March 10, 1938

LIB

William Alexander Fraser

Liberal

Mr. FRASER:

It still helped to put you

back into this house.

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
CON

William Earl Rowe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):

I do not

need any help from my hon. friend. More than that, I stand, here to-night with as much

right as the hon. gentleman, and I have been endorsed by my own ridng as often as he has been in his-yes, and as someone says, with less expenditure. But if I had been artful in running for cover I could have found a seat in Ontario. I preferred, however, not to desert my own riding.

I would not refer to these matters but for the fact that the Prime Minister this afternoon seemed to suggest that his wild, reckless, ill-founded statements frightened me. An array of cabinet ministers went through Ontario to help the new premier-

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

The old premier; he is still premier.

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
CON

William Earl Rowe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):

The premier of that province is further reported as follows:

Furthermore, when visiting President Roosevelt last spring, Mr. King stopped en route and spent an hour in my office in futile effort to persuade me to accede to the request of Mr. Roosevelt on the St. Lawrence waterways.

He said that if I did not, Mr. Roosevelt might retaliate in the matter of trade barriers.

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Will my hon. friend now read what I said in reply to that particular statement.

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
CON

William Earl Rowe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):

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

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

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

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
CON

William Earl Rowe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):

Half an hour is not much to the Prime Minister, as I have heard the right hon. gentleman speak for four hours and not say any more than he said this afternoon. The premier of Ontario, on reading, in Mr. Lyon's summary of the matter, the sentence, "Mr. King expressed no opinion himself," stated that this was characteristic of the right hon. gentleman:

That's why we couldn't go back to Niagara, he explained.

He did not say that was why he went to Montreal. He said:

Mr. King is taking made-in-Wasliington policies and trying to force them on Ontario. Mr. King has never been friendly to Ontario, [DOT] as I happen to know as member of the House of Commons. I was there when he made his "Never a five cent piece" speech. Mr. King is still licking his wounds suffered in personal defeats in ridings in this province. They have never healed, even though for the first time in his political career, this province sent him a majority in the last federal election.

Electric Power Export

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

What has that to do with this bill?

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
CON

William Earl Rowe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):

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

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

That hurt I

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
CON

William Earl Rowe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):

No; it did not hurt as much as you think. But these are some of the statements that have caused this change of front; these are some of the statements that prompted the Prime Minister and the government of the day not to continue with their policy to submit the question to parliament but to devise a scheme to evade their responsibilities.

After the long speech we heard this afternoon, where do the government stand to-day? They are afraid to continue to say no, and they seem to be ashamed to say yes. Are they going to give their consent to the export of power or leave it to parliament, this government with 170 of a majority, groping in the dark for someone to lead them on a national issue? There is more fear and uncertainty demonstrated in the government's attitude on this issue than we have seen for a long time. It is all very well to tell the people of Canada that this is to be a democratic exercise of the rights of parliament, but may I point out in conclusion-

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
CON

William Earl Rowe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):

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

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Oh, do not worry.

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
CON

William Earl Rowe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):

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

say yes and afraid to say no. We have never seen a greater spectacle of irresponsibility in this parliament than we are seeing at the present time. Again I ask and pause for the Prime Minister to tell the house and the country where he stands on this great national issue. Is there anyone within sound of my voice who will say it is not a great national issue? Is it not of as much concern as any other of our great natural resources?

We have watched the pulp wood go down the streams; we have watched the premier of Ontario dig his canals illegally, flout the authority of parliament, ignore the Minister of External Affairs and the Prime Minister's prerogative. We have watched him negotiate with another country in his letter to congress; we have watched him defy this parliament. We see him worried about the St. Lawrence waterway for fear it will take some freight from the railways, but he digs a canal in northern Ontario illegally to float down the river logs that were formerly carried by the railways. That is the reason we see in this country 20,000 more men employed in primary industries than in 1929 but 80,000 less employed in industrial activities. Why? Because of that same laissez-faire attitude which will allow cattle to be sent out of this country on foot and allow to be imported

60,000 in cans manufactured in another country; just as they send out of this country raw pulpwood and bring back seven or eight hundred thousand or a million more magazines than were coming in when they came into power; magazines teaching our children a culture, patriotism and loyalty that are not our own, teaching them a pride that is not a Canadian pride. These magazines are printed on paper made from raw logs cut in this country, floated down the streams, robbing our railroads of revenue.

