Mr. ERASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	What is the cost per month of all the printing and the mimeographing done by or for the wartime prices and trade board?
2.	How much has been expended to date on this work?
3.	What are the names of those responsible for the material used in the news summary of the wartime prices and trade board?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1. For fiscal year terminated March 31, 1942:
April 		
May 		
June 		
July 		
August 		
September 			 567 89
October 			 865 74
November 			 2,397 32
December 			 980 32
January 			 2,673 55
February 			 11,237 30
March 			 57,810 55
Total 			 $78,492 30
The enlarged expenditure during February and March is accounted for by the accumulation of accounts covering previous months' commitments, together with increased activity of the board following the introduction of the price ceiling legislation.
3.	Mrs. Hathaway of the staff reports section, secretarial branch.



SHELBURNE, N.S., BOOM DEFENCE DEVELOPMENTS

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What contracts have been let in connection with the boom defence developments at Shelburne, Nova Scotia?
2.	How many men are being employed by the government?
3.	What are the classifications and pay, (a) regular, (b) overtime, (c) Sundays?
4.	Is any technical or expert help employed? If so, what are their names and rates of pay?
5.	Who is in charge of this operation and what remuneration and expenses have been paid?
6.	Has there ever been a surplus of men employed?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: 

WARTIME HOUSING-ST. CATHARINES AND MERRITTON SUBDIVISION

Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What different types of houses were erected under wartime housing at St. Catharines and the Merritton subdivision?
2.	How many of each type have been built.
3.	What is the average cost of each type?
4.	What construction firm received the contract for the building of these houses?
5.	What is the monthly rental charged tor each type of house?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	St. Catharines, HI and 2, Hll and 12, H21 and 22; Merritton, HI and 2, Hll and 12.
2.	St. Catharines, 178-HI and 2; 20-Hll and 12; 15-H21 and 22. Merritton, 34-HI and 2; 8-Hll and 12.
3.	Average cost of the completed houses to date May 24, 1942, at St. Catharines: HI and 2, $1,779.97; Hll and 12, $2,336.34; H21 and 22, $1,875.
Average cost of houses under construction at St. Catharines: HI and 2, $1,891.07; Hll and 12, $2,560; H21 and 22, $2,058.33.
Average cost of houses under construction at Merritton: HI and 2, $1,820.14; Hll and 12, $2,441.67.
4.	The Redfem Construction Co. Limited.
5.	HI and 2, $22; Hll and 12, $30; H21 and 22, $25; with the exception of the Victoria Park project at St. Catharines which is $2 per month less than the above on each type of house.



BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES-EXCESS PROFITS TAX

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	Has any brewery or distillery been permitted to pay arrears of dividends since 1939 out of current earnings?
2.	If so, were they allowed to deduct these payments from excess profits tax?
3.	Has any brewery or distillery been permitted to retire debentures before the due date, since 1939, out of earnings?
4.	If so, were these payments deducted from excess profits tax?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	No information.
2.	If paid, no.
3.	No information.
4.	If paid, no.



PRICE CEILING-CITRUS FRUITS AND FRUIT JUICES

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	Is any subsidy now being paid on any citrus fruit or its by-produets?
2.	Is any subsidy being paid on (a) apple juice, (b) tomato juice?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Fresh fruits have never been eligible for
import subsidy. Canned citrus fruits were ruled ineligible on January 1, 1942. Citrus fruit juices were ruled ineligible on May 11, 1942.	.
2.	(a) Yes, on domestic production; (b) Yes, on domestic production.



GASOLINE RATIONING-NURSERY, LIQUOR AND INSURANCE SALESMEN

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	What general gasoline category is allotted to nursery, liquor and insurance salesmen?
2.	Are any special categories allowed to such g^l 0 j5xn 6n ^
3.	If so, to whom, what category and what firms do they represent?
4.	What gasoline category is allowed to stock and bond salesmen?
5.	Are any special categories allotted to .any of the above?
6.	If so, to whom, what category and what firms do they represent?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Nursery salesmen-category A; liquor salesmen-category A; insurance salesmen other than life insurance-category A; life insurance salesmen-up to category C upon proof of necessity.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	All salesmen in nursery, liquor and insurance categories are treated on the same basis. The names of the firms represented are not readily available.
4.	Stock salesmen-category A; bond salesmen up to category C upon proof of necessity.
5.	Answered by 4.
6.	Names of firms represented are not readily available.



