Forgie	
Browne (Vancouver-	* Fortin
Kingsway)	Fraser
Bruchesl	Frechette
Brunsden	Fulton
Campbell	Garland
(Lambton-Kent)	Granger
Cardiff	Green
Caron	Grenier
Carter	Grills
Casselman, Mrs.	Habel
Cathers	Halpenny
Chambers	Hamilton (Notre Dame
Charlton	de Grace)
Chevrier	Hamilton (York West)
Chown	Hellyer
Churchill	Henderson (Cariboo)
Coates	Hicks
Comtois	Horner (Acadia)
Courtemanche	Homer (The Battlefords)
Creaghan	Howe
Crestohl	Johnson
Crouse	Jones
Danforth	Jung

National Energy Board
Keays	Nugent
Kindt	O'Hurley
Knowles	O'Leary
Kucherepa	Pallett
Lafreniere	Payne
Lahaye	Pearkes
Lambert	Pearson
Latour	Phillips
Leduc	Pickersgill
Lennard	Pigeon
Lessard	Pratt
Letourneau	Racine
Loiselle	Ratelle
Macdonald (Kings)	Rea
Macdonnell	Ricard
MacEwan	Richard (Kamouraska)
Maclnnis	Richard (Ottawa East)
MacLean (Queens)	Richard (St.Maurice-
MacLellan	Lafleche)
Macquarrie	Roberge
MacRae	Robichaud.
McCleave	Robinson
McDonald	Romp re
(Hamilton South)	Rynard
McFarlane	Simpson
McGee	Skoreyko
McGrath	Small
Mcllraith	Smallwood
McLennan	Smith (Calgary South)
McMillan	Smith (Lincoln)
McPhillips	Smith (Simcoe North)
McQuillan	Smith (Winnipeg North)
McWilliam	Speakman
Mandziuk	Spencer
Martineau	Stanton
Martini	Stearns
Matthews	Stefanson
Meunier	Tasse
Milligan	Thomas
Monteith (Perth)	Thompson
Monteith (Verdun)	Thrasher
Montgomery	Tremblay
Morissette	Villeneuve
Morris	Walker
Morton	Webster
Muir (Lisgar)	Weichel
Nesbitt	White
Nielsen	Winkler
Noble	Woolliams
Nowlan	Wratten-176.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the house ready for the question on the main motion?


Frank Howard: On this main motion for second reading, Mr. Speaker- and may I say that I think I am one of those who have not spoken on the formal motion now before us-I think it would be well to attempt to summarize the impressions we have been able to get from what has been said so far in the debate, the statement of the minister and the discussion that has taken place. I will just wait for a moment, Mr. Speaker, until the noise subsides. As I was saying this is an attempt to summarize the impressions that we in the C.C.F. have been able to get from the comments of the minister, the discussion at the resolution stage and the discussion that has taken place during the last few days about the possible effect of this particular bill and the impact

it may have on society and upon the consumers of gas and oil with whom the bill is primarily concerned.
In that regard we in the C.C.F. have an opinion to express with respect to the formal approach to the endorsation or non-endorsa-tion of this particular bill. In that regard- and I may as well do it now as later on- I have an amendment to make to this motion. Following that I shall explain my reasons. This amendment will give an indication of the official position which we feel it necessary to take with regard to the endorsation of this particular bill. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge):
That the word "now" be left out and the words "this day six months hence" be added at the end of the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member finished his speech?


Frank Howard: No. I am waiting for Your Honour to read the amendment which I have moved.


Mr. Speaker:: If I did so now, it would terminate the hon. member's speech. The hon. member for Kootenay West will then speak as he seconds the amendment.


Frank Howard: I misunderstood the situation. I thought Your Honour would merely read the amendment and I would continue with my speech.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is customary not to put the motion until the hon. member has finished his speech.


Frank Howard: As I said earlier, considerable discussion has taken place over quite a number of days on this matter during which we have heard expressions of opinion by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker). I imagine these are the official approaches to the problem and to the bill. We have had speeches by members of the official opposition, by members of the government party and by members of the C.C.F. party. As the motion indicates, we have come to the conclusion that it would not be in the best interests of the Canadian people, the consumers who would be supplied by gas and oil pipe lines, the orderly development of these industries or of the other types of energy which exist in Canada for us to give endorsation to the principle of the bill.
As has been indicated-and these are only general statements at the moment-this bill consolidates the provisions of other acts that are at present on the statute books dealing with the question of oil and gas pipe lines. The statutes concerning that matter are the Pipe Lines Act and the Exportation of Power

and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act. The provisions of those particular acts, with the exception of one section in the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act, are consolidated into this particular bill. In the consolidation in this bill now before us of these, as I suppose you could loosely call them, beneficial provisions in so far as being beneficial to the consumers and citizens of Canada are concerned, and as poor as those provisions were, we find that many of the saving features of the Pipe Lines Act and of the Exportation of Power and Fluids and the Importation of Gas Act have been watered down. We find that, generally speaking, the protective features, in so far as protecting the interests of the consumers and the citizens of Canada are concerned, are less favourable in the bill now before us than they were previously.
Coupled with the tremendous insistence on the concentration of power and authority- and I do not mean energy power such as electrical power; I mean power of individuals- to be vested in the cabinet, that is the most objectionable feature that we find in this particular piece of legislation. We are absolutely opposed, as we always have been, to the granting of dictatorial powers of this nature and to this extent to the government of this nation, whether that government is of Conservative stripe or of Liberal stripe, and irrespective of the type of political philosophy it may embrace.
There was a considerable amount of discussion in years past about the dictatorial powers of certain cabinet ministers in the former administration. Certain parties who were the champions of the rights of parliament in those days are now reversing themselves and insisting upon substantiating the same type of autocratic or authoritative control vested in the hands of 22 members of this House of Commons, so far as this particular bill is concerned. We are not vacillating in our approach to the question as did the Liberals when they condemned with all the fire they could generate and muster the provisions of the bill and complained about the insistence upon dictatorial powers being given to the cabinet, and then they turn around and indicate their support for a sort of confined or controlled lead. They must be under a misapprehension that instead of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) piloting this bill through the house it is their old friend C. D. Howe because one would certainly gather from their gleeful endorsation of its provisions which they say they abhor and do not like that the ghost of C. D. Howe must be overhanging the Liberal party and deciding what their attitude should be.
National Energy Board
There is one reference I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, to Hansard of yesterday. I would like to read some excerpts from the comments made by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) who spoke on this question last evening. The reference I would like to make is to the part of his speech which related to the question of investment profits, equitable and fair and reasonable profits, in so far as these lines are concerned. At page 4039 of Hansard we find the hon. member for Calgary South starting off his discussion on this particular phase as follows:
The criticism which I have repeated many times in relation to the weakness in the Borden commission report-I think it is a human weakness- is that it tails above everything else in some of its recommendations to recognize that this is a business which involves great risks; great capital investment is required.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member think it necessary for the purpose of his argument to repeat what was said last night? I think it is reasonably fresh in the minds of hon. members who heard the speech. Unless he wants to pick out some particular phrase on which to base an argument, I suggest he limits his reading to the very essentials.


