1959-05-25

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, while it is a most unusual thing to do, the passing of John Foster Dulles, the former secretary of state of the United States, has evoked feelings of world-wide sympathy, and I shall therefore share with the house the message I sent yesterday to President Eisenhower on behalf of the parliament of Canada and the Canadian people:
May I express the deep sympathy of the government and people of Canada on the death of the Honourable John Foster Dulles.
In his passing, the American people have lost one of the outstanding figures of our time, one whose years of devoted service as secretary of state crowned a long and distinguished career in many spheres of private and public endeavour. The world has lost at a critical time a great and steadfast personality, ever vigilant in the defence of freedom.
To Canadians, he was more than a renowned world statesman: he was a friendly neighbour who regularly turned to his island home in Canada for rest and inspiration.
Our thoughts are with you and the people of the United States as you mourn the loss of one whose counsel was of such distinction and whose labours were so unstintingly given. His refusal to spare himself even when in the grip of a fatal illness will stand for years to come as an example of personal courage and public dedication.
Please extend to Mrs. Dulles and the family the expression of Canada's sorrow at his passing.
I know that the house and all Canadians will join with me in paying tribute to Mr. Dulles' memory. I may add that at the funeral in Washington on May 27 the government and people of Canada will be represented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming).


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in associating our party with what the Prime Minister has just said, and particularly with his words of sympathy to Mrs. Dulles and the other members of the family, perhaps I may be permitted to read a few paragraphs from the statement I gave to the press yesterday when I heard the sad news of Mr. Dulles' death:
History will evaluate the contribution he made to the solution of international problems. But we do not need to wait for history to tell us that this contribution was a powerful, at times a decisive one, 66968-9-252J
and one that had the highest purposes behind it. His illness, and now his death, has left a vacuum in the direction of the foreign policy of his country, and indeed of the western coalition, which will not easily be filled.
He was a dedicated man and even his opponents could not but admire his courage, determination and capacity. He discharged his responsibilities with an unflagging zeal and a single-minded devotion that was beyond praise. He fought for what he believed with the intensity of a crusader and the skill of a great advocate.
He would have been a powerful and respected figure in the diplomacy and policy of any country he represented. As a spokesman of the most powerful state in the world, his was often the dominating voice. It never weakened in the pursuit, through policies in which he passionately believed, of freedom and security in the world as the foundation of peace. Those who worked with him to reach this goal, even though they may not have agreed with everything he said or did, will pay tribute to his sincerity of purpose, his clarity of mind and his magnificent courage, as they lament his passing at this time.
The free democracies have lost a great champion, whose like we shall not see again.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we in the C.C.F. wish to be associated with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in sending to Mrs. Dulles, their two sons, and the members of the Dulles family our sincere sympathy at the time of the passing of John Foster Dulles. He spent his life very largely in the service of the state department of the United States. Since the time he became secretary of state ail have acclaimed his zeal, his strong will, and his complete devotion to that task.
The members of the C.C.F. movement in Canada, Mr. Speaker, have not always agreed with the policies put forward by John Foster Dulles, but we have admired his bravery throughout his life and particularly his great courage in fighting the dread disease of cancer which finally conquered him. Though we have not always agreed with his policies, we respected him as a western leader who put forward his views believing them to be right in the light of the many problems and trials confronting the world from time to time. We associate ourselves with this message of sympathy from Canada to the President of the United States and to the family.



ATOMIC ENERGY


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make
3966	HOUSE OF
Atomic Energy-Agreement With U.S. a statement at this time in regard to an agreement signed on May 22 in Washington between the Canadian and United States governments providing for co-operation between the two countries on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes. I trust that the house will grant me leave to make this statement. An announcement concerning this agreement is being made simultaneously in Washington. Copies of the agreement will be available in the joint parliamentary distribution branch in both languages.
This agreement will enable Canada to take advantage of the amendments made last year to the United States atomic energy act, and therefore continue and extend the degree to which co-operation in this field has been carried out under the agreement for co-operation regarding atomic information for mutual defence purposes signed in Washington on June 15, 1955, and the amendment to the civil agreement which was signed on June 26, 1956.
Under the terms of the United States act, as members of the house know, agreements for co-operation on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes must lie on the table of the joint committee on atomic energy of the United States congress for a period of 60 days after signature. It is expected, therefore, that this agreement will come into effect in approximately that period of time.
It might be helpful if I were to draw the attention of the house to the main features of this agreement, and in that connection I will use the language of the agreement. It will permit the exchange of information necessary to the development of defence plans; the training of personnel in the employment of and defence against atomic weapons and other military applications of atomic energy; the evaluation of the capabilities of potential enemies in the employment of atomic weapons; the development of delivery systems compatible with the atomic weapons which they carry; research, development and design of military reactors to the extent and by such means as may be agreed.
Provision is made for the transfer to Canada under mutually agreeable conditions of such non-nuclear parts of atomic weapons systems involving restricted data as are jointly determined to be necessary to improve the state of training of Canada's armed forces and the operational readiness of those forces. Finally, the way will be opened for the transfer at some future time to Canada of military reactors and any special nuclear materials required for them. Because of the sensitive nature of the information and materials which will be exchanged and transferred


under this agreement, certain appropriate safeguard provisions have been included.
I feel certain that the co-operation which will be carried out under this agreement will be of substantial benefit to Canada, not only in the training of our armed forces, in the development of defence plans and in the improvement in our military state of readiness and our equipment, but also in enabling Canada's armed forces better to play their part in the defence of North America and the free world.
I trust this agreement will be carried out in the same spirit which has marked the harmonious relations which have always existed between Canada and the United States on atomic energy matters.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to imagine an agreement on a more important subject than the one which the Prime Minister has just read to the house. I have heard it, as have other hon. members, for the first time. I would not wish to make any comment on it without the most careful consideration. Its importance certainly warrants that consideration.
However, from what the Prime Minister has said I gather that the co-operation which is visualized between the two governments in the field of atomic weapons does not extend to the transfer of control from the United States to Canadian sources of any atomic weapons which might be manufactured in the United States and be made available to the Canadian forces for tactical or defence purposes. That, of course, is an extremely important limitation-if indeed it is a limitation-in this agreement.
As I say however, the whole matter is of such great importance that I would not wish to make any further comment on it at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, this is undoubtedly one of the most important announcements that has been made in this chamber for a long time. It is most difficult, without any prior notice, to be able to state one's position immediately on such an important and complicated matter. However, the principles which guide us in looking at such documents are well known. We are interested, of course, in defence. We are interested in the protection of the integrity of Canadian sovereignty. We shall study this agreement with great care and we shall comment on it after such study in the interests of not only Canada's defence but, of even greater importance, in the interests of the peace of the world.

Motions for Papers
ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY	court of British Columbia and for two additional
judges of the supreme court of Alberta.



WELLAND CANAL

[Stage Direction]
STATEMENT ON PROGRESS IN ,, ..	, ,
clearing vessels	Motion agreed to.
['Mr. Speaker, on May 20 the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway asked me a question, and at that time I promised to give a report, as soon as definite information was available, as to the possibility of the United States authorities lifting the restrictions recently applied to Canadian trucks carrying goods in bond through United States territory.\nI am glad to report, as has been indicated in the press, that the United States authorities have lifted these restrictions. Official notification of this decision was received by the Canadian embassy in Washington on May 22. I may add that the government, and I am sure this house, welcomes this helpful action by the United States which reflects a willingness to co-operate in the solution of our joint commercial problems.']
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, because of the general interest that has been shown in this matter I feel sure that all hon. members will be interested to learn that good progress has been made in clearing through the Welland canal the accumulation of vessels that developed after the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway. When I visited the Welland canal two weeks ago today there was an accumulation of 40 upbound vessels waiting to enter the canal at Port Weller. The number had been reduced to five this morning; two ocean-going ships anchored in the lake reported to be waiting for pilots and three ships in Port Weller harbour, one ocean-going and two North American. There are no vessels awaiting entry or being delayed from entering the downbound channel at Port Colborne.



[Stage Direction]
statement on u.s. interference with
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on May 20 the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway asked me a question, and at that time I promised to give a report, as soon as definite information was available, as to the possibility of the United States authorities lifting the restrictions recently applied to Canadian trucks carrying goods in bond through United States territory.
I am glad to report, as has been indicated in the press, that the United States authorities have lifted these restrictions. Official notification of this decision was received by the Canadian embassy in Washington on May 22. I may add that the government, and I am sure this house, welcomes this helpful action by the United States which reflects a willingness to co-operate in the solution of our joint commercial problems.



JUDGES ACT


Hon. Howard C. Green (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide salaries for three additional puisne judges of the superior court of Quebec, for two additional judges of the supreme



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 108-Mr. Dupuis:
For a copy of the lease, if any, entered into by the government and the St. Johns' yacht club, in connection with the use of a parcel of government land on the bank of the Richelieu river at St. Jean, province of Quebec.
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the government will be pleased to table this information.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
d'iberville
Motion No. 109-Mr. Dupuis:
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, lease and other documents exchanged between the Department of Transport and Messrs. Robert and Bernard Goineau or any other person or persons, in connection with the installation of gasoline pumps and a repair shop on a parcel of land belonging to the federal government on the shore of the Richelieu river at St. Jean-d'Iberville.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 110-Mr. Carter:
For a copy of any letters or communications received by the Prime Minister from the Newfoundland board of trade, since March 25, 1959, regarding term 29 of the terms of union, and any replies thereto.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I might say in this connection that there is just the one letter, and that letter was included in the documents produced in response to a recent motion made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingale):: Mr. Speaker, on this subject I wonder if I might be permitted to ask the Prime Minister if that is the only document in that other return, because it was the only one which reached my desk.


John George Diefenbaker: Whatever documents
were produced were the only ones.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances referred to by the Prime Minister would the hon. member wish to withdraw this motion? Is it the pleasure of the house that this motion be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion dropped.

Motions for Papers



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. Ill-Mr. Racine:
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged since January 1, 1955, between the federal government and the authorities of the states of Maine and New Hampshire and other persons, with respect to unemployment insurance benefits for Canadians employed by lumbering interests in the border states.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 112-Mr. Caron:
For a copy of the minutes of the several meetings of the unemployment insurance advisory committee convened on August 19, 1958.
Hon. Michael Slarr (Minister of Labour):: I have given this motion careful consideration, and in view of the fact that minutes of this sort have been considered as privileged documents, and because if such a practice were indulged in it would undermine the work of all such committees, I cannot accept it.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Will the minister not give consideration to the fact that he tabled-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but this motion is not debatable under the rules unless the matter is deferred for debate, and in these circumstances it is my duty to put the motion.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour how he justifies the refusal of the government to table the minutes of the meeting of the unemployment insurance advisory committee convened on August 19, 1958-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking about a matter that has been determined by the house within the last few

minutes. It is therefore a matter that is decided. On what basis would such a question be in order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I am asking, Mr. Speaker, is why the Minister of Labour saw fit to table the minutes of the unemployment insurance advisory committee of July 24 and 25, 1950, under the previous regime, when he refuses to table the minutes of a meeting of the unemployment insurance advisory committee in this instance.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand what the hon. member is asking. What I am interested in knowing is how it could be in order to ask such a question at this time. It is purely an argumentative question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, surely I am entitled to ask the Minister of Labour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless the hon. member can cite some authority for the propriety of the course he is seeking to follow I would ask him not to pursue it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would submit what is perhaps the best authority, and that is a statement containing the actual words of the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. I understand that the hon. member is trying to argue with the minister about a decision he expressed before the vote was taken on the basis of some other decision taken at an earlier time. I do not think it is in order to ask such a question at this stage. It may be in order to refer to it on the estimates or at some other time, but to my mind it is not the type of question that should be asked on orders of the day and I ask the hon. member not to pursue it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You ask me not
to pursue it, but with your permission I should like to pursue it because it is a matter that involves the rights of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: There are ways of dealing with the rights of parliament, but my decision is that it is not proper to ask this question on the orders of the day.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. As reported at page 3869 of Hansard the minister said this:
Yes, I believe it is a reasonable request, but my suggestion to the effect that there is a routine procedure to be followed is also reasonable.
This is my question. Would the minister tell me how he could change his mind so quickly?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member heard a previous attempt to introduce the same form of argumentive question, and-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, which I think affects all members of the house. On May 21 in connection with the matter to which my hon. friend has just referred, a question arose and it resulted in an inquiry by the hon. member of the minister as to what procedure should be followed to get certain information. The hon. member was told how to get that information, and because he was given that advice he himself did not pursue the matter further.
We now find that in attempting to get the information by that method, we cannot secure it because the government will not give it. I think that is a question of privilege. If the minister had not taken the stand he did the other day the matter would have been pursued then. We have now been foreclosed from getting that information from the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure where the previous attempt to get information took place. Was it in committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I did not make myself clear, Mr. Speaker. It was on May 21, on the orders of the day, as reported at page 3869 of Hansard, when the hon. member asked the minister whether he would table the minutes of a certain unemployment advisory committee meeting. The minister replied that that was a reasonable request but that there was a proper procedure to follow in getting that information. He made the request that that procedure should be followed, as a reasonable request, and it was followed by my hon. friend. As a result we have been foreclosed from getting the information from any source. The minister therefore misled the house, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose that if the minister had given an undertaking to produce the document it might have been a matter of privilege. But as the Leader of the Opposition recites what took place, I take it that the minister suggested that a motion be made for a return, something which has been done, and the house has now decided not to order the production of the document. I do not see how there can be any possibility of a question of privilege with regard to the house's decision. I would say that no question of privilege really arises at the present time.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Speaking to the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that on that date I was misled by the minister. From the way in which he spoke-"I believe

Inquiries of the Ministry it is a reasonable request"-I thought it would be given if I went through the ordinary channel to get the answer. If the minister had not led me to believe that he would give the information we would have pursued the matter at the time. Because the minister misled me at the time and refused the information today, we are denied the privilege of discussing the matter in the house. I believe this is a question of privilege for the members of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Deprived of debate by trickery.


Mr. Speaker:: There cannot very well be any question of privilege arising out of a vote freely taken in the house. I do not see how the hon. member can raise the point now. It is perhaps unfortunate that he did not pursue the matter on the earlier occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: As far as I am concerned the question of whether or not the document in question should be produced has been determined finally by a vote of the house. If there is anything to be made of what took place on an earlier occasion, it is any hon. member's privilege to raise the matter, of course, and to ask the house to deal with it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to hear from the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will withdraw the statement he made a moment ago. I know it followed in the course of another statement that was not in keeping with the position of the Leader of the Opposition, when he said that the minister had misled the house.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Sure he did.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Ottawa West is at his best when he is sitting down and keeping quiet. I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate should withdraw his statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Prime Minister say what he would like withdrawn?


John George Diefenbaker: I would think that the hon. member being about to write the history of Mr. King, and having-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the Prime Minister is introducing another point of order in the middle of the first one. The Prime

Minister is asking for a statement to be withdrawn. If he would allow me to deal with the first matter, then I would-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will you allow me to finish now?


An hon. Member:: A special privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: I have sat here quietly listening to all these slurs based on nothing more than imagination. I was asking that the hon. member withdraw the statement he made a moment ago that there was trickery in what had actually taken place. I suggest that statement is not in keeping with the responsibility of the house, however far the Leader of the Opposition goes in that direction.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister was allowed to finish his observations perhaps I might be permitted to say a word, because he asked me if I would withdraw-


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -the statement that the
minister had misled the house.


John George Diefenbaker: No, I did not ask that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the Prime Minister did say that to me. I said the minister had misled the house. I did not say the minister had knowingly misled the house, because the minister would not do that; but the minister did mislead the house unwittingly by taking the stand on May 21 to which I have referred, in which he advised an hon. member of this house of the procedure to be followed in order to secure certain information. In accepting that advice the hon. member let the matter drop.
Having taken that advice, the minister and the government now have refused to give the information asked for in accordance with the procedure which the minister himself stated was reasonable. That is why I said the minister had misled the house in the advice he had given the hon. member last Friday, and I do not withdraw that observation.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been raised as a matter of privilege that the Minister of Labour-I take it he is the minister referred to-has by his conduct offended the privileges of the house. What was said on the previous occasion is a matter of record in Hansard, as is also what has been said today. If there is any matter of privilege it is a privilege of the house, and is a matter for the house to deal with. Does the Minister of Labour wish to speak to the point?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the other day both the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Hull spoke to this matter. The hon. member for Hull requested that I table the minutes of the meeting which was held on August 19, 1958, and the member for Essex East asked whether it was a reasonable request. I said it was a reasonable request. Any request is a reasonable request; but it is still a decision for the minister to make whether such documents will be submitted. I pointed out to the hon. member for Hull that there was a procedure in this house under routine proceedings and orders of the day under the heading "Notices of Motions for Production of Papers".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,
before you go any further on this matter, may I ask if you do not think that not only the privilege of a private member is involved here but also the privileges of this house? The Minister of Labour tabled the minutes of certain meetings which were held in July, 1950. The minister was not asked to table those minutes; he did so voluntarily. Then when requested to table the minutes of the advisory committee meeting on August 19 last he said that he could not table those minutes because they were privileged documents. Surely that statement cannot be correct unless it also applies to the minutes of the other meetings which he voluntarily tabled, and I suggest that the minister owes it to the house to explain.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is now getting on to a different point. The question of privilege which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition relates to the conduct of the Minister of Labour on a previous occasion, which I take it is asserted becomes a matter or privilege by reason of the decision which the Minister of Labour announced to the house today.


Michael Starr: I think, Mr. Speaker, this will probably explain the situation. When I voluntarily tabled in this house four reports, I did so because the hon. member had asked me whether it was possible to have them tabled. If I had had any intention of tabling the minutes relating to all those reports I would have done so, but the hon. member will notice that out of the four reports only the minutes of one of the meetings were tabled.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: But the minister tabled those.


Michael Starr: Would the hon. member permit me to explain; unless he does not want an explanation, in which case I will sit down. The only reason those minutes were tabled
66968-9-253
Inquiries of the Ministry was because they were attached inadvertently. They were stapled and tabled inadvertently, and the hon. member can take my word for that. If 1 had noticed that the minutes were attached to that one report I certainly would not have tabled them.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I beg the right to say something now. The minister has said that he tabled the minutes of July 24 and July 25 inadvertently. If he makes that statement, of course under the rules of this house I must accept it. But since the minister has had ample opportunity to correct the situation and state that the minutes were tabled inadvertently, I can only conclude that his refusal to table the minutes is because the government is afraid to disclose their contents.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I think I must answer that charge. The hon. member has the report of the advisory committee.


Murdo William Martin: I want the minutes.


Michael Starr: The report highlights the discussions and the recommendations which went on in the course of the meeting and he has that information. Therefore he cannot possibly charge with any sense of honesty and decency that the government has anything at all to hide, because the report is tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: I think this matter has been pursued far enough. There is no motion before the house. If there is a matter of privilege involved it can be raised in the proper way by a motion. I can see how the difficulty arose, but the explanations have been given by the minister and it is up to members to consider the matter from that point on, and I hope the matter will be dropped now.
However, the right hon. Prime Minister raised a question which I have not yet disposed of.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat the exact words. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made the statement that the house had been deprived of debate by trickery. All I would suggest is that in the interests of maintaining the decorum of the house, the hon. member do what I think members in general would expect him to do, namely withdraw the statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say "the house had been"; I made the exclamation, "Deprived of debate by trickery". We have certainly been deprived of debate; that is abundantly evident. Whether it was by trickery or by some other means, I imputed no motive to any individual. If Your Honour

Inquiries of the Ministry says it is wrong to say that the house has been deprived of debate by trickery or if Your Honour feels it is unparliamentary, I shall withdraw the word "trickery", but unless Your Honour says so I will not withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear the words, and I am not sure they went on record in Hansard. However, a request has been made for their withdrawal and it is clear, now, what was said. It is true that unless a statement is offensive in the sense that it charges a member with some reprehensible conduct related to him specifically, it is not unparliamentary; but I think in the circumstances, when the discussion related entirely to the conduct of the Minister of Labour, the inference is there, and 1 should feel much better if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would indicate that he was not charging the Minister of Labour with trickery.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never intended to charge the Minister of Labour with trickery. I am quite willing to withdraw the word "trickery" and say that we were deprived by maladroitness.


George James McIlraith: I should now like to raise another point of order, and it is this. The Minister of Labour in referring to the hon. member for Essex East used the expression "if he has any sense of decency at all". Following the remarks which were made about the use of the word "trickery" I would say that the words "any sense of decency" implied that the hon. member for Essex East personally has no sense of decency. This is a direct charge against a named person, and I ask that those words should be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: I will give the minister a chance to say what he has to say about that.


Michael Starr: I do not recall the exact words. I think I said "If he had any sense of decency. .."


George James McIlraith: We have been in considerable difficulty this afternoon with regard to rulings which are, by the very nature of things, difficult to make. This statement was made by the Minister of Labour in the heat of an announcement on a somewhat complicated question, and the point of order was raised immediately afterward. The minister charged the hon. member for Essex East with having no sense of decency, because he said that if the hon. member had any sense of decency he would not have said what in fact he did say. I fail to see any distinction between that direct personal remark reflecting on the character of an hon. member who was

identified by name and the other somewhat general charge about what had been done.


Mr. Speaker:: I have given the minister who made the offensive remark his opportunity to speak. It was, unfortunately, offensive, but many remarks are offensive though they are not unparliamentary. The reason I felt so strongly about the use of the word "trickery" was that it does involve an underhand and deceitful course of conduct, and if any hon. member accused another of that I would feel it proper to ask that the word be withdrawn. The other matter is, to my mind, not something I should insist upon.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration arising out of a news report in this morning's Gazette to the effect that Mr. and Mrs. Volcy and their Canadian born daughter are now leaving Canada for the United States because, according to Mr. Volcy, they are tired of being watched by immigration officials, and that they would be permitted to remain in Canada if they were not coloured.
Would the minister care to comment on these statements and say what consideration is being given to cancellation of the deportation order so that a Canadian child will not be deprived of her birthright?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Assiniboia was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question and accordingly I have prepared a statement on this matter, which with the permission of the house I should like to present.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the answer is somewhat longer than is usual on orders of the day?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member permission to proceed with the answer?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Thank you. The facts of the case are as follows. Jean Oreste Volcy is a citizen of Haiti, 29 years of age. He entered Canada on September 6, 1951, at which time he claimed he was single and was destined to the Institut Agricole d'Oka, Quebec, to study agronomy. He remained at

that institution until the end of March, 1952, and left the institution when he failed to pass his examinations.
He registered with the school of veterinary medicine in St. Hyacinthe, Quebec in September, 1952, but again failed to pass. On July 28, 1953 he registered with the school of textiles at St. Hyacinthe, Quebec, where he obtained a diploma in cotton weaving on June 13, 1956.
On May 29, 1956 he started working for Bathurst Containers as a take-off man. At that time he declared to his employers for income tax purposes that he had three dependents, i.e. a wife, Nicole, and two children, Jean age six, and Nicole age three, all of whom he claimed were residing in Montreal.
On June 18, 1956 he registered with the Institut Alie, Montreal, for a commercial course which was due to start in September of that year. According to a letter from the Institut Alie he quit his studies there about November or December, 1956, leaving an unpaid balance of $60.
In September, 1956 he had been granted an extension of stay in Canada to expire on September 1, 1957. On September 3, 1957 Mr. Volcy called at the Montreal immigration office and requested a further extension of stay in Canada stating he was registered with the Elie business college. It was subsequently established that he had registered at the Elie business college at the beginning of September, 1957 but did not present himself when courses started on September 9, 1957, and it has been confirmed that he never attended any courses at that institution.
When he applied for an extension of his temporary stay in September, 1957, Mr. Volcy stated that he was single and requested an extension on the basis that he was still a student. He definitely claimed he would never apply for permanent admission. He also denied being employed at that time. The requested extension was granted on the basis of the information furnished, but it was subsequently established that Mr. Volcy was not then single, nor was he a student, he was employed, and in fact he later applied for permanent residence.
Upon subsequently learning that Mr. Volcy was married an effort was made to locate him at the last address furnished the immigration officials, but he had moved and his whereabouts were unknown. In November, 1957 he was located in Montreal, and when an officer of the immigration branch called to interview him a person now known to be Mrs. Volcy denied she was his wife and claimed to be only a friend.
It was established, however, that the Volcys were married in New York city in August, 66988-9-2531
Inquiries of the Ministry 1957, four months previously. Mr. Volcy further admitted that the dependents he previously claimed for income tax deduction purposes were non-existant. Mr. Volcy's attorney at this time suggested that Mr. Volcy be granted the privilege of effecting voluntary departure from Canada.
The first order of deportation was issued against Mr. Volcy in October, 1957, at which time it was not known he was married. A new order was issued in April, 1958 in which his wife, Mrs. Volcy, was included. At this time they had no children. I might say that the child has never been included in the order of deportation, and in fact remains a Canadian citizen and travels on a Canadian passport, with the right to return to Canada at any time.
When the Volcys were served with the order of deportation their solicitor argued that they had not been given an opportunity to establish that they were not subject to deportation. To meet the solicitor's objection the first order of deportation issued in April was cancelled and new orders were issued by the minister on October 28, 1958, only after a complete review of the representations made by the solicitor on behalf of his client. These deportation orders were served on the Volcys on November 10, 1958, and they were released under a conditional bond on that date.
On November 14, 1958 a petition for prohibition was served on the minister, and this was dismissed by the courts in Montreal on December 19, 1958. On January 6, 1959 the solicitor filed an appeal and deportation was accordingly suspended. In the meantime the Volcys applied for United States visas in November, 1958 and they effected voluntary departure from Canada on May 24, 1959.
From the time the deportation order was first issued until they left Canada voluntarily they were never watched by immigration officials, as has been alleged, but remained at liberty while complying with the conditions of the bond under which they were released.
This case has been given a great deal of publicity, and it has been alleged that the Volcys were being deported because of their ethnic origin. I must deny this categorically. It is well known to hon. members that Canada admits students from many lands, and of every ethnic origin, and they encounter no difficulty as long as they continue their studies. It is evident from the summary of the Volcy case, however, that from 1956, at least, Mr. Volcy has not been a bona fide student but has rather endeavoured to remain in Canada permanently by various devious means. He is not admissible as an immigrant under Canadian immigration

Inquiries of the Ministry regulations, and his record is not such as to warrant any special consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that this so-called voluntary departure, under threat of a deportation order, involves the exile of a Canadian citizen, does the minister not think that in this case humanitarian considerations should have priority over the department's adherence to the letter of the law being stubbornly upheld?


Mr. Stinson:: That is very cheap.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, as I said when my estimates were before the committee, what the hon. member is now saying does not jibe at all with his practice when he occupied this post.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the hon. lady a further supplementary question. I will not comment on that remark, because I said what I had done at that time was wrong. I should like to ask the hon. lady if, as she promised during consideration of her estimates, any further consideration was given to this case after it ceased to be sub judice?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It did not cease to be sub judice until they departed from this country last evening.


George James McIlraith: May I
ask a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if he or his department provided the information to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concerning what was contained in the income tax returns as to the number of dependents of this immigrant, and now made public by the minister?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: The answer is no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask if she could disclose to the house where she got that information?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not think there is any secret about it. It was given to us by employers who had in their possession form TD-1, which all employees fill in when they claim more than the statutory exemption of $1,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. lady think she is entitled-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This seems to be developing into a debate. Does the hon. member wish to ask a further supplementary question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: My supplementary question is this. In view of the fact that it has


always been clearly understood that the government does not make public information on income tax returns, I should like to ask the hon. lady if she thinks she was entitled to give information of this sort to the public.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Answer.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I will now quieten the atmosphere by asking a non-controversial question of the Minister of Public Works. In view of the general concern that the historic and beautiful Harrington lake residence and property be preserved and used to the best advantage, will the government recognize this concern and interest by the introduction of legislation that will establish this property as an official government country residence for use by the Prime Minister, his distinguished guests and other appropriate persons?


Howard Charles Green: I should like to thank the hon.
member for giving me notice of this question. The suggestion he makes will be given serious consideration by the government, and should it be the wish generally of hon. members that such a course be followed I should think legislation could be introduced at this session.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister. May I ask the Prime Minister if during the course of the visit of the Prime Minister of Australia, he had an opportunity to discuss with him the subject matter of the air agreement between that country and Canada, and what progress if any has been made up to this time in the negotiations?


John George Diefenbaker: There was a general reference to that matter, but there was no progress made other than had already been achieved at the time of the arrival of the Prime Minister.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I wonder if he could advise

the house what his department is doing with respect to the veterans in Sarnia who are tenants of C.M.H.C., and who are out on strike against the Polymer Corporation?


Howard Charles Green: On Friday last I announced that I thought arrangements could be made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in connection with those tenants who are in arrears. Now a special representative is being sent to Sarnia to assist the branch manager there in interviewing the tenants who are in arrears. I am very hopeful that a settlement can be reached.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. I take it that my hon. friend's answer to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition the other day is still the same, namely that under no circumstances will the government tolerate any evictions taking place because these people are out of work, through no fault of their own?


Howard Charles Green: As I pointed out to the hon. member for Essex East the other day, there have been no eviction notices given. Whatever notices were given were notices of termination of tenancy, and eviction proceedings would only follow the expiration of the notice of termination. I can assure the hon. member that each of these cases will be examined very carefully on an individual basis, and I think he may rely on it that there will be no harsh methods allowed.


Murdo William Martin: No evictions; that is what I asked.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (Si. John's Easl):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the house if it is true that the government of Canada has offered to make available to the province of Newfoundland, under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, more than $9 million in order to make possible a 350,000 horsepower hydro development at Bay d'Espoir on the southeast coast of Newfoundland?
Right Hon. j. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): On Friday last I sent a telegram and a confirming letter to the premier of Newfoundland, informing him that this government is prepared to enter into agreement with his province to make possible the construction of a proposed power transmission line, in accordance with the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, on terms similar
Inquiries of the Ministry to those in an agreement made under this act with the province of New Brunswick.
The transmission line in question would be in connection with the development of a 350,000 horsepower hydroelectric power project at Bay d'Espoir by the British Newfoundland Corporation.
By and large, the cost of all transmission facilities in connection with the project would be capitalized at the date of completion of construction and funds made available by this government, repayable in 40 equal annual instalments with interest at the federal borrowing rate plus one-eighth of one per cent.
I might add that if the province of Newfoundland wishes to enter into such an arrangement, I hope the premier will let me know at an early date.



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will there be in the census of 1961 a question which will permit people to indicate their ethnic or racial origin?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a statistical question if there ever was one.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, that question arose in the house on February 24 and was answered on that occasion. There must be a misunderstanding among some people in Canada with regard to this matter, or perhaps the information has not reached them through the press. The answer is that there will be two questions on the census return, one dealing with the country of citizenship, to which the answer will normally be, of course, "Canada," although those who have not their citizenship papers will reply "United Kingdom" or "United States" or whatever country of which they happen to be a citizen. There is a blank space left if the country is not named in the form. It is open to people to indicate and write in the country if it is not listed.
Then there is a second question: "What is your ethnic descent on the father's side?" There people may list their ethnic descent as they wish. The form carries about 24 types of ethnic groups, and again a blank space is left for those who do not find there the one they wish to put down. To that question people may answer "Canadian" if they so desire, or "English" or "Welsh" or "French" or "Polish" or whatever ethnic group from which they claim descent.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Erhart Hegrier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Would he not agree that asking people for their ethnic origin is in opposition to the Prime Minister's earlier opinions, often expressed in Canada, namely that he is opposed to hyphenated Canadians?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There has been a great demand that I have received by way of letters and representations that this type of question appear on the census return.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the report on the radio news this morning concerning negotiations between the C.B.C. and its employees, can the minister bring the house up to date with regard to the position of the negotiations?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, there has been no direct communication with me as Minister of Labour with regard to these discussions which are going on at the present time. I have only the information I have read in the newspapers.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just follow that matter up. I asked a question earlier, perhaps a week or ten days ago, and the minister indicated that his officers were at the disposal of either side. Have his officers been requested to help bring about a settlement in this case?


Michael Starr: Not to my knowledge.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo inquired if contracts have been awarded for the two vessels to be built for the Newfoundland coastal service. Contracts have not yet been signed but the necessary submissions to treasury board have been made, and as soon as approval is received formal contracts will be entered into.
[Mr. Churchill.)



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether or not two engineers of the Canadian maritime commission have been in Michigan investigating the possibility of buying the ship Vacation-land to be used in the ferry service to Prince Edward Island? If so, has the minister had a report, and when will a decision in this regard be made?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that
engineers have been looking over the Vacation-land. A decision has not yet been made.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question in the same field. Can the minister say whether or not a report on the feasibility of a causeway to Prince Edward Island is expected to be received by the minister in June?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege, and this also has to do with the production of papers. On April 15 in my absence the house agreed to motion No. 25 for the production of documents and correspondence in connection with the Saint John thermal plant. On May 18, when I asked the Minister of Northern Affairs when he might expect the tabling of the correspondence and documents as agreed on April 15, having to do with the Saint John thermal plant, the minister answered as reported on page 3743 of Hansard:
As I recall the motion accepted on April 15, it was on the understanding that if an agreement was signed with the province.
The minister ended by saying that he was not able to table the documents. Mr. Speaker, the minister has no right to take it upon himself to refuse to table documents whose production has been approved by the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has heard the matter raised; that there was an order for the production of documents which has not been complied with. Has he any statement to make?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I recall the events of that day there were four motions on the order paper- I have forgotten the exact number-and one

of them was a motion by the hon. member for Assiniboia who got up and suggested, as I recall the debate, that in order to get these items off the order paper I should accept them and then, after the agreements had been signed, table the documents. I accepted the suggestion and then asked if we could revert to the three previous motions which had been allowed to stand and suggested that they could be passed under the same conditions. You, Mr. Speaker, asked whether it was acceptable that those three motions should pass under those circumstances, and they went through. That is what happened, according to my recollection.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1 am not speaking of what I recall. I am speaking on the basis of the records of the house as reported on page 2705 of Hansard. Motion No. 25 has been agreed to without any conditions whatever, and for this reason I feel the house has the right to have these documents produced.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion is that the motion has not yet been complied with. Is the minister prepared to comply with the motion?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am prepared to comply with the motion the minute an agreement is signed, but when agreements are under discussion between two governments it is not proper to table the documents.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The records of the house do not say anything about the signing of agreements. This is a motion to produce certain documents-a motion which was agreed to by the house-and a month later the minister says he is not able to table the documents.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has stated his point. It is clear from the record that the motion was made. Motions are to be complied with, of course. If not, I conceive that it raises a matter of privilege for the house to deal with.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 22, 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.
Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: 
The bill does introduce a new principle, recommended by the Borden commission, that no pipe line and no international power line shall be built until the board has certified as to the public convenience and necessity of the project. This, of course, is the legal way of saying that the board must consider the factor of competition and the possible injury which a proposed line might do to an existing line. After all that the Conservative party has said about encouraging competition, the introduction of legislation making "public convenience and necessity" a factor is to say the least an interesting development.
But this principle is to go hand in hand with another principle, namely control by the government; for it is clear from the bill that no new pipe line for the transmission of hydrocarbons may be built, even if its public convenience and necessity are fully established to the satisfaction of the board, unless the government gives its approval. This is an entirely new requirement, which seems to be in strange contradiction with the lofty statements made by the Prime Minister in Hull on May 7, 1957 when, according to the Ottawa Citizen of May 8, he said:
We will put a stop to the government going into business and gradually exercising control over the economy.
The bill also introduces another surprising principle. I say "surprising" because it is in direct contradiction of what was said in the house by the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green). If we look at page 1528 of Hansard of February 25, we can read the following words uttered by the present Minister of Public Works when he was sitting on this side of the house in 1955:
I do not suppose it would be possible to have a power of revocation much wider than the one contained in the present act. Then there is the power to limit exportation to the surplus after Canadian needs have been met, and also to regulate the price on export so that price will not be lower than the price charged to Canadian consumers.
This refers to the present requirement of the regulations adopted pursuant to the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act. Regulation 9 requires that the price for power or gas exported by a licensee shall not be lower than the price at which power or gas, respectively, is supplied by him or his supplier in similar quantities and under similar conditions of sale for consumption in Canada.
The Montreal Star of March 15, 1958, in reporting a meeting at Calgary on the previous day, said:
Mr. Dlefenbaker added, however, that his government was determined to see that gas prices charged in Canada were not used to subsidize gas sales at cheaper prices to the United States.