HONG KONG COMMISSION-GEORGE DREW

Mr. POULIOT:: What was the arrangements between the government and Mr. George Drew, K.C., regard-
Questions

ing, (a) the remuneration, (b) the living allowances, and (c) the travelling expenses of the Hon. George Drew for attending the Hong Kong probe?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: There has been no arrangement between the government and Mr. George Drew, K.C., for attending the Hong Kong inquiry commission.
Pursuant to section 11 of the Inquiries Act, chapter 99 Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, a commissioner appointed under the act has full authority to engage counsel to aid and assist in the inquiry. This power is specifically mentioned in P.C. 1160, February 12, 1942, appointing the Right Hon. Sir Lyman Poore Duff, P.C., C.M.G., a commissioner under the Inquiries Act.



NATIONAL WAR SERVICES-COMMITTEE ON COOPERATION IN CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP

Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	Who comprise the cultural relations committee in the Department of National War Services?
2.	What are their qualifications and salaries?
3.	When were the appointments made?


Mr. THORSON:: 1. There is no cultural relations committee in the Department, so named, but there is a committee on cooperation in Canadian citizenship. The. chairman of this committee is Professor G. W. Simpson, senior adviser to the Director of Public Information. Professor Simpson has been connected with the University of Saskatchewan for nineteen years and is, at present, head of the Department of History. Mr. Tracy Philipps, adviser to the Director of Public Information, is European adviser of the committee. He is an expert on recent political conditions in southern and eastern Europe. The members of the committee are as follows:
Professor H. F. Angus, of the University of British Columbia, now attached to the Department of External Affairs, appointed December 13, 1941.
Honourable C. H. Blakeny, Minister of Education in New Brunswick, appointed December 10, 1941.
Major J. S. A. Bois, Professor of Philosophy, University of Montreal, now personnel consultant in the Canadian army, appointed December 31, 1941.
Professor Jean Bruchesi, author and educationalist, appointed April 14, 1942.

Mr. D. Cameron, Director of Extension Work, University of Alberta, appointed December 27, 1941.
Dr. S. D. Clark, Lecturer in Sociology, University of Toronto, appointed January 15, 1942.
Mr. Robert England, Department of Pensions and National Health, executive secretary to the rehabilitation committee, appointed December 11, 1941.
Mr. J. Murray Gibbon, author of "Canadian Mosaic", appointed December 9, 1941.
Professor Watson Kirkconnell, Professor of Literature, McMaster University, appointed December 10, 1941.
Mr. Tracy Philipps, D.C.L., F.R.I.A., foreign diplomatic correspondent, appointed November 27, 1941; salary, $4,392 per annum.
Mrs. R. F. McWilliams, fromer Winnipeg city councillor and social worker, appointed December 12, 1941.
Professor G. W. Simpson, head of the History Department, University of Saskatchewan, appointed November 1, 1941; salary, $4,500 per annum.
Mrs. O. D. Skelton, author and educationalist, appointed February 4, 1942.
All members, except where otherwise stated, serve without salary, but all receive out-ofpocket travelling expenses incurred while on official business of the committee.
2.	See answer to 1.
3.	See answer to 1.



NAVAL SERVICE PERSONNEL LISTED IN DEFENCE TELEPHONE DIRECTORY

Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: I should like to submit an answer to a question which, though -it did not appear on the order paper, was asked by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) on May 11, during the course of the debate on the appropriation bill, and appears at page 2292 of Hansard. It has reference to the number of bilingual employees whose names are listed in the telephone directory.
So far as the naval service is concerned, there are 326 names listed in the directory in question. Of these, 280 have resided in Canada during the past 5 years, of whom 60 are bilingual and 220 are not bilingual. Eleven persons listed have not resided in Canada for the past 5 years, and of this number one is bilingual and 10 are not bilingual. Thirty-five naval officers whose names appear in the directory have been drafted away from naval service headquarters since the directory list was prepared and details are not available.