Frank Howard: I had reached the end of my reference, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to misquote the member or have it said I was being unfair, but perhaps I may adopt your suggestion and paraphrase what his comments were. They had to do with the fair and reasonable profit question. He said, "If I have any objection at all, it is just this." That is, the provision as to a fair and reasonable profit. If he has any objection at all, that is the objection that he has, that there was any provision whatsoever in the bill to determine fair and reasonable profits.
What does the government want? What does the hon. member for Calgary South desire? If he does not want fair and reasonable profit arrangements, or authority given to the energy board to determine this question of reasonable profits, what does he require? Is it that he wants to see an emergence on the scene of additional-


Arthur Smith: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me a question, and if he reads what I said, I said I want the right of appeal, and that is my reply.


Frank Howard: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not get this gadget to my ear quickly enough to hear what my hon. friend said.


Arthur Smith: The hon. member asked me what I wanted in the bill, and I said the right of appeal.

National Energy Board


Frank Howard: The right of appeal in so far as just, fair and reasonable profits are concerned? That is the provision we are dealing with, and the hon. member does not want a fair and reasonable provision in there. If he indicates that he wants the right of appeal from a decision of the board as to what is fair and reasonable, then that clears up what he feels is just and reasonable.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Read his entire
speech.


Frank Howard: I cannot hear my friend. If he would get the mush out of his mouth-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I said, read the entire speech.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my friend is suggesting I violate the very ruling which you have just made, and I am sure that you or anyone in the house would not-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean the hon. member should read the speech to us. I thought from the remarks of the hon. member that he knew nothing about what the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) was talking about, and I thought he should read the whole speech in private.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member, who does not appear to be speaking from his own seat, must recognize that the floor is held at the moment by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member asked me to speak louder, Mr. Speaker, so I rose to my two feet and did so.


Frank Howard: Well, Mr. Speaker, for the last few minutes I have been trying to indicate that I had concluded the remarks I had to make.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this amendment. We have before us an amendment which will allow us to give some consideration to this bill and give an opportunity to the government to introduce the bill in a much more acceptable and honest condition. This bill which we have before us refers in the main to gas and oil, yet when we look to find what a national energy board might be expected to embrace we find this bill could cover a great many other sources of energy besides those of gas and oil. It could cover the regulation of solar energy, electrical energy, atomic energy and thermo energy,

all energy supplied from a number of sources in a number of ways. This bill has failed to take into consideration that if we are going to give to Canada a truly national energy board then we are going to have to regulate and make available under the act direction for all the various segments which go to make up the energy resources of this country.
The Liberals have pointed out that they were for many of these things. They also pointed out they were opposed to some of the major clauses of this bill. I think their position has not been justifiable with their own consciences, where you support something which you say is wrong in principle. The member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) pointed out that when the Borden commission sat on energy and made its report, 23 of the recommendations of the Borden commission were favourably considered by the government and 11 were rejected.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You want to read his speech, too.


William Arnold Peters: I did not hear you.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was referring to the speech made by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith). He quoted a Liberal member-the member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud)-as saying there were 23 recommendations in this bill from the Borden commission.


William Arnold Peters: It does not matter whether the Liberals have decided this or the Conservatives, because they both voted the same way with regard to a recent decision made in this house. There is some justification for the position the Liberals have taken on this matter. I think they have some justification because the schmozzle they got the Canadian people into over the matter of gas distribution a year or two ago. They would probably not be justified if they took a position contrary to the one outlined by C. D. Howe at that time. However, I do not think this is the situation as far as the Conservatives are concerned. They agreed that if certain conditions existed-they were going to deal with this matter in one of two ways-


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind the hon. member that five or six speakers have already made that point in the course of this debate. I suggest that if he wishes to continue to take the time of the house he should find some new ground.


William Arnold Peters: I was just trying to point out that conditions hark back to the pipe line debate of some years ago and that these conditions have set the stage for the energy bill which is before us. But this energy bill is not satisfactory in any shape or form because,