This is the thin end of the wedge, and I ask the Prime Minister to-night, now that he has reviewed the history and position of this important question, this great national issue, What is his position? Why does he not state it? Is it because he is afraid of the greatest lobby that has ever been seen in this parliament? Is it because he is afraid of the same private power interests, of Beauharnois, that threatened him when he made the statement here that he would never be in favour of power going out of this country? At that time we had more power than we knew what to do with, but when the private bill comes before parliament I shall endeavour to show that there is no surplus in Ontario for export and that there will be a shortage before 1941. I ask hon. members to read Doctor Hogg's speech and they will see that before 1942 we

Electric Power Export

shall be short of power in Ontario. This is day to day politics. Why do the government hesitate on this great national issue? Is it because they are afraid of the private interests, of Beauharnois, or is it because they are afraid of what the premier of Ontario has said or of what he is going to say, afraid of his threats, afraid of his challenges, afraid of his defiances?

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Prime Minister to-day, before this bill goes through this chamber, to tell the house and tell the country where he stands on this issue. Where does he stand on an issue that concerns the development of a great country, an issue that may be not only of concern to this country to-day but of international concern to two great countries in the future? It affects your province, it affects my province; it affects your country and my country. All you need do is to look at the aluminum plant; I am not sure what riding Arvida is in, but there is not an hon. member from the province of Quebec but can see that this is the thin end of the wedge, the development of power to be sent across the line. True it will give some employment to our men here in building the plant, but it will give many times as much employment across the line. It has been estimated that power used will give eight times more employment than power developed. I believe in developing power to give eight times the employment here rather than in foreign countries.

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):

Ever since I have been a member of this house I have taken a very great interest in the question of the export of hydro-electric power. This afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), in his exhaustive sketch of the history of this question of the export of power and legislation controlling it, referred to the Carillon incident. I recall it very well. In my recollection, however, we were confronted with a contract already entered into, followed by an order in council authorizing the export of that power. It covered 400,000 horsepower, although there was only 200,000 horsepower available in that particular place. Some of us brought the matter to the attention of parliament, with the result that there was an exhaustive discussion, portions of which were quoted this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). At that time, some thirteen years ago, it was a startling illustration of how careful we ought to be in all matters pertaining to the export of power; and I think as a result of the discussion in parliament in that year, and in regard to that particular incident, parliament or this House

of Commons ultimately took the stand to which the Prime Minister referred, which was crystallized in a bill in 1928, which bill was accepted by the House of Commons although it did not finally pass parliament.

While the right hon. Prime Minister was talking, I was puzzled to know what he was driving at. I listened to him with great care. I was waiting patiently for some explanation of the bill itself, because after all we are on the second reading of a bill, which means approval of the principle of the bill. The principle involved is not the export of power; it is the method of export, the regulations or legislation which will control that export. On that subject, unless I am very much mistaken, the Prime Minister was singularly silent.

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Oh, no.

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

Just a moment. The

right hon. gentleman spent over two hours in a historical review, excellent in form and no doubt very useful; but I was puzzled to know what the Prime Minister was driving at, and I must confess that to this very moment I am at a loss to know what it was all about. But I propose to bring to the attention of the house what I gather to be the principle of this bill, and I want to warn the house at this stage of my remarks that this parliament owes it to Canada to scrutinize carefully the principle involved in this bill before giving it second reading tonight.

From some remarks made by speakers who followed the Prime Minister I gathered that the supposition is that the principle is the bringing into parliament of something that hitherto has been dealt with by order in council, and it has been intimated by one of the speakers, not supporting the government, that he intends to support the bill. That of course is his privilege, but I cannot justify my conscience or my record in this house in connection with the export of power in supporting the principle which is involved in this bill, and I shall explain why.

Under the old legislation power was exportable under certain conditions. I am not going to read the act; it is here; but if I seem to misstate it I shall be glad to be corrected. These conditions may be briefly summarized as follows: First, it was exported under

licence granted by the governor in council. Second, such licence was revocable. I ask hon. members to bear that very carefully in mind. Third, it was not obligatory but it could be limited to surplus power. That authority was granted in the act; in fact it was indicated in the act. Fourth, prices at

Electric Power Export

which power could be exported were subject to control b}' regulation by the governor in council. Virtually all of these restrictions as they apply to power are abandoned in this legislation. If my hon. friends will follow me I shall indicate just how that is brought about in the legislation itself. I hold in my hand Bill No. 21. I have also the old act, which is cited on the opposite pages of the bill. It will be observed that there are two main sections dealt with. There are one or two other sections of less importance, but sections 3 and 4 of the bill are the two main ones. Those two sections replace sections 5 and 6 of the old act. We find that section 5 of the act in force at present provides:

No person shall export any power or fluid without a licence, or any power or fluid in excess of the quantity permitted by his licence, or otherwise than as permitted by such licence.