Questions



NAVAL SERVICES


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I should like to table a document, the syllabus of training for probationary sub-lieutenants, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen). It is rather lengthy and perhaps it would suffice to print it in Votes and Proceedings rather than in Hansard.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: It would cost the same to print it in Hansard, and it would be much more convenient there.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: PROBATIONARY SUB-LIEUTENANTS, R.C.N.V.R. PILOTAGE COURSE Duration-4 Weeks



FIRST WEEK

[Stage Direction]
Period	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday	Sect. 1 Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 20830-0940 1	Introductory Lecture Issue of Books	Instru- ments	Chart- work	Chart- work	Plane Sailing	Plane Sailing	Chart- work	Chart- work	Plane Sailing	Day's Work	Chart- work0950-1100 2	Definitions (Geographic)	Instru- ments	Chart- work	Chart- work	Plane Sailing	Plane Sailing	Chart- work	Chart- work	Plane Sailing	Chart- work	Day's work1110-1215 3	Compass and Binnacle	Lights. Buoys and Beacons	Sextant (Rm. 2)	Rule of the Road	Rule of the Road	Sextant (Rm. 2)	Magnetism	Rule of the Road	1330-1440 4	Deviation and Variation (In Chartroom)	Chart- work	Instru- ments	Plane Sailing	Chart- work	Chart- work	Plane Sailing	Plane Sailing	Chart- work	/ /	C /1450-1600 5	Deviation and Variation (In Chartroom)	Chart- work	Instru- ments	Plane Sailing	Chart- work	Chart- work	Plane Sailing	Plane Sailing	Chart- work

[Stage Direction]
Period	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday	Sect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 20830-^0940	Chart- work	Day's work	Day's work	Chart- work	Chart- work	Mer. Sailing	Mer. Sailing	Chart- work	Chart- work	AZ	Chart- work	AZ0950-1100 2	Chart- work	Day's work	Day's work	Chart- work	Chart- work	Mer. Sailing	Mer. Sailing	Chart- work	Chart- work	AZ	AZ	Chart- work1100-1215 3	Supply and Correction of Charts	Supply and Correction of Charts	WT/DF	WT/DF	Mid-Term Examination	Review	1330-1440 4	Day's work	Chart- work	Chart- work	Day's work	Mer. Sailing	Chart- work	Chart- work	Mer. Sailing	AZ	Chart- work	/	/1450-1600 5	Day's work	Chart- work	Chart- work	Day's work	Mer. Sailing	Chart- work	Chart- work	Mer. Sailing	AZ	Chart- work	V /

[Stage Direction]
Period	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday	Sect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 20830-0940 1	AZ	Chart- work	Chart- work	AZ	Mer. Alt.	Chart- work	Chart- work	Mer. Alt.	Mer. Alt.	Chart- w'ork	Chart- work	Review0950-1100 2	AZ	Chart- work	Chart- work	AZ	Mer. Alt.	Chart- work	Chart- work	Mer. Alt.	Mer. Alt.	Chart- work	Review	Chart- work1110-1215 3	Ship Construction	Ship Construction	Ship Handling	Gnomonic and Mercator's Charts	Fog Publications	1330-1440 4	Chart- work	AZ	AZ	Chart- work	Chart- work	Mer. Alt.	Mer. Alt.	Chart- work	Chart- work	Mer. Alt.	/ /	/1450-1600 5	Chart- work	AZ	AZ	Chart- work	Chart- work	Mer. Alt.	Mer. Alt.	Chart- work	Chart work	Mer. Alt.	/	/ /
[Stage Direction]
Questions
PROBATIONARY SUB-LIEUTENANTS, R.C.N.V.R. PILOTAGE COURSE-Con. Duration-4 Weeks FOURTH WEEK
Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	SaturdaySect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1	Sect. 2	Sect. 1 J Sect. 2	Sect. 1 1 Sect. 20830-1940 1	Tides	Chart- work	Chart- work	Tides	Tides	Chart- work	Chart- work	Review	Chartwork Examination	0950-1100 2	Tides	Chart-work	Chart- work	Tides	Tides	Chart- work	Chart- work	Review	Chartwork Examination	1110-1215 3	Meteorology	Meteorology	1330-1440 4	Chart- work	Tides	Tides	Chart- work	Chart- work	Tides	Review	Chart- work	Written Examination	/ /1450-1600 5	Chart- work	Tides	Tides	Chart- work	Chart- work	Tides	Review	Chart- work	Written Examination	/
OFFICERS SHORT SIGNAL COURSE Duration-3 Weeks FIRST WEEK
1st Week	0815-0900 0915-1030	1040-1145	1315-1430	1440-1545	1600-1645Mon.	Colours and Significations of Flags and Pendants. Naval Code	v/s Practical	Colours and Significations of Flags and Pendants. Naval Code	V/S PracticalTue.	Morse Code, and Special Signs. V.S.I.	V/S Practical	Principal Definitions. C.O.F. and G.S.I.	V/S PracticalWed.	Principal Distinguishing Signals and Their Uses	V/S Practical	Colours of Flags and Pendants. International Code.	Construction of a V/S Message	V/S PracticalThur.	Colours of Flags and Pendants International Code and General Arrangement and Instructions for use of International Code.	V/S Practical	Practical Coding International Code.	Stationing Sigs.	v/s PracticalFri.	Principal Manoeuvering Signals	V/S Practical	Use of Letter Procedure Signals. V.S.I.	V/S PracticalSat.	Test Paper