as I think it is generally agreed, the Canadian people are entitled to have a board set up which will handle our natural resources in the best and most advantageous way for the benefit of all. This bill fails to establish such a board. For example, it fails to take the coal industry into consideration, and it fails to include the atomic energy industry about which much more will be heard in the near future. It also failed to take hydroelectric power into consideration, with the exception of the export of such power.
In the climate which existed a year or two ago, when there was difficulty in raising money and when the government would not concern itself about raising funds for national development of energy resources, then, I think, this bill might have been introduced and might have received the support of some hon. members here. But today, with a government which says that it is going to develop the natural resources of northern Canada, particularly; a government which says it is going to take advantage of the natural resources that we have, and use them to the best of its ability, this measure loses a good deal of its point.
The measure needs a great deal of study, fundamentally, and I do not think we can even agree with the terms of the bill. If this bill is going to be called the national energy bill it will have to take into consideration all the forms of energy I have mentioned. This may raise difficulties for the government, and we may have to concede that it might be exceedingly difficult, because they seem to work much better in terms of experience than they do in foresight. I agree they had some success with the vision, but they should put these visionaries to work in developing many of the advantages which the Canadian people could receive from a properly designed board which would take into consideration nuclear energy. This form of energy may be a few days ahead but we are faced across all Canada with the failing of the sources of energy we have used in the past, particularly electricity generated by hydro developments. We have been faced even in the province of Ontario, which is blessed with many hydro facilities, with the possibility that within the foreseeable future, and the near foreseeable future, that hydro power will no longer be available and that there will be no future developments of that nature.
Ontario is going as far north, now, as Otter Rapids near James Bay to put in hydro developments and while there are two or three projects in this area they are limited and the end potential as we know it in that area has now been blocked out and indicated.
National Energy Board Yet we are going to be faced continually with greater need for energy and electric power in the province of Ontario, and we have given no consideration in this bill to the one large source of energy of which the Canadian, people have an abundance.
We speak sometimes of the surplus that we have of wheat and of the problems we are going to have in disposing of this surplus; wheat, but we are going to have a much, larger surplus of uranium oxide in a very short while. We are now in a position where we can see no sale or a very limited sale for uranium oxide after 1962, and I suggest that, the government might with advantage have given this board the duty to decide how our atomic energy resources should be developed in order to supply Canadian homes and industries with heat, light and power.
However, the words have never been men-, tioned. And in those parts of Canada where it is impossible to put in transmission lines for power today, an alternative solution is yet possible. We talk about the development of the far north of Canada even in the ice and snow areas. Why has the government not given some consideration in this bill to the use and development of solar energy which would not require the use of extensive transmission lines and which would allow certain developments to take place in the far north which it is very difficult to achieve at the present time? We have given no consideration to these matters and I do not see how the government can be proud of the energy bill if it has not given consideration to all the forms of energy which we have available to us in Canada.
I think there has been some small discussion over the matter of gas and oil, but I think that all we are doing is incorporating a number of bills which we already have in force. I think the machinery is already in force and that it will allow us to export all the oil and gas we wish if the government would just relax some of the restrictions which it has placed on the board they have now. The proposed board will have no restrictions. This board is going to have only advisory functions and I would suggest that maybe the civil service could through its officers probably perform the advisory functions that would be necessary and that the governor in council could, in fact, run this national energy board all by himself, and there would be no need for a board and no need for five men to advise him.
Again, we are faced in Canada with the fact that all these forms of national energy have not been taken into consideration. We have given consideration only to the western

National Energy Board members who are concerned with gas and oil. In my part of the country, too, we are interested in this new form of energy, but it no longer becomes a national form of energy -it is passed through pipe lines and it becomes the product of a number of people who are out to make a fast profit.
When it reaches northern Ontario and other areas it gives the people no advantage that they are not already getting from coal, oil and other normal sources of energy which they have had to use in the past. This natural resource has not been used to the advantage and development of secondary industries and has not been used to the advantage and development of new areas by supplying them with a new form of energy. I suggest that we do not need a national energy bill to provide the Canadian people with the development that the people were told would come about if they would allow a pipe line to be built from the west to the east to supply gas to eastern Canada. Gas has turned out to be a product that is competitive and only competitive and it offers no advantages in the field of secondary industries.
I think many of the considerations involved in the bringing of this natural energy to eastern Canada are going to have to be faced again by the Canadian people. It is rumoured at the present time that very shortly another pipe line will be built through northern Ontario from the west. One of the large contracting companies is going around telling people that they hope to be in our area again this fall and that they will be looking for crews. They are expressing the hope that the people who worked for them last year will be available this fall for the new pipe line.
If this bill were going to serve any useful purpose I suggest that a page would have to be taken out of the history of the trans-Canada pipe line and steps would have to be taken to remedy all those factors that were found not to be advantageous to the people of northern Ontario. This has not been done in the bill. There is absolutely nothing in the bill that is not already found in a number of other statutes.
I mentioned before the matter of expropriation. The government did not even write into the bill a new expropriation provision. They used the old law.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member did deal with that subject when he moved his first amendment and I would ask him not to repeat.


William Arnold Peters: I was just pointing out that this has been a source of grievance and I would have thought that the bill before us would have taken care of it. A national


energy board is being set up to control all sources of energy in Canada and I presume it is not intended to amend the legislation next year or in a week or two. I presume that the Canadian people will have to operate for a long time under the bill as it now appears before us. I wish to suggest that some of the faults found in present acts could have and should have been remedied in this bill so as to permit the Canadian people to profit from the mistakes that have been made in the past.
Another factor that enters into the situation is the matter of making money from these new sources of energy. We have all heard about the many mistakes made in the past with regard to the financing of the trans-Canada pipe line. Let us remember that the trans-Canada pipe line was probably one of the best opportunities we have had to bring about equalization of conditions in those areas suffering from inadequacy by making available to them a source of energy at a very low cost. However, we allowed certain types of financing to take place.
The hon. member for Calgary South is an expert on gas and oil. He has been connected with this field for many years. I think he is honestly concerned with gas and oil, and I am not sure that that applies to many other people in that field. I believe he is sincerely interested in the development of gas and oil and therefore would be interested in the financial basis for organizing and operating gas companies and gas distribution lines. I was surprised when he said he did not agree that there should be a clause in the bill making provision for a fair and reasonable rate, a fair and reasonable tariff and a fair and reasonable return in connection with gas and gas distribution. That is what I understood him as saying although he indicates that that is not so. I am quite willing to accept that because I do not believe he thinks that way. I do not think that the member for Calgary South believes that. I think he believes he can exist in that industry and that the industry itself can exist for a long time only if a much more ethical and orthodox method of financing is followed.
But, Mr. Speaker, we are interested in this only as history because I do not think the Canadian people will ever allow it to happen again. When they elected this government to office they gave their answer to the mistakes the Liberals had made in this field and the Canadian people will not permit another government to do the same thing.
We are giving consideration now to the development of a national energy board but we find that there are several other sources of energy to which the government has given

no consideration at all. Are we going to wait for the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes? Are we going to wait until its use in weapons is outlawed? It will then be necessary to dispose of the uranium oxide and we will have to seek possible methods of developing energy from that source. Incidentally, Canada should be very proud of its position because we have an almost unlimited amount of uranium oxide available.
I am sure that before too long we will be faced with the establishment of plants that will use atomic energy as a cheap and reasonable source of energy, particularly in those areas where there are now no sources of energy. I am thinking particularly of the James and Hudson bay areas which we wish to develop. I presume the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources <Mr. Hamilton) has given consideration to this matter. We have a large iron ore deposit in this area and all we need is some source of energy that is readily available without terrific transportation costs. Then we will be able to reduce the iron ore into iron oxide or other forms of iron and be able to distribute these products around the world much more cheaply than shipping them to others parts of Canada and we will not have to ship the iron ore to Germany or Great Britain in order to have it processed. I suggest that both solar and atomic energy will eventually be available in these areas where transportation is difficult.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member again but on my count this is the third time he has come back to that point. Although I do not want to restrict him in any genuine contribution to this debate, I remind him that this amendment is very similar to the last one and that there is a good deal of scope for repetition which I do not think is warranted under the rules. In fact, it might be worth while to refer the house to the rule against repetitious speeches. It is rule 34 subsection 2. I would ask hon. members to bear that in mind when they proceed with this discussion because to my observation, and I am not referring particularly to the hon. member, a good many of the speeches have been singularly repetitious in this debate.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to disagree. While it is true I have come back to this subject on other occasions I think that we are discussing national energy-