I may not, on second reading, quote the relevant provision of the bill, but I do point out that the act under which the present regulations were adopted is to be repealed and that the bill does no more than to require the price for export to be just and reasonable. It does not say that gas prices charged in Canada are not to be used to subsidize gas sales at cheaper prices to the United States, despite all the determination which the Prime Minister expressed when he addressed a meeting in Calgary.
The bill contains yet another principle on which I wish to comment. It is that the government proposes to arrogate to itself the power, without further reference to parliament, to control through the board the importation of oil. As to this vitally important matter, as to the reasons for asking for such far-reaching authority, such exorbitant power for the executive, all the minister could say last Monday was:
However, a section of the bill will deal with this important matter and if approved by parliament will give authority to the governor in council to extend the application of the relevant portion of the bill to oil.
These words may be found at page 3768 of Hansard of May 18. Not one word of argument, not one single reason was invoked by the minister in support of the preposterous demand for more power for the executive. What has he said on Friday which adds to the empty words he used on Monday last?
I shall close by drawing attention to the fact that repeatedly in the bill the government is asking parliament to permit it by order in council to modify the requirements of the bill, to exempt some from its application, and to adopt regulations without their nature and scope being specified.
Mr. Speaker, we have waited nearly two years for this bill. We had been led to expect some bold steps forward, but we find on reading the bill that, as the minister has said, it draws extensively upon the experience of the past. We find that the steps forward are timid and unpromising. But because the bill draws so heavily on Liberal legislation, there is a great deal in the bill to which we do not object. It fails to do much with regard to the integration of the existing agencies of the government that are concerned with energy in some form or another but I hope that when we consider the bill clause by clause we shall persuade the government that many improvements in the bill ought to be made.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill which in essence sets up the machinery to organize and regulate the use and export of our
National Energy Board energy resources in Canada and also establishes a national energy board I believe I can safely say it is one of the most important pieces of legislation particularly for western Canada that has been considered by parliament for many years. It is just as important or perhaps even more important that the farm stabilization bill which considered for the first time the element of cost of production when setting floor prices.
For many years prior to the setting up of the Borden commission and since that date the people of the province of Alberta have been waiting and watching with anxiety for the implementation of a sound federal policy in reference to our national resources, natural gas and petroleum. I commend this legislation to the house as giving us that sound policy.
In particular the people of Alberta have been watching with anxiety to see what medium would be set up to consider, approve and reject applications for the building of transmission pipe lines for the transmission of gas and for the purpose of the export of natural gas, a top economic energy source produced in western Canada today which has been explored and discovered in large quantities and which exploration and discovery, I suggest, is still in its infancy.
For years in the province of Alberta the provincial Liberal party opposed the export of gas not only from Alberta to the United States but also to other parts of Canada, on two grounds. In the first place they felt there was an inadequate supply for the for-seeable future for Alberta and, secondly, that the export of natural gas to other parts of Canada and elsewhere would increase the price of natural gas to the consumer in Alberta. These objections were based on fear and lack of knowledge rather than on vision and logic.
We have only to examine the Canada Year Book of 1957-58 and refer to page 510 to determine the tremendous development that has taken place. I should like to place the following on the record:
The rapid development of Canada's petroleum and natural gas resources, initiated by the Leduc oil field discovery of 1947, continues unabated. At the end of 1956 proved reserves of crude oil and natural gas liquids totalled 3,129,304,000 barrels compared with 72 million barrels at the end of 1946 and during the intervening ten-year period, production amounted to 657,605,839 barrels. In 1956, the new oil found was more than three times the actual production which, at 170,569,200 barrels was more than 22 times the 1946 output. Natural gas reserves in 1956 were in excess of 23 trillion cubic feet compared with 4.7 trillion in 1950. Crude oil has, since 1953, maintained its lead in annual production value for all mineral produced in Canada and natural gas is entering the period of rapid growth.
May I suggest that what is set out in the Canada Year Book has been corroborated by

National Energy Board the Borden commission in the findings of that body based on ample evidence carefully examined. We now have a known and proven reserve of 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in Alberta and an unproven reserve estimated in the western Canada sedimentary basin of between 300 and 400 trillion cubic feet. I wish now to place on the record a statement from the report of the Borden commission:
Although the findings of the oil and gas conservation board indicate that Alberta had, as at March 31, 1958, only 4.1. trillion cubic feet of natural gas, which could be declared surplus to future requirements of the province, existing permits and immediately contractable requirements of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited for Canadian market, the board estimated future discoveries to the year 1987 to be 51 trillion cubic feet. It concluded that future Canadian requirements, other than those mentioned, would be adequately protected by these future expected discoveries.
May I suggest that a very good analogy which emphasizes the weakness of the argument to keep the natural gas in Alberta for Albertans is the same type of argument that was used in the 20's in reference to the coal reserves of Alberta. This argument was used by speakers both inside this house and outside of it approximately 20 or 30 years ago. Although it was said then that Alberta had approximately 65 per cent to 75 per cent of the coal reserves of Canada, there were those who were shortsighted enough to argue that we must be careful about exporting coal to ensure that the reserves in Alberta did not become depleted; they might not be sufficient for the foreseeable needs of the people of that province and of Canada.
Today we find that a new form of energy, natural gas, has replaced coal. These 30 years have gone by, and what has happened? We were so cautious that we went to bed with our coal. Some people say coal may have a future in 20 or 30 years, but that is little comfort today to the people in Alberta who have gone bankrupt in the coal industry nr to those miners who are now unemployed. May I suggest that the time was long overdue Tor the appointment of this royal commission. The last speaker talked about delay. I say that there was delay on the part of the former government because they should have set up this commission at an earlier date and introduced the legislation that is now before us.
This bold and aggressive step taken by this government to set up the energy board, with the powers outlined in this bill, should give the people in Alberta and the rest of the prairie provinces, assurance that we shall not go to bed with the natural gas in Alberta and elsewhere as we did with coal. A sound federal policy setting up the energy board will stimulate exploration and hence
[Mr. WooUiams.l
further discovery of natural gas well beyond the imagination of those experts who made these estimates. Often estimates are only guesswork. The production of natural gas will produce untold wealth and create a new and far-reaching prosperity for western Canada, and hence Canada generally. One has only to look back on the pages of history to find that the early explorers who first set eyes on the prairie plains described them as a windswept desert and a non-productive plain. What does the record show? Over the years we have seen the prairies produce in one year from 400 million to 600 million bushels of wheat and millions of head of cattle.
What we need today is men of vision and foresight in connection with this particular form of energy, such as we had in connection with the development of the prairies for agricultural purposes. Let us not be planners filled with fear and caution with reference to the development of natural gas and with reference to the export of natural gas.
The energy board that is set up by this legislation can and should be in a position to decide expeditiously-which is always important in industry-the quantity of the surplus that can be exported in order to make use of the developed resources and turn this natural gas into wealth that can be used for further exploration and discovery. If the early pioneers had been forbidden to produce grain in such quantities on the prairies since 1900 because of the fear of wearing out the most valuable resource of all in western Canada, the topsoil, what development would have taken place in the west? The important part of this legislation is that one body, the energy board, is empowered to give permission to build transmission pipe lines and to license the export of gas. Both of these decisions are a necessary part of the marketing of the commodity.
I presume, from a reading of the bill itself, that this board will be set up similar to a court, and will examine evidence which may suggest that another pipe line should be built or that some amount of gas should be exported. Then, after this examination of the evidence, the board will exercise its discretion, subject of course to the approval of the governor in council. These decisions are a necessary part of the marketing of the commodity. This is a superior method to having two important steps controlled by two independent authorities, the board of transport commissioners and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill).
In brief, I commend this legislation to hon. members because the authority to permit the building of a pipe line and the obtaining of

an export licence are under the jurisdiction oi one body, the energy board. Under clause 27 of the bill in question-I believe I am right in saying that on second reading I am discussing the principle of the bill and I should not read the wording of the clauses of the bill-a certificate of public convenience may be granted, while under clauses 82 and 83 a licence to export gas may likewise be granted. Both of these decisions can no doubt be made at the same time and based on the same evidence. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated in his remarks when introducing this legislation, "This method will simplify the procedure". May I quote from his remarks when introducing this legislation? He said:
At the same time, since they must compete at the point of origin for supplies of gas and compete at the point of sale with other fuels and energy sources, there is a substantial element of risk for gas transmission companies. For this reason they must not be prevented by regulatory action from earning a return sufficient to attract capital, nor must management be deprived of the normal incentive to improve efficiency.
In these words, we see the element of flexibility in the bill. Then, the minister further stated, and I quote:
Neither in the case of oil pipe lines nor in the case of gas pipe lines will the public gain anything if regulation is so restrictive as to put the pipe lines out of business, or discourage their normal development, or impede the building of new pipe lines to serve new or expanding markets, or restrict the essential work of exploration and discovery of further reserves of oil and gas. Our objective, therefore, is to find the means and level of regulation that will adequately protect the public interest, and particularly the interest of the consumer, while maintaining healthy conditions for the pipe line industry, the oil and gas producing industries and the industries distributing oil products and gas for consumption.
This flexibility is necessary to maintain the interest, first of the industry itself so that it will continue to widen the horizon of discovery to ensure that new quantities of gas can and will be discovered. Millions of dollars have already been spent by the industry in question in exploring and discovering the reserves that we now have, and it was because of the risk that was taken and the faith that those in the industry had, that the Borden commission was able to report that there was, in fact, a surplus over and above the foreseeable future needs of Canada. As I said a while ago, 80 years ago there were those who spoke gloomily about the reserves of coal in Alberta. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that there is evidence that we went to bed with our coal, so let us hope this new legislation and this new board will make certain that we will not go to bed with the natural gas in Alberta.
We hear a lot from the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) about full employ-
National Energy Board ment and economic prosperity. If the government had seen fit to implement the regulations suggested by the hon. member which would have strangled the industry would the men in the petroleum and natural gas industry be willing to take the risk? Would they have faith in the future of the industry itself? I remember the same type of speech was made in 1945 in Saskatchewan by Premier Douglas and the members of his government. What took place? The drilling rigs that were situated in Saskatchewan pulled out and went into the province of Alberta. This is probably one of the main reasons that we have the development in Alberta which we have today because this was at the time of the Leduc discovery.
Sometimes when one sits in his place in the House of Commons and listens to the rantings of the hon. member for Assiniboia one is reminded of those early speeches that were made by the men who promoted the Russian revolution, which finally destroyed not only economic freedom but political freedom as well. It was the same kind of talk, I suggest, that drove the industry in question out of the province of Saskatchewan. May I suggest also that that industry returned to the province of Saskatchewan only when members of that government had finally realized that there was something to the system after all, and they themselves saw that they could enrich their own pockets; and so there must have .been a place * in industry for others.
In reference to the stand which the Liberal party has taken in the province of Alberta, I should like to read from an editorial of December 11, 1957 in the Calgary Albertan, in which is discussed the Liberal stand in reference to the export of gas at that time. It reads in part as follows:
Last weekend the provincial Liberal party had a meeting of sorts in Edmonton. Naturally it had to say something about gas. But a more meaningless and cowardly statement it could not have made. The party is still obviously confused, still hopelessly ignorant of the industry and issues.
It called for a "maximum availability of natural gas for domestic and industrial users in the province, having regard to economics involved". Nobody disagrees. Nobody at all. But does the provincial Liberal party realize that the maximum local availability can only be obtained as the result of a vast and thriving export industry.
It called for a provincial gas policy which would "encourage the establishment of new industries within the province".
There again, evidence is conclusive that the maximum local industrialization will come through a policy of maximum export. If the Liberal party agrees, why it is beating around the bush?
Finally, it says "any policy of gas export from Albera shall first take into consideration the present and future interests of the province, and especially the matter of protecting the consumers of Alberta in the matter of costs".

National Energy Board.
There again there should be no doubt or hesitation. With export,-
That is to the rest of Canada.
-the price is likely to go up. Without export it is likely to go up very much higher. And besides the benefits accruing to the people from a healthy gas export industry will far more than offset any increase in price.
So, is the provincial Liberal party in favour of gas exports or is it not? If it is, why doesn't it say so? If it has the best interests of the province at heart, why doesn't it add its voice to the protests of the government?
Speaking personally, Mr. Speaker, may I say that it seems to me that natural gas is a commodity which is different from beef or wheat. It seems to me that there is a weakness in the argument, which is to keep gas in Alberta or in any other province and that it is just as weak as that which says "keep beef in the foothills of Alberta because the price will be cheaper". But where will be the prosperity of the rest of the province and of the rest of the country? The same argument would apply with regard to wheat. Hence, when I hear Liberals stand in their places and criticize this government about delay, I would remind them of what has taken place in the province of Alberta. The Borden commission should have been set up by the previous government and the energy board should have been set up by the previous government so that we could have got things going, so that there would be prosperity in the west such as we have never seen before.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) inasmuch as they are so reassuring. Every time we listen to him we get a little bit more evidence of the rightness of the cause of the members of the C.C.F.
In order to deal with this bill that is before us today, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate to do a little review as to just what are the reasons why we have it before us. Bills do not come before the house just for the sake of giving us something to do. Usually there is a good reason and sometimes there is a long neglected reason before we get a bill presented to the house for its approval. I think we all realize that this bill is based, at least to a certain extent, on the report of the royal commission which was appointed on October 15, 1957 and which of course brought in the report of October 1958.
If we go back a little further I think we will realize that the royal commission was set up as a result of the Trans-Canada pipe line debate which almost rocked this house on its very foundations. In fact, I

think we could pin it down even closer than that if we refer to the remarks of the former hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar when he spoke in this house during the 1957-58 session. At that time he referred to the remarks made by the former leader of the Conservative party. In connection with this particular bill which is before us now I think it might be an appropriate time to put those words on record again. These are his words as found at page 4673 of Hansard of June 4, 1956:
*-enlarge the powers of the crown corporation so that the entire pipe line may be constructed immediately under public ownership.
Mr. Speaker, all this has led up to the report of the royal commission of last year. But what has happened to the important recommendations contained in that report? In this bill which is before us today what is there that enables this board to deal with the famous Texas buccaneers, to use the words of our present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker)? What indeed is contained in this bill to deal with the Ontario buccaneers who had improved even on the Texas buccaneers, and go right up to cabinet rank in their government? Where are the safeguards that are going to give protection to the people of this country in the future where they did not have protection in the past? We find some of these recommendations in the report of the commission but we do not find any in this bill. For a moment I should like to give one or two examples. If we turn to page XII of the royal commission report, recommendation 21, paragraph (b), we find these words:
(ii) The financial structure, ownership, financing, engineering and construction plans of any applicant and the opportunity for the people of Canada to participate in the financing, engineering and construction of the project.
I think those are significant words. I should like to draw particular attention to the words "and the opportunity for the people of Canada to participate in the financing". I should now like to turn to the bill that is before us in order to see how this particular phase appears in that bill. In clause 44, paragraph (d) we find these words:
(d) the financial responsibility and financial structure of the applicant, the methods of financing the line and the extent to which Canadians will have an opportunity of participating in the financing, engineering and construction of the line;
There is quite a difference in the phraseology or the wording of those two otherwise approximately similar sections. I do not know, of course, what the purpose of the commission was when they worded this particular recommendation as they did. However, I would go this far. I would say that

there is a reasonable doubt that they possibly came as close as the people sitting on this commission could come, when you realize their responsibilities, their duties and their position, to recommending that the trans-Canada pipe line and other similar projects should be public utilities in this country. I cannot see any reason why this particular clause should be worded as it is. There is certainly no hint given in the words of the clause of the bill. There is no room for doubt there; any doubt in regard to the recommendations of the royal commission has been very carefully left out.
Now I would like to come to another point. If we look at the report, on page IX we find recommendation 12, which has been mentioned before during this debate. It reads:
That the prices, tolls, rates or tariffs of a company owning or operating an oil or gas pipe line, as regulated by the board of transport commissioners for Canada, should be just and reasonable, non-discriminatory and calculated to yield a fair rate of return on the shareholders' equity, after making due allowance for reasonable and proper operating expenses, depreciation, interest, income and other taxes.
We find a section in the act which deals with the same subject, clause 52, entitled "Tolls to be just and reasonable". That clause reads as follows:
All tolls shall be just and reasonable, and shall always, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions with respect to all traffic of the same description carried over the same route, be charged equally to all persons at the same rate.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, we find that the very important and pertinent words "on the shareholders' equity" have been very carefully left out of this bill. I think this is very significant, Mr. Speaker. When we think back to the famous or infamous debate on the Trans-Canada pipe line and think of the ringing words of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoken in this very house about these Texas buccaneers, and so on and so forth, we must remember that at this time there was supposition on his part. We had not experienced their actual operations in this country; we had not seen just what these people would do. That no longer is so. We have had many opportunities to view just what these buccaneers have done, both the foreign and the domestic buccaneers.
I think possibly the actions we have seen over the past two or three years may have greatly influenced those recommendations which were brought down by this royal commission. But what has happened? In spite of the fact that the royal commission made the recommendations, this present government is still unwilling or unable to act in the interests of the Canadian people. Once
National Energy Board more if we look back at the bill, on page 18 we find clause 62, which deals with the general powers of the board. I am not going to read all of these different subclauses to clause 62, but it does raise another matter of which we have had ample experience in this country, and that is the question of the abuse that can be made of the law. As I understand it, this clause has been transferred almost word for word, if not word for word, from other legislation which was previously on the books of this country.
It is true that according to the law some of the practices which have been carried on by these various pipe line companies were actually outside the law. But there was no provision in the legislation to uphold the law, and consequently it was left to each poor individual little farmer, or whoever was involved, to hire expensive legal aid and to go through very expensive court action in order to uphold the law. I do not want to list at great length some of the practices to which I am referring. I would just like to refer hon. members to speeches made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and myself, found on pages 1183 and 1185 of Hansard for June 16, 1958. Hon. members will find many of them listed there, and they are some of the actions with which we are very familiar because they happened as the pipe line was going through my constituency. The only ones I would like to add today are ones which have been brought to my attention since the completion of that line.
As one reads the clause one finds that these companies are responsible for any damage done. They are responsible to leave the ground as they find it, and all that sort of thing. Unfortunately that is not the case. I could take hon. members to many places and many farms throughout my riding and throughout the riding of Timiskaming where great damage was done. Fences were not put back up again, fields were not graded. In one particular case a farmer's wood lot was expropriated and they cut a strip 200 feet wide, changed their minds and moved to another place where they cut another 200-foot strip through the farmer's wood lot, changed their minds again and went back to the first lot and left his property in that condition, and when he asked about damages they said he could go ahead and sue.
We have seen cases very recently of how much it costs to uphold the law of this country. I think an excellent example is the Roncarelli case in the province of Quebec where it cost, I think, something in the neighbourhood of $35,000 to uphold the law. I think the government has a duty to the people of this country to protect the small farmer and

National Energy Board other people who are involved who cannot afford costly law suits in order to uphold the law of the country.
Mr. Speaker, in the limited experience we have had I think it has been well demonstrated over the years that the best defence that the Canadian people can have in matters of this kind is that of public ownership of these utilities. At least when we have public ownership it is under the responsibility of the government, and the government is responsible to the people. Certainly these companies are not responsible to anyone but themselves. As has been demonstrated in many cases, they are not even responsible to the law unless one can afford to uphold the law. It is also quite apparent from this bill that the government has no intention of setting up anything, except what might be described as a Punch and Judy show as far as this board is concerned. I am sure the board will be out front dancing while the government is behind pulling the strings, because from what I can see of this bill that is all the board will be entrusted with.
If we look at the report of the royal commission, recommendation No. 23 on page XIII reads as follows:
That the enabling legislation contain provisions to ensure the independence of the members of the board.
When we pick up this bill we find clause after clause after clause is always subject to the approval of the governor in council. How can this board have any independence if every move it makes is subject to the approval of the governor in council? How can this board take any action against these pirates, either foreign or domestic, if it has to turn to the government every time for approval? Who knows, by this time these pirates may be just as good friends of this government as they were of the previous government. I maintain that the bill to set up this board is not doing the job which the people of this country expected. I maintain it is not doing the job that it should do. In fact, it would appear to me that this government is hiding behind this sham board which is being set up to take any blame that might be levelled at its policy, though, in reality, the board is obliged to do the government's bidding.
With this in mind, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier):
That this bill be not read a second time until further consideration has been given to the public ownership of interprovincial gas and oil pipe lines.


Mr. Speaker:: If any hon. member wishes to say anything about this proposed amendment he may do so. Otherwise, I will reserve the question for the time being and give consideration to it as the debate continues.


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Edmonton West):: I rise with a great deal of pleasure to speak on this energy bill because, like many hon. members in this house, I feel that the principle of the establishment of a national energy board is one which should have been adopted long ago.
I felt some concern listening to the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) the other day when he indicated that the national Liberal convention of 1958 had advocated the setting up of a national energy board. I think that at that time-and today, too-we would accuse him and his colleagues of "me tooism", because up to that date they had not indicated any intention of considering the establishment of a national energy board or of a national energy plan.
I wish to confine my remarks today to the oil and gas industry, as this represents a most urgent question. It is true that coal is a form of energy which presents a serious problem, but I suggest that this is a matter of somewhat longer range. We in Alberta have great quantities of coal, and regardless of the remarks which were made by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) the other day, coal is certainly going to be studied by the Borden commission. Surely one cannot expect the commission to look into every facet of energy within its terms of reference before writing a report; in other words, surely he does not expect we should have to wait for the whole study to be completed before we could consider those immediate aspects which are of particular importance to us today.
The oil and gas industry is a very young and virile industry. It made its debut on a commercial basis in 1920, but one could go back a good deal earlier in history as far as Ontario is concerned, though production was on no very great scale. Our oil and gas industry in this country really dates from February, 1947 with the discovery of Leduc No. 1. Today it has advanced to its present position, I would suggest, under the stimulus of several factors; first, a greatly expanding domestic and foreign market; second, the Middle East crisis of 1955-56, which created a scarcity of petroleum products on the North American continent and, third, the methods of development by reason of the very nature of oil and gas, and also because of the land policy adopted in this country which encourages development. There have been many criticisms of this policy.
Let us look at the progress the oil and gas industry has made. First of all, it has climbed in the short space of 12 years into the No. 1 spot among Canada's mineral producing industries, in terms of capital investment, employment created and value of

production. Second, oil refining capacity-in Canada has been trebled to a current 800,000 barrels daily, an expansion which has kept pace with the near tripling in 12 years of Canada's petroleum consumption. Third, another indication of growth is that oil productive capacity, only 20,000 barrels daily 12 years ago, has increased over fifty fold to a current potential exceeding one million barrels a day. Fourth, oil markets climbed from 20,000 barrels daily in early 1947 to over half a million barrels daily in
1957.	They slumped to some 460,000 barrels in 1958 due to reduced export demand, but they began 1959 at well above half a million barrels daily, still only about 54 per cent of potential. Canada's production now equals about two-thirds of Canada's consumption, although the nation's productive capacity makes self-sufficiency either in fact or in balance quite feasible.
Proven reserves of crude oil and other liquid petroleums, which were under 100 million barrels at the beginning of 1947, climbed to about 3.6 billion barrels by the end of 1958, despite production of some one billion barrels in the 12-year period. In
1958,	for each one barrel produced, more than three barrels of reserves were discovered.
Proved reserves of natural gas, which were about 1.5 trillion cubic feet at beginning of 1947, climbed to about 28.5 trillion cubic feet by the end of 1958 despite production of 1.8 trillion cubic feet in the 12-year period. In 1958, despite record production of about 400 billion cubic feet, almost ten cubic feet of reserves were discovered for each one cubic foot consumed.
A recent summary published by the Alberta government indicates that in the period between 1947 and the end of 1958 there have been drilled in Alberta 9,121 oil wells, 1,335 gas wells and 3,975 dry wells. Remember that last figure: it represents a tremendous loss in investment. Taking into account the adjustments from 1959 to date, recent figures indicate that there are some 8,800 producing wells in Alberta and some 3,850 in Saskatchewan. In Alberta there are some 700 producing gas wells and about 870 capped gas wells. These capped wells represent a tied up investment of close to $200 million from which no one is drawing any benefit. In that period of time, 1947 to 1958, some $2,800 million was spent on exploration and development, and in the last three years money was spent at a rate in excess of $360 million per annum. That is an indication, Mr. Speaker, of the investment that has been made not only by Canadians but by people
National Energy Board foreign to this land in our oil and gas industry in the short space of 12 years.
What has that industry meant to Alberta? It has meant the employment of upwards of 150,000 people who in some way or other derive all or part of their livelihood from exploration, development and production and marketing of oil. Second, we have had a multi-million dollar petrochemical industry established in that area. Third, we have a steel industry, a pipe mill and fabricators. We had indications just the other day that one of our eastern Canadian firms plans to establish a new $10 million mill to produce up to 42-inch pipe, in the largest diameter to be produced in this country. Fourth, the revenues to the province of Alberta from the sale of crown reserves and leases, lease rentals and royalties amounted to the sum of $855,490,000 from the first of January 1947, to March 31, 1959. We have seen tremendous years such as 1956 and 1957. Nineteen hundred and fifty-eight saw a decline because of the incursion of imports into the North American market and the so-called voluntary curbs by the United States refineries and some decline of business activity. The first quarter of 1959 has seen a pickup. The rate this year is higher than 1958 but it is still only 75 per cent of the rate of 1956 and 1957.
The industry in Alberta last week produced about 319,000 barrels a day, which is only 40 per cent of the rated capacity. With these figures, I believe I can underline the seriousness of the problem of oil production and marketing. Recently there was a lifting of the compulsory quotas imposed by the United States. What has been the result? First of all there was an increase in the nominations from the Puget sound refineries to about 55,000 barrels a day, as announced this week by the nominations from those refineries to the Alberta gas conservation board. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) indicated the other day, the situation must be watched carefully. We must always remember that the United States refineries may choose United States domestic oil or Canadian crude oil and, therefore, the fact that those restrictions were lifted does not necessarily mean that an extra barrel of Canadian oil need be sold. However, we see that some is being sold.
Although it has been said that while the removal of restrictions may not mean an immediate increase-and I have indicated that there had been a slight, hopeful one in Canadian production-over the longer term this action will encourage an increase in the movement of Canadian oil into the natural and economic export markets of the United States.

National Energy Board
I would like to extend my congratulations to the government on the energetic steps it took to have the mandatory controls removed. I am sure that the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan-in fact the people of the whole country-will be gratified to know just how much encouragement and attention were given to this problem by their own individual members. However, removal of those quota restrictions in the United States does not increase the market for western crude in eastern Canada. In fact, the reverse may be the result, because it may serve to make competition more acute as the result of a diversion of more fire-sale crude into the eastern Canadian market. Mr. Speaker, eastern Canada must not become a dumping ground for foreign crude at the expense of domestic crude. The situation must be watched very carefully and ultimately drastic measures may be necessary. This is why I would support provisions in the act which permit the imposition of controls on oil imports or exports by proclamation when the situation may demand it.
We have just heard this afternoon, and on previous occasions, criticisms by the Liberal opposition to the effect that this gives wide and sweeping controls; it is an abdication of control by parliament. But, Mr. Speaker, surely those hon. gentlemen do not think that if the situation did boil up in the oil industry, and it could do so very quickly, we should have to wait for the summoning of another session of parliament to amend the act to bring those provisions into effect. It has been argued that it has made the position of the Borden commission impossible. But surely the situation is that the Borden commission will make its recommendations in connection with oil matters. Without binding itself in any specific way, the government has now made an open ruling. It may adopt the recommendations, not only of the Borden commission, but from other sources for dealing with the problem when it arises. I cannot see why there should be this criticism.
I can conceive, for example, of a situation arising. Last March there were price cuts in the pipe line rate of from 5 to 12 cents a barrel, and posted purchase prices for light crude were dropped from 14 to 17 cents a barrel. This meant an over-all price cut of between 19 and 29 cents a barrel in eastern Canada. What it really meant was a reduction of $25 million to the producers in western Canada. But no sooner was that cut introduced than we saw a matching reduction in the price of off-shore crude, so that the net result of the reduction was absorbed by the oil producers of western Canada.
We must also study, and with some concern, the effect of the potential movement of off-shore crude by tanker through the St. Lawrence seaway, which at the moment cannot be assessed.
People, including the premier of Alberta, have tried to lay the blame for the present situation with respect to the marketing of oil at the door of this administration. As pointed out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day, quotas on imports and so forth which might be imposed by the Canadian government could have many serious short range implications; indeed, it could very seriously complicate our foreign trade position. I do not say it necessarily will but there are warning signs. We can see the warning that there are difficulties ahead. Unless the position drastically worsens, it would not appear that quotas are the immediate answer.
A suggestion has been made by certain people, including the premier of Alberta, that the federal government should call together the major companies to allocate to their eastern refineries more western crude. This proposal could be considered but I am just wondering whether the premier of my own province has done anything in this regard. After all, his contacts with the oil company have been constant and repeated over the years and one would assume that he would have some influence with these companies. I wonder what would be his government's constructive contribution to the solution of the oil marketing problem.
May we now return to the field of natural gas. Like all Albertans I look forward to an early decision on the export of this form of energy and I am sure the government is moving toward this goal. I would, however, urge upon the government to not lose sight of the fact that the passage of months before a decision is reached on export could result in the loss of an entire year from the point of view of the industry. I need not point out in detail to the house the implications of delay on employment in the pipe line construction industry and on the oil well supply firms, on our steel mills and our fabricator mills. The oil industry is marking time. It is upon this background of which I am sure the government is aware that we are making progress toward a decision.
On the other hand I find somewhat morally dishonest any statement that there have been unjustifiable and unnecessary delays in considering applications, let us say, of West Coast Transmission and Alberta and Southern Gas. After all, if we look at the record, the Alberta conservation board made its report on the application of these two companies

on March 18 last and the government decision authorizing export was made on April 7 last. No sooner had that decision been made than we heard allegations from certain government sources in the province of Alberta that it was all due to the delay of the federal government that we did not have immediate export of natural gas.
The answer to that criticism, if indeed it can be deemed a criticism, is this. Even if it had the machinery in existence, how could this administration consider a hypothetical question? It must be remembered that the export of natural gas is a two-phase operation. First of all we must consider export in excess of the needs of a province. This must be determined. We have the decisions in the case of the Alberta gas conservation board. Second, we have to consider the needs of Canada as a whole to determine whether there will be export from this country.
I am not going to speak on the application of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited which is now before this administration or on the new application now before the Alberta gas conservation board. It would appear to me, however, that Trans-Canada may now be shifting its feet since its appearance before the Borden commission. It now wants a further 420 billion cubic feet over 22 years so as to export 200 million cubic feet a day through Emerson. It would now appear that if the company is to fulfil its export quota it would have to use some of its Canadian allotment over the next few years.
It is not my intention this afternoon to go into detail in outlining the differences between the principles of the bill and the recommendations of the Borden commission. Other speakers dealt with this at considerable length the other day, particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith).
My own opinion of the speech of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) is that he has not read the bill or if he has read it he certainly does not understand it. I would have thought that clause 44 was a full answer to his remarks saving those which were of a strictly doctrinaire, partisan nature. The people of Canada have given their opinion as to the value they place on such remarks and the people who espouse them.
I should like to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) about the change in attitude in Saskatchewan when they first approached the problem of oil and gas. Oh yes, we had all sorts of comments like those put forward by hon. members in the far left corner about controls but the net result was that there
National Energy Board was drilling and no activity for years until the Saskatchewan government saw the light and acted just a little more favourably. They have now gone a long way from their original position, but that is not the position hon. members of the C.C.F. take in this house today.
As far as the Liberals are concerned, it would be interesting to see what has been their attitude on gas. In 1951-52 they were unalterably opposed to the export of gas not only from Canada-why, they would not even consider that point-but from the province of Alberta. Then last year during the course of the election campaign I seem to recall that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) at some meetings in Saskatchewan promised to grant a permit to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited for the immediate export of gas; but at the same time his provincial colleagues were introducing a motion in the legislature of Alberta which would have required specific reference to the provincial legislature for the granting of any new export permit or the increase of any existing permit. In other words, they were going to take the powers away from the Alberta gas conservation board and so we had the two of them going by divergent paths. This illustrates that the Liberal attitude on oil and gas has not been consistent over the years.
In so far as the Conservative party in Alberta is concerned it has consistently been in favour of the export of gas under appropriate conditions. As far back as 1952 it advocated the greatest possible participation by Canada in the financing of oil and gas pipe lines. I am glad to observe that clause 44 specifies that this is one of the conditions that the energy board will or may consider-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, and undoubtedly will.


Murdo William Martin: It does not say that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Undoubtedly this will be considered in the issuing of pipe line permits.
In 1952 I remember being among those who fashioned a plan of classified and limited financial participation by Albertans and other Canadian citizens similar in principle to the plan later adopted by the Alberta government in the setting up of the financial structure of the Alberta Gas Trunk Pipe Lines Company.
I feel that in the main this is a good bill but I have one suggestion to make. Bearing in mind the question of appeal in matters of law and jurisdiction I would have preferred to see an acceptance of the principle of the right of appeal with respect to tolls and tariffs; that is, the setting of tolls, the revocation and variation of tolls and traffic.

National Energy Board However, that right does not appear in the hill, but I would commend it to the serious consideration of the government. In the event this suggestion is not acceded to, perhaps one might hope for a favourable review or consideration of the matter in the working out of the bill with respect to this particular phase.
I should like to conclude by indicating what I think has been the reaction of the industry to this bill. In so doing, I should like to cite the words of the president of the Canadian petroleum association who, when asked to comment on this bill on May 23 last, had this to say:
The actions of government show an apparent desire to expedite the export of natural gas. The Canadian petroleum association has been pleased that some of the more extreme measures that have been suggested in the past do not appear in the bill, but the full effect of some of the regulatory powers contained in the bill will have to be judged by their application. In the interest of accelerating the movement of gas, the Canadian petroleum association does not wish to make any further comment at this time.
May I again congratulate the government upon bringing forward this bill and upon taking action which we hope, before too long, may see some regulated activity in the field of the gas industry. I would commend this bill to the house.