[Stage Direction]
2nd Week	0815-0900	0915-1030	1040-1145	1315-1430	1440-1545	1600-1645Mon.	E.D.P. Recognition Signals	V/S Practical	Signalling by Flashing. (Elementary)	Flashing by Flags. (Elementary)	V/S PracticalTue.	Definitions G.S.I. 18,19,23, 38-46.	Care and Custody of Books	V/S Practical	A.V.S.B. Part I and Minesweeping App. General Arrangement and Instructions for Use.	V/S PracticalWed.	Care and Custody of Books. G.S.I.	Executive Signals. G.S.I. 99, 100, 109. Sig. Lanterns, Guns and Rockets. V.S.I.	V/S Practical	A.V.S.B.	Coding. Naval Code	V/S PracticalThur.	Care and Custody of Books.	Cyphers and Code in General. C.I. 1, 2, 16-29, 32 and App. A.	v/s Practical	Fleet Code and A.B.C. Tables, Instructions for Use. Practical Coding with these Books and F.S.B.	V/S PracticalFri.	Particular Instructions for Destroyers C.O.F.	V/S Practical	CodingM.N.C. Coding. Naval Code.	V/S PracticalSat.	Test Paper	
Questions
[Stage Direction]
OFFICERS SHORT SIGNAL COURSE-Con. Duration-3 Weeks

[Stage Direction]
3rd Week	0815-0900	0915-1030	1040-1145	1315-1430	1440-1545	1600-1645Mon.	N.A.C. Syko, Pendant List, Operating Signals, Boats Sig. Book. D.S.T.	Coding	Emeny Reports and Distress Messages /	V/S PracticalTue.	E.D.P. Recognition Signals. v.c.-v.F.	E.D.P. Recognition Signals. V.C.-V.F.	Coding	Initiating and Drafting Messages	(SSO)	V/S PracticalWed.	Special Signals Displayed on Various Occasions. G.S.I.	Coding	Care and Custody of Signal Books.	V/S PracticalThur.	Warship and Aircraft Silhouettes and Recognition	Coding	Enemy Reports and Distress Messages	V/S PracticalFri.	W/T Organization (SSO)	and Equipment	Coding	Examination	V/S PracticalSat.	Examination	
Probationary-Sub.-Lieutenants, R.C.N.V.R. Torpedo Course Duration-3 Weeks
Torpedo Course-Remarks
1.	As much practical experience at sea as possible is carried out throughout the course. This is dependent on the season of the year and the Tenders available.
2.	Saturday forenoon of the first and second week will be devoted exclusively to practical Seamanship at H.M.C.S. Kings. .
First Week Monday: Whitehead.
General outline of the Torpedo. History. Development and capabilities.
Tuesday: Whitehead.
Depth-keeping mechanisms. Gyroscopes. Discharges.
Theory-The Torpedo Control problem. Wednesday: Explosives.
Tests. Stowage regulations. Demolitions. Thursday: Depth Charges.
Friday: Depth Charges.
Discharges, Primers, Pistols.
Second Week Monday: Minesweeping.
Paravanes. "A" Sweep. Oropesa.
Tuesday: Organization of Torpedo Department. Personnel. Material.
Wednesday: Electricity. High Power. Search Lights.
Thursday: Electricity.
Low Power. Fire Control Circuits. Batteries. Friday: Electricity.
Degaussing. Magnetic Minesweeping.