Mr. Speaker:: I must remind the hon. member that we are not discussing national energy in all its forms. We are discussing this bill which proposes to set up a national energy board. I have not ruled it out of order to 66968-9-260
National Energy Board indicate that some forms of national energy are not being covered by this bill, but that does not mean that the house is free to embark upon a discussion of the uses of solar energy. It can only be done by way of criticism of the limitations of the bill. It does not bring those other issues directly into the debate as a subject of debate.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why we have proposed this amendment. These things are not in the bill and we say that these are the faults and failings of the bill. These matters are of major national importance as energy resources. The bill is called a national energy bill; therefore, I would strongly urge the government to give the fullest consideration to the fact that there are other forms of power besides gas and oil. The attitude seems to be that gas and oil are the last word in Ontario. We doubt that. We would say that probably hydro has been the last word in energy. I am just suggesting that in my opinion there are other forms of energy which are going to be more important. They are going to require greater control from this bill. I will not pursue that, Mr. Speaker.
In considering this bill I was interested to listen the other day to the Prime Minister of the country. He spoke of the immense resources in Saskatchewan. I was particularly surprised to hear this because he referred to a number of conditions in Saskatchewan. There are certain developments in that province that I would have thought the Prime Minister would have been very proud of. We are very happy to have many people from Saskatchewan in northern Ontario. Some of my best friends came from that province. Some of them have always told me that John Diefenbaker was a different kind of guy; he was not really a Conservative; he was a very good guy and he was the champion of the rights of the small people of the province of Saskatchewan. When I heard him say he was very unhappy about some conditions in the province and particularly with the people who have decided on what kind of provincial government they should have and with the decisions that had been taken I was very surprised. I am going to be very happy to tell my friends that he is not the champion of the little people of Saskatchewan who made the decision a long time ago as to what kind of government they wanted. I am sure they will be surprised to hear this.
The Prime Minister mentioned several conditions there, but he pointed out that conditions are not really so bad in Saskatchewan. They have gone into certain forms of assistance in the development of new industries
4092	HOUSE OF
National Energy Board in that province. They have been cautious in developing gas and oil. On the other hand, the province of Alberta has not. The Prime Minister pointed out that they have a lot of free enterprise in the province of Alberta. He also mentioned the province of Manitoba. He could have been right about Alberta because they certainly have a free enterprise government in that particular province, but the Prime Minister did not tell us that they had a deficit of $40 million in Alberta. He also did not explain what the development was which was taking place in Manitoba. From my trip out there I would say that they have very little industrial development in that particular province.
The Prime Minister also did not point out that he was very proud to come from Saskatchewan where they have a surplus of $3 million. I think he should give consideration to what is happening in Saskatchewan, because they did not have to make any deal with private enterprise; they did not have to sell out to a lot of financial interests in building the pipe line they have there. I understand their pipe line system is quite extensive. They did not have to sell out; they made arrangements which have been advantageous to the people of Saskatchewan. Something which I think our people should keep in mind is that gas and oil, like a lot of the minerals in the mines in the area from which I come, are not renewable resources; they are not renewable in your day or mine. They tell us that it took millions of years to put gas and oil in the ground, and the Conservative party is not going to remanufacture it no matter how much hot air they shoot in Ontario, in Manitoba, or in other places during elections. They are not going to be able to renew this particular resource and therefore I think they should not be in such a hurry to get it out of the ground. They should have consideration for their children and their children's children and the development of Canada in the future. They should give some consideration to bringing this gas and oil out as we need it and using it to the best of their ability for the Canadian people and for serving the needs of the Canadian people.

I	do not think the Prime Minister did his province any great service when he attacked it for the arrangements it has made in financing the development that has taken place in that particular province. The fact that Alberta has a large deficit is no credit to the government of that province.


Mr. Henderson:: May I ask the hon. member a question? He was sitting in his seat yesterday when the Prime Minister was speaking. Why did he not tell the Prime Minister all this? Why relate it to us? We have heard it at least five times today.


William Arnold Peters: The Prime Minister makes his own speeches. I am happy to answer. I am only a very small fish in a very large puddle.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Walter Clarence Henderson: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Timis-kaming has the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman was raising a question of privilege, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the hon. member asked a question and the hon. member who has the floor answered him.


Walter Clarence Henderson: He said he was in a large puddle. I would say it is a very small puddle.


Mr. Speaker:: I see. I think it could probably be settled by calling it six o'clock. Is the house agreed that it is six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Chevrier:: Do I assume that tomorrow we will go on with this debate?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker. When we conclude this debate tomorrow we will take up public works estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: I can hardly keep a straight face.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official reports of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Howard: 1. During the fiscal year 1958-59 did the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation dispose of any (a) aircraft spark plugs; (b) automotive tires; (c) automotive tubes; (d) shoes; (e) heelplates; (f) duck
Questions
coats; (g) boots; (h) rayon slips or (i) trousers, and, if so, what was the quantity, size and description in each case?
2. Of the material and goods so sold and with respect to each size and description what was the (a) initial purchase price and (b) the selling price?
Answer by:	Hon. Raymond O'Hurley
(Minister of Defence Production):
1.	Yes as to (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g) and (i). No as to (f) and (h). Quantities, description, reported cost and selling prices of unused articles of these classifications are as per attached lists.
2.	See 1.
[DOT]indicates the selling price for each article cannot be determined as it was included with other material and sold for a lot price.