Murdo William Martin: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; does Your Honour intend to rule on the amendment at this stage or do you wish to hear representations upon it?


Mr. Speaker:: I thought I would leave it, if the debate goes on, until after the dinner adjournment. If the house is ready for the question, I would rule on the amendment immediately.


Murdo William Martin: I was wondering if the hon. member would permit a question before he resumed his seat?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, certainly.


Murdo William Martin: Does the hon. member think it was a change in the policy of the Saskatchewan government or a change in the policy of the companies in Saskatchewan which caused the oil industry to pick up in that province? If, as he has indicated, he believes it was a change in the policy of the government, could he outline any specific change in policy?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It would strike me, if my memory serves me right, that there was a considerable change in the attitude of the Saskatchewan government.
[Mr. Lambert.)


Murdo William Martin: Could you outline that change, please?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am sorry but I cannot pinpoint that at the moment. However, that is my definite impression.


Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Bell):: Mr. Speaker, if I rise to take part in this debate on second reading of Bill No. C-49, which is to establish a new board known as an energy board in our country, it is not because I feel I have the technical knowledge to discuss the objects and principles of the bill. However, I am pleased to state these objects and principles were well put before the house by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) last Friday afternoon. However, there are certain principles which I feel, as the representative of Nickel Belt, I should like to discuss because, as many hon. members have said, this bill is of great interest to the people of Canada, and possibly of even greater interest to the people of northern Ontario. It is in this area that these various forms of energy are of extreme importance in the development of industry.
The purpose of this bill is to establish a commission or board which, in the interests of the Canadian people, will be asked to regulate the construction and operation of oil and gas pipe lines, and to make regulations with respect to tolls, the export and import of gas and also the export of hydro. However, it is also of interest to note that the board is to study and review, on behalf of the people of Canada all matters pertaining to forms of energy which come within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. It is in this regard that the proper constitution of this new board becomes of importance.
There are, however, many indications of contradictions between the principles of the bill and the opinions expressed by members of the government. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) will agree that even the statement he made in introducing this bill had to be explained to this house and the people of Canada because it had been misconstrued. Everyone in Canada is familiar with the pipe line debate. This debate takes on an added significance now because we see the people who at that time made such strong protests against the expansion and transportation of the gas industry in Canada now bearing the responsibility for creating a new board which necessarily will regulate the transportation of gas.
Furthermore, I may say that the members of the Conservative party who have, on occasion, obstructed the expansion and transportation of gas in Canada now find their names linked in my province with profit making in the construction of the gas pipe

line. Of course, this bill will introduce into the development of forms of energy certain regulations but, as we all know, as society grows in Canada and elsewhere a certain amount of regulation is required. I agree with this. I am a great believer in the principle in medio stat virtus. There is no doubt that if we do have to have regulations, they must necessarily be just and proper under the circumstances. There would be great danger in Canada in either going too far, or having no regulations at all.
In this connection, I should like to place on the record the words of Mr. Askew, in his submission on behalf of the Sun Oil Company to the Borden commission, concerning this problem of infringing upon the liberty of people who try to better the development of industries in which they are interested. Mr. Askew had this to say as reported in the bulletin of the Sun Oil Company. He said:
The flight from this philosophy has been characterized by a growing effort to place the planning of the economic affairs of men in the hands of government, and increasingly to substitute rule by agencies, bureaux and boards for rule by law. The process continues, despite repeated evidence from history, extending from the days of Confucius to modern times, that rather than contribute to the material well-being of the people, it tends to dull and eventually to snuff out the very inventiveness, ingenuity and enterprise upon which economic progress is based.
It is upon these considerations that we urge a long, hard look at the proposed national energy board and the functions and authorities to be assigned to it. No matter how innocuous may their charter seem, such agencies have been shown by history to yield to irresistible pressures to extend their activities, compound their regulations, and confuse those over whom they have jurisdiction. They tend to become foci for every unrest, and soon are engaged less in protecting the people than in equalizing competitive capabilities. In this process they negate inherent economic advantage and deny its benefit to people.
I realize, of course, that although regulations are necessary, they must follow a proper and just norm and not be subjected to political pressures which in this bill I feel are seen necessarily to crop up. In this bill which brings about in Canada such an important innovation as this new board to regulate energy, the first principle which should apply is that the members of parliament should be given the proper information on which to make that decision for the Canadian people whom they represent. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) before the elections had a great deal to say on this matter of an energy board. I should like to quote for the benefit of the house, his remarks in 1957, namely on February 4, when he was speaking at the annual dinner of the Toronto board of trade. That is nearly two and one-half years ago. The Prime Minister then had this to say:
National Energy Board
There is a need now for the setting up of a Canadian national energy board, with its membership composed of technical personnel, who might be selected by the president of the national research council of business organizations, of the dominion and provincial governments, to the end that the most effective use of the energy resources of Canada, in the interests of the public welfare, may be assured. We have vast resources of gas and oil and coal and uranium. I believe the time has come to set up such a board, whose duty it would be to advise and to recommend proposals regarding these resources-
Mr. Speaker, this is over two and one-half years ago. I feel there is something which is not readily understood, namely why this government had to wait for those two and one-half years, especially in the light of its conduct in the last few days when, extremely swiftly, it has presented this difficult bill, as mentioned by many hon. members. This bill, consisting of 101 sections and 28 pages, as was stated, is placed before the house for a decision in this abrupt manner although the government has stated this was an emergency matter over two and one-half years ago.
In addition, members of this parliament were not furnished with certain reports and studies which necessarily were made for the preparation of this new law which we are now discussing. On that score, Mr Speaker, I should like to refer to the report of the department of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) as far back as the year 1957. I am reading from the annual report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for 1957, at page 54, where the minister indicated that they had formed what he called the energy studies branch of his department:
The main functions of the branch are to develop systematic records and analyses relating to energy matters; to prepare studies on current energy problems requiring policy decisions in this and other departments and agencies; and to provide information and assistance to the numerous departments and agencies which are concerned with one or more aspects of energy matters.
Later on at page 55 we read the following:
It was occupied, during 1957, with studies on such questions as those relating to natural gas pipe line development, export policy for natural gas, policy relating to supervision of transmission rates and sale prices for natural gas, policy on thermal electric power developments, the effect of United States oil import restrictions on the Canadian petroleum industry, and United States proceedings related to the importation of Canadian natural gas.
Later on the same subject of energy we read the following:
Most of the study papers prepared during the period have necessarily been confidential.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is possibly the person from whom it is most difficult to obtain information by way of reports placed before the house. Since he has made reference in his own

National Energy Board report to these studies and reports I feel that it would have been necessary that he allow the members of parliament, the representatives of the Canadian people whose interests we are trying to protect in the matter of energy in Canada, to have that knowledge before the study and the passing of this extremely important bill.
We find something further on that score, speaking on this matter of the interests of the public and the contention that the public should be informed. We find something similar which again illustrates the conduct of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to what is done with reports and studies which should be made available to the representatives of the Canadian people, the members of parliament.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What accusation are you making as to what I have done with regard to reports? Do you mind repeating it?


Osias.-J. Godin: I am saying that the minister in his own report for the year 1957 states that many reports and analyses were made and so on. We have no such reports available. In his report he states that he considers them to be confidential. We see this in the bill, Mr. Speaker, and the minister may take note of this matter and possibly bring about an amendment. Clause 23 reads as follows:
23. Studies and reports of the board made under this part may be made public with the approval of the minister.
There again we see politics entering into the matter of the interests of the Canadian people and their protection. In the very bill which is before us his action shows the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce toward the information which should be known to the representatives of the people here in this house.
The same thing is found in the principle by which the appointments will be made and public knowledge offered. In other words, it is a bill which will permit a sort of closed shop, a tool for the cabinet. In reading the bill we find this. I should like to refer to the principle indicated in clause 85 (2). The Canadian people do not even know whether or not they have a bill dealing with the energy board. In that clause it is stated that the minister may, through the governor in council, declare any class of persons or areas not covered by this bill. It reads as follows:
(2) The governor in council may by regulation exempt any person or class of persons or any product or class of products or any transactions, persons or areas from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this part or the regulations.
Is it not clear to the house that the Canadian people may have a bill or they

may not have a bill? If you pass the bill, you possibly give the Canadian people absolutely nothing because it will remain absolutely in the hands of the cabinet and the government and in that way it will become necessarily a political tool.
Again we have further provisions where we elaborate on the principle whereby five men in Canada will compose this board and regulate it. On the other hand, in the very next clause, we give one member of the board absolute power. This is done after creating a most expensive board. I am not sure that I know exactly how many there should be. It may be proper to have five; but this principle enunciated in the very next clause is to the effect that one member of the board can do absolutely anything on behalf of any five members, except possibly a very few things. There are so few that they are enumerated, and they indicate that one member of the board of five can do absolutely everything alone, according to the act, except for a very few exceptions. So once again the principle is indicated in this bill that the Canadian people, after the constitution of a very expensive board, will see themselves regulated by possibly one member of that board.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think that the bill is lacking in many respects. It does not afford the Canadian people the protection of their interests which the minister himself stated the bill was meant to do. He spoke about necessary speed. We have been faced with a delay of two and a half years, and now there is pressure over possibly two and a half days. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) indicated that what was required in this matter of energy was aggressiveness and vision, but what do we find? In his own speech he stated that he recognized that in the province of Alberta the progress of the gas and oil industry has been visibly indicated for the last twelve years. That certainly cannot be to the credit of this government.
Mr. Speaker, in all fairness I believe that an energy board is the necessary instrument to protect Canadian affairs, but I do say that this bill in certain respects falls short of giving to the Canadian people the assurance that we mean to give them when we say that we will now have the constitution of a body which will protect their interests.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With the permission of the house we shall now await the return of Mr. Speaker, who I believe wishes to rule on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin).


Mr. Speaker:: The house is ready for the question, I understand?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; we are ready to hear your ruling on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I indicated earlier I would leave it until after the adjournment. However, if everyone is here and content to proceed with the matter now, I shall be glad to rule on it.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, are you going to hear argument on this point?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. I thought that before I heard argument I would indicate that it appeared to me that the amendment was not relevant, and therefore the onus is on those supporting the amendment to prove that it is acceptable. I therefore propose to call on any hon. member who wishes to argue to the contrary.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, on September 2,	1958, as
reported on page 4503 of Hansard, Your Honour went to considerable length to determine what is and what is not in order in regard to possible amendments to a bill on second reading. If I may read from what you had to say on that occasion, you quoted from May as follows:
. It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move what is known as a "reasoned amendment" ... A reasoned amendment is placed on the paper in the form of a motion and may fall into one of several categories.
I am only going to repeat No. 1:
It may be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.
Then we have a fairly large number of precedents where we had amendments on second reading of a bill, and occasions where Your Honour allowed amendments. Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer you to July 30, 1958, when the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) moved an amendment to the excise tax bill as reported on page 2864 of Hansard in the following terms:
That this bill be not read a second time until further consideration has been given to the repeal or reduction of the excise tax on motor cars.
Then on September 2, 1958-that was the day of your explanation, Mr. Speaker, as you understood these	amendments-the
member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) moved, as reported on page 4510 of Hansard:
This house declines to proceed with a bill the fundamental terms of which are repugnant to the spirit and objectives of the treaty obligations of Canada under GATT.
Then there was another motion in 1958 moved by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) to the effect that
National Energy Board a bill be not read a second time until further consideration was given to the possibility of making tax free gifts from husbands to wives effective in the province of Quebec to the same extent as in the rest of Canada. The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) also moved on September 2, 1958, as reported on page 4476 of Hansard:
That this bill be not now read a second time because of new provisions for arbitrary valuations which transfer the tariff-making authority from parliament to the minister and the cabinet, contrary to the principles of responsible government and the essential right of parliament to tax.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled a number of these amendments out of order because they dealt as to a particular. However, may I repeat that you did endorse what May had to say in regard to an amendment being declaratory of some principle adverse to, or different from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill, and may I in that regard call your attention to our amendment:
That this bill be not read a second time until further consideration has been given to the public ownership of interprovincial gas and oil pipe lines.
We feel that this very definitely is an amendment to the principle contained in the bill now before us.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank the hon. member for his concise and very pertinent argument. The amendment is one of that type which is permissible on second reading, that is to say, is declaratory of a principle adverse to the bill, and my reason for not considering it acceptable is that the principle is not relevant to the bill. The doctrine of relevancy applies to amendments which are declaratory of an adverse principle; in other words, the adverse principle must be one which comes within the reasonable limits of what the bill seeks to do itself.
Now this bill sets up a board, whereas the substance of the amendment is to declare for nationalization or public ownership of interprovincial oil and pipe lines which seems to me to go far beyond anything which could reasonably be said to be relevant to the bill as it is now before the house. The purpose of the bill, as the explanatory note says, is to create a board, and the board is for the purpose of regulating the operation of oil and gas pipe lines, fixing tolls and giving advice. There are three or four main functions of the board but, basically, the principle of the bill is to establish a board to regulate the industry, including electricity.
To attempt to declare as a contrary principle that consideration ought to be given to the nationalization of something which might be within the regulatory powers of the board seems to me to be going far beyond

National Energy Board the broad limit and scope of the bill as it stands to be considered by the house, and therefore I consider the amendment not to be within the precedents which the hon. member has stated, for the reason that it goes too far afield from the principle of the biU.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, we heard the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) read a quotation expressing the sentiments of the Canadian petroleum association in connection with the deliberations on the bill now before us.
The hon. member obviously indicated, when he did that, that he is concerned with the welfare of those who invest in the development of Canadian natural gas and oil enterprises, and with the welfare of those who invest in Canadian gas and oil pipe lines. And he indicates, using the submission of the Canadian petroleum association to bolster his argument, that he is concerned with the investors in these enterprises and in the future welfare of these investors.
This reminds me of the philosophy so often expounded in this House of Commons and so successfully sold for so long to the people of Canada by a recent member of this house, the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, who seemed to contend that as long as our economy was expanding, and as long as those who were investing money were able to provide the stimulus which would provide employment, we had better forget the high price which the Canadian people would eventually have to pay for this continuous and often reckless expansion in certain lines of the Canadian economy.
The C.C.F., as is well known, has always maintained the primary position that the resources of Canada belong to the people as a whole. We agree that investment in Canadian enterprises has to be safeguarded. We are willing to go a little beyond that, and agree that risks must be adequately compensated. If we did not agree to the safeguarding of invested capital and to the compensation of risk capital we realize that the development of our economy would have to operate under a very severe handicap indeed. However, basically we feel that the goods and riches of the world are meant for the mass of the people of the world, and when we look at a bill such as the one before us to set up a national energy board we first of all must ask ourselves: how are the interests of the Canadian people likely to be affected by the implementation of this measure?
We believe that a bill of this nature would be able to do much in the interests of the people as a whole. However, I could not

help being impressed by the arguments put forward last week by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who expressed the opinion that after looking over the bill a number of times he had come to the conclusion that the proposed energy board was designed to be nothing more nor less than a stooge for the government of Canada. Although the powers of the board might in certain circumstances, under certain governments which may some day be elected, be quite extensive and even beneficial to the welfare of the Canadian people, it is envisaged in the terms of the bill now before us that any action or any attitude of the proposed energy board would be completely dependent upon the whims of the government in office at any particular time.
I believe it might be wise to look for a while at the origins of the bill now before us and at the origins of the Borden commission whose recommendation supplied the initiative to the government with regard to this bill. We had a very lengthy debate in the House of Commons a couple of years ago on the subject of the trans-Canada pipe line, and I believe that the debate at that time was more than any other single factor responsible for the House of Commons now being faced with this national energy board measure.


Mr. Speaker:: Would this be a convenient place for the hon. member to call it six o'clock?
Was there a motion to be made?


John Borden Hamilton: I was intending to make a motion at eight o'clock. I do not have it with me.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose for the dinner recess I was beginning to outline the origins of the bill now before us and I mentioned at the time that the initial impetus for a bill of this kind was the debate in the house a number of years ago concerning the building of a trans-Canada pipe line for the transmission of natural gas. The opinion of the Liberals and the Social Credit party in the house at that particular time was that this pipe line ought to be built immediately at any price. There were in the house at that time in addition the official opposition, the Progressive Conservatives, and the group of which I am a member, the C.C.F., who had the feeling that the pipe

line ought not to be built at any price; that the pipe line ought to and might be built at a price that the Canadian people would be prepared to pay and in a manner in which the pipe line would operate in the interests of the people of the nation as a whole.
We all remember very well indeed how the member for Eglinton, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) at the time felt so keenly about the actions of the government of the day that he had himself expelled for the time being as a member of the house, and the Union Jack was placed over the desk of the hon. member for Eglinton.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it is incorrect for the member to say that the hon. member for Eglinton had himself expelled from this house. He should withdraw that statement; it is not true.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I will amend that and say that the hon. member was expelled from the house because of his insistence that the interests of the Canadian people were being violated by the actions of the government of the day. I notice that the hon. member for Eglinton is not in his place in the house at the present time. I would recommend to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough), who was so adept several years ago at bringing in an appropriate flag at the time, that she now bring in a skull and cross bones flag and hang it over the desk of the hon. member for Eglinton.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: More demagogy.


Erhart Regier: Because the bill assures us that the piracy which at that time was being condemned so vigorously by the hon. member for Eglinton is now being condoned and being aided and abetted by that same member for Eglinton. The skull and cross bones indicating the flag of the pirates would now aptly replace the flag of the patriot of only a few months ago.
We also heard at that time the leader of the official opposition, now the High Commissioner of Canada in the United Kingdom, for whom I may say I have the highest regard. Regardless of any disagreements I may have had with him at the time I always realized that he was at heart one of the most honest members that this house has ever seen. He admitted in the final analysis, after his attempts to get Canadian financing for this trans-Canada natural gas pipe line to replace United States financing, after he realized that Canadian financiers were not available, as he had wished them to be, that at long last public ownership was the only answer. The
National Energy Board present leader of the Conservatives, our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), fought an election on this issue and he largely won that election in 1957; he at least obtained the right to form a government, even though it was a minority government. Rather than take measures to implement the expectations of the electorate at the time in this regard, he decided in his wisdom to evade the issue for the time being, in that he appointed a royal commission. We at that time, through our leader, M. J. Cold-well, expressed our reservations as to the members of the commission. However, we must admit that the members of the commission, in several major aspects at least, placed national interest above their personal prejudices and feelings, and brought in a number of recommendations. We regret very much that the government of the day has ignored the major recommendations of the Borden commission.
At the time the Borden commission was appointed, and in the election after, my national leader had this to say on March 5 last in the Richmond high school in British Columbia:
The pipe line scandal of today is on a par with the railway scandals of the past. The promoters of the railways of that time even have been outdone by the promoters of the pipe lines of today. The fortunes made by Mackenzie and Mann as well as others as a result of government assistance to railway construction have their parallel in the fortunes made by Tanner and Coates and McMahon as well as others. The whole sordid story of quick fortunes being made by a few at the expense of the public is being repeated today and old-line party governments whether Liberal or Conservative are doing nothing about it.
Again, on March 6, my national leader, in a C.B.C. radio speech, had this to say:
You will remember too, how the Conservatives denounced the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company, and how vigorously they attacked the Liberal cabinet policy on the pipe line. Oh, what a tragedy is there; for today Liberal and Conservative, alike, vote together to protect the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company, that company and that policy which the Conservatives denounced as an iniquitous proposal, an infamous proposal, the greatest betrayal of the Canadian people since confederation, a caricature of national development.
Yet, the present government is doing the same as the Liberals before them and they voted against the C.C.F. motion expressing what the Conservatives had advocated.
My national leader also said on March 11 in the city of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan:
Mr. Diefenbaker has failed to right a great wrong, the wrong done to the people of Canada in the trans-Canada pipe line deal. He led the people to believe that he was sincere in his denunciations of what he described as "a nefarious deal". He led the people to believe that under the Conservatives something would be done about it. But now the Conservative government opposes as "socialism", the very policy that they supported while in the opposition, namely, the public ownership of the line.

National Energy Board


Mr. McPhillips:: Who is your national
leader?


Erhart Regier: My national leader is M. J. Coldwell, such a leader as no other political party in Canada has ever seen-


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Where is he now?


Erhart Regier: -and is not likely to see again for a considerable time. The conduct of the Liberal party in this debate is, of course, an utter disgrace. They have nothing to say. They say they are going back to the grass roots. However, we notice no repentance, no change of heart, no change of policy. I have heard three or four of their members take part in the debate and I am unable to decide what their opinion is. I realize that they are very anxious for the conclusion of the debate at an early hour and that their leader is now anxious to participate and wind up the debate on behalf of the Liberals. I realize that the Liberals are embarrassed, that they do not want a debate on this issue. They only want to straddle both sides of the fence hour after hour and when the vote comes no doubt they will find that they are able to support the government and able to support the buccaneers and the racketeers from the state of Texas.
We have not only had a number of racketeers from south of the border but there have also been a couple of Canadian racketeers involved in this matter. In the province of Ontario a number of leading people unfortunately got themselves rather involved. I come from the province of British Columbia and when a cabinet minister does wrong in our province he ends up behind bars eventually even though it may take a number of years. However, when cabinet ministers do wrong in the province of Ontario they again ask the public for an expression of their confidence at the next election. All I can say is that I hope the wintry frost will very soon leave the minds of the voters of the province of Ontario.


An hon. Member:: What a hope.


Erhart Regier: When I look at the bill I am reminded of the attitude expressed in this house year in and year out by the former member for Cape Breton South in his appeals for the establishment of a national energy board that would include all forms of energy so that we might develop our resources in the interest of all parts of the dominion. In this regard I am convinced that if a national plebiscite were held now on this one issue, without the varnish, the propaganda, the show, the circus that accompanies our national elections, and the people of Canada were asked, shall public utilities be publicly owned, there would be no doubt as to the outcome.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has been coming back from time to time to the question of nationalization of interprovincial oil and gas companies, which was the subject of an amendment that I considered to be out of order. Therefore, I think that issue should not be debated as part of this debate. I have not stopped the hon. member but I hope he will not proceed too far on that line because in my view it is irrelevant.


Erhart Regier: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that even though you have ruled the amendment out of order the house has not made a decision and the arguments I am presenting are not in exactly the same position as if the house had made a decision on this issue. However, I am willing to abide by your ruling.
I should like to point out that the bill falls far short of the recommendations of the royal commission on energy, more commonly known as the Borden commission. I notice that on page 28 there is the following recommendation:
That the prices, tolls, rates or tariffs of a company owning or operating an oil or gas pipe line, as regulated by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, should be just and reasonable, non-discriminatory and calculated to yield a fair rate of return on the shareholders' equity-
I should like to emphasize the words, "shareholders' equity."
-after making due allowance for reasonable and proper operating expenses, depreciation, interest, income and other taxes.
I have a few things I should like to say about the recommendation of the Borden commission that there should be a fair return on the shareholders' equity. I notice that the bill has no provision along this line. We are now faced with a bill that would allow the owners of any pipe line company to obtain what may be considered a fair return on the over-all investment. I should like to give one example. The original investment in the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company was roughly $100 million. The shareholders' equity was $15 million. The remaining $85 million was supplied by the insurance companies of the United States and Canada.
Assuming that this pipe line earns a net return after taxes of $8 million, on the investment of $100 million that would be a net return of 8 per cent. However, in the bill before us the government has ignored the recommendations of the Borden commission and is apparently perfectly willing to allow any pipe line company to declare earnings on the over-all investment. In this case it would be 8 per cent. However, if we consider $8 million net earnings after taxes, and the earnings have been that high, we find that the net earnings would amount to 53J per cent after taxes on the shareholders' equity and,

I might add, after most unusual depreciation allowances that are being permitted at the present time. If the Borden commission recommendations were to be pursued, therefore, and allowed for in the bill now before us, that would help in no small measure to protect the interests of the consumers involved.
Another recommendation of the royal commission on energy is to be found on page 36 of the report. Paragraph No. 18 says:
An examination of the financial statements of Montreal Pipe Line Company Limited and those of Portland Pipe Line Corporation, shows the combined net income (after payment of income tax) of the companies for the years 1953-57 inclusive represented the following rates of return on the shareholders' equity at the beginning of each of the respective years:
For the year 1953, the percentage of return was 15.66; 1954, the percentage of return was 9.94; 1955, 20.45; 1956, 19.51; 1957, 14.76.
Now these returns, Mr. Speaker, in our opinion, and also in the opinion of the Borden commission are excessive. They are needlessly high, and it is our firm belief that while capital invested and risk capital have to be adequately compensated, there is no need for rates of return running as high as 53 per cent on the basis of shareholders' equity.
We listened with a great deal of interest to the claim of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) the other day when he said that one of the major problems of the bill was that this new energy board would have only limited authority, and that its authority was going to be subject in all major matters to the whims and wishes of the government of the day. We regret also that the bill does not allow for any provincial representation. We realize that authority in this matter is divided between the national government and our provincial governments. However, in the arrangements that are offered for the establishment of the board, our provincial governments are not going to be given any say in any manner, shape or form. The whole arrangement is for an organization designed to implement and to give effect to the wishes of the government of the day. We feel that this is not necessarily always in the interests of the people of the country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat may be surprised to learn that I am speaking on this bill without any embarrassment whatever. The fact that I am the fourth member of our party in the house to speak also shows that we are not, as a party, embarrassed in discussing this bill.
66968-9-254
National Energy Board
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill dealing with the subject of energy resources which is as important for the development of this country as any subject can be. We are debating this matter today, May 25, 1959, and it is a long time since February 4, 1957 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in Toronto-these words have already been put on the record in this debate-said that the need was now for setting up a Canadian national energy board, and that the time had come to establish such a board. Four days after that statement, he said the same thing in the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister had his opportunity when the House of Commons met in October, 1957, and he was the head of the government. There was no mention in the speech from the throne at that time of the establishment of an energy board. Indeed, on October 15, I think it was, three days after the speech from the throne, the Prime Minister announced, not an energy board but a royal commission to look into the matter and to make recommendations. This royal commission, Mr. Speaker, put this whole question into a deep freeze for 19 months, for obvious reasons, and during that time I think I am right in saying that nothing was heard in this parliament about government policies dealing with this vital matter of energy resources, and national development as affected by energy resources. This is in contrast, Mr. Speaker, to what we heard on the subject from so many members of the government in earlier years when they were sitting on this side of the house.
On March 14, 1958, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister did tell the country in Calgary, in words that have also been put on the record, that the government would act immediately after the interim report of the Borden commission. This word "immediately" is now so often used by the government in statements about what it is going to do that the particular coinage has become debased, in fact there were more than six months between the interim report of this commission and the resolution dealing with the energy board which was put on the order paper on April 23 of this year. The resolution was in very general terms, and did not give us much opportunity to speculate on the type of bill that would be based on it.
The bill itself was discussed a month or so, almost a month, after the resolution was first introduced. Then, Mr. Speaker, as you know, within 24 hours of the receipt of the bill or the tabling of the bill, we were to be asked to take decisions with regard to it. That period was later extended by a day or so. It was a period which would not have

National Energy Board given members on this side of the house the opportunity to which they were entitled to make a real study and analysis of the bill and would not have given an opportunity for the expression of views by interests concerned in the country with this important matter.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we naturally wondered why, after such a long delay, there should have been so much haste. As was stated this afternoon by my friend the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard), I think it was, this is another example of inept handling on the part of the government of an extremely important piece of legislation. Here we have had long delay, without any discussion or without any information on the matter, folowed by a sudden, ill-considered burst of speed in order to make up for the loss of time, by the introduction of legislation which was to be decided without any delay. We are becoming familiar with that particular pattern of activity in this house.
I suggest, as other hon. members on this side of the house have already suggested, that that delay was quite unnecessary. Surely it is now clear.-as indeed we on this side of the house stated would be the case at that time -that the appointment of the Borden commission was merely an unnecessary delaying tactic, and that it was not necessary for that commission to go into this matter as it is still going into it in order for the government to have made up its mind as to what it wished to do. As a matter of fact, the proof of that contention is that the government is now largely by-passing-as so many hon. members have pointed out-the first report of the commission, while the legislation which is now before us has been introduced before the second report of the commission has even been submitted. The commission, however, has accomplished its purpose in providing an extremely useful delaying tactic for the government at a price, as was pointed out last Friday, of some $300,000 or more.
In his statement last Friday the minister admits that the major part of this bill before us comes almost textually from the Pipe Lines Act and from the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act and that most of the other provisions that are not textually from those two acts, including the creation of a national energy board, were recommended in the Gordon Commission report. That report, which was in the hands of the government in 1957 and which included a special study of this question of gas and oil, surely provided the government with

sufficient information on which it could have acted if it had desired to do so, especially as the present bill now before us has in effect repudiated the major recommendations of the commission which followed the Gordon report.
This particular bill is an even more drastic repudiation of all the feverish words and emotional arguments put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his colleagues, including the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), during the pipe line and earlier debates on this general subject of energy. The present bill contains no provision to realize the Prime Minister's vision of Canadian resources development by Canadians. It contains no safeguards, so often clamoured for and even recommended as desirable in the Borden report itself, to ensure the maximum possible Canadian ownership and control of resources development. It contains no provisions to encourage the processing of raw materials in Canada-that was another strong Conservative battle cry when in the opposition 

through effective utilization for that purpose of our great sources of energy in this country; and I hope to have a word to say about that matter later. It contains no provisions-and we have heard a great deal about this matter also-for keeping Texas or other buccaneers out of our affairs or limiting the extremely exorbitant profits about which the Prime Minister and the minister used to get so indignant.
In this bill, Mr. Speaker, you will find nothing dealing with these matters. That which is contained in this bill could surely have been brought in, if the government had so desired, in October 1957. Had it been brought in then, time and money would have been saved and many months of uncertainty and confusion about government policy would have been avoided, which uncertainty and confusion, as the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) pointed out over a year ago, were bound to have an unsettling effect on the industries and areas most concerned.
As to the bill itself, may I say this. The hon. member for Calgary South, speaking at the resolution stage of the bill on May 18, had this to say as reported at page 3779 of Hansard:
I can appreciate, as can most hon. members, the difficulty of the government in attempting to reconcile the two extreme views which have been expressed in relation to the Bordon royal commission, namely those on the one hand who have stated their belief that the industry should not be in any way restricted by regulation, and those on the other hand who believe that a tight form of legislation is required in the interests of Canadian consumers.