The same provision applies to the construction of pipe lines and so on. That clause is repealed. The section which is to replace it deals solely with fluids, that is, gas, oil, or substances of that kind; it does not deal with power at all. I am not quarrelling with that clause, but I want to indicate this: The section which is put in this new bill, dealing with the export of fluids, contains this provision:

Such licence shall be revocable upon such notice to the licencee as the governor in council deems reasonable in each case.

It also provides that no person shall export any fluid in excess of the quantity permitted by his licence or otherwise than in accordance with the terms of his licence. But if you turn to the next section, which separates power from fluid, then you find that the export of power is permitted, as far as the bill is concerned, without the restrictions that are applicable to fluids. I am quite aware that the Prime Minister or the government may answer that this will be covered in the private bill. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that introduces one of the main objections to this bill, because in section 4, which is to replace section 6 of the old act, there is no provision such as is contained in the old act with regard to the revocability of the licence, the control of prices, the limitation to the surplus or the other provisions to which I have referred. This new section provides:

Except as otherwise provided in this act no person shall export any power unless expressly authorized to do so by a private act of parliament, or otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in such private act.

This is not entirely new legislation; I grant that. For instance, we do permit private corporations to come to parliament with private

bills for the incorporation of loan and insurance companies. There is the Bank Act, which provides for the incorporation of a bank, and there are some other general statutes. But there is this marked distinction between these standard acts and this bill. It is this: In

each of those statutes the main principles under which such private corporation can operate are set forth. The private act must be a ' model bill in conformity with the statute. The only variation from that ever permitted under any of these general acts is something peculiar to the company making application, such as the amount of capital, the number of directors, or matters of that kind. But the principles affecting the public interest are set forth in the statute itself which governs the incorporation of the private company.

That is where this legislation is at distinct variance with all other public statutes of this type. The Prime Minister may say, or it may be said that we shall deal with that when we come to committee; but I submit to the house that this is a vital deviation from principles of legislation, not only well recognized in parliament, but accepted throughout the country at large. And so in this particular section we find that the export of power, as distinct, mark you, from the export of fluids such as gasoline and oil'-these are linked together under the old statute-is here left entirely to the whimsies of a parliament which at some future time, or at any time, shall deal with some private bill.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, those of us who have been here for some years know- and I refer back to the Carillon incident, which is one of the most notorious of my experience in parliament-of the sort of lobbying which can be put up in support of a private bill. Who is there who, before the Railway Act of this country was brought to its present form, and we stopped what was known in the old days as free trade in railways, does not recall the lobbies that used to frequent this house and the railway committee every time a private bill was up? Who is there who does not recall private lobbies supporting private bills of the type we are entering upon here?

This is a retrograde step. We are going backward. We came past this sort of thing years ago. We have learned from bitter experience that it was infinitely better to establish in a public statute what the conditions shall be in a matter of public interest, such as the present one, rather than leave the matter to the haphazard decision of the moment, in connection with a private bill.

Electric Power Export

So for that reason I am absolutely opposed to this bill in its present form. In saying that, let me say this to the Prime Minister: When I say I am opposed to the bill in this form, it must not be said-I will not permit it to be said-that I am opposed to bringing before parliament an application for the export of power. Not at all; I am entirely in favour of that. But I am opposed to permitting any powerful corporation to come before parliament with a private bill, when we have no knowledge of what exists by way of contracts, and so on, and to lobby a private bill in connection with the export of power.

May I ask the Prime Minister this question: Is the government aware of applications pending the passing of this bill? Would the Prime Minister and government take the house fully into its confidence and tell us exactly why the government's policy, as outlined this afternoon by the Prime Minister at such great length, was changed in December or January to the form we have it in this bill? Because certainly if I followed the English language as he used it this afternoon, that policy did not appear in two hours and a quarter of his speech, and in the last quarter hour I found it difficult to understand just where he stood. My right hon. friend gave arguments this way and arguments that way; but he was extremely careful to say that he was simply putting forward what other people had said. I did not hear a single syllable from him which indicated exactly where he stood in the matter, and it was a little disconcerting to those of us who are in favour, just as much as he is, of parliamentary control, to find him in that position.

Now, I go farther than that. The measure before us, as the preceding speaker has said, removes from parliament the control of this type of business, namely the export of power, and places it partly in the hands of the private company which is able to get through parliament a bill which suits itself, and partly in the hands of provincial authorities.