A-AIRCRAFT SPARK PLUGS
[Stage Direction]
Quantity	Description and Size	Cost as Reported by Declaring Department	Selling Price20	Spark plugs, Champion, R33S, .014 inch electrode gap..	
$ 40.00	*38	Spark plugs, Champion, C355, 18mm	*70	Spark plugs, Champion, R33S	*5013	Spark plugs, J-47, BG-785J	*24 22 201 73 70	Spark plugs, KLG 994/9	
Spark plugs, J-47, AC, F6-A12	
Spark plugs, Lodge 342-1	
Spark plugs, Champion, R33S	
Spark plugs, J-33 Bendix JN9	*43	Spark plugs, Champion, C35S	*16	Spark plugs, PT No. KLG V12/13	*28	Spark plugs, PN785J	*50	Spark plugs, Champion, R33S	*B-AUTOMOTIVE TIRES	Quantity	Description and Size	Cost as Reported by Declaring Department	Selling Price4	Tires, 400 x IS, 4 ply...	*1 4 3	Tire, 750 x 16, 6 ply.... Tires, 400 x 18, 4 ply... Tires, 750 x 20, 10 ply..	*7 Tires, 700 x 17, 6 ply... 2	Tires, 650 x 20, 8 ply... 3	Tires, 700 x 17, 8 ply... 6 Tires, 750 x 20, 8 ply... 4	Tires, 900 x 18. 10 ply.. 2 Tires, 750 x 15, 8 ply... 1	Tire, 700 x 24, 10 ply... 2	Tires, 800 x 32, 4 ply... 1 Tire, 750 x 16, 4 ply.... 5	Tires, 700 x 15	
66968-9-260J	*
Questions
[Stage Direction]
B-AUTOMOTIVE TIRES-Continued
Quantity	Description and Size	Cost as Reported by Declaring Department	Selling Price36	Tires, 750 x 20, 10 ply	
$ 1,800.00 	
44.00	
210.00	
819.00	17	Tires, 750 x 20, 10 ply	
765.00 	
108.00	
1,961.00	
236.00	
207.00	
72.00	5 3	Tires, 1000 x 28, 4 ply	
39.00 	
135.00 	
80.00	1	Tire, 900x24, 12 ply	
99.00 	
98.00	
49.00	
125.00	
250.00	
570.00	6	Tires, 760 x 15, 6 ply	
132.00 	
9.50	
36.00	
32.00	
120.00	1 4	Tire, 700 x 16, 6 ply	
Tires, 1050 x 16, 12 ply	
23.00 	
348.00 	
340.00	
70.00	1	Tires, 750x24, 10 ply	
51.00	
187.00	3	Tires, 1600 x 20, 16 ply	
480.00	4	Tires, 650 x 20, 8 ply	
102.92	$ 20 006	Tires, 700 x 20, 8 ply	
439.20	90.0017	Tires, 400 x 18, 4 ply	
170.00 	
88.05	
416.34	206.001	Tire, 1200 x 24, 4 ply	484.70 	
481.85	1	Tire, 900 x 24, 4 ply	
41.70	1	Tire, 750 x 20, 10 ply	
30.62	*2	Tires, 19 x 3.25	
14.40	*
125.72	120.0010	Tires, 670 x 15	
152.50	70.00
240.00	*1	Tire, 700 x 20, 8 ply	
36.84	3	Tires, 350 x 4, 4 ply	
24.60	*5	
85.00	
180.00	1	
17.00	48.00	
176.00	477.7740.00	
186.00	
28.00	6	Tires, 1050 x 20,12 ply	
486.00	1	
41.58	*
7 Tires, 400 x 18, 4 ply
2
Tires, 1200 x 24, 4 ply Tires, 650 x 20, 6 ply.
412.40
66.38
50.00

B-AUTOMOTIVE TIRES- (Concluded)	Questions
Quantity Description and Size	Cost as Reported by Declaring Department Selling Price
4 Tires, 1400 x 20	
4	Tires, 1400 x 20	
2 Tires, 1400 x 20, 18 ply	
14 Tires, 600 x 16	
16 Tires, 825 x 20	
5	Tires, 1400 x 20	
6	Tires, 1100 x 24, 12 ply	
1	Tire, 750 x 20	
6 Tires, 750 x 20	
2	Tires, 400 x 7	
5 Tires, 450 x 12	
4 Tires, 1000 x 15, 12 ply	
1 Tire, 15 x 5 x 11§, solid hard rubber	.. $ 524.60 * .. 512.00 .. 394.00 .. 236.88 .. S48.00 .. 350.00 .. 660.00 .. 40.35 .. 96.00 .. 7.40 .. 41.00 .. 312.52 .. 15.407	Tires, 400 x 18, 4 ply	
8	Tires, 550 x 16, 4 ply	
1 Tire, 600 x 9	
1 Tire, 700 x 16, 6 ply	
10 Tires, 700 x 17, 8 ply	
1 Tire, 700 x 24, 10 ply	
60 Tires, 825 x 15, 12 ply	
10	Tires, 900 x 20, 10 & 12 ply	
6	Tires, 900 x 24, 10 ply	
80 Tires, 1000 x 20, 12 & 14 ply	
11	Tires, 1000 x 22, 12 ply	
11 Tires, 1400 x 20, 12 & 14 ply	
8 Tires, 1600 x 20, 16 ply	
7	Tires, 1800 x 24	.. 27.58 * .. 71.92 .. 15.11 .. 23.00 .. 360.00 .. 38.42 .. 3,383.40 .. 658.30 .. 170.28 .. 7,052.80 .. 854.48 .. 1,370.60 .. 1,802.40 .. 2,241.401 Tire, 600 x 16	
3 Tires, 1050 x 16, 12 ply	
7 Tires, 300 x 20	.. 24.15 * .. 499.98 .. 84.911 Tire, 1050 x 16	.. 138.78 $2.603 Tires, 750 x 16, 8 ply	
1 Tire, 750 x 16, 8 ply	.. 159.78 25.00 .. 53.291 Tire, 650 x 20, 6 ply	.. 23.00 *1 Tire, 600 x 16, 4 ply	.. 11.52 12.502 Tires, 600 x 16, 4 ply	.. 17.10 25.001 Tire, 700 x 16, 4 ply	
C-AUTOMOTIVE TUBES	.. 17.00 *Quantity Description and Size	Cost as Reported by Declaring Department Selling Price5 Tubes, 650 x 20	
30.00 *
23 Tubes, 650 x 20		*. 146.05 $ 13.80
1 Tube, 10 x 28	 13 Tubes, 400 x 19		.. 7.74 1.00 .. 18.07 13.00
8 Tubes, 400 x 16		.. 21.44 *
1	Tube, 700 x 24	 2	Tubes, 450 x 16		.. 5.52 * .. 2.40
Tubes, 45 x 16.
1.44
[Stage Direction]
	Questions C-AUTOMOTIVE TUBES (concluded)		
Quantity	Description and Size	Cost as Reported by Declaring Department	Selling Price5	Tubes, 400 x 18	. $ 12.30	*6	. 56.34	*
. 4.61	*
		. 10.71	
1 1	TiiVip SQO t 1R 		. 8.08	
	TiiHp 806x15 		. 12.35	
		. 5.67	
1	Tijhp 1100x20 		. 33.96	
			