And the hon. member went on to say this:
It is my contention that it is not inconsistent to believe-
Whatever that may mean.
-that there can be introduced into and be passed by parliament a bill which, to a substantial degree, will satisfy both of these two extremes.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, according to the hon. member for Calgary South this is the kind of bill which will satisfy those on the one extreme who do not want any regulation at all and those on the other extreme who want a tight and complete regulation, as he put it. That is a fairly impossible objective for any piece of legislation, namely to satisfy both extremes and I do not think it is met by the bill that we have before us.
So far as the principle of the bill is concerned may I say this. As has already been stated-and I am happy to repeat it-the broad principle of this bill is satisfactory to this party. Of course, it should be satisfactory because in January, 1958 our party put itself on record in favour of a national energy authority. We therefore accept that principle because we stand by our platform. But as has already been pointed out, that does not mean that we support all the provisions of this bill or that we believe that this bill is adequate to implement the principle we support. On the contrary, we feel that this bill -and we shall try to point this out in more detail when we get to the committee stage- contains many sins of omission and commission.
Let me look for a moment at one extremely important function mentioned in the bill, that of research and investigation by the board. The administrative duties of the board which are proposed in this bill are limited by the bill itself to oil, gas and international power lines. But the functions of research and investigation and of report and recommendation are absolutely unlimited. They cover the whole field of energy, as I understand it, without any limitation whatever. Furthermore, clause 22 of the bill does not say that the board "may" study these matters. That particular clause says that the board "shall" study these matters. Hence we ask ourselves why there is this difference in the scope of the two main functions which are allocated by the bill to the board. This question becomes of special importance, because, as has already been pointed out, there are other agencies of government at this time which have research and advisory functions in the energy field which are not touched by this legislation. Obviously there arises the danger of duplication, with its resulting confusions, conflicts and waste. When the minister was discussing the resolution, long before we had the chance 66968-9-2541
National Energy Board of seeing the bill, the minister said-I am paraphrasing what he said-that the major purpose of this bill was to consolidate, to coordinate, to pull together governmental functions in this field. On Monday, May 18, as reported at page 3766 of Hansard, the minister said that this legislation was in fulfilment of a long held objective of his party to bring this about, and to support that view he quoted a statement which the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) made on February 25,	1955, at page 1530 of
Hansard for that year. This is the quotation of the Minister of Public Works put on record with much approval by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce. The former member for Vancouver Quadra said:
We believe there is a great need for an over-all energy policy. Let us get away from dealing with the problem piecemeal with different departments concerned. It is not an efficient way to deal with these important matters.
That is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce quoted the present Minister of Public Works as saying in 1955, and he quoted him with approval. But the minister who introduced the bill did not remain convinced for very long of the validity of the argument of the Minister of Public Works, because on second reading last Friday the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that all the existing agencies were to be left unchanged. Quoting from his statement last Friday, he said, as reported on page 3930 of Hansard:
While the board's advisory functions require that it be free to study any aspect of energy, we do not believe it would be profitable under present circumstances to disrupt the existing agencies involved in these related fields.
We know what these agencies are because they have been put on the record, but perhaps it is worth while repeating them to show how many government agencies are working in this field of research, analysis, examination and reporting on energy matters. There is the dominion coal board; the atomic energy control board; the international joint commission; the water resources branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources; the interdepartmental committee on energy; and the national research council. The danger of duplication and overlapping, confusion and conflict is obvious.
Now may I say a word about the regulatory functions of the proposed board, which is something we will be discussing in much greater detail when we are in committee. Those functions are limited in the present bill, at least at the moment, to the licensing of construction and operation of international power lines, export of power, construction and operation of interprovincial and international

National Energy Board oil and gas pipe lines, the import and export of gas, and possibly the export and import of oil.
First, then, may I say a word about the regulatory functions which I have mentioned dealing with power. We on this side agree that these are matters which should be controlled by a public authority. There is not much difference of opinion between us on that score except that we are worried-we will have something to say about this in committee-about the suggestion by the minister that exceptional circumstances may justify the licensing of power exports for a period longer than one year. I am not sure whether he used the period of 25 years or not. The Gordon commission report points out that this might be necessary in changed circumstances, that it might be wise for the government to depart from the policy it has followed for many years of licensing from year to year. I am not taking issue with that in principle, but I do suggest that if this is to be done and these licences are to be extended for a longer period than one year, that should be done through parliamentary sanction rather than merely by order in council.
Then there is also a danger of duplication and conflict, and indeed confusion, in this question of control of the export of power. The minister knows perfectly well, of course, that the Canadian section of the international joint commission has at the present time the responsibility of studying and making recommendations regarding power projects in boundary waters and other public projects on international rivers which may be referred to the commission by the two governments of the United States and Canada. But under this proposed bill which is now before us, every project of this kind approved by the international joint commission and involving the construction of international power lines or the export of power will have to be reviewed and approved as well by the national energy board, and surely there is a danger of conflict there. Also under the International River Improvements Act which was passed in 1955 the same possibility of conflict and confusion arises between the licence which is required from the department concerned under that act and the obligation of the new board to review and consent to these matters. I believe that it would have been possible to have avoided these dangers of overlapping and confusion through a better allocation and integration of functions between the various governmental agencies concerned.
Then there is a third subject, the construction of gas pipe lines and the import and export of gas. We believe that it is right that natural gas service and its development

as a public utility should be under government regulation. But we also believe that these regulations should be of a type and administered in such a way that will not encourage inefficiency. Under this bill export sales of gas will be contingent now upon approval by the provincial authorities, the national energy board, the governor in council, and the federal power commission of the United States. In the case of domestic and export long term contracts, you will have to deal with proven suppliers at one end and an established and responsible distributor at the other. We know that local franchises are involved, and political considerations, sometimes indefensible ones, arise at various levels of government, and we also know that profiteering can take place. Delay and disappointment are inevitable. That means that most promotions in this field require hearings, negotiations, interventions, reassessment of positions, all of which take a long time, and these delays add to costs. Where a project is finally approved, the ultimate terms and conditions often reduce its profitability far below earlier expectations. Therefore while we do agree, Mr. Speaker, that this field must be subject to public regulation, in the public interest the administrative set-up and the procedures designed for that purpose should be efficient, and should minimize delays and difficulties. Perhaps the government will be able to convince us that the machinery established in this bill for this purpose is the most effective which could have been drawn up.
Now I come to another subject, the export and import of oil. There should be no difficulty about the export of oil because I think we are all agreed that any interference by government in the export of oil should be reduced to a minimum, because it is of first importance to encourage in every way possible the export of our oil into United States markets, especially now when it is going to be a little easier than it would have been perhaps a month ago. But the import of oil is a different thing, and it is this aspect of the bill to which we take the greatest exception. On Friday last the minister said, and I quote from his statement as reported at page 3930 of Hansard:
There is no requirement of national policy to be served at present by licensing the import of oil.
And, again, he said:
It would seem unwise at the present moment to take any action by way of import control which might give rise to misunderstanding and possibly call the arrangement into question.
The arrangement he had in mind was the arrangement recently made with the United States. Then the minister added:

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.
We share these views as to the undesirability of acting, even through parliament, at this time with regard to this matter, but what is the government doing now in this bill? In clause 87, in spite of the words of the minister that there is no necessity for action at this time, the government is asking for power by order in council to take action which, it says, is not necessary now and may not be necessary in the future. That power it to be used against one commercial import singled out from thousands of others, and a very important commercial import at that. And this power is not power to act through parliament, but power for the government to act by order in council and without any consideration of an emergency to justify this power being used, or the action taken. That is an astonishing request to be made of this house by a government which consists of members most of whom had some very strong words to use about this kind of thing a few years ago. What a betrayal of all the brave, emotional words used by members of the Conservative party during the debate on the Defence Production Act in 1955. Where are the memories of the impassioned appeals to the rights and privileges of parliament of those days? Have they so soon been forgotten? Where are the Pyms and Hampdens, the parliamentary flag wavers and flag wearers of those days?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am glad you recognized we were advocating freedom then.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am trying to show the minister the great departure there has been as evidenced in this action now, from the words used in those days; and this departure throws a very lurid light on the meaning of the words which were used at that time.
The excuse now is merely that things may have to be done in an emergency in order to deal with oil imports. That is the excuse given by the minister, that we might have to act quickly. But is the security of the nation at stake in this issue? Would there be no time to consult parliament in a matter of this kind? This, apparently, is the minister's argument, that there would be no time to consult parliament because it might be necessary to act quickly. That is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated, and I quote the words he used last Friday:
If the need arose it would in all probability arise quickly, and would require quick action to avert serious disruption. For this reason it is proposed to make the power applicable by proclamation.
But when the minister of trade and commerce a few years ago asked for discretionary power of this kind to be used in a national
National Energy Board emergency only and not merely to deal with the import of a commodity, this is what the same hon. gentleman had to say about the minister of trade and commerce of that day, Mr. C. D. Howe:
He has appeared to prefer to do things quickly rather than by the slower methods of parliament.
That was the statement which the present Minister of Trade and Commerce made on June 13, 1955, as reported at page 4688 of Hansard.
And the Minister without Portfolio from Toronto (Mr. Macdonnell), the hon. member for Greenwood, had this to say in the same debate, and I wish he was in his seat tonight to hear me repeat these words. At that time, when the request was made for this power under order in council to deal, not with the import of a commodity but with a national emergency, these were the words he used:
This is arbitrary power. This is the antithesis of our way of life. This is the antithesis of the rule of law, described by Dicey when he says that wide arbitrary powers are the absolute antithesis.
I wonder whether, if the hon. gentleman were in his seat tonight, he could defend this particular provision? I wonder if he would vote for it? I wonder if he would give the sanction of his parliamentary prestige and purity to it?
And then there was the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton). I regret having to read these quotations in the absence of the ministers concerned, but in this same debate when the government of that day was asking for power by order in council, that hon. gentleman quoted these words with ardent approval from a British pamphlet, as reported on page 4732 for June 13.
Those who give and those who receive arbitrary power are alike criminal and there is no man but is bound to resist it to the best of his power, whenever it shall show its face in the world. It is a crime to bear it when it can be rationally shaken off. ... Law and arbitrary power are in dreadful enmity.
Of course, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) took part in this debate, and he was naturally even more emotional for the time being than any of the others. On June 28, 1955, as reported at page 5385 of Hansard, dealing with the request by the government of that day for power by order in council to deal with a national emergency, he had this to say:
Parliament! What is parliament to the minister? Parliament is not even to be permitted to be a partner with this all-powerful government in working out this program of defence production. Bring these matters to parliament? Why, the idea is unthinkable to this government opposite. What is parliament, anyway? Parliament to them is but a nuisance. We have had proof abundant today, sir;

National Energy Board all this talk, all this poppycock about parliament is just lip service from this all-powerful government opposite.
However, it was the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself who put the matter best when he said, as reported at page 4688 and 4689:
Normally ministers come to parliament and ask for extension of their powers or for special powers for special purposes and parliament examines the situation, makes the grant of power and withdraws it when the crisis has subsided.
And then he went on:
There are no angels in the House of Commons, and precautions are necessary when we are entrusting the government of men to men.
There are no angels in the House of Commons today, especially on the government benches. The argument which the minister made at that time in respect of an application of powers to be used by order in council in respect of a national emergency surely applies one hundredfold to an application in this bill for power by order in council merely to deal with the import of a commercial commodity.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the Leader of the Opposition permit a question? Has he not overlooked the fact that the debate on the Defence Production Act in 1955 hinged on the request of the government of that day to give those powers to the minister of trade and commerce in perpetuity? It was that to which we objected, and we said: come back to parliament every two years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, these were
powers to be used only in case of national emergency, and the minister must know that the bill as passed did not give the minister power in perpetuity; it gave the minister power for five years. The five-year period lapses, I may add, if the minister has forgotten, in a couple of weeks. But the minister's excuse is that we have to act quickly, never mind parliament, we have to act quickly in case we have to put restrictions on the import of oil. I cannot understand why there is this necessity for haste in the case of oil. Is it a question of defence and security, or oil sanctions, or something like that? These are some aspects of this bill, Mr. Speaker, which cause us anxiety on this side, and which we will deal with in more detail when we get to the committee stage.
I have already said that we would support the principle of the bill because we are in favour of the establishment of a national energy board; but I repeat that there are a good many features of this bill which we do not like and which we will do our best to get changed in the committee stage. We

are not satisfied, as I have said, with the administrative set-up and the allocation of functions envisaged in this bill. We are convinced that the proposed arrangements will lead to duplication and possible conflict between the new board and other related existing government agencies. We think that in this bill-notwithstanding what the minister said about it on Friday and earlier-the government has failed to guard adequately against those dangers. We think it should have proposed at least a re-allocation of functions of some of those agencies, and indeed it might have brought some of those agencies under this board or under a single government department.
But while there is this danger of duplication on the administrative level there is also an important gap. There is no provision for consultation and liaison between the United States and Canada, and more particularly between the federal power commission and the national energy board. I know the minister discussed this the other night and he indicated why the government found it necessary to reject some of the recommendations of the Borden commission on this matter; but he did say that they were trying to work out satisfactory arrangements for liaison with the United States authorities. However, the minister must know that in most cases where those two agencies will be involved, the United States commission will have to issue an import permit-I am looking at it from the Canadian point of view-and the Canadian board will have to issue an export permit. The United States board and the Canadian board, I should think, would be bound, unless great care were exercised, to use different criteria. If there is no basic arrangement between the two countries, the applicants may have to travel between Washington and Ottawa without making very much progress, and perhaps for a very long time. In my view at least, that is likely to happen, and it would be most undesirable.
I do suggest to the minister, though I know he tried to deal with this the other night, that some basic arrangement in this field of energy between the two governments may well be required and be required quickly. Perhaps the precedent of the 1909 treaty on boundary waters may be invoked. Perhaps a similar arrangement may have to be ultimately worked out covering the field of energy between the two countries and providing for some kind of international joint commission in this particular field. I am not suggesting and I am not criticizing the government for not having put that in this bill. I quite realize that it would not be possible but I do suggest that in the working out of this bill

something like that may be found to be necessary. I hope the matter will be given very serious consideration.
While there is in our view duplication and gaps in the administrative arrangements provided by the bill, it seems to us to have an even more serious shortcoming in that it does not provide any national policy or guidance on energy questions.
Before issuing a certificate in respect of a pipe line or an international power line, the proposed board is required to ensure, primarily, that the project is economically feasible. I recognize that the main test to be applied by the board will be-if I read the bill correctly-the protection of the existing facilities and the control of competition. Moreover, the bill provides that the tolls to be determined by the board shall be just and reasonable. There is your criteria, "just and reasonable". Finally, before issuing an export licence, the board must be satisfied that the energy to be exported is in surplus and that the price to be charged is just and reasonable having regard to the public interest.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the only policy principles contained in this bill and the only guides which are given to the board in carrying out the functions allocated to the board by this bill. Those policies are so vague that they will be of little use to the board in carrying out and discharging its responsibilities. Indeed, the bill does not provide any policy on energy and the board will have to develop such a policy if it wishes to use its powers consistently, according to certain specific principles. That, I say, is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. The Borden commission, in its recommendations, did have-whether you approve of them or whether you agree with them or not-a national policy in mind when it recommended that the board be required to take into account, and I quote from the recommendation of the commission:
The advisability of encouraging the development in Canada of processing industries relating to energy and sources of energy as distinct from the export of unprocessed natural resources.
In making that recommendation the Borden commission felt that our sources of energy should be used, not only to serve our national development but they also suggested that the board concern itself with-and again I quote from the Borden commission recommendation:
Arrangements with respect to disposal of byproducts and avoidance of waste.
I ask the minister whether he can point to anything in the bill that deals with this
National Energy Board matter, a matter which is of very great importance to this industry and to the development of energy. As we all know-some perhaps know it better than I do because they are more familiar with this subject- the sale of such constituents of wet or sour gas as propane and sulphur helps to render fuel operations much more profitable. As our exports of gas to the United States increase- and we all hope they will increase

the disposal of those by-products will become a major problem in Canada. Sulphur, which was in such short supply only a few years ago, as we all know is now in surplus supply. Many of the liquid petroleum gases, including propane, will encounter increasingly difficult marketing problems, and yet they are becoming more and more important to the development of this industry. Were it possible to convert some of these materials into chemical products and to find substantial export markets for those products some of those difficulties might be avoided. The Canadian market is quite limited, and the United States market for chemical products, as we know, is not easily accessible, having regard to tariff barriers. Surely this is one field in which some bargaining with the United States might prove to be highly profitable as they more and more realize they are going to need our surplus, and that is the only kind of gas they are going to get, gas; but there does not seem to us to be any reference to this matter or any recognition of its importance in this particular bill.
Therefore, we contend, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is inadequate in the sense that it does not lay down any national policy for energy development. I think this is a major shortcoming. But whatever we may think of this bill, there is little doubt that it can have far-reaching implications on Canada's future. It is because of our recognition of its importance that we put forward these suggestions for improving it.
If this bill is to be made as effective as it can be made, surely those who have drafted the bill and those who are putting it before parliament now would be glad to submit the bill to experts in the field of energy where it could be scrutinized and where suggestions could be made for its improvement. It is for that reason that we have already made the suggestion, which I repeat with all earnestness, that the bill should be referred by the government to a standing committee so that witnesses can be called, evidence can be given and the bill can perhaps be made more effective.
There are good precedents for this course. There is a good precedent in this present session. The unemployment insurance bill has been referred on the government's own

National Energy Board initiative to the committee on industrial relations and in 1955 a bill on international rivers improvements was referred to the standing committee on external affairs. That action proved to be most useful because several provisions in the bill were altered as a result of the examination given to it by the committee on external affairs.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the government if they will consider the reference of a bill of this importance and complexity to a standing committee, whatever standing committee is most suitable, so that evidence can be taken before that standing committee and so that as a result of that evidence and as a result of the examination given to the legislation the bill can be improved and made more effective than we think it is in its present form to reach the objective we all have in mind in setting up a national energy board.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, the bill being debated by the house at the present time, has for its purpose the setting up of a national energy board, and in my opinion this is one of the most far-reaching bills that has come before this session or any other session for a long time. I may say that energy is the key to industrial development and national welfare. The people of the west who reside in that tremendous area commonly known as the sedimentary basin are fully aware of the tremendous resources they have in their back yard.
For those of you who are not familiar with the area and its geology from which the oil and gas supply originates, let me say that from the crest of the Rocky mountains stretching eastward almost, through Manitoba and north to the Arctic and into the arctic islands is a tremendous area known as the sedimentary basin, and it is in that area that we find these tremendous deposits of oil and gas. The exploitation of these resources, the finding of markets for the products and the development of petrochemical industries in the west are what we are looking and hoping for.
In order to have sound economic development of these vast resources it was considered necessary in the interests of the people, in the interests of the industry too, may I say, and in the interests of equity within the industry to advance the idea of an energy board. When we are talking about a natural resource like gas we must realize that it is an expendable resource. It is a resource that can be drained off by use and therefore we must give greater consideration to that factor than we would in the case of a replaceable resource such as hydroelectric power, for after all the water keeps flowing over the dams and hydroelectric power is generated, but when you draw gas

and oil from the ground you are draining off a non-replaceable natural resource. That brings up the need for some measure of public control.
I am not one who believes by any means that everything has to be controlled but there are certain things, and gas is one of them, where you have got to have a certain amount of control in the public interest. That was found when the Alberta government set up the conservation board in that province. After the energy board has been set up to look after the interests of Canada with respect to oil, gas and other energy products the same thing will be found to be true.
I rose to speak on this matter because in my constituency in Alberta is found a great share of the natural gas that will warm the homes of Alberta. Turner valley is located there and also Flat Top mountain and Savannah creek. The tremendous gas and oil deposits in the vicinity of Pincher Creek are also located in my constituency. All along the eastern slope of the Rockies there are these tremendous fields of oil and gas. Therefore, with this tremendous surplus of energy we have to look forward to markets and I for one am 100 per cent behind the finding of export markets for these products. I think they have to be exported. Above all, if I am to say anything about export on the floor of the house I wish to say that an energy board should be set up for the purpose of looking after the public interest with respect to export. The question is how the exporting should be done in order to protect the public interest.
Let me call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, some of the factors which I think should be considered by an energy board. Coming from the west as I do and having worked very closely on these matters as a consultant in Calgary for a number of years, I feel I can speak with a certain amount of inward feeling and understanding of some of the economic relationships that pertain to this matter in the west. I should think that some of the factors which will need to be considered are, first, the pools which are to be drained. When we export gas careful consideration should be given as to what pools are drained. We do not want to see a pool drained right beside a great metropolitan centre which is using gas while another pool away off in the hinterland is not drained although there are pipe lines leading to it. Some consideration should be given to the question of what pools are drained when gas is exported.
The second factor is the price to the producers. If we are going to export gas it is necessary to take into account the 600 to

800 capped wells in Alberta where people have put their capital and see that they are given a decent return on this capital they have invested. I for one would like to see these people receive a fair share of the sale price of the gas in the foreign market. It is my thought that through more effective bargaining we should receive the best price possible for the gas we export. I am not so sure that an individual company, interested in completing a deal, is likely to act in the best interests of the public when it comes to agreeing on a price which would be the best price that Canada should obtain in relation to the price which consumers in Canada must pay.
The exporter of natural gas deals in wholesale quantities. In other words, if a gas company is making a deal to sell a tremendous amount of gas they will sell it a little cheaper than if they were selling a small amount. My contention is that we should look at the sale of gas from the retailers' point of view. Out in Alberta, where the climate is cold in winter the individual user of gas will consume perhaps 4 or 5 times as much gas as the consumer in the warmer climate. If we are looking at the problem from the consumer's point of view, then the man in Alberta is the big consumer, not the man in the warmer climate. If the price were established on the basis of the consumer, then that big consumer in Canada should pay a lower price for his gas than the small consumer in a warmer climate. All I am saying is that those who are looking after the public interest should protect the interests of the Canadian consumer by taking this matter into consideration.
If we are to establish industries, and have the industrial development hoped for then natural gas must be sold at a low price and the supply available for a long time. The petrochemical industries in the west are capable of producing in the neighbourhood of 10,000 products. Let us take the plant at Sarnia as an example. There are over 10,000 products that can be produced from oil at that point. The Polymer Corporation alone produces some 600 or 700 different commodities. As you know the gas which comes out of the ground is about 90 per cent wet gas and only 10 per cent methane gas. It is only the methane gas that goes through the pipes and into homes. The so-called wet gas is a sour gas which has to be put through processing plants to strip out the methane, ethane, propane, butane and hydrogen sulphide.
Some fields in the west for instance around Okotoks and in the Pincher Creek area are capable of shipping out a trainload of sulphur per day. There is a tremendous development 66968-9-255
National Energy Board in sulphur production alone, and there are tremendous quantities of propane, butane and ethane, all of which must find markets. When Canada is exporting tremendous quantities of natural gas to the United States it will be done through a pipe that has a 36-inch diameter, flowing 450 million cubic feet per day. This is a tremendous amount of gas and will result in a lot of by-products which will need to find markets either in the United States or through the development of industry in Canada. This is one of the most troublesome aspects of the oil and gas industry in the west, particularly the gas industry. Alberta has a conservation board and it is the policy of that board to require that gas and its by-products be conserved. This has meant pumping certain surplus products back into the ground, and that is being done to a certain extent. A certain amount of propane is flared in the summer. Wherever gas is flared, as was the case in the Turner valley during the early development period the loss to society was tremendous. I think everyone in this dominion frowns on that type of wasteful operation.
Now, coming back to industrial development I should like to say that in the Crowsnest area, for example, where we expect this pipe line will find its way through to markets in the United States, we are tremendously interested in the development of industry. If we are going to develop the iron ore or any of the other minerals in the Crowsnest Pass area, and if you are going to have secondary industries developed, we must have a price for gas which will be in line with the ability of companies to pay and with their ability to attract capital.
There is one other point I should like to mention and that is that those who are charged with the responsibility of examining the contracts of the different companies should look into the question of escalator clauses in those contracts. I am told these gas exporting companies have escalator clauses in their contracts. In other words the price of gas is set at a certain level and then it goes up year after year in increments and gradually the price is increased. I have heard that these escalator clauses are based on economic trends. I would recommend to the government that they look into the question of who drew these economic trends. There is no other industry in this country that I know of that has escalator clauses in contracts relating to the things which it sets out to sell.
Then, having said that, I believe there should be a sufficient margin of profit given to gas exporting companies to enable them
4004	HOUSE OF
National Energy Board to attract capital and to make their operations profitable. There is no one in the picture who is going to deny them that. What we do want to see is that they act in the public interest. We should maintain equity among the different producers. It is possible that a big company such as Imperial Oil or Shell, with lots of bargaining power, could obtain a better deal than some small Canadian gas company. I believe that the economic forces should be bent in such a way that, over a long period of time, Canadian ownership will develop. Above all, we should maintain equity among the producers of gas and encourage Canadians to assume leadership in the production of gas and oil.
In so far as those of you who are not familiar with the gas and oil industry are concerned, I might say that natural gas often results from the exploration for oil. A company may be drilling for oil, and quite often strike natural gas. The valuation of gas or oil is a problem worthy of mention. Let me say for the benefit of hon. members who are unfamiliar with the oil and gas industry that if we are looking at the mathematics of investment, it depends on how fast you can exploit the supply in the well and this in turn depends on how much the conservation board will allow you to sell. That plus an assumed discount rate determines the price of the well. Any income from gas beyond 25 or 30 years, if discounted to the present, assuming an interest rate, does not amount to much. That is one reason why we have had a tremendous campaign to influence the public that we ought to cut and get out of gas in 25 years.
I do not blame that one body of people who are concerned with the exporting of gas, namely the pipe line companies. Their interests are to get their money out as quickly as possible; that is only good business; that is only natural. What I am trying to get at is that there is a conflict between that speed with which the export companies wish to get their capital back out and the public interest. The other side of the picture is the investment of capital in secondary industries. If you are going to put money into a petrochemical industry that will cost several millions of dollars, the very first question the investor is going to ask is this: How long is my source of raw material going to last?
It has been my humble duty to run an economic consulting business at Calgary for western Canada. Many companies have come to me and asked me for a study of where they should locate in Alberta. After you have gone through all the different factors necessary to consider in evaluating the potential income of that particular company, you


will come to the conclusion that much depends upon the cost and continuity of the source of hydrocarbons. If you can show, as in the Medicine Hat area, where you have a source of gas that will probably last for 75 years and more and the cost is likely to be relatively cheap, that is where the industry is located. So when it comes to the investing of capital, there is that principle to which investors pay attention, namely how long is my source of hydrocarbons going to last. But that consideration is in conflict with the speed at which exporting companies wish to get their money back out of gas fields once developed.
The setting up of a national energy board is a step taken primarily for western Canada. These tremendous deposits of oil and gas and energy are largely located in western Canada. Since they are located out west, this board should have on it personnel who understand the problems of western Canada. I have watched the debate on this energy bill in this house and I have noticed that the people of Ontario are only mildly interested. I can understand why that should be so. We in western Canada are primarily concerned. It is us who should be considered when choosing people to be on the board. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and to some extent Manitoba-yes, and Ontario-are the provinces concerned. But as to eastern Canada, what is the use in having on the board somebody from Halifax who knows very little about the energy resources in western Canada? All I am saying is this. They are good people and everything else, but this particular piece of legislation is largely for western Canada and I should hope that those who are in eastern Canada would look upon it as such and that they, for once at any rate, would regard us in the west as grown-up children and give us an opportunity really to direct this particular board in the interests of developing our tremendous resources out there, getting the capital and getting these petrochemical industries and other industries established.
I now want to say a few words on another matter. I have been tremendously impressed by the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and of other members of the opposition and of the C.C.F. They have gone to great lengths in praising the report of the Gordon royal commission which recommended the establishment of an energy board. The Gordon royal commission made the energy board their number one recommendation. You may be interested in knowing how that recommendation got into the report.
Mr. Gordon set up a system and asked for the help across Canada of scientists, economists and everyone whose services he

could draw upon. In Alberta he asked the Alberta government to prepare a brief for the information of the Gordon royal commission. I was asked by the Alberta government to head the preparation of the Alberta brief. We made the creation of a national energy board our number one recommendation. Through Dr. Stewart who was on the royal commission with whom I talked many times and Mr. Gordon himself and others, as a result of the way in which they were impressed with the soundness of the recommendation and I may say the brief is in print for anyone who wishes to read it, the question of an energy board found its way into the final report of the Gordon royal commission.
Let me go back one step further because I want to give credit to the people who deserve credit. I was asked to take leadership and prepare "Alberta's Economic Prospects" which was Alberta's brief to the Gordon royal commission. There were some 50 people who made submissions to that brief. Each department of the government and the university, the research council, the power commission and many others were assigned by me to prepare certain submissions. An outline was prepared first and the submission written. The paper was then read by me and others and criticized. A series of teams prepared the various submissions and I acted as the economist with each team and co-ordinated the final paper. This was known as "Alberta's Economic Prospects" to the Gordon royal commission. During this work I made an assignment on coal to Mr. Lang of the research council. When he had his submission prepared and I read it I found that over a few pages from the beginning he had recommended an energy board but he had stricken it out. He thought that it should not be up to him to recommend an energy board. I said, "I think we ought to take that particular feature out of there and play it up and hold some meetings". So we called a meeting over in the office of the minister of economic affairs. Mr. Lang and Dr. Grace were assigned the task of redrafting the recommendation for the establishment of an energy board. That was done and we worked it over again, and from there it was made number one recommendation in "Alberta's Economic Prospects". You will find it in the back of the printed publication. This report was prepared back in October of 1955. Although the matter of an energy board had been mentioned by others this action in Alberta's brief focused attention on it. I do not wish to take any credit for it. I want to see all of the credit go to Mr. Lang of the research council of Alberta, Dr. Grace and others who worked with him. They are the people who deserve the credit.
66968-9-255J
National Energy Board
As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, I am
100	per cent behind the export of gas. But if precautions are taken in order to protect the public interest with respect to supply and price I see no reason why we cannot go forward and have great benefits accrue from the' export of gas. I just hope that we can build up an export market from which we can get a proper price and that all the people will benefit. I wish to thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) for the effort which he has put into this piece of legislation, and while any piece of legislation is a compromise, I believe that everything considered the bill before the house is the best compromise which could be arrived at at this time.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to note that the last speaker referred to this bill, like some of the other bills we have dealt with this session, as a bill concerning mainly his province or the other western provinces of Canada. However, that is not what the bill says. This is a national energy bill, and there are
101	clauses. I would assume that out of the 101 clauses some of them must, or should, apply to the people who live in the other parts of Canada.
We listened very closely to what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said tonight. He said many things about this particular bill. In fact, much of what he said reminded me of Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing", and I think that is about what the situation was. The member who has just sat down also referred to this bill as a far-reaching bill. It is far-reaching all right; it goes everywhere and gets nowhere.
This particular bill, in my opinion, is one of the most important bills which has been considered for a long time. I think that one of the oversights in this bill is the fact that it is called a national energy bill when in fact it is not. I think this bill is a bastardization of a great number of bills which we have at the present time, including our export and import bills concerning the production and sale of gas. This bill does not talk about matters of energy which should be in an energy bill, but which are completely neglected. A national energy bill should contain legislation which will govern gas, oil, coal and hydro power. Atomic energy must be taken into consideration also in a national energy bill. These things have not been taken into consideration.
This bill was no doubt prompted by the discussions spearheaded by the decision made by the previous government, and particularly by the then minister of trade and commerce. This bill in the main considers the matter which was raised by the trans-Canada pipe

National Energy Board line. Even in this field where the Conservative government conducted an election on this particular issue, and beat the drums across the country on the issue of the trans-Canada pipe line and the faults and manipulations which took place in the introduction of that pipe line, the government has completely neglected the responsibilities which they said they would assume in that particular field.
They have failed in the main to mention the other fields of national energy. The 101 clauses in this particular bill do not even consider the major sources of energy which we are going to use for many years to come. There is nothing in this bill that concerns our greatest potential energy in future years, the matter of atomic energy. That has not been considered. Therefore I would agree that this bill is far-reaching; it goes to many places but really does not get any place at all.
I suggest that this bill could be supported quite well by the Liberal party, and I was not surprised when the Leader of the Opposition rose and said that he was willing to support it in principle. I would like to know where he finds the principle in this bill. This is a conglomeration of a number of other bills and there is no principle in it. If the Leader of the Opposition does not know there is no principle in it, then I think it is an excuse for the attitude taken in the past on this matter of national energy, and in particular the manipulation and handling of the trans-Canada pipe line.
I think particularly in the last few years it has generally been decided that national energy is something which belongs to the Canadian people and should be used for the Canadian people. One of our greatest natural resources in years gone by has been hydro. I can think of one or two isolated cases in the province of Ontario where we have not nationalized hydro. I am thinking of a particular case not too far away from the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps it is something he could give some consideration to, because he represents a riding that is affected by a particular company. In Sault Ste. Marie they still have the natural resource of hydro controlled by a private company. I am thinking of people who live in the village of Searchmont which is only 10 or 12 miles from a major transmission line of this particular company, but there is no electricity in that community. They have built one of the most modern sawmills in Ontario, probably one of the most modern in Canada today. They have built this sawmill but have had to put in their own power development in the sawmill for the simple reason that private industry, as always, fails to serve the needs of the

people when dealing with a national commodity, and certainly hydro power comes under that category.
We have seen also abuses over the years of these commodities and groups of commodities which have been nationalized. I am thinking again of the Ontario hydro as it affects a certain community not too far from my area. I pay five cents for the first quota of hydro power in rural electrification in northern Ontario, while at the same time the people of Quebec are buying the product of the Ontario hydro at half a cent a kilowatt and selling it to their own people through a co-operative in the province of Quebec at three-quarters of a cent. So even where we have nationalized some of these industries on a provincial or municipal basis, sometimes we find they do not serve the needs of the people because the people who implement them fail to make them work for the benefit of the people.
This government has failed miserably to do anything about many of the major sources of national energy. I do not really see why they set up the Borden commission to do a survey of national energy in Canada. I have read parts of their report and they have proved of great interest. I think the report has been well prepared and should serve the government in developing a national policy. But has the government taken any of the recommendations of the commission into consideration? Two of the major recommendations were, first, that there should be compulsion in the selling rates, so the government ignored that; and another recommendation was that the tolls, rates and tariffs should be calculated to yield a fair rate of return on the shareholders' equity. This recommendation was also ignored because it interferes with private enterprise. The government does not want them to get a fair return; they want them to get an exorbitant return.
It is apparently the hope that if this money is piled high enough, if the graft and profiteering which is taken out of the distribution of national energy in particular can be piled high enough, few of the crumbs may spill and fall on the floor where the multitude can share in some small way in those profits. We do not really care about the size of the profits which are being piled up as long as a few crumbs fall off and the ordinary people get their share of the crumbs.
Another question which we must take into consideration when discussing the establishment of a national energy board is coal. For years we have depended on coal, and we have on the statute books an agglomeration of many acts which deal with that industry. We

subsidize coal production in two or three different ways; we assist in the digging of it, in the shipping of it and in the selling of it. This is a commodity which could certainly be used for the betterment of all Canadians if it were brought under a national plan which would utilize it for the good of all the people.
One of the things we must keep in mind is that national energy represents one of the greatest resources we have in the country. We, in Ontario, have nationalized our hydro industry but we have also abused it badly. We have abused it to the extent that there are only a few more developments which can take place in the province which could be of benefit to the people generally. We have not carried out this operation on a planned basis. We have considered how it was likely to affect private profits rather than how it could best contribute to the development of Canada. We have given much more consideration to how this development was going to help the profiteers than how it would assist the mass of the people of this country. We have kept the requirements of the financial institutions more in mind than the need to develop our resources for the good of all.
If we lose our national resources, it should be remembered that there is nothing which can be put in their place, and this should make us particularly careful and responsible in our approach, especially to those areas which are so far untapped and undeveloped. If the government is sincere in wishing to develop those areas which up to the present have not been developed, one of the most effective ways of doing this would be to control our national energy and supply energy at a low rate of cost to communities where natural resources are lacking. We should find that a little subsidization in the field of the development of natural energy would be a lot more profitable than a great deal of subsidization in fields which are much less productive-the development of secondary industries, for example.
The government appointed the Borden commission to make this investigation. I wonder just why these commissions are set up, and I think the Canadian people are beginning to ask themselves the same question. I say this because after the Borden commission has been set up by the government, the government declared that no matter what recommendations the commission brought in it did not intend to pay any attention to them. The question arises: why set these commissions up at all? Do we need to stall for time until some decision can be reached? Did we ask these intelligent and highly reputed gentlemen to travel across this country, to interview
National Energy Board people, to examine the situation in all parts of Canada and to hear representations from the major organizations just in order to give the government some measure of time in which they can overcome a growing understanding on the part of the Canadian people with regard to the place of natural gas in a national energy scheme?
Did the government want to overcome the feeling which is developing across the country that Canada has been sold down the river by the privateers and profiteers? Did the government want to let the smoke of that battle -the battle which they helped to lead-die down so that they could do exactly as the former government did, and bring in a bill which does nothing to assist the planning or development of Canadian resources and which does absolutely nothing to develop our sources and supply of natural energy for the good of the Canadian people? I think the Canadian people are going to ask why the Borden commission was set up. Obviously it was not set up to tell the government anything, because the government has completely ignored it. The government has paid no attention to its views.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is not right.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. gentleman says: that is not right. I remind him that this plan was not produced for peanuts. But what major recommendation suggested by the Borden commission after an expenditure of a third of a million dollars has been adopted in this legislation now before us? A staff writer for the Toronto Star, Mr. William McGaffin, in an article which appeared on May 20 pointed out with reference to this bill that there was no compulsion about it; that the board might make orders with respect to all matters relating to traffic, tolls or tariffs, but that there was no indication of compulsion. The writer points out that the governor in council can, if it so wishes, over-ride these permissive powers, because it has the final say. It is true that recourse may be had to the supreme court on matters of fact and of law, but according to this bill such recourse is only possible on points of law.
It is also pointed out that tolls and tariffs are to be calculated to yield a fair rate of return to shareholders. Does this take into consideration the actual amount of money which was originally invested? Does it take into consideration that Mr. Tanner, president of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, decided to place a bet as one would on a horse race-that he decided to place a bet of $8 which yielded a return of well over-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must remind him that it is past ten o'clock.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business will be tomorrow? I wonder if we could be told the business from now until the end of the week?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall proceed with this debate. There is a possibility that at the opening of the sitting we shall take item No. 1 on today's order paper, consideration of certain amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. C-37. Then we shall have to change the order from that which I listed on Friday in view of the expected absence of the Minister of Finance. We shall take item 9 on today's order paper, that is the resolution approving the convention on the nationality of married women.


Lionel Chevrier: That is after this debate is concluded?


Howard Charles Green: After this present debate on the national energy board is concluded. Then we shall go on with item 10, the resolution concerning the Defence Services Pension Act; item 11, the resolution on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, and afterwards to the resolution which appears under government notice of motion today providing for additional judges. I am sorry that I cannot as yet tell the hon. gentleman what estimates will be considered should we get the energy bill through before the end of the week.


Lionel Chevrier: Is there any indication of what we shall do on Monday?


Howard Charles Green: We had in mind taking a supply motion should the national energy bill have gone through.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after ten 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 report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Argue: 1.	Has any frozen shrimp been imported from China to Canada during (a) 1958; (b) 1959?
2.	If so, at what ports were they landed, on what dates, what quantites, dollar value, and who were the Canadian importers?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1.	Statistics are not available on the imports of frozen shrimps as they are not recorded separately.
2.	As above.