Here again I speak from considerable experience. I call to witness any member who has been in the house for some years: How often have we found it that when the practice has grown up of referring something to the attorney general of a province, or to the provincial government, when such consent or approval is stated it becomes obligatory upon the federal government to carry through whatever that measure involves. Let us consider, for instance, the granting of licences to breweries. That is peculiarly a federal matter; but, as a matter of courtesy for several years it has been the custom to refer the matter to the attorney general of a province. If an attorney 51952-78

general of a province approves an application, it is a rare thing for the federal government to refuse it. I grant you that it may be done; it may be stated that in theory it can be done. But I am speaking about our experience in this sort of practice.

I submit again that in connection with such a vitally important matter as the export of power, we ought not to leave the matter in the form in which it appears in section 4 of the bill. That section effectively and actually removes from this parliament control over the export of power, and places it in the hands of a provincial government. My right hon. friend knows perfectly well that in any instance where there is a question of doubt as to the wisdom of granting such licence the responsibility will be handed to the attorney general, or whatever provincial authority may be in charge, whereas the decision ought to be made right here.

Let me say to the government that I am quite aware how difficult it is to deal with the export of power, because for some years I happened to be at the head of a department which had to do with the matter. A number of applications came before me from time to time while I held that position. It is a matter of grave concern to any minister in charge of the administration of the act to make these decisions.

For instance, I remember a reference to the question of emergency power, for which there is provision in this bill. A large paper mill in Minnesota, just south of the Canadian border at the lake of the Woods, was burned down, and an application was made for an emergency export of a certain number of horsepower. The application was granted. The term of exportation, according to the application, was to be for the period during which the old plant was being restored or reconstructed. But before we did anything we had to send a couple of experts to the point in question to study the whole situation carefully, for fear that we were being jockeyed into the position of granting an export licence which at a later time we might find it difficult to revoke.

The question of revocation is one of the most difficult confronting the country, whether it be in connection with power or any other commodity. You can argue the theory of the thing all you like; but the government and the Prime Minister above all know that once these licences are granted, once power is exported, once industries are established and, as in many cases, once the sanitary organizations of towns and cities have been built up to depend upon this electric power, it is impossible or close to impossible to revoke

Electric Power Export

such licences. Every one who has had anything to do with these matters knows that perfectly well. We have no right to delude ourselves in this manner. It is no light question. As the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) said an hour or so ago, we are extremely anxious to keep on the best of relations with the United States. Of course we are. I never go abroad without reflecting with pride upon how long these two great countries have maintained a condition of absolute friendship. But if we want to jeopardize that friendship, then let us get careless with matters of this kind. It is not that we are so unfriendly to them that we would refuse them, not at all, but we must be careful.

If we are going to export power; if we are going to part with our power, then let us come out and say so. Let us say we are going to export 200,000, 300,000 or 500,000 horsepower. Let us determine that we are going to do it as a permanent policy, because that is what it amounts to. The aluminium company made application a few months ago for permission to export power to the state of New York for the establishment of an aluminium plant in that state. Does it not stand to reason that if that export licence is granted and an industry established, we could not attempt to revoke the licence in three, four or five years. This is one industry which perhaps more than any other is dependent upon electrical power. No wonder the jurist in advising that municipality in the United States, as referred to in the order in council quoted a moment ago, stated that while it was an annual licence, to put it in the vernacular of the street, it did not amount to anything. To talk about these licences being annual is sheer nonsense. These are just like the licences granted by a municipality. As long as the people who get the licence behave decently, the licence is as good for a dozen years as it is for one. Hotels and other institutions are financed on the strength of licences, and they know that within the ambit of good behaviour their licences are secure. It is a matter of practice and custom accepted in every civilized country in the world, and particularly in this country. If a licence for .the export of power is granted and a great industry is built up in the United States as a result, there is virtually an assurance of perpetuity. If we think otherwise or do otherwise, we are deluding ourselves.

Furthermore, it has been pointed out in connection with the great lakes diversion at Chicago that there is nothing more difficult than to remedy or correct or reverse an action between two friendly countries like

the United States and Canada. If it was the case of a great country with a little country alongside and we were ready to ignore that country ruthlessly, it would be different. But that is not our way of doing business; that is not the Prime Minister's way of doing business, and it is not the way any government that represents the people of this country would do business. They are bound to give every consideration to the requirements of those who have entered into such an arrangement as a result of our action.

