Mr. Gillis:

I was the only person in the house who rose and protested along the lines suggested here this afternoon, namely that any large public investment made by the people of Canada through the taxpayers' money should at least bring some results to other sections of the country. But today, of course, everybody can see what the implications of these things are going to be.

I am just mentioning these few points in order to bring this discussion back into the realm of realism and to face facts as they are. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to give the federal government the powers to do the kind of job suggested in this particular resolution. If my hon. friends are prepared to do that, they should say so. But if it is merely a matter of talking about it and advancing a great many nice words, telling a nice story that can be publicized across the country without any possibility of bringing that particular program into effect, that is

Natural Resources-Development another matter. That program is needed, but we are just about ten years too late in going after it.

This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition talked about the development of a national energy board; and of course, being a good politician, he said that idea came from his particular party, that the late Gordon Gray-don advocated it in 1951 and Mr. Drew in 1953. The hon. member has been in this house as long as I have, and he will recall that I initiated discussions on that particular question as far back as 1941 and that I moved a motion in this house on April 17, 1946, not only advocating that national energy policy but setting out the mechanics that should be used in bringing it about. That was before the setting up of the dominion coal board as it exists today.

I am mentioning that fact just in order to keep the record straight. I have always had the opinion that in this world you can get anything you want provided you do not care who gets the credit for it. If the Leader of the Opposition had not raised that matter this afternoon and obviously pinpointed it in order to lead people to believe that any of these ideas had come from just one source, I would not have mentioned it. But I am setting the record straight by telling him that from a time going back to 1941 I have been advocating a national fuel board and a national energy policy in this house.

I am glad to see that we are making progress in that field, and I am glad to see there are some people in the government somewhere who have the good judgment to pick up things, no matter from where they come. I am reasonably sure that within the foreseeable future-maybe before this house closes-you will have an announcement that the kind of thing you are advocating by way of a national energy policy will be brought into being. I think that a departmental committee that has been sitting for several years now within the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has gathered just about all the information and data necessary to bring about that national energy board; and I want to say that it is badly needed.

A moment ago I said I was going to tell the government some things that I thought they could do. One of those things is the setting up of that board. They can do that. It is within the power of this government. But whether or not this government has the authority to do the kind of job that board should do remains to be seen. That will depend largely on the provinces also.

Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate so far with a great deal of interest, and I have been looking at this amendment for the last few hours, forming my own opinions as to whether it can be implemented or otherwise.

The language of the amendment is, of course, all right. There is nothing wrong with it. And, as other speakers have pointed out, the main part of the amendment concerns the development of a national policy to exploit our own natural resources.

If I were a newcomer in the house and did not know the background of farming out our resources I would be inclined to go along with the arguments I have been listening to; but having been here for some considerable time, having taken part in similar discussions over the years and, in fact, having initiated discussions of this kind by

resolution and in other ways, I think the arguments being advanced at this time are a little bit late and rather impractical, to say the least.

During the course of presenting his arguments leading up to the amendment the Leader of the Opposition made it quite clear that the national development policy he advocates must be brought about within the ambit of free enterprise. I said a moment ago that I consider the proposition impractical in the light of the circumstances surrounding the development of our resources today. For a start I should like to ask him how he proposes to get co-operation from the headquarters of the large United States organizations, located mainly in New York city, which have secured certain rights under leases granted particularly by the legislatures of this country. How is he going to bring these companies into a partnership that would help to develop the resources of Canada which they have today under lease?

Second, I should like to point out this fact. When we ask the federal government to implement a Canada-wide national development program we should remember that the resources of the country are in the hands of the provinces and the federal government has no authority under the British North America Act, unless we want to change it, to go into the provinces and do anything with respect to the development of resources.

Third, I should like to make this point. I said a moment ago that this debate was rather late, and I say that for the reason that in the development of pipe lines for natural gas and oil in this country the first five master bills were brought into the house in 1949. At that time we put forward all the arguments that were made this afternoon with respect to farming out our resources to United States interests. We not only made those arguments as far back as 1949 and 1951 particularly, but we also moved motions in the house that these pipe lines should be designated as common carriers so as to keep at least the main valves of the pipe lines in Canada instead of in the United States.

We did not get very much support in the house except from members of our own group. That development is finished. The policy with respect to that resource has been decided not only by the federal government with respect to the question of a common carrier but by the provinces that are developing natural gas and oil.

When we come to iron ore resources we are also a bit late, for the simple reason that when these resources were farmed out in

the first place it was the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland which gave the exploration companies leases over a period of years to explore and develop. But when the application came before the house for a franchise to build a railroad into northern Quebec, and there were a lot of other concessions along with it, again I and other members of this group pointed out that these exploration companies with Canadian names that were getting the franchise were merely a front for large United States interests such as M. A. Hanna Company, the National Steel Company and others who were getting the iron ore resources and the franchise for the railroad to exploit the ore in Ungava and Labrador.

We suggested at that time that the bill to grant the railway franchise should be sent back to a committee so its implications could be studied. We also suggested that the federal government should hold at least 51 per cent of the shares in that development in the right of the Canadian people if risk capital could not be found in Canada to hold at least some of the shares for the Canadian people. We were not supported then. I suggest to my hon. friend that the time to decide about holding these resources is when legislation is going through the house and through the legislatures of the provinces for the purpose of farming them out. We pointed out particularly with respect to the iron ore resources that the future of North America depends on steel. It runs all through our economy. The section of North America that controls the iron ore resources of Ungava and Newfoundland will be able to place in the hands of the government of that section the future development of North America.

Not much attention was paid to those arguments, and today the legislation is there. To get the kind of national development suggested by the Leader of the Opposition it would be necessary to abrogate those agreements and it would be necessary to get the provincial governments to go along with the abrogation. It is all right to move this kind of amendment, but as far as I am concerned I should like to remain within the realm of the things we can do rather than suggest things that I am pretty sure are practically impossible today.

To say that the federal government should enter upon a national development program also presupposes that the government should set up a fund for the purpose of developing our resources where risk capital cannot be found, and unless the fund goes along with such a development policy it will not be very successful. The government will also have to have the power to enforce such a policy,

Natural Resources-Development something they have not got at the present time with the exception of the power to make public works available, and so forth. But I am afraid I cannot see how this particular piece of machinery could be put to work, because all the things that are presupposed in the amendment have already been decided by acts of parliament and of the legislatures. That is something that will be pretty hard to undo.

Mr. Gillis:

How are you going to get control of the pipe line?

Mr. Gillis:

All right, you tell me when you get up.

Mr. Gillis:

I am stating facts. I am not playing politics. Before I am through I am going to tell the government some things they can do.