BANK OF CANADA


Mr. Racine: 1.	Have the chartered banks borrowed from the Bank of Canada during the years 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, to May 1?
2.	If so, what amounts for each of the above years?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1.	Yes.
2.	In the published weekly balance sheets of the Bank of Canada the following advances to chartered and savings banks were shown as outstanding:
Questions
1955-	January 19, $1,000,000; April 20,
$10,000,000; May 4, $1,000,000; May 11, $10,000,000; May 18, $10,000,000; June 22, $5,000,000; September 14, $15,000,000; October 5, $10,000,000; October 12, $26,000,000; October 19, $16,000,000; October 26, $16,000,000; November 2, $15,000,000; November 9, $17,000,000; November 16, $12,000,000; November 23,	$32,000,000; November 30, $4,000,000;
December 7, $12,000,000; December 14, $2,000,000; December 21, $4,000,000.
1956-	January 4, $9,500,000; April 4, $16,000,000; April 11, $10,000,000; April 18, $10,000,000; April 25, $10,000,000; May 30, $25,700,000; June 6, $700,000; June 13, $12,000,000; June 20, $5,000,000; June 27, $5,000,000; July 4, $11,000,00; July 11, $18,000,000; July 18, $40,000,000; July 25, $12,000,000; August 8, $7,000,000; August 15, $25,000,000; October 10, $32,000,000; November 14, $25,000,000; November 21, $10,000,000; November 28, $50,000,000; December 19, $44,500,000; December 26, $10,000,000.
1957-	January 9, $30,000,000; March 6, $400,000; March 13, $11,000,000; March 27, $10,000,000; April 3, $30,000,000; April 24, $21,000,000; May 1, $300,000; May 8, $100,000; May 29, $25,050,000; June 26, $24,000,000; July 3, $12,000,000; August 7, $11,000,000.
1958-	April 2, $800,000; April 9, $250,000; April 16, $11,000,000; April 23, $20,000,000; June 25, $26,000,000; September 24, $3,000,000; December 3, $5,300,000; December 24, $3,000,000; December 31, $2,000,000.
1959-	January 21, $3,000,000; March 25,
$500,000; April 8,	$12,000,000; April 15,



$11,000,000.  HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 26, 1959


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, while it is a most unusual thing to do, the passing of John Foster Dulles, the former secretary of state of the United States, has evoked feelings of world-wide sympathy, and I shall therefore share with the house the message I sent yesterday to President Eisenhower on behalf of the parliament of Canada and the Canadian people:
May I express the deep sympathy of the government and people of Canada on the death of the Honourable John Foster Dulles.
In his passing, the American people have lost one of the outstanding figures of our time, one whose years of devoted service as secretary of state crowned a long and distinguished career in many spheres of private and public endeavour. The world has lost at a critical time a great and steadfast personality, ever vigilant in the defence of freedom.
To Canadians, he was more than a renowned world statesman: he was a friendly neighbour who regularly turned to his island home in Canada for rest and inspiration.
Our thoughts are with you and the people of the United States as you mourn the loss of one whose counsel was of such distinction and whose labours were so unstintingly given. His refusal to spare himself even when in the grip of a fatal illness will stand for years to come as an example of personal courage and public dedication.
Please extend to Mrs. Dulles and the family the expression of Canada's sorrow at his passing.
I know that the house and all Canadians will join with me in paying tribute to Mr. Dulles' memory. I may add that at the funeral in Washington on May 27 the government and people of Canada will be represented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming).


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in associating our party with what the Prime Minister has just said, and particularly with his words of sympathy to Mrs. Dulles and the other members of the family, perhaps I may be permitted to read a few paragraphs from the statement I gave to the press yesterday when I heard the sad news of Mr. Dulles' death:
History will evaluate the contribution he made to the solution of international problems. But we do not need to wait for history to tell us that this contribution was a powerful, at times a decisive one, 66968-9-252J
and one that had the highest purposes behind it. His illness, and now his death, has left a vacuum in the direction of the foreign policy of his country, and indeed of the western coalition, which will not easily be filled.
He was a dedicated man and even his opponents could not but admire his courage, determination and capacity. He discharged his responsibilities with an unflagging zeal and a single-minded devotion that was beyond praise. He fought for what he believed with the intensity of a crusader and the skill of a great advocate.
He would have been a powerful and respected figure in the diplomacy and policy of any country he represented. As a spokesman of the most powerful state in the world, his was often the dominating voice. It never weakened in the pursuit, through policies in which he passionately believed, of freedom and security in the world as the foundation of peace. Those who worked with him to reach this goal, even though they may not have agreed with everything he said or did, will pay tribute to his sincerity of purpose, his clarity of mind and his magnificent courage, as they lament his passing at this time.
The free democracies have lost a great champion, whose like we shall not see again.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we in the C.C.F. wish to be associated with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in sending to Mrs. Dulles, their two sons, and the members of the Dulles family our sincere sympathy at the time of the passing of John Foster Dulles. He spent his life very largely in the service of the state department of the United States. Since the time he became secretary of state ail have acclaimed his zeal, his strong will, and his complete devotion to that task.
The members of the C.C.F. movement in Canada, Mr. Speaker, have not always agreed with the policies put forward by John Foster Dulles, but we have admired his bravery throughout his life and particularly his great courage in fighting the dread disease of cancer which finally conquered him. Though we have not always agreed with his policies, we respected him as a western leader who put forward his views believing them to be right in the light of the many problems and trials confronting the world from time to time. We associate ourselves with this message of sympathy from Canada to the President of the United States and to the family.



ATOMIC ENERGY


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make
3966	HOUSE OF
Atomic Energy-Agreement With U.S. a statement at this time in regard to an agreement signed on May 22 in Washington between the Canadian and United States governments providing for co-operation between the two countries on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes. I trust that the house will grant me leave to make this statement. An announcement concerning this agreement is being made simultaneously in Washington. Copies of the agreement will be available in the joint parliamentary distribution branch in both languages.
This agreement will enable Canada to take advantage of the amendments made last year to the United States atomic energy act, and therefore continue and extend the degree to which co-operation in this field has been carried out under the agreement for co-operation regarding atomic information for mutual defence purposes signed in Washington on June 15, 1955, and the amendment to the civil agreement which was signed on June 26, 1956.
Under the terms of the United States act, as members of the house know, agreements for co-operation on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes must lie on the table of the joint committee on atomic energy of the United States congress for a period of 60 days after signature. It is expected, therefore, that this agreement will come into effect in approximately that period of time.
It might be helpful if I were to draw the attention of the house to the main features of this agreement, and in that connection I will use the language of the agreement. It will permit the exchange of information necessary to the development of defence plans; the training of personnel in the employment of and defence against atomic weapons and other military applications of atomic energy; the evaluation of the capabilities of potential enemies in the employment of atomic weapons; the development of delivery systems compatible with the atomic weapons which they carry; research, development and design of military reactors to the extent and by such means as may be agreed.
Provision is made for the transfer to Canada under mutually agreeable conditions of such non-nuclear parts of atomic weapons systems involving restricted data as are jointly determined to be necessary to improve the state of training of Canada's armed forces and the operational readiness of those forces. Finally, the way will be opened for the transfer at some future time to Canada of military reactors and any special nuclear materials required for them. Because of the sensitive nature of the information and materials which will be exchanged and transferred


under this agreement, certain appropriate safeguard provisions have been included.
I feel certain that the co-operation which will be carried out under this agreement will be of substantial benefit to Canada, not only in the training of our armed forces, in the development of defence plans and in the improvement in our military state of readiness and our equipment, but also in enabling Canada's armed forces better to play their part in the defence of North America and the free world.
I trust this agreement will be carried out in the same spirit which has marked the harmonious relations which have always existed between Canada and the United States on atomic energy matters.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to imagine an agreement on a more important subject than the one which the Prime Minister has just read to the house. I have heard it, as have other hon. members, for the first time. I would not wish to make any comment on it without the most careful consideration. Its importance certainly warrants that consideration.
However, from what the Prime Minister has said I gather that the co-operation which is visualized between the two governments in the field of atomic weapons does not extend to the transfer of control from the United States to Canadian sources of any atomic weapons which might be manufactured in the United States and be made available to the Canadian forces for tactical or defence purposes. That, of course, is an extremely important limitation-if indeed it is a limitation-in this agreement.
As I say however, the whole matter is of such great importance that I would not wish to make any further comment on it at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, this is undoubtedly one of the most important announcements that has been made in this chamber for a long time. It is most difficult, without any prior notice, to be able to state one's position immediately on such an important and complicated matter. However, the principles which guide us in looking at such documents are well known. We are interested, of course, in defence. We are interested in the protection of the integrity of Canadian sovereignty. We shall study this agreement with great care and we shall comment on it after such study in the interests of not only Canada's defence but, of even greater importance, in the interests of the peace of the world.

Motions for Papers
ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY	court of British Columbia and for two additional
judges of the supreme court of Alberta.



WELLAND CANAL

[Stage Direction]
STATEMENT ON PROGRESS IN ,, ..	, ,
clearing vessels	Motion agreed to.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, because of the general interest that has been shown in this matter I feel sure that all hon. members will be interested to learn that good progress has been made in clearing through the Welland canal the accumulation of vessels that developed after the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway. When I visited the Welland canal two weeks ago today there was an accumulation of 40 upbound vessels waiting to enter the canal at Port Weller. The number had been reduced to five this morning; two ocean-going ships anchored in the lake reported to be waiting for pilots and three ships in Port Weller harbour, one ocean-going and two North American. There are no vessels awaiting entry or being delayed from entering the downbound channel at Port Colborne.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
statement on u.s. interference with

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on May 20 the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway asked me a question, and at that time I promised to give a report, as soon as definite information was available, as to the possibility of the United States authorities lifting the restrictions recently applied to Canadian trucks carrying goods in bond through United States territory.
I am glad to report, as has been indicated in the press, that the United States authorities have lifted these restrictions. Official notification of this decision was received by the Canadian embassy in Washington on May 22. I may add that the government, and I am sure this house, welcomes this helpful action by the United States which reflects a willingness to co-operate in the solution of our joint commercial problems.


JUDGES ACT
Howard Charles Green: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide salaries for three additional puisne judges of the superior court of Quebec, for two additional judges of the supreme


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 108-Mr. Dupuis:
For a copy of the lease, if any, entered into by the government and the St. Johns' yacht club, in connection with the use of a parcel of government land on the bank of the Richelieu river at St. Jean, province of Quebec.
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, the government will be pleased to table this information.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
d'iberville
Motion No. 109-Mr. Dupuis:
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, lease and other documents exchanged between the Department of Transport and Messrs. Robert and Bernard Goineau or any other person or persons, in connection with the installation of gasoline pumps and a repair shop on a parcel of land belonging to the federal government on the shore of the Richelieu river at St. Jean-d'Iberville.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 110-Mr. Carter:
For a copy of any letters or communications received by the Prime Minister from the Newfoundland board of trade, since March 25, 1959, regarding term 29 of the terms of union, and any replies thereto.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I might say in this connection that there is just the one letter, and that letter was included in the documents produced in response to a recent motion made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on this subject I wonder if I might be permitted to ask the Prime Minister if that is the only document in that other return, because it was the only one which reached my desk.


John George Diefenbaker: Whatever documents
were produced were the only ones.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances referred to by the Prime Minister would the hon. member wish to withdraw this motion? Is it the pleasure of the house that this motion be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion dropped.

Motions for Papers


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. Ill-Mr. Racine:
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged since January 1, 1955, between the federal government and the authorities of the states of Maine and New Hampshire and other persons, with respect to unemployment insurance benefits for Canadians employed by lumbering interests in the border states.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 112-Mr. Caron:
For a copy of the minutes of the several meetings of the unemployment insurance advisory committee convened on August 19, 1958.
Michael Starr: I have given this motion careful consideration, and in view of the fact that minutes of this sort have been considered as privileged documents, and because if such a practice were indulged in it would undermine the work of all such committees, I cannot accept it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister not give consideration to the fact that he tabled-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but this motion is not debatable under the rules unless the matter is deferred for debate, and in these circumstances it is my duty to put the motion.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour how he justifies the refusal of the government to table the minutes of the meeting of the unemployment insurance advisory committee convened on August 19, 1958-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking about a matter that has been determined by the house within the last few

minutes. It is therefore a matter that is decided. On what basis would such a question be in order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I am asking, Mr. Speaker, is why the Minister of Labour saw fit to table the minutes of the unemployment insurance advisory committee of July 24 and 25, 1950, under the previous regime, when he refuses to table the minutes of a meeting of the unemployment insurance advisory committee in this instance.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand what the hon. member is asking. What I am interested in knowing is how it could be in order to ask such a question at this time. It is purely an argumentative question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, surely I am entitled to ask the Minister of Labour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless the hon. member can cite some authority for the propriety of the course he is seeking to follow I would ask him not to pursue it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would submit what is perhaps the best authority, and that is a statement containing the actual words of the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. I understand that the hon. member is trying to argue with the minister about a decision he expressed before the vote was taken on the basis of some other decision taken at an earlier time. I do not think it is in order to ask such a question at this stage. It may be in order to refer to it on the estimates or at some other time, but to my mind it is not the type of question that should be asked on orders of the day and I ask the hon. member not to pursue it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You ask me not
to pursue it, but with your permission I should like to pursue it because it is a matter that involves the rights of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: There are ways of dealing with the rights of parliament, but my decision is that it is not proper to ask this question on the orders of the day.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. As reported at page 3869 of Hansard the minister said this:
Yes, I believe it is a reasonable request, but my suggestion to the effect that there is a routine procedure to be followed is also reasonable.
This is my question. Would the minister tell me how he could change his mind so quickly?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member heard a previous attempt to introduce the same form of argumentive question, and-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, which I think affects all members of the house. On May 21 in connection with the matter to which my hon. friend has just referred, a question arose and it resulted in an inquiry by the hon. member of the minister as to what procedure should be followed to get certain information. The hon. member was told how to get that information, and because he was given that advice he himself did not pursue the matter further.
We now find that in attempting to get the information by that method, we cannot secure it because the government will not give it. I think that is a question of privilege. If the minister had not taken the stand he did the other day the matter would have been pursued then. We have now been foreclosed from getting that information from the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure where the previous attempt to get information took place. Was it in committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I did not make myself clear, Mr. Speaker. It was on May 21, on the orders of the day, as reported at page 3869 of Hansard, when the hon. member asked the minister whether he would table the minutes of a certain unemployment advisory committee meeting. The minister replied that that was a reasonable request but that there was a proper procedure to follow in getting that information. He made the request that that procedure should be followed, as a reasonable request, and it was followed by my hon. friend. As a result we have been foreclosed from getting the information from any source. The minister therefore misled the house, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose that if the minister had given an undertaking to produce the document it might have been a matter of privilege. But as the Leader of the Opposition recites what took place, I take it that the minister suggested that a motion be made for a return, something which has been done, and the house has now decided not to order the production of the document. I do not see how there can be any possibility of a question of privilege with regard to the house's decision. I would say that no question of privilege really arises at the present time.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Speaking to the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that on that date I was misled by the minister. From the way in which he spoke-"I believe

Inquiries of the Ministry it is a reasonable request"-I thought it would be given if I went through the ordinary channel to get the answer. If the minister had not led me to believe that he would give the information we would have pursued the matter at the time. Because the minister misled me at the time and refused the information today, we are denied the privilege of discussing the matter in the house. I believe this is a question of privilege for the members of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Deprived of debate by trickery.


Mr. Speaker:: There cannot very well be any question of privilege arising out of a vote freely taken in the house. I do not see how the hon. member can raise the point now. It is perhaps unfortunate that he did not pursue the matter on the earlier occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: As far as I am concerned the question of whether or not the document in question should be produced has been determined finally by a vote of the house. If there is anything to be made of what took place on an earlier occasion, it is any hon. member's privilege to raise the matter, of course, and to ask the house to deal with it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to hear from the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will withdraw the statement he made a moment ago. I know it followed in the course of another statement that was not in keeping with the position of the Leader of the Opposition, when he said that the minister had misled the house.


George James McIlraith: Sure he did.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Ottawa West is at his best when he is sitting down and keeping quiet. I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate should withdraw his statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Prime Minister say what he would like withdrawn?


John George Diefenbaker: I would think that the hon. member being about to write the history of Mr. King, and having-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the Prime Minister is introducing another point of order in the middle of the first one. The Prime

Minister is asking for a statement to be withdrawn. If he would allow me to deal with the first matter, then I would-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will you allow me to finish now?


An hon. Member:: A special privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: I have sat here quietly listening to all these slurs based on nothing more than imagination. I was asking that the hon. member withdraw the statement he made a moment ago that there was trickery in what had actually taken place. I suggest that statement is not in keeping with the responsibility of the house, however far the Leader of the Opposition goes in that direction.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister was allowed to finish his observations perhaps I might be permitted to say a word, because he asked me if I would withdraw-


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -the statement that the
minister had misled the house.


John George Diefenbaker: No, I did not ask that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the Prime Minister did say that to me. I said the minister had misled the house. I did not say the minister had knowingly misled the house, because the minister would not do that; but the minister did mislead the house unwittingly by taking the stand on May 21 to which I have referred, in which he advised an hon. member of this house of the procedure to be followed in order to secure certain information. In accepting that advice the hon. member let the matter drop.
Having taken that advice, the minister and the government now have refused to give the information asked for in accordance with the procedure which the minister himself stated was reasonable. That is why I said the minister had misled the house in the advice he had given the hon. member last Friday, and I do not withdraw that observation.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been raised as a matter of privilege that the Minister of Labour-I take it he is the minister referred to-has by his conduct offended the privileges of the house. What was said on the previous occasion is a matter of record in Hansard, as is also what has been said today. If there is any matter of privilege it is a privilege of the house, and is a matter for the house to deal with. Does the Minister of Labour wish to speak to the point?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the other day both the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Hull spoke to this matter. The hon. member for Hull requested that I table the minutes of the meeting which was held on August 19, 1958, and the member for Essex East asked whether it was a reasonable request. I said it was a reasonable request. Any request is a reasonable request; but it is still a decision for the minister to make whether such documents will be submitted. I pointed out to the hon. member for Hull that there was a procedure in this house under routine proceedings and orders of the day under the heading "Notices of Motions for Production of Papers".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,
before you go any further on this matter, may I ask if you do not think that not only the privilege of a private member is involved here but also the privileges of this house? The Minister of Labour tabled the minutes of certain meetings which were held in July, 1950. The minister was not asked to table those minutes; he did so voluntarily. Then when requested to table the minutes of the advisory committee meeting on August 19 last he said that he could not table those minutes because they were privileged documents. Surely that statement cannot be correct unless it also applies to the minutes of the other meetings which he voluntarily tabled, and I suggest that the minister owes it to the house to explain.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is now getting on to a different point. The question of privilege which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition relates to the conduct of the Minister of Labour on a previous occasion, which I take it is asserted becomes a matter or privilege by reason of the decision which the Minister of Labour announced to the house today.


Michael Starr: I think, Mr. Speaker, this will probably explain the situation. When I voluntarily tabled in this house four reports, I did so because the hon. member had asked me whether it was possible to have them tabled. If I had had any intention of tabling the minutes relating to all those reports I would have done so, but the hon. member will notice that out of the four reports only the minutes of one of the meetings were tabled.


Murdo William Martin: But the minister tabled those.


Michael Starr: Would the hon. member permit me to explain; unless he does not want an explanation, in which case I will sit down. The only reason those minutes were tabled
66968-9-253
Inquiries of the Ministry was because they were attached inadvertently. They were stapled and tabled inadvertently, and the hon. member can take my word for that. If 1 had noticed that the minutes were attached to that one report I certainly would not have tabled them.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I beg the right to say something now. The minister has said that he tabled the minutes of July 24 and July 25 inadvertently. If he makes that statement, of course under the rules of this house I must accept it. But since the minister has had ample opportunity to correct the situation and state that the minutes were tabled inadvertently, I can only conclude that his refusal to table the minutes is because the government is afraid to disclose their contents.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I think I must answer that charge. The hon. member has the report of the advisory committee.


Murdo William Martin: I want the minutes.


Michael Starr: The report highlights the discussions and the recommendations which went on in the course of the meeting and he has that information. Therefore he cannot possibly charge with any sense of honesty and decency that the government has anything at all to hide, because the report is tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: I think this matter has been pursued far enough. There is no motion before the house. If there is a matter of privilege involved it can be raised in the proper way by a motion. I can see how the difficulty arose, but the explanations have been given by the minister and it is up to members to consider the matter from that point on, and I hope the matter will be dropped now.
However, the right hon. Prime Minister raised a question which I have not yet disposed of.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat the exact words. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made the statement that the house had been deprived of debate by trickery. All I would suggest is that in the interests of maintaining the decorum of the house, the hon. member do what I think members in general would expect him to do, namely withdraw the statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say "the house had been"; I made the exclamation, "Deprived of debate by trickery". We have certainly been deprived of debate; that is abundantly evident. Whether it was by trickery or by some other means, I imputed no motive to any individual. If Your Honour

Inquiries of the Ministry says it is wrong to say that the house has been deprived of debate by trickery or if Your Honour feels it is unparliamentary, I shall withdraw the word "trickery", but unless Your Honour says so I will not withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear the words, and I am not sure they went on record in Hansard. However, a request has been made for their withdrawal and it is clear, now, what was said. It is true that unless a statement is offensive in the sense that it charges a member with some reprehensible conduct related to him specifically, it is not unparliamentary; but I think in the circumstances, when the discussion related entirely to the conduct of the Minister of Labour, the inference is there, and 1 should feel much better if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would indicate that he was not charging the Minister of Labour with trickery.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never intended to charge the Minister of Labour with trickery. I am quite willing to withdraw the word "trickery" and say that we were deprived by maladroitness.


George James McIlraith: I should now like to raise another point of order, and it is this. The Minister of Labour in referring to the hon. member for Essex East used the expression "if he has any sense of decency at all". Following the remarks which were made about the use of the word "trickery" I would say that the words "any sense of decency" implied that the hon. member for Essex East personally has no sense of decency. This is a direct charge against a named person, and I ask that those words should be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: I will give the minister a chance to say what he has to say about that.


Michael Starr: I do not recall the exact words. I think I said "If he had any sense of decency. .."


George James McIlraith: We have been in considerable difficulty this afternoon with regard to rulings which are, by the very nature of things, difficult to make. This statement was made by the Minister of Labour in the heat of an announcement on a somewhat complicated question, and the point of order was raised immediately afterward. The minister charged the hon. member for Essex East with having no sense of decency, because he said that if the hon. member had any sense of decency he would not have said what in fact he did say. I fail to see any distinction between that direct personal remark reflecting on the character of an hon. member who was

identified by name and the other somewhat general charge about what had been done.


Mr. Speaker:: I have given the minister who made the offensive remark his opportunity to speak. It was, unfortunately, offensive, but many remarks are offensive though they are not unparliamentary. The reason I felt so strongly about the use of the word "trickery" was that it does involve an underhand and deceitful course of conduct, and if any hon. member accused another of that I would feel it proper to ask that the word be withdrawn. The other matter is, to my mind, not something I should insist upon.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration arising out of a news report in this morning's Gazette to the effect that Mr. and Mrs. Volcy and their Canadian born daughter are now leaving Canada for the United States because, according to Mr. Volcy, they are tired of being watched by immigration officials, and that they would be permitted to remain in Canada if they were not coloured.
Would the minister care to comment on these statements and say what consideration is being given to cancellation of the deportation order so that a Canadian child will not be deprived of her birthright?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Assiniboia was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question and accordingly I have prepared a statement on this matter, which with the permission of the house I should like to present.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the answer is somewhat longer than is usual on orders of the day?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member permission to proceed with the answer?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Thank you. The facts of the case are as follows. Jean Oreste Volcy is a citizen of Haiti, 29 years of age. He entered Canada on September 6, 1951, at which time he claimed he was single and was destined to the Institut Agricole d'Oka, Quebec, to study agronomy. He remained at

that institution until the end of March, 1952, and left the institution when he failed to pass his examinations.
He registered with the school of veterinary medicine in St. Hyacinthe, Quebec in September, 1952, but again failed to pass. On July 28, 1953 he registered with the school of textiles at St. Hyacinthe, Quebec, where he obtained a diploma in cotton weaving on June 13, 1956.
On May 29, 1956 he started working for Bathurst Containers as a take-off man. At that time he declared to his employers for income tax purposes that he had three dependents, i.e. a wife, Nicole, and two children, Jean age six, and Nicole age three, all of whom he claimed were residing in Montreal.
On June 18, 1956 he registered with the Institut Alie, Montreal, for a commercial course which was due to start in September of that year. According to a letter from the Institut Alie he quit his studies there about November or December, 1956, leaving an unpaid balance of $60.
In September, 1956 he had been granted an extension of stay in Canada to expire on September 1, 1957. On September 3, 1957 Mr. Volcy called at the Montreal immigration office and requested a further extension of stay in Canada stating he was registered with the Elie business college. It was subsequently established that he had registered at the Elie business college at the beginning of September, 1957 but did not present himself when courses started on September 9, 1957, and it has been confirmed that he never attended any courses at that institution.
When he applied for an extension of his temporary stay in September, 1957, Mr. Volcy stated that he was single and requested an extension on the basis that he was still a student. He definitely claimed he would never apply for permanent admission. He also denied being employed at that time. The requested extension was granted on the basis of the information furnished, but it was subsequently established that Mr. Volcy was not then single, nor was he a student, he was employed, and in fact he later applied for permanent residence.
Upon subsequently learning that Mr. Volcy was married an effort was made to locate him at the last address furnished the immigration officials, but he had moved and his whereabouts were unknown. In November, 1957 he was located in Montreal, and when an officer of the immigration branch called to interview him a person now known to be Mrs. Volcy denied she was his wife and claimed to be only a friend.
It was established, however, that the Volcys were married in New York city in August, 66988-9-2531
Inquiries of the Ministry 1957, four months previously. Mr. Volcy further admitted that the dependents he previously claimed for income tax deduction purposes were non-existant. Mr. Volcy's attorney at this time suggested that Mr. Volcy be granted the privilege of effecting voluntary departure from Canada.
The first order of deportation was issued against Mr. Volcy in October, 1957, at which time it was not known he was married. A new order was issued in April, 1958 in which his wife, Mrs. Volcy, was included. At this time they had no children. I might say that the child has never been included in the order of deportation, and in fact remains a Canadian citizen and travels on a Canadian passport, with the right to return to Canada at any time.
When the Volcys were served with the order of deportation their solicitor argued that they had not been given an opportunity to establish that they were not subject to deportation. To meet the solicitor's objection the first order of deportation issued in April was cancelled and new orders were issued by the minister on October 28, 1958, only after a complete review of the representations made by the solicitor on behalf of his client. These deportation orders were served on the Volcys on November 10, 1958, and they were released under a conditional bond on that date.
On November 14, 1958 a petition for prohibition was served on the minister, and this was dismissed by the courts in Montreal on December 19, 1958. On January 6, 1959 the solicitor filed an appeal and deportation was accordingly suspended. In the meantime the Volcys applied for United States visas in November, 1958 and they effected voluntary departure from Canada on May 24, 1959.
From the time the deportation order was first issued until they left Canada voluntarily they were never watched by immigration officials, as has been alleged, but remained at liberty while complying with the conditions of the bond under which they were released.
This case has been given a great deal of publicity, and it has been alleged that the Volcys were being deported because of their ethnic origin. I must deny this categorically. It is well known to hon. members that Canada admits students from many lands, and of every ethnic origin, and they encounter no difficulty as long as they continue their studies. It is evident from the summary of the Volcy case, however, that from 1956, at least, Mr. Volcy has not been a bona fide student but has rather endeavoured to remain in Canada permanently by various devious means. He is not admissible as an immigrant under Canadian immigration

Inquiries of the Ministry regulations, and his record is not such as to warrant any special consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that this so-called voluntary departure, under threat of a deportation order, involves the exile of a Canadian citizen, does the minister not think that in this case humanitarian considerations should have priority over the department's adherence to the letter of the law being stubbornly upheld?


Frederick Coles Stinson: That is very cheap.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, as I said when my estimates were before the committee, what the hon. member is now saying does not jibe at all with his practice when he occupied this post.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the hon. lady a further supplementary question. I will not comment on that remark, because I said what I had done at that time was wrong. I should like to ask the hon. lady if, as she promised during consideration of her estimates, any further consideration was given to this case after it ceased to be sub judice?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It did not cease to be sub judice until they departed from this country last evening.


George James McIlraith: May I
ask a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if he or his department provided the information to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concerning what was contained in the income tax returns as to the number of dependents of this immigrant, and now made public by the minister?


George Clyde Nowlan: The answer is no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask if she could disclose to the house where she got that information?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not think there is any secret about it. It was given to us by employers who had in their possession form TD-1, which all employees fill in when they claim more than the statutory exemption of $1,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. lady think she is entitled-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This seems to be developing into a debate. Does the hon. member wish to ask a further supplementary question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: My supplementary question is this. In view of the fact that it has


always been clearly understood that the government does not make public information on income tax returns, I should like to ask the hon. lady if she thinks she was entitled to give information of this sort to the public.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Answer.


HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will now quieten the atmosphere by asking a non-controversial question of the Minister of Public Works. In view of the general concern that the historic and beautiful Harrington lake residence and property be preserved and used to the best advantage, will the government recognize this concern and interest by the introduction of legislation that will establish this property as an official government country residence for use by the Prime Minister, his distinguished guests and other appropriate persons?


Howard Charles Green: I should like to thank the hon.
member for giving me notice of this question. The suggestion he makes will be given serious consideration by the government, and should it be the wish generally of hon. members that such a course be followed I should think legislation could be introduced at this session.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister. May I ask the Prime Minister if during the course of the visit of the Prime Minister of Australia, he had an opportunity to discuss with him the subject matter of the air agreement between that country and Canada, and what progress if any has been made up to this time in the negotiations?


John George Diefenbaker: There was a general reference to that matter, but there was no progress made other than had already been achieved at the time of the arrival of the Prime Minister.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Warner Murphy: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I wonder if he could advise

the house what his department is doing with respect to the veterans in Sarnia who are tenants of C.M.H.C., and who are out on strike against the Polymer Corporation?


Howard Charles Green: On Friday last I announced that I thought arrangements could be made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in connection with those tenants who are in arrears. Now a special representative is being sent to Sarnia to assist the branch manager there in interviewing the tenants who are in arrears. I am very hopeful that a settlement can be reached.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. I take it that my hon. friend's answer to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition the other day is still the same, namely that under no circumstances will the government tolerate any evictions taking place because these people are out of work, through no fault of their own?


Howard Charles Green: As I pointed out to the hon. member for Essex East the other day, there have been no eviction notices given. Whatever notices were given were notices of termination of tenancy, and eviction proceedings would only follow the expiration of the notice of termination. I can assure the hon. member that each of these cases will be examined very carefully on an individual basis, and I think he may rely on it that there will be no harsh methods allowed.


Murdo William Martin: No evictions; that is what I asked.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Aloysius McGrath: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the house if it is true that the government of Canada has offered to make available to the province of Newfoundland, under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, more than $9 million in order to make possible a 350,000 horsepower hydro development at Bay d'Espoir on the southeast coast of Newfoundland?
Right Hon. j. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): On Friday last I sent a telegram and a confirming letter to the premier of Newfoundland, informing him that this government is prepared to enter into agreement with his province to make possible the construction of a proposed power transmission line, in accordance with the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, on terms similar
Inquiries of the Ministry to those in an agreement made under this act with the province of New Brunswick.
The transmission line in question would be in connection with the development of a 350,000 horsepower hydroelectric power project at Bay d'Espoir by the British Newfoundland Corporation.
By and large, the cost of all transmission facilities in connection with the project would be capitalized at the date of completion of construction and funds made available by this government, repayable in 40 equal annual instalments with interest at the federal borrowing rate plus one-eighth of one per cent.
I might add that if the province of Newfoundland wishes to enter into such an arrangement, I hope the premier will let me know at an early date.



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will there be in the census of 1961 a question which will permit people to indicate their ethnic or racial origin?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a statistical question if there ever was one.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, that question arose in the house on February 24 and was answered on that occasion. There must be a misunderstanding among some people in Canada with regard to this matter, or perhaps the information has not reached them through the press. The answer is that there will be two questions on the census return, one dealing with the country of citizenship, to which the answer will normally be, of course, "Canada," although those who have not their citizenship papers will reply "United Kingdom" or "United States" or whatever country of which they happen to be a citizen. There is a blank space left if the country is not named in the form. It is open to people to indicate and write in the country if it is not listed.
Then there is a second question: "What is your ethnic descent on the father's side?" There people may list their ethnic descent as they wish. The form carries about 24 types of ethnic groups, and again a blank space is left for those who do not find there the one they wish to put down. To that question people may answer "Canadian" if they so desire, or "English" or "Welsh" or "French" or "Polish" or whatever ethnic group from which they claim descent.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Erhart Regier: should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Would he not agree that asking people for their ethnic origin is in opposition to the Prime Minister's earlier opinions, often expressed in Canada, namely that he is opposed to hyphenated Canadians?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There has been a great demand that I have received by way of letters and representations that this type of question appear on the census return.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the report on the radio news this morning concerning negotiations between the C.B.C. and its employees, can the minister bring the house up to date with regard to the position of the negotiations?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, there has been no direct communication with me as Minister of Labour with regard to these discussions which are going on at the present time. I have only the information I have read in the newspapers.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just follow that matter up. I asked a question earlier, perhaps a week or ten days ago, and the minister indicated that his officers were at the disposal of either side. Have his officers been requested to help bring about a settlement in this case?


Michael Starr: Not to my knowledge.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo inquired if contracts have been awarded for the two vessels to be built for the Newfoundland coastal service. Contracts have not yet been signed but the necessary submissions to treasury board have been made, and as soon as approval is received formal contracts will be entered into.
[Mr. Churchill.)