6	Tubes, 750 x 16		. 18.00 . 8.04	*
		. 42.72	
			
1854	Tubes, 400 x IS, 450 x IS, 400 x 19	. 2,968.40	*3	. 5.40	*
8		. 21.44	$ 9.00
			
1	Tube, 1400 x 20	. 17.00	*23 2	Tnhps 650 x 20 	. 101.20	*. 6.00	4 1 36 1 1 3 12 5	Tnho<* 700x18 	. 12.00	Tube, 25 x 6	
Tubes, 750 x 20	
Tube, 700 x 16	
Tube, 700 x 15	
Tubes, 1300 x 24	
Tubes, 1300/1400 x 20	
Tubes, 700 x 15	. 2.00 . 144.00 . 3.50 . 2.25 45.00 . 100.32 . 12.00	
8
9
5 2 5
Tubes, 400 x 8__
Tubes, 750 x 20.. Tubes, 825 x 20.. Tubes, 1000 x 20. Tubes, 1100 x 24. Tubes, 1200 x 20. Tubes, 1400 x 20.
11	Tubes,	400 x 18....8	Tubes,	550 x 16....5	Tubes,	600 x 20....10	Tubes,	700 x 12....28	Tubes,	700 x 17....146	Tubes,	750 x 20....23	Tubes,	825 x 15....57	Tubes,	725 x 20....2	Tubes,	900 x 16....60	Tubes,	900 x 20....43	Tubes,	1000 x	20.3	Tubes,	1000 x	22.27	Tubes,	1100 x	24.9	Tubes,	1200 x	20.16	Tubes,	1400 x	20.13	Tubes,	1600 x	20.12	Tubes,	2100 x	25 x 24.3	Tubes,	900 x 18....
4.80
32.80
119.52
56.70
42.50 20.40
77.50
12.76
31.52
19.70
18.40 90.16
518.30 74.06
222.30 8.32
277.80
383.56
17.40 199.53
83.97
231.68
216.45
350.52
12.48
2 2	
17.84 	
14.92	1 1	Tube, 400 x 15	
Tube, 400 x 19	1.79 .... 2.30	*1	Tube, 300 x 20	.... 2.40	*1	Tube, 9 x 36	. . 4.00	*1	Tube, 1200 x 24	
11.22	*
Questions

[Stage Direction]
Cost as Reported by
#	Declaring
Quantity	Description and Size	Department Selling Price8376 pr Shoes, canvas	
$ 1.85/pr.	$0.332/pr
297 pr. size 5 255 pr. size 5^
506 pr. size 6 222 pr. size 6*
52 pr. size 7 62 pr. size 8 28 pr. size 8*
783 pr. size 9 336 pr. size 9|
1870 pr. size 10 1527 pr. size 10|
735 pr. size 11 936 pr. size 112 422 pr. size 12 299 pr. size 12£
46 pr. size 13
9 pr	Shoes,	ladies, wooden soles	
25.2018 pr	Shoes,	size not shown	
61.209 pr	Shoes,	gun floor, size 7	
31.50
45064 pr Shoes, leather, black
25 pr. size 4*B	3000 pr. size 9|C
118 pr. size 5B	918 pr. size 10B
797 pr. size 5C	2307 pr. size 10C
421 pr. size 51B	190 pr. size 10^B
1276 pr. size 5'C	1394 pr. size 10|C
378 pr. size 613	116 pr. size 11B
1812 pr. size 6C	1557 pr. size 11C
546 pr. size 6^B	152 pr. size ll^B
3392 pr. size 6?C	1178 pr. size ll^C
978 pr. size 7B	101 pr. size 12B
2790 pr. size 7C	1264 pr. size 12C
99 pr. size 7|B	165 pr. size 12^B
4250 pr. size 7|C	607 pr. size 12|C
384 pr. size 8B	91 pr. size 13B
4373 pr. size 8C	159 pr. size 13C
848 pr. size 8|B	55 pr. size 13|B
4431 pr. size 8^C	62 pr. size 13£C
235 pr. size 9B	50 pr. size 1413
3940 pr. size 9C	65 pr. size 14C
540 pr. size 9£B	
6.73/pr.	2.115/pr.
Each	Mismated Footwear
106	Shoes OR	
339.2030	Shoes gym	
24.75
Mismated Footwear
2	Shoes	gym	
1.654	Shoes	white	
13.0029	Shoes	black	
94.2519	Shoes	gym	
15.65
Mismated Footwear
56	Shoes black	
179.204	Shoes gym	
3.308	Shoes gym	
6.76
Mismated Footwear
97	Shoes OR	
620.8021	Shoes gym	
33.608	Shoes, women's	black	
51.204098	HOUSE OF COMMONS Questions E-HEELPLATES	Quantity	Description and Size	Cost as Reported by Declaring Department	Selling Price350 prs.	Heelplates, horseshoe pattern special	.... $ 122.50	$ 15.00210 prs.	Heelplates, horseshoe pattern special 120 prs. Size 5-6	.... 40.80 .... 30.60	4.20
182 prs.	Heelplates, horseshoe pattern special Size 6-7|		.... 6.46	*
	F- DUCK COATS		
Quantity	Description and Size	Cost as Reported by Declaring Department	Selling Price