Third Week
Monday to Friday (Inclusive):
Standard 5i-day Anti-Gas and Chemical Warfare Course.
Saturday (a.m.):
Examination covering work of whole Torpedo Course.
Probationary Sub.-Lieutenants, R.C.N.Y.R. Anti-Submarine Course
Duration-1 Week
1.	Early History. Limitations and Capabilities.
2.	Tactical requirements. Analysis of echoes. Conduct of the hunt. Counter attacks.
3.	Signals used. Depth Charge Patterns, and when used.
4.	Operating procedure.
5.	Organization of A/S personnel. A/S sets (Type 123A, etc.).
6.	Directing Gear. Oscillator, Recorder, etc.
7.	Attack Teacher.
8.	Search Schemes.
9.	Torpedoes. Avoiding action. Screening. General Notes on Submarines.
10.	Transmission Units. Echo-Sounding. Exercising with own Submarines. A/S Harbour Defences. General Review.
11.	Examination (Written).

Questions
Probationary Sub.-Lieutenants, R.C.N.V.R. Seamanship Course Duration-1 Week
Seamanship Course-Remarks
(a)	As much Practical Boat Work as possible is carried out throughout the course. The number of hours is dependent on the season of the year and the boats available.
(b)	Officers under training receive instructions in practical boat work in Service Cutters and Whalers, under oars and sail.
(c)	Week-end cruises are undertaken in the auxiliary yawl H.M.C.Y. Glencairn, whenever
possible.	,
(d)	Visits are made to different classes of war ships during the Pilotage Course.
(e)	During the period allocated to training at sea, Officers carry out the duties of Officer of the Watch, Quarter Master, Lookouts by day and night, in addition to attending organized instruction.
Day	A.M.	P.M.Monday	Knots, Splices, Purchases Lights	Practical and theoretical Boat WorkTuesday	Rule of the Road	Anchors and CablesWednesday	Cordage, Wires Rigging and Towing	Salvage and Rescue Work, including rafts. Watertight Doors and Fittings Damage Control 1700-Join Tender and proceed to seaThursday	Steering and Altering Course Duties of Bridge Personnel (Practical)	Steering and Altering Course Duties of Bridge Personnel (Practical)Friday	Lead and Line. Sounding Machines Letting go and weighing anchors (Practical)	Sea Boats. Hoisting and Lowering Sea Boats. (Practical) 1800-Return to HarbourSaturday	Examination	
Probationary Sub.-Lieutenants, R.C.N.V.R. Divisional Course Duration-14 Weeks
(Two Evening Lecture periods of 14 hours' duration per week for first 14 weeks)
Lecture Subjects
1.	Discipline.
2.	Rank and Command.
3.	Customs of the Service.
4.	Naval Regulations.
5.	Organization (General).
6.	Organization (Destroyer).
7.	Organization (Minor War Vessels).
8.	Cyphers and Codes.
9.	Logs and Records.
10.	Victualling and Canteen requirements.
11.	Certificates and Forms.
12.	Pay and Allowances.
13.	A.R.P. Organization.
14.	Anti-Submarine Operations (General).
15.	R.D.F. (General).
16.	Plotting requirements.
17.	Duties of Officer of the Watch-1.
18.	Duties of Officer of the Watch-2.
19.	Duties of Officers.
20.	Naval Discipline.
21.	Convoys.
22.	Duties of Divisional Officers.
23.	'
24.
25.
26.
First Aid.
27.
28.,
[Stage Direction]
Questions as Orders jor Returns


Mr. ROY:: 1.	Have any carburettors for reducing gas consumption in automobiles, invented and patented in Canada since 1930, been sold to the government of the dominion or that of the United Kingdom, to individuals, companies, or in foreign countries?
2.	If so, (a) by whom, (b) to whom, (c) at what price, (d) are they still in use, (e) where and how?