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether or not two engineers of the Canadian maritime commission have been in Michigan investigating the possibility of buying the ship Vacation-land to be used in the ferry service to Prince Edward Island? If so, has the minister had a report, and when will a decision in this regard be made?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that
engineers have been looking over the Vacation-land. A decision has not yet been made.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question in the same field. Can the minister say whether or not a report on the feasibility of a causeway to Prince Edward Island is expected to be received by the minister in June?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege, and this also has to do with the production of papers. On April 15 in my absence the house agreed to motion No. 25 for the production of documents and correspondence in connection with the Saint John thermal plant. On May 18, when I asked the Minister of Northern Affairs when he might expect the tabling of the correspondence and documents as agreed on April 15, having to do with the Saint John thermal plant, the minister answered as reported on page 3743 of Hansard:
As I recall the motion accepted on April 15, it was on the understanding that if an agreement was signed with the province.
The minister ended by saying that he was not able to table the documents. Mr. Speaker, the minister has no right to take it upon himself to refuse to table documents whose production has been approved by the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has heard the matter raised; that there was an order for the production of documents which has not been complied with. Has he any statement to make?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I recall the events of that day there were four motions on the order paper- I have forgotten the exact number-and one

of them was a motion by the hon. member for Assiniboia who got up and suggested, as I recall the debate, that in order to get these items off the order paper I should accept them and then, after the agreements had been signed, table the documents. I accepted the suggestion and then asked if we could revert to the three previous motions which had been allowed to stand and suggested that they could be passed under the same conditions. You, Mr. Speaker, asked whether it was acceptable that those three motions should pass under those circumstances, and they went through. That is what happened, according to my recollection.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1 am not speaking of what I recall. I am speaking on the basis of the records of the house as reported on page 2705 of Hansard. Motion No. 25 has been agreed to without any conditions whatever, and for this reason I feel the house has the right to have these documents produced.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion is that the motion has not yet been complied with. Is the minister prepared to comply with the motion?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am prepared to comply with the motion the minute an agreement is signed, but when agreements are under discussion between two governments it is not proper to table the documents.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The records of the house do not say anything about the signing of agreements. This is a motion to produce certain documents-a motion which was agreed to by the house-and a month later the minister says he is not able to table the documents.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has stated his point. It is clear from the record that the motion was made. Motions are to be complied with, of course. If not, I conceive that it raises a matter of privilege for the house to deal with.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 22, 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.
Augustin Brassard: 
The bill does introduce a new principle, recommended by the Borden commission, that no pipe line and no international power line shall be built until the board has certified as to the public convenience and necessity of the project. This, of course, is the legal way of saying that the board must consider the factor of competition and the possible injury which a proposed line might do to an existing line. After all that the Conservative party has said about encouraging competition, the introduction of legislation making "public convenience and necessity" a factor is to say the least an interesting development.
But this principle is to go hand in hand with another principle, namely control by the government; for it is clear from the bill that no new pipe line for the transmission of hydrocarbons may be built, even if its public convenience and necessity are fully established to the satisfaction of the board, unless the government gives its approval. This is an entirely new requirement, which seems to be in strange contradiction with the lofty statements made by the Prime Minister in Hull on May 7, 1957 when, according to the Ottawa Citizen of May 8, he said:
We will put a stop to the government going into business and gradually exercising control over the economy.
The bill also introduces another surprising principle. I say "surprising" because it is in direct contradiction of what was said in the house by the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green). If we look at page 1528 of Hansard of February 25, we can read the following words uttered by the present Minister of Public Works when he was sitting on this side of the house in 1955:
I do not suppose it would be possible to have a power of revocation much wider than the one contained in the present act. Then there is the power to limit exportation to the surplus after Canadian needs have been met, and also to regulate the price on export so that price will not be lower than the price charged to Canadian consumers.
This refers to the present requirement of the regulations adopted pursuant to the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act. Regulation 9 requires that the price for power or gas exported by a licensee shall not be lower than the price at which power or gas, respectively, is supplied by him or his supplier in similar quantities and under similar conditions of sale for consumption in Canada.
The Montreal Star of March 15, 1958, in reporting a meeting at Calgary on the previous day, said:
Mr. Dlefenbaker added, however, that his government was determined to see that gas prices charged in Canada were not used to subsidize gas sales at cheaper prices to the United States.

I may not, on second reading, quote the relevant provision of the bill, but I do point out that the act under which the present regulations were adopted is to be repealed and that the bill does no more than to require the price for export to be just and reasonable. It does not say that gas prices charged in Canada are not to be used to subsidize gas sales at cheaper prices to the United States, despite all the determination which the Prime Minister expressed when he addressed a meeting in Calgary.
The bill contains yet another principle on which I wish to comment. It is that the government proposes to arrogate to itself the power, without further reference to parliament, to control through the board the importation of oil. As to this vitally important matter, as to the reasons for asking for such far-reaching authority, such exorbitant power for the executive, all the minister could say last Monday was:
However, a section of the bill will deal with this important matter and if approved by parliament will give authority to the governor in council to extend the application of the relevant portion of the bill to oil.
These words may be found at page 3768 of Hansard of May 18. Not one word of argument, not one single reason was invoked by the minister in support of the preposterous demand for more power for the executive. What has he said on Friday which adds to the empty words he used on Monday last?
I shall close by drawing attention to the fact that repeatedly in the bill the government is asking parliament to permit it by order in council to modify the requirements of the bill, to exempt some from its application, and to adopt regulations without their nature and scope being specified.
Mr. Speaker, we have waited nearly two years for this bill. We had been led to expect some bold steps forward, but we find on reading the bill that, as the minister has said, it draws extensively upon the experience of the past. We find that the steps forward are timid and unpromising. But because the bill draws so heavily on Liberal legislation, there is a great deal in the bill to which we do not object. It fails to do much with regard to the integration of the existing agencies of the government that are concerned with energy in some form or another but I hope that when we consider the bill clause by clause we shall persuade the government that many improvements in the bill ought to be made.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill which in essence sets up the machinery to organize and regulate the use and export of our
National Energy Board energy resources in Canada and also establishes a national energy board I believe I can safely say it is one of the most important pieces of legislation particularly for western Canada that has been considered by parliament for many years. It is just as important or perhaps even more important that the farm stabilization bill which considered for the first time the element of cost of production when setting floor prices.
For many years prior to the setting up of the Borden commission and since that date the people of the province of Alberta have been waiting and watching with anxiety for the implementation of a sound federal policy in reference to our national resources, natural gas and petroleum. I commend this legislation to the house as giving us that sound policy.
In particular the people of Alberta have been watching with anxiety to see what medium would be set up to consider, approve and reject applications for the building of transmission pipe lines for the transmission of gas and for the purpose of the export of natural gas, a top economic energy source produced in western Canada today which has been explored and discovered in large quantities and which exploration and discovery, I suggest, is still in its infancy.
For years in the province of Alberta the provincial Liberal party opposed the export of gas not only from Alberta to the United States but also to other parts of Canada, on two grounds. In the first place they felt there was an inadequate supply for the for-seeable future for Alberta and, secondly, that the export of natural gas to other parts of Canada and elsewhere would increase the price of natural gas to the consumer in Alberta. These objections were based on fear and lack of knowledge rather than on vision and logic.
We have only to examine the Canada Year Book of 1957-58 and refer to page 510 to determine the tremendous development that has taken place. I should like to place the following on the record:
The rapid development of Canada's petroleum and natural gas resources, initiated by the Leduc oil field discovery of 1947, continues unabated. At the end of 1956 proved reserves of crude oil and natural gas liquids totalled 3,129,304,000 barrels compared with 72 million barrels at the end of 1946 and during the intervening ten-year period, production amounted to 657,605,839 barrels. In 1956, the new oil found was more than three times the actual production which, at 170,569,200 barrels was more than 22 times the 1946 output. Natural gas reserves in 1956 were in excess of 23 trillion cubic feet compared with 4.7 trillion in 1950. Crude oil has, since 1953, maintained its lead in annual production value for all mineral produced in Canada and natural gas is entering the period of rapid growth.
May I suggest that what is set out in the Canada Year Book has been corroborated by

National Energy Board the Borden commission in the findings of that body based on ample evidence carefully examined. We now have a known and proven reserve of 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in Alberta and an unproven reserve estimated in the western Canada sedimentary basin of between 300 and 400 trillion cubic feet. I wish now to place on the record a statement from the report of the Borden commission:
Although the findings of the oil and gas conservation board indicate that Alberta had, as at March 31, 1958, only 4.1. trillion cubic feet of natural gas, which could be declared surplus to future requirements of the province, existing permits and immediately contractable requirements of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited for Canadian market, the board estimated future discoveries to the year 1987 to be 51 trillion cubic feet. It concluded that future Canadian requirements, other than those mentioned, would be adequately protected by these future expected discoveries.
May I suggest that a very good analogy which emphasizes the weakness of the argument to keep the natural gas in Alberta for Albertans is the same type of argument that was used in the 20's in reference to the coal reserves of Alberta. This argument was used by speakers both inside this house and outside of it approximately 20 or 30 years ago. Although it was said then that Alberta had approximately 65 per cent to 75 per cent of the coal reserves of Canada, there were those who were shortsighted enough to argue that we must be careful about exporting coal to ensure that the reserves in Alberta did not become depleted; they might not be sufficient for the foreseeable needs of the people of that province and of Canada.
Today we find that a new form of energy, natural gas, has replaced coal. These 30 years have gone by, and what has happened? We were so cautious that we went to bed with our coal. Some people say coal may have a future in 20 or 30 years, but that is little comfort today to the people in Alberta who have gone bankrupt in the coal industry nr to those miners who are now unemployed. May I suggest that the time was long overdue Tor the appointment of this royal commission. The last speaker talked about delay. I say that there was delay on the part of the former government because they should have set up this commission at an earlier date and introduced the legislation that is now before us.
This bold and aggressive step taken by this government to set up the energy board, with the powers outlined in this bill, should give the people in Alberta and the rest of the prairie provinces, assurance that we shall not go to bed with the natural gas in Alberta and elsewhere as we did with coal. A sound federal policy setting up the energy board will stimulate exploration and hence
[Mr. WooUiams.l
further discovery of natural gas well beyond the imagination of those experts who made these estimates. Often estimates are only guesswork. The production of natural gas will produce untold wealth and create a new and far-reaching prosperity for western Canada, and hence Canada generally. One has only to look back on the pages of history to find that the early explorers who first set eyes on the prairie plains described them as a windswept desert and a non-productive plain. What does the record show? Over the years we have seen the prairies produce in one year from 400 million to 600 million bushels of wheat and millions of head of cattle.
What we need today is men of vision and foresight in connection with this particular form of energy, such as we had in connection with the development of the prairies for agricultural purposes. Let us not be planners filled with fear and caution with reference to the development of natural gas and with reference to the export of natural gas.
The energy board that is set up by this legislation can and should be in a position to decide expeditiously-which is always important in industry-the quantity of the surplus that can be exported in order to make use of the developed resources and turn this natural gas into wealth that can be used for further exploration and discovery. If the early pioneers had been forbidden to produce grain in such quantities on the prairies since 1900 because of the fear of wearing out the most valuable resource of all in western Canada, the topsoil, what development would have taken place in the west? The important part of this legislation is that one body, the energy board, is empowered to give permission to build transmission pipe lines and to license the export of gas. Both of these decisions are a necessary part of the marketing of the commodity.
I presume, from a reading of the bill itself, that this board will be set up similar to a court, and will examine evidence which may suggest that another pipe line should be built or that some amount of gas should be exported. Then, after this examination of the evidence, the board will exercise its discretion, subject of course to the approval of the governor in council. These decisions are a necessary part of the marketing of the commodity. This is a superior method to having two important steps controlled by two independent authorities, the board of transport commissioners and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill).
In brief, I commend this legislation to hon. members because the authority to permit the building of a pipe line and the obtaining of

an export licence are under the jurisdiction oi one body, the energy board. Under clause 27 of the bill in question-I believe I am right in saying that on second reading I am discussing the principle of the bill and I should not read the wording of the clauses of the bill-a certificate of public convenience may be granted, while under clauses 82 and 83 a licence to export gas may likewise be granted. Both of these decisions can no doubt be made at the same time and based on the same evidence. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated in his remarks when introducing this legislation, "This method will simplify the procedure". May I quote from his remarks when introducing this legislation? He said:
At the same time, since they must compete at the point of origin for supplies of gas and compete at the point of sale with other fuels and energy sources, there is a substantial element of risk for gas transmission companies. For this reason they must not be prevented by regulatory action from earning a return sufficient to attract capital, nor must management be deprived of the normal incentive to improve efficiency.
In these words, we see the element of flexibility in the bill. Then, the minister further stated, and I quote:
Neither in the case of oil pipe lines nor in the case of gas pipe lines will the public gain anything if regulation is so restrictive as to put the pipe lines out of business, or discourage their normal development, or impede the building of new pipe lines to serve new or expanding markets, or restrict the essential work of exploration and discovery of further reserves of oil and gas. Our objective, therefore, is to find the means and level of regulation that will adequately protect the public interest, and particularly the interest of the consumer, while maintaining healthy conditions for the pipe line industry, the oil and gas producing industries and the industries distributing oil products and gas for consumption.
This flexibility is necessary to maintain the interest, first of the industry itself so that it will continue to widen the horizon of discovery to ensure that new quantities of gas can and will be discovered. Millions of dollars have already been spent by the industry in question in exploring and discovering the reserves that we now have, and it was because of the risk that was taken and the faith that those in the industry had, that the Borden commission was able to report that there was, in fact, a surplus over and above the foreseeable future needs of Canada. As I said a while ago, 80 years ago there were those who spoke gloomily about the reserves of coal in Alberta. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that there is evidence that we went to bed with our coal, so let us hope this new legislation and this new board will make certain that we will not go to bed with the natural gas in Alberta.
We hear a lot from the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) about full employ-
National Energy Board ment and economic prosperity. If the government had seen fit to implement the regulations suggested by the hon. member which would have strangled the industry would the men in the petroleum and natural gas industry be willing to take the risk? Would they have faith in the future of the industry itself? I remember the same type of speech was made in 1945 in Saskatchewan by Premier Douglas and the members of his government. What took place? The drilling rigs that were situated in Saskatchewan pulled out and went into the province of Alberta. This is probably one of the main reasons that we have the development in Alberta which we have today because this was at the time of the Leduc discovery.
Sometimes when one sits in his place in the House of Commons and listens to the rantings of the hon. member for Assiniboia one is reminded of those early speeches that were made by the men who promoted the Russian revolution, which finally destroyed not only economic freedom but political freedom as well. It was the same kind of talk, I suggest, that drove the industry in question out of the province of Saskatchewan. May I suggest also that that industry returned to the province of Saskatchewan only when members of that government had finally realized that there was something to the system after all, and they themselves saw that they could enrich their own pockets; and so there must have .been a place * in industry for others.
In reference to the stand which the Liberal party has taken in the province of Alberta, I should like to read from an editorial of December 11, 1957 in the Calgary Albertan, in which is discussed the Liberal stand in reference to the export of gas at that time. It reads in part as follows:
Last weekend the provincial Liberal party had a meeting of sorts in Edmonton. Naturally it had to say something about gas. But a more meaningless and cowardly statement it could not have made. The party is still obviously confused, still hopelessly ignorant of the industry and issues.
It called for a "maximum availability of natural gas for domestic and industrial users in the province, having regard to economics involved". Nobody disagrees. Nobody at all. But does the provincial Liberal party realize that the maximum local availability can only be obtained as the result of a vast and thriving export industry.
It called for a provincial gas policy which would "encourage the establishment of new industries within the province".
There again, evidence is conclusive that the maximum local industrialization will come through a policy of maximum export. If the Liberal party agrees, why it is beating around the bush?
Finally, it says "any policy of gas export from Albera shall first take into consideration the present and future interests of the province, and especially the matter of protecting the consumers of Alberta in the matter of costs".

National Energy Board.
There again there should be no doubt or hesitation. With export,-
That is to the rest of Canada.
-the price is likely to go up. Without export it is likely to go up very much higher. And besides the benefits accruing to the people from a healthy gas export industry will far more than offset any increase in price.
So, is the provincial Liberal party in favour of gas exports or is it not? If it is, why doesn't it say so? If it has the best interests of the province at heart, why doesn't it add its voice to the protests of the government?
Speaking personally, Mr. Speaker, may I say that it seems to me that natural gas is a commodity which is different from beef or wheat. It seems to me that there is a weakness in the argument, which is to keep gas in Alberta or in any other province and that it is just as weak as that which says "keep beef in the foothills of Alberta because the price will be cheaper". But where will be the prosperity of the rest of the province and of the rest of the country? The same argument would apply with regard to wheat. Hence, when I hear Liberals stand in their places and criticize this government about delay, I would remind them of what has taken place in the province of Alberta. The Borden commission should have been set up by the previous government and the energy board should have been set up by the previous government so that we could have got things going, so that there would be prosperity in the west such as we have never seen before.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) inasmuch as they are so reassuring. Every time we listen to him we get a little bit more evidence of the rightness of the cause of the members of the C.C.F.
In order to deal with this bill that is before us today, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate to do a little review as to just what are the reasons why we have it before us. Bills do not come before the house just for the sake of giving us something to do. Usually there is a good reason and sometimes there is a long neglected reason before we get a bill presented to the house for its approval. I think we all realize that this bill is based, at least to a certain extent, on the report of the royal commission which was appointed on October 15, 1957 and which of course brought in the report of October 1958.
If we go back a little further I think we will realize that the royal commission was set up as a result of the Trans-Canada pipe line debate which almost rocked this house on its very foundations. In fact, I

think we could pin it down even closer than that if we refer to the remarks of the former hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar when he spoke in this house during the 1957-58 session. At that time he referred to the remarks made by the former leader of the Conservative party. In connection with this particular bill which is before us now I think it might be an appropriate time to put those words on record again. These are his words as found at page 4673 of Hansard of June 4, 1956:
*-enlarge the powers of the crown corporation so that the entire pipe line may be constructed immediately under public ownership.
Mr. Speaker, all this has led up to the report of the royal commission of last year. But what has happened to the important recommendations contained in that report? In this bill which is before us today what is there that enables this board to deal with the famous Texas buccaneers, to use the words of our present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker)? What indeed is contained in this bill to deal with the Ontario buccaneers who had improved even on the Texas buccaneers, and go right up to cabinet rank in their government? Where are the safeguards that are going to give protection to the people of this country in the future where they did not have protection in the past? We find some of these recommendations in the report of the commission but we do not find any in this bill. For a moment I should like to give one or two examples. If we turn to page XII of the royal commission report, recommendation 21, paragraph (b), we find these words:
(ii) The financial structure, ownership, financing, engineering and construction plans of any applicant and the opportunity for the people of Canada to participate in the financing, engineering and construction of the project.
I think those are significant words. I should like to draw particular attention to the words "and the opportunity for the people of Canada to participate in the financing". I should now like to turn to the bill that is before us in order to see how this particular phase appears in that bill. In clause 44, paragraph (d) we find these words:
(d) the financial responsibility and financial structure of the applicant, the methods of financing the line and the extent to which Canadians will have an opportunity of participating in the financing, engineering and construction of the line;
There is quite a difference in the phraseology or the wording of those two otherwise approximately similar sections. I do not know, of course, what the purpose of the commission was when they worded this particular recommendation as they did. However, I would go this far. I would say that

there is a reasonable doubt that they possibly came as close as the people sitting on this commission could come, when you realize their responsibilities, their duties and their position, to recommending that the trans-Canada pipe line and other similar projects should be public utilities in this country. I cannot see any reason why this particular clause should be worded as it is. There is certainly no hint given in the words of the clause of the bill. There is no room for doubt there; any doubt in regard to the recommendations of the royal commission has been very carefully left out.
Now I would like to come to another point. If we look at the report, on page IX we find recommendation 12, which has been mentioned before during this debate. It reads:
That the prices, tolls, rates or tariffs of a company owning or operating an oil or gas pipe line, as regulated by the board of transport commissioners for Canada, should be just and reasonable, non-discriminatory and calculated to yield a fair rate of return on the shareholders' equity, after making due allowance for reasonable and proper operating expenses, depreciation, interest, income and other taxes.
We find a section in the act which deals with the same subject, clause 52, entitled "Tolls to be just and reasonable". That clause reads as follows:
All tolls shall be just and reasonable, and shall always, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions with respect to all traffic of the same description carried over the same route, be charged equally to all persons at the same rate.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, we find that the very important and pertinent words "on the shareholders' equity" have been very carefully left out of this bill. I think this is very significant, Mr. Speaker. When we think back to the famous or infamous debate on the Trans-Canada pipe line and think of the ringing words of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoken in this very house about these Texas buccaneers, and so on and so forth, we must remember that at this time there was supposition on his part. We had not experienced their actual operations in this country; we had not seen just what these people would do. That no longer is so. We have had many opportunities to view just what these buccaneers have done, both the foreign and the domestic buccaneers.
I think possibly the actions we have seen over the past two or three years may have greatly influenced those recommendations which were brought down by this royal commission. But what has happened? In spite of the fact that the royal commission made the recommendations, this present government is still unwilling or unable to act in the interests of the Canadian people. Once
National Energy Board more if we look back at the bill, on page 18 we find clause 62, which deals with the general powers of the board. I am not going to read all of these different subclauses to clause 62, but it does raise another matter of which we have had ample experience in this country, and that is the question of the abuse that can be made of the law. As I understand it, this clause has been transferred almost word for word, if not word for word, from other legislation which was previously on the books of this country.
It is true that according to the law some of the practices which have been carried on by these various pipe line companies were actually outside the law. But there was no provision in the legislation to uphold the law, and consequently it was left to each poor individual little farmer, or whoever was involved, to hire expensive legal aid and to go through very expensive court action in order to uphold the law. I do not want to list at great length some of the practices to which I am referring. I would just like to refer hon. members to speeches made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and myself, found on pages 1183 and 1185 of Hansard for June 16, 1958. Hon. members will find many of them listed there, and they are some of the actions with which we are very familiar because they happened as the pipe line was going through my constituency. The only ones I would like to add today are ones which have been brought to my attention since the completion of that line.
As one reads the clause one finds that these companies are responsible for any damage done. They are responsible to leave the ground as they find it, and all that sort of thing. Unfortunately that is not the case. I could take hon. members to many places and many farms throughout my riding and throughout the riding of Timiskaming where great damage was done. Fences were not put back up again, fields were not graded. In one particular case a farmer's wood lot was expropriated and they cut a strip 200 feet wide, changed their minds and moved to another place where they cut another 200-foot strip through the farmer's wood lot, changed their minds again and went back to the first lot and left his property in that condition, and when he asked about damages they said he could go ahead and sue.
We have seen cases very recently of how much it costs to uphold the law of this country. I think an excellent example is the Roncarelli case in the province of Quebec where it cost, I think, something in the neighbourhood of $35,000 to uphold the law. I think the government has a duty to the people of this country to protect the small farmer and

National Energy Board other people who are involved who cannot afford costly law suits in order to uphold the law of the country.
Mr. Speaker, in the limited experience we have had I think it has been well demonstrated over the years that the best defence that the Canadian people can have in matters of this kind is that of public ownership of these utilities. At least when we have public ownership it is under the responsibility of the government, and the government is responsible to the people. Certainly these companies are not responsible to anyone but themselves. As has been demonstrated in many cases, they are not even responsible to the law unless one can afford to uphold the law. It is also quite apparent from this bill that the government has no intention of setting up anything, except what might be described as a Punch and Judy show as far as this board is concerned. I am sure the board will be out front dancing while the government is behind pulling the strings, because from what I can see of this bill that is all the board will be entrusted with.
If we look at the report of the royal commission, recommendation No. 23 on page XIII reads as follows:
That the enabling legislation contain provisions to ensure the independence of the members of the board.
When we pick up this bill we find clause after clause after clause is always subject to the approval of the governor in council. How can this board have any independence if every move it makes is subject to the approval of the governor in council? How can this board take any action against these pirates, either foreign or domestic, if it has to turn to the government every time for approval? Who knows, by this time these pirates may be just as good friends of this government as they were of the previous government. I maintain that the bill to set up this board is not doing the job which the people of this country expected. I maintain it is not doing the job that it should do. In fact, it would appear to me that this government is hiding behind this sham board which is being set up to take any blame that might be levelled at its policy, though, in reality, the board is obliged to do the government's bidding.
With this in mind, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier):
That this bill be not read a second time until further consideration has been given to the public ownership of interprovincial gas and oil pipe lines.


Mr. Speaker:: If any hon. member wishes to say anything about this proposed amendment he may do so. Otherwise, I will reserve the question for the time being and give consideration to it as the debate continues.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I rise with a great deal of pleasure to speak on this energy bill because, like many hon. members in this house, I feel that the principle of the establishment of a national energy board is one which should have been adopted long ago.
I felt some concern listening to the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) the other day when he indicated that the national Liberal convention of 1958 had advocated the setting up of a national energy board. I think that at that time-and today, too-we would accuse him and his colleagues of "me tooism", because up to that date they had not indicated any intention of considering the establishment of a national energy board or of a national energy plan.
I wish to confine my remarks today to the oil and gas industry, as this represents a most urgent question. It is true that coal is a form of energy which presents a serious problem, but I suggest that this is a matter of somewhat longer range. We in Alberta have great quantities of coal, and regardless of the remarks which were made by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) the other day, coal is certainly going to be studied by the Borden commission. Surely one cannot expect the commission to look into every facet of energy within its terms of reference before writing a report; in other words, surely he does not expect we should have to wait for the whole study to be completed before we could consider those immediate aspects which are of particular importance to us today.
The oil and gas industry is a very young and virile industry. It made its debut on a commercial basis in 1920, but one could go back a good deal earlier in history as far as Ontario is concerned, though production was on no very great scale. Our oil and gas industry in this country really dates from February, 1947 with the discovery of Leduc No. 1. Today it has advanced to its present position, I would suggest, under the stimulus of several factors; first, a greatly expanding domestic and foreign market; second, the Middle East crisis of 1955-56, which created a scarcity of petroleum products on the North American continent and, third, the methods of development by reason of the very nature of oil and gas, and also because of the land policy adopted in this country which encourages development. There have been many criticisms of this policy.
Let us look at the progress the oil and gas industry has made. First of all, it has climbed in the short space of 12 years into the No. 1 spot among Canada's mineral producing industries, in terms of capital investment, employment created and value of

production. Second, oil refining capacity-in Canada has been trebled to a current 800,000 barrels daily, an expansion which has kept pace with the near tripling in 12 years of Canada's petroleum consumption. Third, another indication of growth is that oil productive capacity, only 20,000 barrels daily 12 years ago, has increased over fifty fold to a current potential exceeding one million barrels a day. Fourth, oil markets climbed from 20,000 barrels daily in early 1947 to over half a million barrels daily in
1957.	They slumped to some 460,000 barrels in 1958 due to reduced export demand, but they began 1959 at well above half a million barrels daily, still only about 54 per cent of potential. Canada's production now equals about two-thirds of Canada's consumption, although the nation's productive capacity makes self-sufficiency either in fact or in balance quite feasible.
Proven reserves of crude oil and other liquid petroleums, which were under 100 million barrels at the beginning of 1947, climbed to about 3.6 billion barrels by the end of 1958, despite production of some one billion barrels in the 12-year period. In
1958,	for each one barrel produced, more than three barrels of reserves were discovered.
Proved reserves of natural gas, which were about 1.5 trillion cubic feet at beginning of 1947, climbed to about 28.5 trillion cubic feet by the end of 1958 despite production of 1.8 trillion cubic feet in the 12-year period. In 1958, despite record production of about 400 billion cubic feet, almost ten cubic feet of reserves were discovered for each one cubic foot consumed.
A recent summary published by the Alberta government indicates that in the period between 1947 and the end of 1958 there have been drilled in Alberta 9,121 oil wells, 1,335 gas wells and 3,975 dry wells. Remember that last figure: it represents a tremendous loss in investment. Taking into account the adjustments from 1959 to date, recent figures indicate that there are some 8,800 producing wells in Alberta and some 3,850 in Saskatchewan. In Alberta there are some 700 producing gas wells and about 870 capped gas wells. These capped wells represent a tied up investment of close to $200 million from which no one is drawing any benefit. In that period of time, 1947 to 1958, some $2,800 million was spent on exploration and development, and in the last three years money was spent at a rate in excess of $360 million per annum. That is an indication, Mr. Speaker, of the investment that has been made not only by Canadians but by people
National Energy Board foreign to this land in our oil and gas industry in the short space of 12 years.
What has that industry meant to Alberta? It has meant the employment of upwards of 150,000 people who in some way or other derive all or part of their livelihood from exploration, development and production and marketing of oil. Second, we have had a multi-million dollar petrochemical industry established in that area. Third, we have a steel industry, a pipe mill and fabricators. We had indications just the other day that one of our eastern Canadian firms plans to establish a new $10 million mill to produce up to 42-inch pipe, in the largest diameter to be produced in this country. Fourth, the revenues to the province of Alberta from the sale of crown reserves and leases, lease rentals and royalties amounted to the sum of $855,490,000 from the first of January 1947, to March 31, 1959. We have seen tremendous years such as 1956 and 1957. Nineteen hundred and fifty-eight saw a decline because of the incursion of imports into the North American market and the so-called voluntary curbs by the United States refineries and some decline of business activity. The first quarter of 1959 has seen a pickup. The rate this year is higher than 1958 but it is still only 75 per cent of the rate of 1956 and 1957.
The industry in Alberta last week produced about 319,000 barrels a day, which is only 40 per cent of the rated capacity. With these figures, I believe I can underline the seriousness of the problem of oil production and marketing. Recently there was a lifting of the compulsory quotas imposed by the United States. What has been the result? First of all there was an increase in the nominations from the Puget sound refineries to about 55,000 barrels a day, as announced this week by the nominations from those refineries to the Alberta gas conservation board. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) indicated the other day, the situation must be watched carefully. We must always remember that the United States refineries may choose United States domestic oil or Canadian crude oil and, therefore, the fact that those restrictions were lifted does not necessarily mean that an extra barrel of Canadian oil need be sold. However, we see that some is being sold.
Although it has been said that while the removal of restrictions may not mean an immediate increase-and I have indicated that there had been a slight, hopeful one in Canadian production-over the longer term this action will encourage an increase in the movement of Canadian oil into the natural and economic export markets of the United States.

National Energy Board
I would like to extend my congratulations to the government on the energetic steps it took to have the mandatory controls removed. I am sure that the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan-in fact the people of the whole country-will be gratified to know just how much encouragement and attention were given to this problem by their own individual members. However, removal of those quota restrictions in the United States does not increase the market for western crude in eastern Canada. In fact, the reverse may be the result, because it may serve to make competition more acute as the result of a diversion of more fire-sale crude into the eastern Canadian market. Mr. Speaker, eastern Canada must not become a dumping ground for foreign crude at the expense of domestic crude. The situation must be watched very carefully and ultimately drastic measures may be necessary. This is why I would support provisions in the act which permit the imposition of controls on oil imports or exports by proclamation when the situation may demand it.
We have just heard this afternoon, and on previous occasions, criticisms by the Liberal opposition to the effect that this gives wide and sweeping controls; it is an abdication of control by parliament. But, Mr. Speaker, surely those hon. gentlemen do not think that if the situation did boil up in the oil industry, and it could do so very quickly, we should have to wait for the summoning of another session of parliament to amend the act to bring those provisions into effect. It has been argued that it has made the position of the Borden commission impossible. But surely the situation is that the Borden commission will make its recommendations in connection with oil matters. Without binding itself in any specific way, the government has now made an open ruling. It may adopt the recommendations, not only of the Borden commission, but from other sources for dealing with the problem when it arises. I cannot see why there should be this criticism.
I can conceive, for example, of a situation arising. Last March there were price cuts in the pipe line rate of from 5 to 12 cents a barrel, and posted purchase prices for light crude were dropped from 14 to 17 cents a barrel. This meant an over-all price cut of between 19 and 29 cents a barrel in eastern Canada. What it really meant was a reduction of $25 million to the producers in western Canada. But no sooner was that cut introduced than we saw a matching reduction in the price of off-shore crude, so that the net result of the reduction was absorbed by the oil producers of western Canada.
We must also study, and with some concern, the effect of the potential movement of off-shore crude by tanker through the St. Lawrence seaway, which at the moment cannot be assessed.
People, including the premier of Alberta, have tried to lay the blame for the present situation with respect to the marketing of oil at the door of this administration. As pointed out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day, quotas on imports and so forth which might be imposed by the Canadian government could have many serious short range implications; indeed, it could very seriously complicate our foreign trade position. I do not say it necessarily will but there are warning signs. We can see the warning that there are difficulties ahead. Unless the position drastically worsens, it would not appear that quotas are the immediate answer.
A suggestion has been made by certain people, including the premier of Alberta, that the federal government should call together the major companies to allocate to their eastern refineries more western crude. This proposal could be considered but I am just wondering whether the premier of my own province has done anything in this regard. After all, his contacts with the oil company have been constant and repeated over the years and one would assume that he would have some influence with these companies. I wonder what would be his government's constructive contribution to the solution of the oil marketing problem.
May we now return to the field of natural gas. Like all Albertans I look forward to an early decision on the export of this form of energy and I am sure the government is moving toward this goal. I would, however, urge upon the government to not lose sight of the fact that the passage of months before a decision is reached on export could result in the loss of an entire year from the point of view of the industry. I need not point out in detail to the house the implications of delay on employment in the pipe line construction industry and on the oil well supply firms, on our steel mills and our fabricator mills. The oil industry is marking time. It is upon this background of which I am sure the government is aware that we are making progress toward a decision.
On the other hand I find somewhat morally dishonest any statement that there have been unjustifiable and unnecessary delays in considering applications, let us say, of West Coast Transmission and Alberta and Southern Gas. After all, if we look at the record, the Alberta conservation board made its report on the application of these two companies

on March 18 last and the government decision authorizing export was made on April 7 last. No sooner had that decision been made than we heard allegations from certain government sources in the province of Alberta that it was all due to the delay of the federal government that we did not have immediate export of natural gas.
The answer to that criticism, if indeed it can be deemed a criticism, is this. Even if it had the machinery in existence, how could this administration consider a hypothetical question? It must be remembered that the export of natural gas is a two-phase operation. First of all we must consider export in excess of the needs of a province. This must be determined. We have the decisions in the case of the Alberta gas conservation board. Second, we have to consider the needs of Canada as a whole to determine whether there will be export from this country.
I am not going to speak on the application of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited which is now before this administration or on the new application now before the Alberta gas conservation board. It would appear to me, however, that Trans-Canada may now be shifting its feet since its appearance before the Borden commission. It now wants a further 420 billion cubic feet over 22 years so as to export 200 million cubic feet a day through Emerson. It would now appear that if the company is to fulfil its export quota it would have to use some of its Canadian allotment over the next few years.
It is not my intention this afternoon to go into detail in outlining the differences between the principles of the bill and the recommendations of the Borden commission. Other speakers dealt with this at considerable length the other day, particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith).
My own opinion of the speech of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) is that he has not read the bill or if he has read it he certainly does not understand it. I would have thought that clause 44 was a full answer to his remarks saving those which were of a strictly doctrinaire, partisan nature. The people of Canada have given their opinion as to the value they place on such remarks and the people who espouse them.
I should like to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) about the change in attitude in Saskatchewan when they first approached the problem of oil and gas. Oh yes, we had all sorts of comments like those put forward by hon. members in the far left corner about controls but the net result was that there
National Energy Board was drilling and no activity for years until the Saskatchewan government saw the light and acted just a little more favourably. They have now gone a long way from their original position, but that is not the position hon. members of the C.C.F. take in this house today.
As far as the Liberals are concerned, it would be interesting to see what has been their attitude on gas. In 1951-52 they were unalterably opposed to the export of gas not only from Canada-why, they would not even consider that point-but from the province of Alberta. Then last year during the course of the election campaign I seem to recall that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) at some meetings in Saskatchewan promised to grant a permit to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited for the immediate export of gas; but at the same time his provincial colleagues were introducing a motion in the legislature of Alberta which would have required specific reference to the provincial legislature for the granting of any new export permit or the increase of any existing permit. In other words, they were going to take the powers away from the Alberta gas conservation board and so we had the two of them going by divergent paths. This illustrates that the Liberal attitude on oil and gas has not been consistent over the years.
In so far as the Conservative party in Alberta is concerned it has consistently been in favour of the export of gas under appropriate conditions. As far back as 1952 it advocated the greatest possible participation by Canada in the financing of oil and gas pipe lines. I am glad to observe that clause 44 specifies that this is one of the conditions that the energy board will or may consider-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, and undoubtedly will.