[Stage Direction]
Quantity	Description and Size	Cost as Reported by Declaring Department Selling Price142 pr.	Boots, magazine canvas tops cotton web soles	
$ 142.00 *
202 pr.
Boots,	ankle, modified,	clumpsole,5	pr.	size 5D	117	pr.	size 5E	13	pr.	size 5F	103	pr.	size 5|D	13	pr.	size 5£E	83	pr.	size 5§F	183	pr.	size 6D	67	pr.	size 6E	65	pr.	size 6F	101	pr.	size 6£D	41	pr.	size 6|E	11	pr.	size 6|F	15	pr.	size 7D	421	pr.	size 7E	57	pr.	size 7$D	39	pr.	size 7£E	36	pr.	size 7§F	413	pr.	size 8D	3high top	
pr. size 8E pr. size 8F pr. size 8iD pr. size 8iE pr. size 9D pr. size 9E pr. size pr. size 10D pr. size 10E pr. size 10JD pr. size IO5E pr. size 10JF pr. size 11D pr. size 11F pr. size 111D pr. size lljE pr. size 12D pr. size 12E
6.00/pr.
Each
Mismated Footwear
70 Boots, ankle leather	
2	Boots,	hi-cut	10	Boots,	knee	10	Boots,	aviation	16	Boots,	warm weather flying
287.00
7.71
43.65
70.50
67.28
Mismated Footwear
183
Boots, Al.. Boots, OR
319.80
703.90

Questions
G-BOOTS- Concluded
Cost as Reported by Declaring
Quantity	Description and Size	Department Selling Price
Each	Mismated Footwear-continued
6	Boots, gym	
$	10.2318	Boots,	hi-cut	
138.782	Boots,	lumberman	
7.2012	Boots,	rubber knee	
17.4029	Boots,	shearling lined	
154.132	Boots,	aviation	
10.0022	Boots,	flying, warm	weather	
92.51
Mismated Footwear
20 4 2 6 2 6	Boots, A1	 Boots, gym	 Boots,	 Boots, lumberman	 Boots, rubber hip	 Boots, aviation				 82.00 	 6.82 	 15.42 	 21.60 	 10.80 	 30.00	*
		Mismated Footwear		
66 4 2 2 3	Boots, ankle leather... Boots, hi-cut	
Boots, rubber knee.... Boots, rubber hip	
Boots, aviation	
541.20 	
61.68 	
6.00 	
7.74 	
30.00	*3 pr.	Boots, size not shown..	
26.40	*H-RAYON SLIPS	Quantity	Description and Size	Cost as Reported by Declaring Department	Selling PriceNIL REPORTED FOR DISPOSAL.	I-TROUSERS	Quantity	Description and Size	Cost as Reported by Declaring Department	Selling Price7 prs. 4 prs.	Trousers, whipcord, fishery officers	
Trousers, summer, fishery officers	«90 prs.	Trousers, winter ski, colour khaki, size range medium	
$ 900.00	$ 123.9517 prs.	Trousers, windproof, unlined, 13 prs. large size	
3 prs. medium size	
1 pr. small size	
77.35 	
17.85 	
5.95	*
66968-9-261
Questions
[Stage Direction]
I-TROUSERS-Concluded.
Cost as Reported by Declaring
Quantity	Description and Size	Department Selling Price208 prs. Trousers, sea dress, blue serge, army type	
$	9.50/pr.
1 pr. size 9
7	prs. size 15 4 prs. size 17
8	prs. size 18 18 prs. size 19
13	prs. size 20 4 prs. size 21
7	prs. size 22 21 prs. size 23 17 prs. size 24
3 prs. size 25 29 prs. size 26 29 prs. size 27
14	prs. size 28 16 prs. size 29
6 prs. size 30
8	prs. size 31 3 prs. size 32

Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Did teams of Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Canadian Navy and army personnel make trips to various cities and factories outside Canada, between September 30, 1958 and February 20, 1959, for the purpose of evaluating military equipment which might be produced in Canada by Avro Aircraft Limited or Orenda Engines Limited?
2.	If so, were representatives of the above companies invited to accompany the teams, and on what occasions?
3.	What are the names of such representatives in each case?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of
National Defence):
1.	During the period extending from September 30, 1958 to February 20, 1959, teams from the three services did make visits to other countries for the purpose of evaluating equipment to meet the requirements of the Canadian armed forces. Before procurement action is taken consideration is given to the feasibility of having such equipment produced by Canadian industries.
2.	Not by the Department of National Defence.
3.	Not applicable.


DEATH PENALTY STATISTICS SINCE 1930
Mr. Howard: 1.	For each year since 1930 how many, if any, persons have been sentenced to the death penalty?
2.	For each such year how many such persons
have (a) been executed:	(b) had the sentence
commuted; (c) been otherwise dealt with and what are the details in each case?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of
Justice):
1.
2. (a)
(b)
1930	- 23
1931	- 32
1932	- 23
1933	- 21
1934	- 26
1935	- 17
1936	- 22
1937	- 14
1938	- 19
1939	- 11
1940	- 21
1941	- 15
1942	- 13
1943	- 10
1944	- 18
1945	- 19
1930	- 13
1931	- 25
1932	- 13
1933	- 16
1934	- 12
1935	- 12
1936	- 14
1937	- 7
1938	- 9
1939	- 4
1940	- 9
1941	- 7
1942	- 6
1943	- 7
1944	- 9
1945	- 10
1930	- 5
1931	- 3
1932	- 5
1933	- 3
1946	- 29
1947	- 19
1948	- 26
1949	- 29
1950	- 21
1951	- 19
1952	- 26
1953	- 22
1954	- 25
1955	- 18
1956	- 19
1957	- 12
1958	- 21
1959	- 8 (to April 30)
1946	- 13
1947	- 10
1948	- 13*
1949	- 11
1950	- 10
1951	- 11
1952	- 10
1953	- 8
1954	- 10
1955	- 6
1956	- 5
1957	- 3
1958	- 3
1959	- 0 (to April 30)
1946	- 8
1947	- 3
1948	- 5
1949	- 6