ALDERSHOT, N.S., MILITARY TRAINING GROUNDS
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Were lands purchased in 1941 and 1942 for military training grounds at Aldershot, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, (a) from whom were such lands purchased, (b) acreage of each purchase, (c) amount asked by each owner and the amount paid?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. IIOMUTH:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda or other documents dated since July 1, 1941. in the possession of the Prime Minister, the Minister of National War Services, or any other minister of the crown or of the national film board or any member or official thereof with reference to any legal action or proposed legal action by March of Time, Inc., or the producers of the series of films known as "March of Time", against Loew's Incorporated, Warwick Pictures Incorporated and Moredall Realty Corporation.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD-EMPLOYMENT OF STAFF

Mr. STOKES:: For a copy of all rulings made by treasury board since November 1. 1940, on the question whether the National Film Board Act gives authority for employment of staff without prior approval of the establishment by treasury board and also on the question whether the National Film Board Act should be interpreted as applying to persons employed casually for the duration of individual projects and not to any person continuously employed.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I have made inquiry, and I find that it has never been the practice to bring down what are called the rulings of the treasury board. These are merely letters written by the treasury board to departments or to ministers of departments, and are regarded as interdepartmental correspondence. There is no secret as to what treasury board wrote about this matter, so far as I know, but the letters themselves are not produced and, as I say, are regarded as privileged.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no objection to the statement of general prin-

ciple, that as a matter of right we could not get this ruling, but I happen to know that there has been a ruling in this particular matter and if the minister has no objection I should like to have it laid on the table. I should like him to consider that.


Mr. THORSON:: The same question has arisen previously and will arise also in connection with the next motion. May I ask that this motion, as well as the next one, in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence) be allowed to stand so that consideration may be given to the matter.
Motion stands.



WHEAT ACREAGE REDUCTION BONUS-ORDERS IN COUNCIL

Mr. CASTLEDEN:: For a copy of all orders in council, regulations and instructions issued by the Department of Agriculture, between March 1, 1941, and May 15, 1942, concerning the wheat acreage reduction bonus.



CALGARY ROLLING MILLS

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, recommendations and other documents exchanged between the government and/or any department thereof, and corporations, companies and individuals, dealing in any way with the Calgary rolling mills, since 1938, to the present time.


Mr. GIBSON:: This motion is worded in such general terms that it might be taken to include income tax returns. I must object to its being passed in its present form unless it is understood that income tax returns are not included.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is satisfactory.



MILITARY SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. ROY (Gaspe):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson). According to information I have received from fishermen syndicates and fish dealers on the Gaspe coast there is a shortage of fishermen and it is feared that they will not be able to fulfil the requisition of the British department of food for fresh cod fillet. Could not all the fishermen at present in the army be granted leave for the time of the fishing season?


Mr. SPEAKER:: That is a question that should be placed on the order paper.

Motion for Adjournment



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) based upon a matter of urgency. Just before coming into the house I received by air mail a letter from the town of Veteran, Alberta, I will quote one paragraph from it:
Dear Sir:
Owing to the dissatisfaction with the promised bonus payment, a meeting was called in Veteran on May 23, which was attended by a large body of farmers who had not yet received their bonuses. Some of these men had not received any bonus whatsoever.


Georges Parent: Order. That is evidently a question that should be placed on the order paper. The question has been asked several times in the house and I cannot see the degree of urgency which the hon. member claims.


Victor Quelch: Attached to this letter was a list of fifty-nine names of farmers who had not received the bonus.


Georges Parent: The question should be placed on the order paper.