My second objection is that we are surrendering our control of the situation. This private bill comes before parliament carrying with it a copy of an order of the lieutenant governor in council of the province from which the power is proposed to be exported declaring that the said power is not required for other use in that province. If we approve that clause we are saying virtually to any outfit that comes before us with a private bill containing the imprimatur of approval of the province upon it, that such private bill will be accepted. I know and other hon. members know that we shall not be able to resist it. We may think that we shall, but we shall not and we do not, as a matter of fact. I can recall in the past how just such arguments have been presented before various committees of this house, and the bill has carried virtually every time where the matters covered therein were of a consistent nature.

Section 5 refers to temporary licences and deals with the question of emergency. I should like to read part of that section as follows:

... in the event of conditions arising which are deemed to constitute a temporary international emergency, may, upon such terms and conditions as he sees fit, grant temporary licences for the exportation of power . . .

The argument which I now propose to make may be drawn a little fine, but in my opinion it is important. In connection with emergency exports we say in the bill, "upon such terms and conditions as he sees fit, grant temporary licences for the exportation of power." We attach the question of temporary to emergency. This offers another argument in support of what I have said already, that where a licence is granted under ordinary circumstances it is not looked upon as being temporary. That may seem to be drawn a little fine, but I know how difficult it is to carry through the administration of these matters. I warn the Prime Minister that the very statute will be cited in support of the permanence of licences other than those granted under section 5.

Electric Power Ex-port

These are some of the reasons why I am opposed to this bill in its present form, but I should like to make one or two further general observations. The Prime Minister cited the arguments pro and con excellently, and he covered the question of the encouragement of the establishing of industries elsewhere to the damage of industry in Canada. Let us explore that argument for a moment from this standpoint. In the first place hydroelectric energy is not a commodity. We speak about exporting it as if it were something we had in abundance that we could ship out of the country in order to make money. Electrical energy is an instrument of production, just like a machine; it is part of a machine. We in Canada are in the peculiarly happy position, almost unique among the countries of the world, of having tremendous undeveloped hydro-electric power. If we administer that great resource properly, our policy will be formulated to bring everything possible to the energy instead of sending the energy elsewhere to create industry in another place. That consideration is of immense significance.

Only a few weeks ago I was talking with a prominent Canadian industrialist who has a plant also in England and does business in that country, Australia, South Africa and elsewhere. As a successful and efficient industrialist he can speak with authority, and he told me that he did not think, having in mind modern inventions and the advances of science, there was a country in the world so advantageously situated as is Canada in connection with modern industrial development. I believe he is right. He said further, "I do not need to go to other countries to produce cheaply." In one or two instances he manufactures in other countries because of tariffs; but to-day he is shipping his goods from Canada, in spite of the higher payroll here than elsewhere, into a number of countries and paying as much as one hundred per cent duty to get into those markets, and is doing so successfully. Why? The answer is, hydroelectric power in Ontario. And that power is not limited to Ontario; one thinks at once of the great province of Quebec; but there is also the west, which we sometimes regard as merely a land for growing wheat, although, as hon. members know very well, in the great rivers of the west and in the northern sections we have some of the most magnificent water powers that can be found anywhere. What we should be doing, instead of wondering how we can get around the distasteful task of refusing to export power and hand it over to outside interests, is to bend our efforts to 51952-783

find ways of utilizing more and more this great natural resource which we possess from one end of the country to the other.

My hon. friend the Minister of Mines (Mr. Crerar) recently gave a number of addresses on the mining industry of Canada. They were excellent; I congratulate him. But let him; let us; let the government; let parliament study how we can develop the electrical production of this country to supply the lowest cost power possible to our great mining industry. Let us follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) with regard to the farms of Ontario; I say this with absolute sincerity. In old Ontario and the older sections of Quebec there is not a farm which should not be in possession of electric power at the lowest possible cost to relieve the drudgery and give the families of the farmers there some taste of what modern science can do to lift the burdens peculiar to older farming conditions. There is no reason why this should not be done; it is done in Sweden and in other countries which possess no more power than we have, but which use it for the happiness of the people. There is ample scope for the development and marketing of power. The Prime Minister referred this afternoon to the statement of one of these companies which applied. I did not like the statement. They said, " If you do not grant this licence to export power, the people of Montreal cannot have a lower rate for their electrical energy."

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

They did not say just that.

Topic:   ELECTRIC POWER
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO PARLIAMENT OF CONTROL OF EXPORT EXCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY
Permalink

March 10, 1938