(b)-Concluded
1934 -	5	1950 - 31935 -	3	1951 - 31936 -	4	1952 - 81937 -	2	1953 - 61938 -	8	1954 - 41939 -	4	1955 - 91940 -	6	1956 - 51941 -	7	1957 - 51942 -	1	1958 - 151943 -	1	1959 - 21944 -	4	(to April 30)1945 -	5	
^Includes one condemned person who committed suicide.
(c)
1930,	5 new trials.
1931,	2 new trials, 1 conviction quashed,
1 died.
1932,	5 new trials.
1933,	2 new trials.
1934,	9 new trials.
1935,	1 new trial, 1 reduced to manslaughter.
1936,	3 new trials, 1 died.
1937,	2 new trials, 1 died, 2 convictions quashed.
1938,	1 new trial, 1 reduced to manslaughter.
1939,	3 new trials.
1940,	5 new trials, 1 conviction quashed.
1941,	1 new trial.
1942,	6 new trials.
1943,	1 new trial, 1 conviction quashed.
1944,	3	new	trials,	1	reduced	to	manslaughter, 1 conviction quashed.1945,	2	new	trials,	2	reduced	to	manslaughter.1946,	6 new trials, 1 conviction quashed, 1 reduced to manslaughter.1947,	5	new	trials,	1	reduced	to	manslaughter.1948,	6 new trials, 1 died, 1 reduced to manslaughter.1949,	8	new	trials,	3	reduced	to	manslaughter, 1 conviction quashed.1950,	8 new trials.1951,	4	new	trials,	1	reduced	to	manslaughter.1952,	8 new trials.1953,	3	new	trials,	1	reduced	to	manslaughter, 2 convictions quashed, 2 suicides.1954,	5	new	trials,	4	reduced	to	manslaughter, 2 convictions quashed.1955,	2	new	trials,	1	reduced	to	manslaughter.1956,	7	new	trials,	2	reduced	to	manslaughter.1957,	3	new	trials,	1	reduced	to	manslaughter.1958,	2 new trials, 1 pending.1959,	6 pending (to April 30).Explanatory note:	The figures for the
years 1930 to 1954 are those which are set out in appendix "B"-capital case statistics, 66968-9-261J
Questions
of the report to the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on capital punishment. In the answer to part 2, the ultimate disposition of each case has been related back to the year of conviction. That is to say, if a sentence of death was imposed, for instance, in November of a particular year and was commuted in February of the following year, the case is treated, for the purpose of these statistics, as having been one where the sentence was imposed and commuted in the same calendar year.
The figures contained in the answer to question 1, are the number of convictions in that year.


EMPLOYMENT OF EXECUTIONERS SINCE 1925
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since 1925 have any hangmen or executioners been employed for the carrying out of judicially imposed death sentences?
2.	If so, what are the names of each such executioner and the details as to the remuneration paid?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of
Justice):
1.	Yes.
2.	Camille Branchaud (understood to be a pseudonym); $100 for one postponement, $400 for one execution.
This is the only information available in the Department of Justice records and relates to the Northwest Territories. Executions in the provinces are the responsibility of the provincial authorities.


NATIONAL MUSEUM
Mr. Argue: 1.	Does Dr. L. S. Russell now hold a position at the national museum of Canada? If so, what position?
2.	On what date was he first appointed, to what position and by what authority?
3.	What positions has he held at the museum since that date, on what date did he take up each, and by what authority was he so appointed to each?
4.	Were any of these positions under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission? If so, which positions?
5.	Was a civil service competition held for any of these appointments?
6.	If so, for which ones, on what dates were they held, what was the competition number of each, what names appeared on the civil service eligibility list for each competition, and in what order were they listed?
7.	What positions had Dr. Russell held previous to his first appointment on the staff of the museum?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Yes. Director, natural history branch, national museum of Canada; acting director, human history branch, national museum of Canada.

Questions
2.	On July 1, 1950, he was appointed as chief, zoology section, national museum of Canada, by civil service commission certificate.
3.	Director, national museum of Canada; November 10, 1956; civil service certificate, director, natural history branch, national museum of Canada; January 1, 1957; civil service commission certificate.
4.	Yes. Both positions were under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission.
5.	Yes.
6.	Chief, zoology section; May 11, 1950; competition No. 50-433; only one name appeared on the civil service eligible list 84042- L. S. Russell. Director, national museum of Canada; July 9, 1956; competition No. 56-599; two names appeared on the civil service eligible list in the following order-L. S. Russell, Jacques Rousseau.
7.	Assistant palaeontologist, later changed to assistant geologist, geological survey of Canada, September 1930 to June 1937. Assistant professor of palaeontology, later changed to associate professor of palaeontology, University of Toronto July 1937 to June 1950. Assistant director, royal Ontario museum of palaeontology, later changed to director, July 1937 to June 1950.


BRITON DOOR CLOSER
Mr. Herridge: 1.	Has the Briton door closer been tested more than once by the research laboratory of the Department of Public Works?
2.	If so, on what dates were these tests made?
3.	Were the results of the tests identical in each case?
4.	Were the reports of these tests issued under the security heading of "restricted"?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister
of Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	March 21, 1957, and December 13, 1957.
3.	Yes, they were essentially identical.
4.	Reports are normally restricted to government agencies requesting the test work but such reports are not issued under the security heading of "Restricted".


DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS, COLLEGE MILITAIRE ROYAL DE ST. JEAN, QUE.
Mr. Dupuis: 1.	Has the Minister of National Defence received any petitions for the demolition of certain historical buildings forming part of the College Militaire Royal de St. Jean, Quebec?
2.	If so, from whom?
3.	What steps are being taken in this connection? Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of
National Defence):
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	In order to improve the appearance of the college site and in view of the high maintenance and renovation costs, consideration is being given by the department to declaring surplus to requirement two buildings located at College Militaire Royal de St. Jean, Quebec.


INDIAN ACT
[Stage Direction]
4(2)
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1951, have any proclamations been issued pursuant to subsection 2 of section 4 of the Indian Act?
2.	If so, what are the details of each such proclamation?
3.	Have any such proclamations been revoked?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	Since January 1, 1951, three proclamations have been issued pursuant to subsection 2 of section 4 of the Indian Act.
2.	(a) In January 1958, section 93 (a) (i) and (b), and sections 95 and 96 of the Indian Act were made inapplicable to a parcel of land containing 162 acres, more or less, in Musqueam Indian reserve No. 2, leased to Shaughnessy heights golf club of Vancouver.
(b)	In September 1954, section 73 (2) of the Indian Act was made inapplicable to the river desert band, Maniwaki Indian agency. This proclamation provided for a reduced number of councillors and was issued at the request of the band.
(c)	In November 1953, section 73 of the Indian Act was made inapplicable to the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte band, Tyendinaga agency. This proclamation provided for a reduced number of councillors and was issued at the request of the band.
3.	No.

Thursday, May 28, 1959



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax) presented the twelfth and thirteenth reports of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the twelfth report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.