HONG KONG COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: With due deference to those who are compiling it, may I ask the Prime Minister when we may expect the report from the Hong Kong commission? It has been so long in abeyance that the house and the country are anxious to receive it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is only one person I know of in the world who can answer that question, and that is the chief justice who is the commissioner. The chief justice, I am sure, has been giving his closest attention to the proceedings of the commission and, as has been explained two or three times in the house, he has been obliged to wait until one of the counsel who appeared before him had an opportunity to file a brief which the chief justice was prepared to consider before making a final report. I believe that brief has come in. I cannot say with certainty but I understand that it has. I have no doubt that the chief justice will let the government have his report as soon as he has had an opportunity to consider this brief, and the moment the report is received it will be tabled-the next day.


Thomas Miller Bell: I understand the brief had been presented ten days ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say as to that.



MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE-RULED OUT OF ORDER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) :: In accordance with standing
order 31 of the House of Commons I wish to move the adjournment of the house in order to discuss a definite matter whose urgency and seriousness demand public attention. While the country is at war and in these moments of exceptional seriousness, it is necessary that the French-Canadian element of the dominion-*


Georges Parent: Order. The hon. member has invoked standing order 31. He rises in his place and makes a statement, asking for the adjournment of the house. He must then submit to the Speaker a written statement of the matter he proposes to discuss.


Liguori Lacombe: This is my statement. It is not a speech; it is my statement under rule 31. It is a very brief statement, a copy of which I will send to the Speaker.


Georges Parent: I would refer the hon. member to section 1 of standing order 31 which he has cited:
Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business (standing order 15) has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon.
We are now on orders of the day; therefore a motion to adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance is not in order at this stage.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have just called the orders of the day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, routine proceedings.


Georges Parent: We are on the orders of the day.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. According to standing order 31, leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house-


Georges Parent: Order. I do not wish to deprive the hon. member of any of what he may consider his rights and privileges, but I have already given my ruling. We are now on a point of order on a matter that has already been settled. The incident must be considered as closed.
Canada Evidence Act



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Yesterday I promised to give an answer to a question put to me by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) on May 21 concerning a speech reported to have been delivered in Montreal by Mr. Rene Chaloult.
The legal advisers of the Department of Justice have informed me that in their opinion the speech made in Montreal by Mr. Rene Chaloult on the evening of May 19, as reported in the newspapers, clearly disclosed a seditious intention, and constitutes an offence against the defence of Canada regulations; and I agree with that conclusion. They have also called my attention to the fact that Mr. Chaloult, speaking in the legislative assembly of the province of Quebec on May 22 on a question of privilege, stated that the newspaper reports of this speech were not strictly accurate, and conveyed an impression which was not warranted by the language he had used.
In view of this dispute as to the facts, it has been decided to institute proceedings against Mr. Chaloult under the defence of Canada regulations, in the district in which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
So that there may be no misunderstanding about the policy of the department under the defence of Canada regulations, I wish to add that this decision does not mean that there has been any departure from the policy of ordering detention as provided for by the defence of Canada regulations when that is found to be necessary. Seditious conduct or utterances cannot be tolerated. During peace-time the procedure for repression is prosecution before the courts under the criminal code; during wartime there may be prosecution before the courts or detention.
Everyone is agreed that in such a case as this, prosecution before the courts is the preferable method, when it can be looked upon as sufficiently effective. But the repression must
be effective, and when it appears that prosecution before the courts does not produce the desired result, or does not produce it with sufficient dispatch, the interests of the state require that detention be resorted to; and in these last mentioned circumstances detention will continue to be resorted to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. 66, to amend the Canada Evidence Act.