Murdo William Martin: It does not say that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Undoubtedly this will be considered in the issuing of pipe line permits.
In 1952 I remember being among those who fashioned a plan of classified and limited financial participation by Albertans and other Canadian citizens similar in principle to the plan later adopted by the Alberta government in the setting up of the financial structure of the Alberta Gas Trunk Pipe Lines Company.
I feel that in the main this is a good bill but I have one suggestion to make. Bearing in mind the question of appeal in matters of law and jurisdiction I would have preferred to see an acceptance of the principle of the right of appeal with respect to tolls and tariffs; that is, the setting of tolls, the revocation and variation of tolls and traffic.

National Energy Board However, that right does not appear in the hill, but I would commend it to the serious consideration of the government. In the event this suggestion is not acceded to, perhaps one might hope for a favourable review or consideration of the matter in the working out of the bill with respect to this particular phase.
I should like to conclude by indicating what I think has been the reaction of the industry to this bill. In so doing, I should like to cite the words of the president of the Canadian petroleum association who, when asked to comment on this bill on May 23 last, had this to say:
The actions of government show an apparent desire to expedite the export of natural gas. The Canadian petroleum association has been pleased that some of the more extreme measures that have been suggested in the past do not appear in the bill, but the full effect of some of the regulatory powers contained in the bill will have to be judged by their application. In the interest of accelerating the movement of gas, the Canadian petroleum association does not wish to make any further comment at this time.
May I again congratulate the government upon bringing forward this bill and upon taking action which we hope, before too long, may see some regulated activity in the field of the gas industry. I would commend this bill to the house.


Murdo William Martin: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; does Your Honour intend to rule on the amendment at this stage or do you wish to hear representations upon it?


Mr. Speaker:: I thought I would leave it, if the debate goes on, until after the dinner adjournment. If the house is ready for the question, I would rule on the amendment immediately.


Murdo William Martin: I was wondering if the hon. member would permit a question before he resumed his seat?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, certainly.


Murdo William Martin: Does the hon. member think it was a change in the policy of the Saskatchewan government or a change in the policy of the companies in Saskatchewan which caused the oil industry to pick up in that province? If, as he has indicated, he believes it was a change in the policy of the government, could he outline any specific change in policy?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It would strike me, if my memory serves me right, that there was a considerable change in the attitude of the Saskatchewan government.
[Mr. Lambert.)


Murdo William Martin: Could you outline that change, please?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am sorry but I cannot pinpoint that at the moment. However, that is my definite impression.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, if I rise to take part in this debate on second reading of Bill No. C-49, which is to establish a new board known as an energy board in our country, it is not because I feel I have the technical knowledge to discuss the objects and principles of the bill. However, I am pleased to state these objects and principles were well put before the house by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) last Friday afternoon. However, there are certain principles which I feel, as the representative of Nickel Belt, I should like to discuss because, as many hon. members have said, this bill is of great interest to the people of Canada, and possibly of even greater interest to the people of northern Ontario. It is in this area that these various forms of energy are of extreme importance in the development of industry.
The purpose of this bill is to establish a commission or board which, in the interests of the Canadian people, will be asked to regulate the construction and operation of oil and gas pipe lines, and to make regulations with respect to tolls, the export and import of gas and also the export of hydro. However, it is also of interest to note that the board is to study and review, on behalf of the people of Canada all matters pertaining to forms of energy which come within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. It is in this regard that the proper constitution of this new board becomes of importance.
There are, however, many indications of contradictions between the principles of the bill and the opinions expressed by members of the government. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) will agree that even the statement he made in introducing this bill had to be explained to this house and the people of Canada because it had been misconstrued. Everyone in Canada is familiar with the pipe line debate. This debate takes on an added significance now because we see the people who at that time made such strong protests against the expansion and transportation of the gas industry in Canada now bearing the responsibility for creating a new board which necessarily will regulate the transportation of gas.
Furthermore, I may say that the members of the Conservative party who have, on occasion, obstructed the expansion and transportation of gas in Canada now find their names linked in my province with profit making in the construction of the gas pipe

line. Of course, this bill will introduce into the development of forms of energy certain regulations but, as we all know, as society grows in Canada and elsewhere a certain amount of regulation is required. I agree with this. I am a great believer in the principle in medio stat virtus. There is no doubt that if we do have to have regulations, they must necessarily be just and proper under the circumstances. There would be great danger in Canada in either going too far, or having no regulations at all.
In this connection, I should like to place on the record the words of Mr. Askew, in his submission on behalf of the Sun Oil Company to the Borden commission, concerning this problem of infringing upon the liberty of people who try to better the development of industries in which they are interested. Mr. Askew had this to say as reported in the bulletin of the Sun Oil Company. He said:
The flight from this philosophy has been characterized by a growing effort to place the planning of the economic affairs of men in the hands of government, and increasingly to substitute rule by agencies, bureaux and boards for rule by law. The process continues, despite repeated evidence from history, extending from the days of Confucius to modern times, that rather than contribute to the material well-being of the people, it tends to dull and eventually to snuff out the very inventiveness, ingenuity and enterprise upon which economic progress is based.
It is upon these considerations that we urge a long, hard look at the proposed national energy board and the functions and authorities to be assigned to it. No matter how innocuous may their charter seem, such agencies have been shown by history to yield to irresistible pressures to extend their activities, compound their regulations, and confuse those over whom they have jurisdiction. They tend to become foci for every unrest, and soon are engaged less in protecting the people than in equalizing competitive capabilities. In this process they negate inherent economic advantage and deny its benefit to people.
I realize, of course, that although regulations are necessary, they must follow a proper and just norm and not be subjected to political pressures which in this bill I feel are seen necessarily to crop up. In this bill which brings about in Canada such an important innovation as this new board to regulate energy, the first principle which should apply is that the members of parliament should be given the proper information on which to make that decision for the Canadian people whom they represent. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) before the elections had a great deal to say on this matter of an energy board. I should like to quote for the benefit of the house, his remarks in 1957, namely on February 4, when he was speaking at the annual dinner of the Toronto board of trade. That is nearly two and one-half years ago. The Prime Minister then had this to say:
National Energy Board
There is a need now for the setting up of a Canadian national energy board, with its membership composed of technical personnel, who might be selected by the president of the national research council of business organizations, of the dominion and provincial governments, to the end that the most effective use of the energy resources of Canada, in the interests of the public welfare, may be assured. We have vast resources of gas and oil and coal and uranium. I believe the time has come to set up such a board, whose duty it would be to advise and to recommend proposals regarding these resources-
Mr. Speaker, this is over two and one-half years ago. I feel there is something which is not readily understood, namely why this government had to wait for those two and one-half years, especially in the light of its conduct in the last few days when, extremely swiftly, it has presented this difficult bill, as mentioned by many hon. members. This bill, consisting of 101 sections and 28 pages, as was stated, is placed before the house for a decision in this abrupt manner although the government has stated this was an emergency matter over two and one-half years ago.
In addition, members of this parliament were not furnished with certain reports and studies which necessarily were made for the preparation of this new law which we are now discussing. On that score, Mr Speaker, I should like to refer to the report of the department of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) as far back as the year 1957. I am reading from the annual report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for 1957, at page 54, where the minister indicated that they had formed what he called the energy studies branch of his department:
The main functions of the branch are to develop systematic records and analyses relating to energy matters; to prepare studies on current energy problems requiring policy decisions in this and other departments and agencies; and to provide information and assistance to the numerous departments and agencies which are concerned with one or more aspects of energy matters.
Later on at page 55 we read the following:
It was occupied, during 1957, with studies on such questions as those relating to natural gas pipe line development, export policy for natural gas, policy relating to supervision of transmission rates and sale prices for natural gas, policy on thermal electric power developments, the effect of United States oil import restrictions on the Canadian petroleum industry, and United States proceedings related to the importation of Canadian natural gas.
Later on the same subject of energy we read the following:
Most of the study papers prepared during the period have necessarily been confidential.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is possibly the person from whom it is most difficult to obtain information by way of reports placed before the house. Since he has made reference in his own

National Energy Board report to these studies and reports I feel that it would have been necessary that he allow the members of parliament, the representatives of the Canadian people whose interests we are trying to protect in the matter of energy in Canada, to have that knowledge before the study and the passing of this extremely important bill.
We find something further on that score, speaking on this matter of the interests of the public and the contention that the public should be informed. We find something similar which again illustrates the conduct of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to what is done with reports and studies which should be made available to the representatives of the Canadian people, the members of parliament.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What accusation are you making as to what I have done with regard to reports? Do you mind repeating it?


Osias.-J. Godin: I am saying that the minister in his own report for the year 1957 states that many reports and analyses were made and so on. We have no such reports available. In his report he states that he considers them to be confidential. We see this in the bill, Mr. Speaker, and the minister may take note of this matter and possibly bring about an amendment. Clause 23 reads as follows:
23. Studies and reports of the board made under this part may be made public with the approval of the minister.
There again we see politics entering into the matter of the interests of the Canadian people and their protection. In the very bill which is before us his action shows the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce toward the information which should be known to the representatives of the people here in this house.
The same thing is found in the principle by which the appointments will be made and public knowledge offered. In other words, it is a bill which will permit a sort of closed shop, a tool for the cabinet. In reading the bill we find this. I should like to refer to the principle indicated in clause 85 (2). The Canadian people do not even know whether or not they have a bill dealing with the energy board. In that clause it is stated that the minister may, through the governor in council, declare any class of persons or areas not covered by this bill. It reads as follows:
(2) The governor in council may by regulation exempt any person or class of persons or any product or class of products or any transactions, persons or areas from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this part or the regulations.
Is it not clear to the house that the Canadian people may have a bill or they

may not have a bill? If you pass the bill, you possibly give the Canadian people absolutely nothing because it will remain absolutely in the hands of the cabinet and the government and in that way it will become necessarily a political tool.
Again we have further provisions where we elaborate on the principle whereby five men in Canada will compose this board and regulate it. On the other hand, in the very next clause, we give one member of the board absolute power. This is done after creating a most expensive board. I am not sure that I know exactly how many there should be. It may be proper to have five; but this principle enunciated in the very next clause is to the effect that one member of the board can do absolutely anything on behalf of any five members, except possibly a very few things. There are so few that they are enumerated, and they indicate that one member of the board of five can do absolutely everything alone, according to the act, except for a very few exceptions. So once again the principle is indicated in this bill that the Canadian people, after the constitution of a very expensive board, will see themselves regulated by possibly one member of that board.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think that the bill is lacking in many respects. It does not afford the Canadian people the protection of their interests which the minister himself stated the bill was meant to do. He spoke about necessary speed. We have been faced with a delay of two and a half years, and now there is pressure over possibly two and a half days. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) indicated that what was required in this matter of energy was aggressiveness and vision, but what do we find? In his own speech he stated that he recognized that in the province of Alberta the progress of the gas and oil industry has been visibly indicated for the last twelve years. That certainly cannot be to the credit of this government.
Mr. Speaker, in all fairness I believe that an energy board is the necessary instrument to protect Canadian affairs, but I do say that this bill in certain respects falls short of giving to the Canadian people the assurance that we mean to give them when we say that we will now have the constitution of a body which will protect their interests.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With the permission of the house we shall now await the return of Mr. Speaker, who I believe wishes to rule on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin).


Mr. Speaker:: The house is ready for the question, I understand?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; we are ready to hear your ruling on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I indicated earlier I would leave it until after the adjournment. However, if everyone is here and content to proceed with the matter now, I shall be glad to rule on it.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, are you going to hear argument on this point?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. I thought that before I heard argument I would indicate that it appeared to me that the amendment was not relevant, and therefore the onus is on those supporting the amendment to prove that it is acceptable. I therefore propose to call on any hon. member who wishes to argue to the contrary.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, on September 2,	1958, as
reported on page 4503 of Hansard, Your Honour went to considerable length to determine what is and what is not in order in regard to possible amendments to a bill on second reading. If I may read from what you had to say on that occasion, you quoted from May as follows:
. It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move what is known as a "reasoned amendment" ... A reasoned amendment is placed on the paper in the form of a motion and may fall into one of several categories.
I am only going to repeat No. 1:
It may be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.
Then we have a fairly large number of precedents where we had amendments on second reading of a bill, and occasions where Your Honour allowed amendments. Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer you to July 30, 1958, when the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) moved an amendment to the excise tax bill as reported on page 2864 of Hansard in the following terms:
That this bill be not read a second time until further consideration has been given to the repeal or reduction of the excise tax on motor cars.
Then on September 2, 1958-that was the day of your explanation, Mr. Speaker, as you understood these	amendments-the
member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) moved, as reported on page 4510 of Hansard:
This house declines to proceed with a bill the fundamental terms of which are repugnant to the spirit and objectives of the treaty obligations of Canada under GATT.
Then there was another motion in 1958 moved by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) to the effect that
National Energy Board a bill be not read a second time until further consideration was given to the possibility of making tax free gifts from husbands to wives effective in the province of Quebec to the same extent as in the rest of Canada. The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) also moved on September 2, 1958, as reported on page 4476 of Hansard:
That this bill be not now read a second time because of new provisions for arbitrary valuations which transfer the tariff-making authority from parliament to the minister and the cabinet, contrary to the principles of responsible government and the essential right of parliament to tax.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled a number of these amendments out of order because they dealt as to a particular. However, may I repeat that you did endorse what May had to say in regard to an amendment being declaratory of some principle adverse to, or different from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill, and may I in that regard call your attention to our amendment:
That this bill be not read a second time until further consideration has been given to the public ownership of interprovincial gas and oil pipe lines.
We feel that this very definitely is an amendment to the principle contained in the bill now before us.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank the hon. member for his concise and very pertinent argument. The amendment is one of that type which is permissible on second reading, that is to say, is declaratory of a principle adverse to the bill, and my reason for not considering it acceptable is that the principle is not relevant to the bill. The doctrine of relevancy applies to amendments which are declaratory of an adverse principle; in other words, the adverse principle must be one which comes within the reasonable limits of what the bill seeks to do itself.
Now this bill sets up a board, whereas the substance of the amendment is to declare for nationalization or public ownership of interprovincial oil and pipe lines which seems to me to go far beyond anything which could reasonably be said to be relevant to the bill as it is now before the house. The purpose of the bill, as the explanatory note says, is to create a board, and the board is for the purpose of regulating the operation of oil and gas pipe lines, fixing tolls and giving advice. There are three or four main functions of the board but, basically, the principle of the bill is to establish a board to regulate the industry, including electricity.
To attempt to declare as a contrary principle that consideration ought to be given to the nationalization of something which might be within the regulatory powers of the board seems to me to be going far beyond

National Energy Board the broad limit and scope of the bill as it stands to be considered by the house, and therefore I consider the amendment not to be within the precedents which the hon. member has stated, for the reason that it goes too far afield from the principle of the biU.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, we heard the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) read a quotation expressing the sentiments of the Canadian petroleum association in connection with the deliberations on the bill now before us.
The hon. member obviously indicated, when he did that, that he is concerned with the welfare of those who invest in the development of Canadian natural gas and oil enterprises, and with the welfare of those who invest in Canadian gas and oil pipe lines. And he indicates, using the submission of the Canadian petroleum association to bolster his argument, that he is concerned with the investors in these enterprises and in the future welfare of these investors.
This reminds me of the philosophy so often expounded in this House of Commons and so successfully sold for so long to the people of Canada by a recent member of this house, the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, who seemed to contend that as long as our economy was expanding, and as long as those who were investing money were able to provide the stimulus which would provide employment, we had better forget the high price which the Canadian people would eventually have to pay for this continuous and often reckless expansion in certain lines of the Canadian economy.
The C.C.F., as is well known, has always maintained the primary position that the resources of Canada belong to the people as a whole. We agree that investment in Canadian enterprises has to be safeguarded. We are willing to go a little beyond that, and agree that risks must be adequately compensated. If we did not agree to the safeguarding of invested capital and to the compensation of risk capital we realize that the development of our economy would have to operate under a very severe handicap indeed. However, basically we feel that the goods and riches of the world are meant for the mass of the people of the world, and when we look at a bill such as the one before us to set up a national energy board we first of all must ask ourselves: how are the interests of the Canadian people likely to be affected by the implementation of this measure?
We believe that a bill of this nature would be able to do much in the interests of the people as a whole. However, I could not

help being impressed by the arguments put forward last week by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who expressed the opinion that after looking over the bill a number of times he had come to the conclusion that the proposed energy board was designed to be nothing more nor less than a stooge for the government of Canada. Although the powers of the board might in certain circumstances, under certain governments which may some day be elected, be quite extensive and even beneficial to the welfare of the Canadian people, it is envisaged in the terms of the bill now before us that any action or any attitude of the proposed energy board would be completely dependent upon the whims of the government in office at any particular time.
I believe it might be wise to look for a while at the origins of the bill now before us and at the origins of the Borden commission whose recommendation supplied the initiative to the government with regard to this bill. We had a very lengthy debate in the House of Commons a couple of years ago on the subject of the trans-Canada pipe line, and I believe that the debate at that time was more than any other single factor responsible for the House of Commons now being faced with this national energy board measure.


Mr. Speaker:: Would this be a convenient place for the hon. member to call it six o'clock?
Was there a motion to be made?


John Borden Hamilton: I was intending to make a motion at eight o'clock. I do not have it with me.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose for the dinner recess I was beginning to outline the origins of the bill now before us and I mentioned at the time that the initial impetus for a bill of this kind was the debate in the house a number of years ago concerning the building of a trans-Canada pipe line for the transmission of natural gas. The opinion of the Liberals and the Social Credit party in the house at that particular time was that this pipe line ought to be built immediately at any price. There were in the house at that time in addition the official opposition, the Progressive Conservatives, and the group of which I am a member, the C.C.F., who had the feeling that the pipe

line ought not to be built at any price; that the pipe line ought to and might be built at a price that the Canadian people would be prepared to pay and in a manner in which the pipe line would operate in the interests of the people of the nation as a whole.
We all remember very well indeed how the member for Eglinton, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) at the time felt so keenly about the actions of the government of the day that he had himself expelled for the time being as a member of the house, and the Union Jack was placed over the desk of the hon. member for Eglinton.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it is incorrect for the member to say that the hon. member for Eglinton had himself expelled from this house. He should withdraw that statement; it is not true.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I will amend that and say that the hon. member was expelled from the house because of his insistence that the interests of the Canadian people were being violated by the actions of the government of the day. I notice that the hon. member for Eglinton is not in his place in the house at the present time. I would recommend to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough), who was so adept several years ago at bringing in an appropriate flag at the time, that she now bring in a skull and cross bones flag and hang it over the desk of the hon. member for Eglinton.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: More demagogy.


Erhart Regier: Because the bill assures us that the piracy which at that time was being condemned so vigorously by the hon. member for Eglinton is now being condoned and being aided and abetted by that same member for Eglinton. The skull and cross bones indicating the flag of the pirates would now aptly replace the flag of the patriot of only a few months ago.
We also heard at that time the leader of the official opposition, now the High Commissioner of Canada in the United Kingdom, for whom I may say I have the highest regard. Regardless of any disagreements I may have had with him at the time I always realized that he was at heart one of the most honest members that this house has ever seen. He admitted in the final analysis, after his attempts to get Canadian financing for this trans-Canada natural gas pipe line to replace United States financing, after he realized that Canadian financiers were not available, as he had wished them to be, that at long last public ownership was the only answer. The
National Energy Board present leader of the Conservatives, our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), fought an election on this issue and he largely won that election in 1957; he at least obtained the right to form a government, even though it was a minority government. Rather than take measures to implement the expectations of the electorate at the time in this regard, he decided in his wisdom to evade the issue for the time being, in that he appointed a royal commission. We at that time, through our leader, M. J. Cold-well, expressed our reservations as to the members of the commission. However, we must admit that the members of the commission, in several major aspects at least, placed national interest above their personal prejudices and feelings, and brought in a number of recommendations. We regret very much that the government of the day has ignored the major recommendations of the Borden commission.
At the time the Borden commission was appointed, and in the election after, my national leader had this to say on March 5 last in the Richmond high school in British Columbia:
The pipe line scandal of today is on a par with the railway scandals of the past. The promoters of the railways of that time even have been outdone by the promoters of the pipe lines of today. The fortunes made by Mackenzie and Mann as well as others as a result of government assistance to railway construction have their parallel in the fortunes made by Tanner and Coates and McMahon as well as others. The whole sordid story of quick fortunes being made by a few at the expense of the public is being repeated today and old-line party governments whether Liberal or Conservative are doing nothing about it.
Again, on March 6, my national leader, in a C.B.C. radio speech, had this to say:
You will remember too, how the Conservatives denounced the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company, and how vigorously they attacked the Liberal cabinet policy on the pipe line. Oh, what a tragedy is there; for today Liberal and Conservative, alike, vote together to protect the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company, that company and that policy which the Conservatives denounced as an iniquitous proposal, an infamous proposal, the greatest betrayal of the Canadian people since confederation, a caricature of national development.
Yet, the present government is doing the same as the Liberals before them and they voted against the C.C.F. motion expressing what the Conservatives had advocated.
My national leader also said on March 11 in the city of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan:
Mr. Diefenbaker has failed to right a great wrong, the wrong done to the people of Canada in the trans-Canada pipe line deal. He led the people to believe that he was sincere in his denunciations of what he described as "a nefarious deal". He led the people to believe that under the Conservatives something would be done about it. But now the Conservative government opposes as "socialism", the very policy that they supported while in the opposition, namely, the public ownership of the line.

National Energy Board


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Who is your national
leader?


Erhart Regier: My national leader is M. J. Coldwell, such a leader as no other political party in Canada has ever seen-


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Where is he now?


Erhart Regier: -and is not likely to see again for a considerable time. The conduct of the Liberal party in this debate is, of course, an utter disgrace. They have nothing to say. They say they are going back to the grass roots. However, we notice no repentance, no change of heart, no change of policy. I have heard three or four of their members take part in the debate and I am unable to decide what their opinion is. I realize that they are very anxious for the conclusion of the debate at an early hour and that their leader is now anxious to participate and wind up the debate on behalf of the Liberals. I realize that the Liberals are embarrassed, that they do not want a debate on this issue. They only want to straddle both sides of the fence hour after hour and when the vote comes no doubt they will find that they are able to support the government and able to support the buccaneers and the racketeers from the state of Texas.
We have not only had a number of racketeers from south of the border but there have also been a couple of Canadian racketeers involved in this matter. In the province of Ontario a number of leading people unfortunately got themselves rather involved. I come from the province of British Columbia and when a cabinet minister does wrong in our province he ends up behind bars eventually even though it may take a number of years. However, when cabinet ministers do wrong in the province of Ontario they again ask the public for an expression of their confidence at the next election. All I can say is that I hope the wintry frost will very soon leave the minds of the voters of the province of Ontario.


An hon. Member:: What a hope.


Erhart Regier: When I look at the bill I am reminded of the attitude expressed in this house year in and year out by the former member for Cape Breton South in his appeals for the establishment of a national energy board that would include all forms of energy so that we might develop our resources in the interest of all parts of the dominion. In this regard I am convinced that if a national plebiscite were held now on this one issue, without the varnish, the propaganda, the show, the circus that accompanies our national elections, and the people of Canada were asked, shall public utilities be publicly owned, there would be no doubt as to the outcome.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has been coming back from time to time to the question of nationalization of interprovincial oil and gas companies, which was the subject of an amendment that I considered to be out of order. Therefore, I think that issue should not be debated as part of this debate. I have not stopped the hon. member but I hope he will not proceed too far on that line because in my view it is irrelevant.


Erhart Regier: 
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat may be surprised to learn that I am speaking on this bill without any embarrassment whatever. The fact that I am the fourth member of our party in the house to speak also shows that we are not, as a party, embarrassed in discussing this bill.
66968-9-254
National Energy Board
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill dealing with the subject of energy resources which is as important for the development of this country as any subject can be. We are debating this matter today, May 25, 1959, and it is a long time since February 4, 1957 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in Toronto-these words have already been put on the record in this debate-said that the need was now for setting up a Canadian national energy board, and that the time had come to establish such a board. Four days after that statement, he said the same thing in the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister had his opportunity when the House of Commons met in October, 1957, and he was the head of the government. There was no mention in the speech from the throne at that time of the establishment of an energy board. Indeed, on October 15, I think it was, three days after the speech from the throne, the Prime Minister announced, not an energy board but a royal commission to look into the matter and to make recommendations. This royal commission, Mr. Speaker, put this whole question into a deep freeze for 19 months, for obvious reasons, and during that time I think I am right in saying that nothing was heard in this parliament about government policies dealing with this vital matter of energy resources, and national development as affected by energy resources. This is in contrast, Mr. Speaker, to what we heard on the subject from so many members of the government in earlier years when they were sitting on this side of the house.
On March 14, 1958, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister did tell the country in Calgary, in words that have also been put on the record, that the government would act immediately after the interim report of the Borden commission. This word "immediately" is now so often used by the government in statements about what it is going to do that the particular coinage has become debased, in fact there were more than six months between the interim report of this commission and the resolution dealing with the energy board which was put on the order paper on April 23 of this year. The resolution was in very general terms, and did not give us much opportunity to speculate on the type of bill that would be based on it.
The bill itself was discussed a month or so, almost a month, after the resolution was first introduced. Then, Mr. Speaker, as you know, within 24 hours of the receipt of the bill or the tabling of the bill, we were to be asked to take decisions with regard to it. That period was later extended by a day or so. It was a period which would not have

National Energy Board given members on this side of the house the opportunity to which they were entitled to make a real study and analysis of the bill and would not have given an opportunity for the expression of views by interests concerned in the country with this important matter.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we naturally wondered why, after such a long delay, there should have been so much haste. As was stated this afternoon by my friend the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard), I think it was, this is another example of inept handling on the part of the government of an extremely important piece of legislation. Here we have had long delay, without any discussion or without any information on the matter, folowed by a sudden, ill-considered burst of speed in order to make up for the loss of time, by the introduction of legislation which was to be decided without any delay. We are becoming familiar with that particular pattern of activity in this house.
I suggest, as other hon. members on this side of the house have already suggested, that that delay was quite unnecessary. Surely it is now clear.-as indeed we on this side of the house stated would be the case at that time -that the appointment of the Borden commission was merely an unnecessary delaying tactic, and that it was not necessary for that commission to go into this matter as it is still going into it in order for the government to have made up its mind as to what it wished to do. As a matter of fact, the proof of that contention is that the government is now largely by-passing-as so many hon. members have pointed out-the first report of the commission, while the legislation which is now before us has been introduced before the second report of the commission has even been submitted. The commission, however, has accomplished its purpose in providing an extremely useful delaying tactic for the government at a price, as was pointed out last Friday, of some $300,000 or more.
In his statement last Friday the minister admits that the major part of this bill before us comes almost textually from the Pipe Lines Act and from the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act and that most of the other provisions that are not textually from those two acts, including the creation of a national energy board, were recommended in the Gordon Commission report. That report, which was in the hands of the government in 1957 and which included a special study of this question of gas and oil, surely provided the government with

sufficient information on which it could have acted if it had desired to do so, especially as the present bill now before us has in effect repudiated the major recommendations of the commission which followed the Gordon report.
This particular bill is an even more drastic repudiation of all the feverish words and emotional arguments put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his colleagues, including the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), during the pipe line and earlier debates on this general subject of energy. The present bill contains no provision to realize the Prime Minister's vision of Canadian resources development by Canadians. It contains no safeguards, so often clamoured for and even recommended as desirable in the Borden report itself, to ensure the maximum possible Canadian ownership and control of resources development. It contains no provisions to encourage the processing of raw materials in Canada-that was another strong Conservative battle cry when in the opposition 

through effective utilization for that purpose of our great sources of energy in this country; and I hope to have a word to say about that matter later. It contains no provisions-and we have heard a great deal about this matter also-for keeping Texas or other buccaneers out of our affairs or limiting the extremely exorbitant profits about which the Prime Minister and the minister used to get so indignant.
In this bill, Mr. Speaker, you will find nothing dealing with these matters. That which is contained in this bill could surely have been brought in, if the government had so desired, in October 1957. Had it been brought in then, time and money would have been saved and many months of uncertainty and confusion about government policy would have been avoided, which uncertainty and confusion, as the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) pointed out over a year ago, were bound to have an unsettling effect on the industries and areas most concerned.
As to the bill itself, may I say this. The hon. member for Calgary South, speaking at the resolution stage of the bill on May 18, had this to say as reported at page 3779 of Hansard:
I can appreciate, as can most hon. members, the difficulty of the government in attempting to reconcile the two extreme views which have been expressed in relation to the Bordon royal commission, namely those on the one hand who have stated their belief that the industry should not be in any way restricted by regulation, and those on the other hand who believe that a tight form of legislation is required in the interests of Canadian consumers.

And the hon. member went on to say this:
It is my contention that it is not inconsistent to believe-
Whatever that may mean.
-that there can be introduced into and be passed by parliament a bill which, to a substantial degree, will satisfy both of these two extremes.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, according to the hon. member for Calgary South this is the kind of bill which will satisfy those on the one extreme who do not want any regulation at all and those on the other extreme who want a tight and complete regulation, as he put it. That is a fairly impossible objective for any piece of legislation, namely to satisfy both extremes and I do not think it is met by the bill that we have before us.
So far as the principle of the bill is concerned may I say this. As has already been stated-and I am happy to repeat it-the broad principle of this bill is satisfactory to this party. Of course, it should be satisfactory because in January, 1958 our party put itself on record in favour of a national energy authority. We therefore accept that principle because we stand by our platform. But as has already been pointed out, that does not mean that we support all the provisions of this bill or that we believe that this bill is adequate to implement the principle we support. On the contrary, we feel that this bill -and we shall try to point this out in more detail when we get to the committee stage- contains many sins of omission and commission.
Let me look for a moment at one extremely important function mentioned in the bill, that of research and investigation by the board. The administrative duties of the board which are proposed in this bill are limited by the bill itself to oil, gas and international power lines. But the functions of research and investigation and of report and recommendation are absolutely unlimited. They cover the whole field of energy, as I understand it, without any limitation whatever. Furthermore, clause 22 of the bill does not say that the board "may" study these matters. That particular clause says that the board "shall" study these matters. Hence we ask ourselves why there is this difference in the scope of the two main functions which are allocated by the bill to the board. This question becomes of special importance, because, as has already been pointed out, there are other agencies of government at this time which have research and advisory functions in the energy field which are not touched by this legislation. Obviously there arises the danger of duplication, with its resulting confusions, conflicts and waste. When the minister was discussing the resolution, long before we had the chance 66968-9-2541
National Energy Board of seeing the bill, the minister said-I am paraphrasing what he said-that the major purpose of this bill was to consolidate, to coordinate, to pull together governmental functions in this field. On Monday, May 18, as reported at page 3766 of Hansard, the minister said that this legislation was in fulfilment of a long held objective of his party to bring this about, and to support that view he quoted a statement which the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) made on February 25,	1955, at page 1530 of
Hansard for that year. This is the quotation of the Minister of Public Works put on record with much approval by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce. The former member for Vancouver Quadra said:
We believe there is a great need for an over-all energy policy. Let us get away from dealing with the problem piecemeal with different departments concerned. It is not an efficient way to deal with these important matters.
That is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce quoted the present Minister of Public Works as saying in 1955, and he quoted him with approval. But the minister who introduced the bill did not remain convinced for very long of the validity of the argument of the Minister of Public Works, because on second reading last Friday the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that all the existing agencies were to be left unchanged. Quoting from his statement last Friday, he said, as reported on page 3930 of Hansard:
While the board's advisory functions require that it be free to study any aspect of energy, we do not believe it would be profitable under present circumstances to disrupt the existing agencies involved in these related fields.
We know what these agencies are because they have been put on the record, but perhaps it is worth while repeating them to show how many government agencies are working in this field of research, analysis, examination and reporting on energy matters. There is the dominion coal board; the atomic energy control board; the international joint commission; the water resources branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources; the interdepartmental committee on energy; and the national research council. The danger of duplication and overlapping, confusion and conflict is obvious.
Now may I say a word about the regulatory functions of the proposed board, which is something we will be discussing in much greater detail when we are in committee. Those functions are limited in the present bill, at least at the moment, to the licensing of construction and operation of international power lines, export of power, construction and operation of interprovincial and international

National Energy Board oil and gas pipe lines, the import and export of gas, and possibly the export and import of oil.
First, then, may I say a word about the regulatory functions which I have mentioned dealing with power. We on this side agree that these are matters which should be controlled by a public authority. There is not much difference of opinion between us on that score except that we are worried-we will have something to say about this in committee-about the suggestion by the minister that exceptional circumstances may justify the licensing of power exports for a period longer than one year. I am not sure whether he used the period of 25 years or not. The Gordon commission report points out that this might be necessary in changed circumstances, that it might be wise for the government to depart from the policy it has followed for many years of licensing from year to year. I am not taking issue with that in principle, but I do suggest that if this is to be done and these licences are to be extended for a longer period than one year, that should be done through parliamentary sanction rather than merely by order in council.
Then there is also a danger of duplication and conflict, and indeed confusion, in this question of control of the export of power. The minister knows perfectly well, of course, that the Canadian section of the international joint commission has at the present time the responsibility of studying and making recommendations regarding power projects in boundary waters and other public projects on international rivers which may be referred to the commission by the two governments of the United States and Canada. But under this proposed bill which is now before us, every project of this kind approved by the international joint commission and involving the construction of international power lines or the export of power will have to be reviewed and approved as well by the national energy board, and surely there is a danger of conflict there. Also under the International River Improvements Act which was passed in 1955 the same possibility of conflict and confusion arises between the licence which is required from the department concerned under that act and the obligation of the new board to review and consent to these matters. I believe that it would have been possible to have avoided these dangers of overlapping and confusion through a better allocation and integration of functions between the various governmental agencies concerned.
Then there is a third subject, the construction of gas pipe lines and the import and export of gas. We believe that it is right that natural gas service and its development

as a public utility should be under government regulation. But we also believe that these regulations should be of a type and administered in such a way that will not encourage inefficiency. Under this bill export sales of gas will be contingent now upon approval by the provincial authorities, the national energy board, the governor in council, and the federal power commission of the United States. In the case of domestic and export long term contracts, you will have to deal with proven suppliers at one end and an established and responsible distributor at the other. We know that local franchises are involved, and political considerations, sometimes indefensible ones, arise at various levels of government, and we also know that profiteering can take place. Delay and disappointment are inevitable. That means that most promotions in this field require hearings, negotiations, interventions, reassessment of positions, all of which take a long time, and these delays add to costs. Where a project is finally approved, the ultimate terms and conditions often reduce its profitability far below earlier expectations. Therefore while we do agree, Mr. Speaker, that this field must be subject to public regulation, in the public interest the administrative set-up and the procedures designed for that purpose should be efficient, and should minimize delays and difficulties. Perhaps the government will be able to convince us that the machinery established in this bill for this purpose is the most effective which could have been drawn up.
Now I come to another subject, the export and import of oil. There should be no difficulty about the export of oil because I think we are all agreed that any interference by government in the export of oil should be reduced to a minimum, because it is of first importance to encourage in every way possible the export of our oil into United States markets, especially now when it is going to be a little easier than it would have been perhaps a month ago. But the import of oil is a different thing, and it is this aspect of the bill to which we take the greatest exception. On Friday last the minister said, and I quote from his statement as reported at page 3930 of Hansard:
There is no requirement of national policy to be served at present by licensing the import of oil.
And, again, he said:
It would seem unwise at the present moment to take any action by way of import control which might give rise to misunderstanding and possibly call the arrangement into question.
The arrangement he had in mind was the arrangement recently made with the United States. Then the minister added:

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.
We share these views as to the undesirability of acting, even through parliament, at this time with regard to this matter, but what is the government doing now in this bill? In clause 87, in spite of the words of the minister that there is no necessity for action at this time, the government is asking for power by order in council to take action which, it says, is not necessary now and may not be necessary in the future. That power it to be used against one commercial import singled out from thousands of others, and a very important commercial import at that. And this power is not power to act through parliament, but power for the government to act by order in council and without any consideration of an emergency to justify this power being used, or the action taken. That is an astonishing request to be made of this house by a government which consists of members most of whom had some very strong words to use about this kind of thing a few years ago. What a betrayal of all the brave, emotional words used by members of the Conservative party during the debate on the Defence Production Act in 1955. Where are the memories of the impassioned appeals to the rights and privileges of parliament of those days? Have they so soon been forgotten? Where are the Pyms and Hampdens, the parliamentary flag wavers and flag wearers of those days?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am glad you recognized we were advocating freedom then.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am trying to show the minister the great departure there has been as evidenced in this action now, from the words used in those days; and this departure throws a very lurid light on the meaning of the words which were used at that time.
The excuse now is merely that things may have to be done in an emergency in order to deal with oil imports. That is the excuse given by the minister, that we might have to act quickly. But is the security of the nation at stake in this issue? Would there be no time to consult parliament in a matter of this kind? This, apparently, is the minister's argument, that there would be no time to consult parliament because it might be necessary to act quickly. That is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated, and I quote the words he used last Friday:
If the need arose it would in all probability arise quickly, and would require quick action to avert serious disruption. For this reason it is proposed to make the power applicable by proclamation.
But when the minister of trade and commerce a few years ago asked for discretionary power of this kind to be used in a national
National Energy Board emergency only and not merely to deal with the import of a commodity, this is what the same hon. gentleman had to say about the minister of trade and commerce of that day, Mr. C. D. Howe:
He has appeared to prefer to do things quickly rather than by the slower methods of parliament.
That was the statement which the present Minister of Trade and Commerce made on June 13, 1955, as reported at page 4688 of Hansard.
And the Minister without Portfolio from Toronto (Mr. Macdonnell), the hon. member for Greenwood, had this to say in the same debate, and I wish he was in his seat tonight to hear me repeat these words. At that time, when the request was made for this power under order in council to deal, not with the import of a commodity but with a national emergency, these were the words he used:
This is arbitrary power. This is the antithesis of our way of life. This is the antithesis of the rule of law, described by Dicey when he says that wide arbitrary powers are the absolute antithesis.
I wonder whether, if the hon. gentleman were in his seat tonight, he could defend this particular provision? I wonder if he would vote for it? I wonder if he would give the sanction of his parliamentary prestige and purity to it?
And then there was the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton). I regret having to read these quotations in the absence of the ministers concerned, but in this same debate when the government of that day was asking for power by order in council, that hon. gentleman quoted these words with ardent approval from a British pamphlet, as reported on page 4732 for June 13.
Those who give and those who receive arbitrary power are alike criminal and there is no man but is bound to resist it to the best of his power, whenever it shall show its face in the world. It is a crime to bear it when it can be rationally shaken off. ... Law and arbitrary power are in dreadful enmity.
Of course, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) took part in this debate, and he was naturally even more emotional for the time being than any of the others. On June 28, 1955, as reported at page 5385 of Hansard, dealing with the request by the government of that day for power by order in council to deal with a national emergency, he had this to say:
Parliament! What is parliament to the minister? Parliament is not even to be permitted to be a partner with this all-powerful government in working out this program of defence production. Bring these matters to parliament? Why, the idea is unthinkable to this government opposite. What is parliament, anyway? Parliament to them is but a nuisance. We have had proof abundant today, sir;

National Energy Board all this talk, all this poppycock about parliament is just lip service from this all-powerful government opposite.
However, it was the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself who put the matter best when he said, as reported at page 4688 and 4689:
Normally ministers come to parliament and ask for extension of their powers or for special powers for special purposes and parliament examines the situation, makes the grant of power and withdraws it when the crisis has subsided.
And then he went on:
There are no angels in the House of Commons, and precautions are necessary when we are entrusting the government of men to men.
There are no angels in the House of Commons today, especially on the government benches. The argument which the minister made at that time in respect of an application of powers to be used by order in council in respect of a national emergency surely applies one hundredfold to an application in this bill for power by order in council merely to deal with the import of a commercial commodity.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the Leader of the Opposition permit a question? Has he not overlooked the fact that the debate on the Defence Production Act in 1955 hinged on the request of the government of that day to give those powers to the minister of trade and commerce in perpetuity? It was that to which we objected, and we said: come back to parliament every two years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, these were
powers to be used only in case of national emergency, and the minister must know that the bill as passed did not give the minister power in perpetuity; it gave the minister power for five years. The five-year period lapses, I may add, if the minister has forgotten, in a couple of weeks. But the minister's excuse is that we have to act quickly, never mind parliament, we have to act quickly in case we have to put restrictions on the import of oil. I cannot understand why there is this necessity for haste in the case of oil. Is it a question of defence and security, or oil sanctions, or something like that? These are some aspects of this bill, Mr. Speaker, which cause us anxiety on this side, and which we will deal with in more detail when we get to the committee stage.
I have already said that we would support the principle of the bill because we are in favour of the establishment of a national energy board; but I repeat that there are a good many features of this bill which we do not like and which we will do our best to get changed in the committee stage. We

are not satisfied, as I have said, with the administrative set-up and the allocation of functions envisaged in this bill. We are convinced that the proposed arrangements will lead to duplication and possible conflict between the new board and other related existing government agencies. We think that in this bill-notwithstanding what the minister said about it on Friday and earlier-the government has failed to guard adequately against those dangers. We think it should have proposed at least a re-allocation of functions of some of those agencies, and indeed it might have brought some of those agencies under this board or under a single government department.
But while there is this danger of duplication on the administrative level there is also an important gap. There is no provision for consultation and liaison between the United States and Canada, and more particularly between the federal power commission and the national energy board. I know the minister discussed this the other night and he indicated why the government found it necessary to reject some of the recommendations of the Borden commission on this matter; but he did say that they were trying to work out satisfactory arrangements for liaison with the United States authorities. However, the minister must know that in most cases where those two agencies will be involved, the United States commission will have to issue an import permit-I am looking at it from the Canadian point of view-and the Canadian board will have to issue an export permit. The United States board and the Canadian board, I should think, would be bound, unless great care were exercised, to use different criteria. If there is no basic arrangement between the two countries, the applicants may have to travel between Washington and Ottawa without making very much progress, and perhaps for a very long time. In my view at least, that is likely to happen, and it would be most undesirable.
I do suggest to the minister, though I know he tried to deal with this the other night, that some basic arrangement in this field of energy between the two governments may well be required and be required quickly. Perhaps the precedent of the 1909 treaty on boundary waters may be invoked. Perhaps a similar arrangement may have to be ultimately worked out covering the field of energy between the two countries and providing for some kind of international joint commission in this particular field. I am not suggesting and I am not criticizing the government for not having put that in this bill. I quite realize that it would not be possible but I do suggest that in the working out of this bill

something like that may be found to be necessary. I hope the matter will be given very serious consideration.
While there is in our view duplication and gaps in the administrative arrangements provided by the bill, it seems to us to have an even more serious shortcoming in that it does not provide any national policy or guidance on energy questions.
Before issuing a certificate in respect of a pipe line or an international power line, the proposed board is required to ensure, primarily, that the project is economically feasible. I recognize that the main test to be applied by the board will be-if I read the bill correctly-the protection of the existing facilities and the control of competition. Moreover, the bill provides that the tolls to be determined by the board shall be just and reasonable. There is your criteria, "just and reasonable". Finally, before issuing an export licence, the board must be satisfied that the energy to be exported is in surplus and that the price to be charged is just and reasonable having regard to the public interest.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the only policy principles contained in this bill and the only guides which are given to the board in carrying out the functions allocated to the board by this bill. Those policies are so vague that they will be of little use to the board in carrying out and discharging its responsibilities. Indeed, the bill does not provide any policy on energy and the board will have to develop such a policy if it wishes to use its powers consistently, according to certain specific principles. That, I say, is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. The Borden commission, in its recommendations, did have-whether you approve of them or whether you agree with them or not-a national policy in mind when it recommended that the board be required to take into account, and I quote from the recommendation of the commission:
The advisability of encouraging the development in Canada of processing industries relating to energy and sources of energy as distinct from the export of unprocessed natural resources.
In making that recommendation the Borden commission felt that our sources of energy should be used, not only to serve our national development but they also suggested that the board concern itself with-and again I quote from the Borden commission recommendation:
Arrangements with respect to disposal of byproducts and avoidance of waste.
I ask the minister whether he can point to anything in the bill that deals with this
National Energy Board matter, a matter which is of very great importance to this industry and to the development of energy. As we all know-some perhaps know it better than I do because they are more familiar with this subject- the sale of such constituents of wet or sour gas as propane and sulphur helps to render fuel operations much more profitable. As our exports of gas to the United States increase- and we all hope they will increase

the disposal of those by-products will become a major problem in Canada. Sulphur, which was in such short supply only a few years ago, as we all know is now in surplus supply. Many of the liquid petroleum gases, including propane, will encounter increasingly difficult marketing problems, and yet they are becoming more and more important to the development of this industry. Were it possible to convert some of these materials into chemical products and to find substantial export markets for those products some of those difficulties might be avoided. The Canadian market is quite limited, and the United States market for chemical products, as we know, is not easily accessible, having regard to tariff barriers. Surely this is one field in which some bargaining with the United States might prove to be highly profitable as they more and more realize they are going to need our surplus, and that is the only kind of gas they are going to get, gas; but there does not seem to us to be any reference to this matter or any recognition of its importance in this particular bill.
Therefore, we contend, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is inadequate in the sense that it does not lay down any national policy for energy development. I think this is a major shortcoming. But whatever we may think of this bill, there is little doubt that it can have far-reaching implications on Canada's future. It is because of our recognition of its importance that we put forward these suggestions for improving it.
If this bill is to be made as effective as it can be made, surely those who have drafted the bill and those who are putting it before parliament now would be glad to submit the bill to experts in the field of energy where it could be scrutinized and where suggestions could be made for its improvement. It is for that reason that we have already made the suggestion, which I repeat with all earnestness, that the bill should be referred by the government to a standing committee so that witnesses can be called, evidence can be given and the bill can perhaps be made more effective.
There are good precedents for this course. There is a good precedent in this present session. The unemployment insurance bill has been referred on the government's own

National Energy Board initiative to the committee on industrial relations and in 1955 a bill on international rivers improvements was referred to the standing committee on external affairs. That action proved to be most useful because several provisions in the bill were altered as a result of the examination given to it by the committee on external affairs.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the government if they will consider the reference of a bill of this importance and complexity to a standing committee, whatever standing committee is most suitable, so that evidence can be taken before that standing committee and so that as a result of that evidence and as a result of the examination given to the legislation the bill can be improved and made more effective than we think it is in its present form to reach the objective we all have in mind in setting up a national energy board.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, the bill being debated by the house at the present time, has for its purpose the setting up of a national energy board, and in my opinion this is one of the most far-reaching bills that has come before this session or any other session for a long time. I may say that energy is the key to industrial development and national welfare. The people of the west who reside in that tremendous area commonly known as the sedimentary basin are fully aware of the tremendous resources they have in their back yard.
For those of you who are not familiar with the area and its geology from which the oil and gas supply originates, let me say that from the crest of the Rocky mountains stretching eastward almost, through Manitoba and north to the Arctic and into the arctic islands is a tremendous area known as the sedimentary basin, and it is in that area that we find these tremendous deposits of oil and gas. The exploitation of these resources, the finding of markets for the products and the development of petrochemical industries in the west are what we are looking and hoping for.
In order to have sound economic development of these vast resources it was considered necessary in the interests of the people, in the interests of the industry too, may I say, and in the interests of equity within the industry to advance the idea of an energy board. When we are talking about a natural resource like gas we must realize that it is an expendable resource. It is a resource that can be drained off by use and therefore we must give greater consideration to that factor than we would in the case of a replaceable resource such as hydroelectric power, for after all the water keeps flowing over the dams and hydroelectric power is generated, but when you draw gas

and oil from the ground you are draining off a non-replaceable natural resource. That brings up the need for some measure of public control.
I am not one who believes by any means that everything has to be controlled but there are certain things, and gas is one of them, where you have got to have a certain amount of control in the public interest. That was found when the Alberta government set up the conservation board in that province. After the energy board has been set up to look after the interests of Canada with respect to oil, gas and other energy products the same thing will be found to be true.
I rose to speak on this matter because in my constituency in Alberta is found a great share of the natural gas that will warm the homes of Alberta. Turner valley is located there and also Flat Top mountain and Savannah creek. The tremendous gas and oil deposits in the vicinity of Pincher Creek are also located in my constituency. All along the eastern slope of the Rockies there are these tremendous fields of oil and gas. Therefore, with this tremendous surplus of energy we have to look forward to markets and I for one am 100 per cent behind the finding of export markets for these products. I think they have to be exported. Above all, if I am to say anything about export on the floor of the house I wish to say that an energy board should be set up for the purpose of looking after the public interest with respect to export. The question is how the exporting should be done in order to protect the public interest.
Let me call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, some of the factors which I think should be considered by an energy board. Coming from the west as I do and having worked very closely on these matters as a consultant in Calgary for a number of years, I feel I can speak with a certain amount of inward feeling and understanding of some of the economic relationships that pertain to this matter in the west. I should think that some of the factors which will need to be considered are, first, the pools which are to be drained. When we export gas careful consideration should be given as to what pools are drained. We do not want to see a pool drained right beside a great metropolitan centre which is using gas while another pool away off in the hinterland is not drained although there are pipe lines leading to it. Some consideration should be given to the question of what pools are drained when gas is exported.
The second factor is the price to the producers. If we are going to export gas it is necessary to take into account the 600 to

800 capped wells in Alberta where people have put their capital and see that they are given a decent return on this capital they have invested. I for one would like to see these people receive a fair share of the sale price of the gas in the foreign market. It is my thought that through more effective bargaining we should receive the best price possible for the gas we export. I am not so sure that an individual company, interested in completing a deal, is likely to act in the best interests of the public when it comes to agreeing on a price which would be the best price that Canada should obtain in relation to the price which consumers in Canada must pay.
The exporter of natural gas deals in wholesale quantities. In other words, if a gas company is making a deal to sell a tremendous amount of gas they will sell it a little cheaper than if they were selling a small amount. My contention is that we should look at the sale of gas from the retailers' point of view. Out in Alberta, where the climate is cold in winter the individual user of gas will consume perhaps 4 or 5 times as much gas as the consumer in the warmer climate. If we are looking at the problem from the consumer's point of view, then the man in Alberta is the big consumer, not the man in the warmer climate. If the price were established on the basis of the consumer, then that big consumer in Canada should pay a lower price for his gas than the small consumer in a warmer climate. All I am saying is that those who are looking after the public interest should protect the interests of the Canadian consumer by taking this matter into consideration.
If we are to establish industries, and have the industrial development hoped for then natural gas must be sold at a low price and the supply available for a long time. The petrochemical industries in the west are capable of producing in the neighbourhood of 10,000 products. Let us take the plant at Sarnia as an example. There are over 10,000 products that can be produced from oil at that point. The Polymer Corporation alone produces some 600 or 700 different commodities. As you know the gas which comes out of the ground is about 90 per cent wet gas and only 10 per cent methane gas. It is only the methane gas that goes through the pipes and into homes. The so-called wet gas is a sour gas which has to be put through processing plants to strip out the methane, ethane, propane, butane and hydrogen sulphide.
Some fields in the west for instance around Okotoks and in the Pincher Creek area are capable of shipping out a trainload of sulphur per day. There is a tremendous development 66968-9-255
National Energy Board in sulphur production alone, and there are tremendous quantities of propane, butane and ethane, all of which must find markets. When Canada is exporting tremendous quantities of natural gas to the United States it will be done through a pipe that has a 36-inch diameter, flowing 450 million cubic feet per day. This is a tremendous amount of gas and will result in a lot of by-products which will need to find markets either in the United States or through the development of industry in Canada. This is one of the most troublesome aspects of the oil and gas industry in the west, particularly the gas industry. Alberta has a conservation board and it is the policy of that board to require that gas and its by-products be conserved. This has meant pumping certain surplus products back into the ground, and that is being done to a certain extent. A certain amount of propane is flared in the summer. Wherever gas is flared, as was the case in the Turner valley during the early development period the loss to society was tremendous. I think everyone in this dominion frowns on that type of wasteful operation.
Now, coming back to industrial development I should like to say that in the Crowsnest area, for example, where we expect this pipe line will find its way through to markets in the United States, we are tremendously interested in the development of industry. If we are going to develop the iron ore or any of the other minerals in the Crowsnest Pass area, and if you are going to have secondary industries developed, we must have a price for gas which will be in line with the ability of companies to pay and with their ability to attract capital.
There is one other point I should like to mention and that is that those who are charged with the responsibility of examining the contracts of the different companies should look into the question of escalator clauses in those contracts. I am told these gas exporting companies have escalator clauses in their contracts. In other words the price of gas is set at a certain level and then it goes up year after year in increments and gradually the price is increased. I have heard that these escalator clauses are based on economic trends. I would recommend to the government that they look into the question of who drew these economic trends. There is no other industry in this country that I know of that has escalator clauses in contracts relating to the things which it sets out to sell.
Then, having said that, I believe there should be a sufficient margin of profit given to gas exporting companies to enable them
4004	HOUSE OF
National Energy Board to attract capital and to make their operations profitable. There is no one in the picture who is going to deny them that. What we do want to see is that they act in the public interest. We should maintain equity among the different producers. It is possible that a big company such as Imperial Oil or Shell, with lots of bargaining power, could obtain a better deal than some small Canadian gas company. I believe that the economic forces should be bent in such a way that, over a long period of time, Canadian ownership will develop. Above all, we should maintain equity among the producers of gas and encourage Canadians to assume leadership in the production of gas and oil.
In so far as those of you who are not familiar with the gas and oil industry are concerned, I might say that natural gas often results from the exploration for oil. A company may be drilling for oil, and quite often strike natural gas. The valuation of gas or oil is a problem worthy of mention. Let me say for the benefit of hon. members who are unfamiliar with the oil and gas industry that if we are looking at the mathematics of investment, it depends on how fast you can exploit the supply in the well and this in turn depends on how much the conservation board will allow you to sell. That plus an assumed discount rate determines the price of the well. Any income from gas beyond 25 or 30 years, if discounted to the present, assuming an interest rate, does not amount to much. That is one reason why we have had a tremendous campaign to influence the public that we ought to cut and get out of gas in 25 years.
I do not blame that one body of people who are concerned with the exporting of gas, namely the pipe line companies. Their interests are to get their money out as quickly as possible; that is only good business; that is only natural. What I am trying to get at is that there is a conflict between that speed with which the export companies wish to get their capital back out and the public interest. The other side of the picture is the investment of capital in secondary industries. If you are going to put money into a petrochemical industry that will cost several millions of dollars, the very first question the investor is going to ask is this: How long is my source of raw material going to last?
It has been my humble duty to run an economic consulting business at Calgary for western Canada. Many companies have come to me and asked me for a study of where they should locate in Alberta. After you have gone through all the different factors necessary to consider in evaluating the potential income of that particular company, you


will come to the conclusion that much depends upon the cost and continuity of the source of hydrocarbons. If you can show, as in the Medicine Hat area, where you have a source of gas that will probably last for 75 years and more and the cost is likely to be relatively cheap, that is where the industry is located. So when it comes to the investing of capital, there is that principle to which investors pay attention, namely how long is my source of hydrocarbons going to last. But that consideration is in conflict with the speed at which exporting companies wish to get their money back out of gas fields once developed.
The setting up of a national energy board is a step taken primarily for western Canada. These tremendous deposits of oil and gas and energy are largely located in western Canada. Since they are located out west, this board should have on it personnel who understand the problems of western Canada. I have watched the debate on this energy bill in this house and I have noticed that the people of Ontario are only mildly interested. I can understand why that should be so. We in western Canada are primarily concerned. It is us who should be considered when choosing people to be on the board. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and to some extent Manitoba-yes, and Ontario-are the provinces concerned. But as to eastern Canada, what is the use in having on the board somebody from Halifax who knows very little about the energy resources in western Canada? All I am saying is this. They are good people and everything else, but this particular piece of legislation is largely for western Canada and I should hope that those who are in eastern Canada would look upon it as such and that they, for once at any rate, would regard us in the west as grown-up children and give us an opportunity really to direct this particular board in the interests of developing our tremendous resources out there, getting the capital and getting these petrochemical industries and other industries established.
I now want to say a few words on another matter. I have been tremendously impressed by the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and of other members of the opposition and of the C.C.F. They have gone to great lengths in praising the report of the Gordon royal commission which recommended the establishment of an energy board. The Gordon royal commission made the energy board their number one recommendation. You may be interested in knowing how that recommendation got into the report.
Mr. Gordon set up a system and asked for the help across Canada of scientists, economists and everyone whose services he

could draw upon. In Alberta he asked the Alberta government to prepare a brief for the information of the Gordon royal commission. I was asked by the Alberta government to head the preparation of the Alberta brief. We made the creation of a national energy board our number one recommendation. Through Dr. Stewart who was on the royal commission with whom I talked many times and Mr. Gordon himself and others, as a result of the way in which they were impressed with the soundness of the recommendation and I may say the brief is in print for anyone who wishes to read it, the question of an energy board found its way into the final report of the Gordon royal commission.
Let me go back one step further because I want to give credit to the people who deserve credit. I was asked to take leadership and prepare "Alberta's Economic Prospects" which was Alberta's brief to the Gordon royal commission. There were some 50 people who made submissions to that brief. Each department of the government and the university, the research council, the power commission and many others were assigned by me to prepare certain submissions. An outline was prepared first and the submission written. The paper was then read by me and others and criticized. A series of teams prepared the various submissions and I acted as the economist with each team and co-ordinated the final paper. This was known as "Alberta's Economic Prospects" to the Gordon royal commission. During this work I made an assignment on coal to Mr. Lang of the research council. When he had his submission prepared and I read it I found that over a few pages from the beginning he had recommended an energy board but he had stricken it out. He thought that it should not be up to him to recommend an energy board. I said, "I think we ought to take that particular feature out of there and play it up and hold some meetings". So we called a meeting over in the office of the minister of economic affairs. Mr. Lang and Dr. Grace were assigned the task of redrafting the recommendation for the establishment of an energy board. That was done and we worked it over again, and from there it was made number one recommendation in "Alberta's Economic Prospects". You will find it in the back of the printed publication. This report was prepared back in October of 1955. Although the matter of an energy board had been mentioned by others this action in Alberta's brief focused attention on it. I do not wish to take any credit for it. I want to see all of the credit go to Mr. Lang of the research council of Alberta, Dr. Grace and others who worked with him. They are the people who deserve the credit.
66968-9-255J
National Energy Board
As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, I am
100	per cent behind the export of gas. But if precautions are taken in order to protect the public interest with respect to supply and price I see no reason why we cannot go forward and have great benefits accrue from the' export of gas. I just hope that we can build up an export market from which we can get a proper price and that all the people will benefit. I wish to thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) for the effort which he has put into this piece of legislation, and while any piece of legislation is a compromise, I believe that everything considered the bill before the house is the best compromise which could be arrived at at this time.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to note that the last speaker referred to this bill, like some of the other bills we have dealt with this session, as a bill concerning mainly his province or the other western provinces of Canada. However, that is not what the bill says. This is a national energy bill, and there are
101	clauses. I would assume that out of the 101 clauses some of them must, or should, apply to the people who live in the other parts of Canada.
We listened very closely to what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said tonight. He said many things about this particular bill. In fact, much of what he said reminded me of Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing", and I think that is about what the situation was. The member who has just sat down also referred to this bill as a far-reaching bill. It is far-reaching all right; it goes everywhere and gets nowhere.
This particular bill, in my opinion, is one of the most important bills which has been considered for a long time. I think that one of the oversights in this bill is the fact that it is called a national energy bill when in fact it is not. I think this bill is a bastardization of a great number of bills which we have at the present time, including our export and import bills concerning the production and sale of gas. This bill does not talk about matters of energy which should be in an energy bill, but which are completely neglected. A national energy bill should contain legislation which will govern gas, oil, coal and hydro power. Atomic energy must be taken into consideration also in a national energy bill. These things have not been taken into consideration.
This bill was no doubt prompted by the discussions spearheaded by the decision made by the previous government, and particularly by the then minister of trade and commerce. This bill in the main considers the matter which was raised by the trans-Canada pipe

National Energy Board line. Even in this field where the Conservative government conducted an election on this particular issue, and beat the drums across the country on the issue of the trans-Canada pipe line and the faults and manipulations which took place in the introduction of that pipe line, the government has completely neglected the responsibilities which they said they would assume in that particular field.
They have failed in the main to mention the other fields of national energy. The 101 clauses in this particular bill do not even consider the major sources of energy which we are going to use for many years to come. There is nothing in this bill that concerns our greatest potential energy in future years, the matter of atomic energy. That has not been considered. Therefore I would agree that this bill is far-reaching; it goes to many places but really does not get any place at all.
I suggest that this bill could be supported quite well by the Liberal party, and I was not surprised when the Leader of the Opposition rose and said that he was willing to support it in principle. I would like to know where he finds the principle in this bill. This is a conglomeration of a number of other bills and there is no principle in it. If the Leader of the Opposition does not know there is no principle in it, then I think it is an excuse for the attitude taken in the past on this matter of national energy, and in particular the manipulation and handling of the trans-Canada pipe line.
I think particularly in the last few years it has generally been decided that national energy is something which belongs to the Canadian people and should be used for the Canadian people. One of our greatest natural resources in years gone by has been hydro. I can think of one or two isolated cases in the province of Ontario where we have not nationalized hydro. I am thinking of a particular case not too far away from the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps it is something he could give some consideration to, because he represents a riding that is affected by a particular company. In Sault Ste. Marie they still have the natural resource of hydro controlled by a private company. I am thinking of people who live in the village of Searchmont which is only 10 or 12 miles from a major transmission line of this particular company, but there is no electricity in that community. They have built one of the most modern sawmills in Ontario, probably one of the most modern in Canada today. They have built this sawmill but have had to put in their own power development in the sawmill for the simple reason that private industry, as always, fails to serve the needs of the

people when dealing with a national commodity, and certainly hydro power comes under that category.
We have seen also abuses over the years of these commodities and groups of commodities which have been nationalized. I am thinking again of the Ontario hydro as it affects a certain community not too far from my area. I pay five cents for the first quota of hydro power in rural electrification in northern Ontario, while at the same time the people of Quebec are buying the product of the Ontario hydro at half a cent a kilowatt and selling it to their own people through a co-operative in the province of Quebec at three-quarters of a cent. So even where we have nationalized some of these industries on a provincial or municipal basis, sometimes we find they do not serve the needs of the people because the people who implement them fail to make them work for the benefit of the people.
This government has failed miserably to do anything about many of the major sources of national energy. I do not really see why they set up the Borden commission to do a survey of national energy in Canada. I have read parts of their report and they have proved of great interest. I think the report has been well prepared and should serve the government in developing a national policy. But has the government taken any of the recommendations of the commission into consideration? Two of the major recommendations were, first, that there should be compulsion in the selling rates, so the government ignored that; and another recommendation was that the tolls, rates and tariffs should be calculated to yield a fair rate of return on the shareholders' equity. This recommendation was also ignored because it interferes with private enterprise. The government does not want them to get a fair return; they want them to get an exorbitant return.
It is apparently the hope that if this money is piled high enough, if the graft and profiteering which is taken out of the distribution of national energy in particular can be piled high enough, few of the crumbs may spill and fall on the floor where the multitude can share in some small way in those profits. We do not really care about the size of the profits which are being piled up as long as a few crumbs fall off and the ordinary people get their share of the crumbs.
Another question which we must take into consideration when discussing the establishment of a national energy board is coal. For years we have depended on coal, and we have on the statute books an agglomeration of many acts which deal with that industry. We

subsidize coal production in two or three different ways; we assist in the digging of it, in the shipping of it and in the selling of it. This is a commodity which could certainly be used for the betterment of all Canadians if it were brought under a national plan which would utilize it for the good of all the people.
One of the things we must keep in mind is that national energy represents one of the greatest resources we have in the country. We, in Ontario, have nationalized our hydro industry but we have also abused it badly. We have abused it to the extent that there are only a few more developments which can take place in the province which could be of benefit to the people generally. We have not carried out this operation on a planned basis. We have considered how it was likely to affect private profits rather than how it could best contribute to the development of Canada. We have given much more consideration to how this development was going to help the profiteers than how it would assist the mass of the people of this country. We have kept the requirements of the financial institutions more in mind than the need to develop our resources for the good of all.
If we lose our national resources, it should be remembered that there is nothing which can be put in their place, and this should make us particularly careful and responsible in our approach, especially to those areas which are so far untapped and undeveloped. If the government is sincere in wishing to develop those areas which up to the present have not been developed, one of the most effective ways of doing this would be to control our national energy and supply energy at a low rate of cost to communities where natural resources are lacking. We should find that a little subsidization in the field of the development of natural energy would be a lot more profitable than a great deal of subsidization in fields which are much less productive-the development of secondary industries, for example.
The government appointed the Borden commission to make this investigation. I wonder just why these commissions are set up, and I think the Canadian people are beginning to ask themselves the same question. I say this because after the Borden commission has been set up by the government, the government declared that no matter what recommendations the commission brought in it did not intend to pay any attention to them. The question arises: why set these commissions up at all? Do we need to stall for time until some decision can be reached? Did we ask these intelligent and highly reputed gentlemen to travel across this country, to interview
National Energy Board people, to examine the situation in all parts of Canada and to hear representations from the major organizations just in order to give the government some measure of time in which they can overcome a growing understanding on the part of the Canadian people with regard to the place of natural gas in a national energy scheme?
Did the government want to overcome the feeling which is developing across the country that Canada has been sold down the river by the privateers and profiteers? Did the government want to let the smoke of that battle -the battle which they helped to lead-die down so that they could do exactly as the former government did, and bring in a bill which does nothing to assist the planning or development of Canadian resources and which does absolutely nothing to develop our sources and supply of natural energy for the good of the Canadian people? I think the Canadian people are going to ask why the Borden commission was set up. Obviously it was not set up to tell the government anything, because the government has completely ignored it. The government has paid no attention to its views.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is not right.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. gentleman says: that is not right. I remind him that this plan was not produced for peanuts. But what major recommendation suggested by the Borden commission after an expenditure of a third of a million dollars has been adopted in this legislation now before us? A staff writer for the Toronto Star, Mr. William McGaffin, in an article which appeared on May 20 pointed out with reference to this bill that there was no compulsion about it; that the board might make orders with respect to all matters relating to traffic, tolls or tariffs, but that there was no indication of compulsion. The writer points out that the governor in council can, if it so wishes, over-ride these permissive powers, because it has the final say. It is true that recourse may be had to the supreme court on matters of fact and of law, but according to this bill such recourse is only possible on points of law.
It is also pointed out that tolls and tariffs are to be calculated to yield a fair rate of return to shareholders. Does this take into consideration the actual amount of money which was originally invested? Does it take into consideration that Mr. Tanner, president of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, decided to place a bet as one would on a horse race-that he decided to place a bet of $8 which yielded a return of well over-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must remind him that it is past ten o'clock.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business will be tomorrow? I wonder if we could be told the business from now until the end of the week?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall proceed with this debate. There is a possibility that at the opening of the sitting we shall take item No. 1 on today's order paper, consideration of certain amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. C-37. Then we shall have to change the order from that which I listed on Friday in view of the expected absence of the Minister of Finance. We shall take item 9 on today's order paper, that is the resolution approving the convention on the nationality of married women.


Lionel Chevrier: That is after this debate is concluded?


Howard Charles Green: After this present debate on the national energy board is concluded. Then we shall go on with item 10, the resolution concerning the Defence Services Pension Act; item 11, the resolution on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, and afterwards to the resolution which appears under government notice of motion today providing for additional judges. I am sorry that I cannot as yet tell the hon. gentleman what estimates will be considered should we get the energy bill through before the end of the week.


Lionel Chevrier: Is there any indication of what we shall do on Monday?


Howard Charles Green: We had in mind taking a supply motion should the national energy bill have gone through.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after ten 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 report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Argue: 1.	Has any frozen shrimp been imported from China to Canada during (a) 1958; (b) 1959?
2.	If so, at what ports were they landed, on what dates, what quantites, dollar value, and who were the Canadian importers?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1.	Statistics are not available on the imports of frozen shrimps as they are not recorded separately.
2.	As above.



BANK OF CANADA


Mr. Racine: 1.	Have the chartered banks borrowed from the Bank of Canada during the years 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, to May 1?
2.	If so, what amounts for each of the above years?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1.	Yes.
2.	In the published weekly balance sheets of the Bank of Canada the following advances to chartered and savings banks were shown as outstanding:
Questions
1955-	January 19, $1,000,000; April 20,
$10,000,000; May 4, $1,000,000; May 11, $10,000,000; May 18, $10,000,000; June 22, $5,000,000; September 14, $15,000,000; October 5, $10,000,000; October 12, $26,000,000; October 19, $16,000,000; October 26, $16,000,000; November 2, $15,000,000; November 9, $17,000,000; November 16, $12,000,000; November 23,	$32,000,000; November 30, $4,000,000;
December 7, $12,000,000; December 14, $2,000,000; December 21, $4,000,000.
1956-	January 4, $9,500,000; April 4, $16,000,000; April 11, $10,000,000; April 18, $10,000,000; April 25, $10,000,000; May 30, $25,700,000; June 6, $700,000; June 13, $12,000,000; June 20, $5,000,000; June 27, $5,000,000; July 4, $11,000,00; July 11, $18,000,000; July 18, $40,000,000; July 25, $12,000,000; August 8, $7,000,000; August 15, $25,000,000; October 10, $32,000,000; November 14, $25,000,000; November 21, $10,000,000; November 28, $50,000,000; December 19, $44,500,000; December 26, $10,000,000.
1957-	January 9, $30,000,000; March 6, $400,000; March 13, $11,000,000; March 27, $10,000,000; April 3, $30,000,000; April 24, $21,000,000; May 1, $300,000; May 8, $100,000; May 29, $25,050,000; June 26, $24,000,000; July 3, $12,000,000; August 7, $11,000,000.
1958-	April 2, $800,000; April 9, $250,000; April 16, $11,000,000; April 23, $20,000,000; June 25, $26,000,000; September 24, $3,000,000; December 3, $5,300,000; December 24, $3,000,000; December 31, $2,000,000.
1959-	January 21, $3,000,000; March 25,
$500,000; April 8,	$12,000,000; April 15,



$11,000,000.  HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 26, 1959