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 26, consideration in committee of Bill No. 18, to amend the Alberta Natural Resources Acts -Mr. Crerar-Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. MacNICOL:: I want to refer briefly
to an answer that the minister gave yesterday to a question asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence). As reported at page 2802 of Hansard, the minister said:
It is only within the last twelve or fifteen years that crude oil has been developed in Alberta.
Further on:
There was one other point raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon City. There was a question whether any dominion leases were outstanding on the tar sands in northern Alberta. I speak subject to correction, but my definite impression is that no dominion leases are outstanding on those tar sands. Any leases that have been issued were issued subsequent to the transfer of the resources to Alberta.
I believe the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were created in 1905. Between 1905 and 1930 the natural resources were administered by the dominion government, that is until some twelve years ago. I wonder whether the minister's statement was correct. I have in my hand what I presume are minutes of the company that operated the Murphy claim on the Athabaska river, sent to me some few months ago when I first began to get ready to make a speech on the Alberta tar sands. The book is entitled, "Particulars of Tar Sand Lease No. 15 known as the 'Murphy Claim', Alberta, Canada." This company- must have been operating long before 1930, and to have operated it must have had a lease from the dominion government. On page 47 of this book I notice a picture illustrating the laying of a roadway in the city of Edmonton in 1915. The picture is entitled, "Beginning to lay asphaltic concrete from 'Murphy claim' on Kinnaird street, Edmonton, Alberta". That claim I believe is some thirty to forty miles down the Athabaska river from Fort McMurray.
Farther down the river there is another claim that has been operated for years, the Fitzsimmons claim. I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon) will be thoroughly familiar with that. From what I saw there I imagine that this later claim has been operating for more than ten or twelve years. They have shipped a large

Alberta Natural Resources
quantity of material from that claim. When I was there last summer they were shipping several hundred barrels.
To come back to the claim of which I have full particulars before me, the Murphy claim, that goes to show that there must have been leases prior to 1915, for the company had been in production and had shipped material to Edmonton and, I believe, other cities in the western provinces.
I read on page 51 of these minutes the following:
Certified copy of regulations for the disposal of the tar sands, the property of the crown, in that portion of the province of Alberta lying north of township 80, and between the fourth and fifth initial meridians.
Approved by order in council, dated the 14th of February, 1910.
Therefore from 1910 on the dominion government must have issued leases for the development of the tar sands, either to obtain oil or bitumen or asphalt, all of which come from the tar sands.
A note follows, which reads:
These regulations will come into effect on Saturday, the 19th day of March, 1910. . . .
Then on page 52 I read:
The tar sand deposits which are the property of the crown in that portion of the province of Alberta lying north of township 80, and between the fourth and fifth initial meridians, may be leased to applicants for a term of twenty-one years at an annual rental of 50 cents an acre, payable yearly in advance. The term of the lease shall be twenty-one years, renewable for a further twenty-one years.
I presume that would be under the conditions enumerated herein. This would mean that anyone obtaining a lease at that time could have had that lease for forty-two years, and I am just wondering if any of these leases are still in effect. If they are, perhaps that would have some bearing on the bill now before the committee, or perhaps not; I do not know, but I thought I should inform the committee that the leases were renewable, since I believe this lease is the same as all others which were issued at that time. Then I quote from page 55:
In case the tract applied for is located on the margin of a river or lake-*
This particular lease covered an area on the Athabaska river.
-it shall not include more than one mile in direct distance along such water frontage, and shall be marked on the ground by two legal posts firmly fixed in the ground, one at each end of such front boundary.
This particular lease extended back from the river for a distance of three miles, and included within its boundaries some 1,920 acres, which I believe is the maximum that could be granted. That is a fairly large grant,
in any event, since we have been told by engineers that an acre of 100 per cent tar sand should contain approximately 70,000 barrels, which would give a large, volume of oil, bitumen or asphalt. So that was a fairly substantial lease. Whether or not it is still in existence I do not know, but on page 58 I notice this clause, providing that leases may be transferred:
The leases shall not assign, transfer, or sublet the rights described in his lease, or any part thereof, without the consent in writing of the minister being first had and obtained.
So a lease could be transferred from one person to another, and I understand that was done with this particular lease. I believe it is now in the possession of an operator who is about to develop it, because when I went north on the river last summer a gentleman, a geologist and engineer, got off the boat. I understood he was getting off in the vicinity of the Murphy claim, from which I took it that his principals must have secured the renewal of some previous lease covering the point at which this gentleman left the boat.
I do not know what regulations were introduced by the provinces after they secured the return of their natural resources in 1930, but on page 59 of this volume I find this paragraph with regard to royalties:
No royalty shall be charged upon the products of any tar sand location granted under these regulations, or on the sales of the products of such location up to the 1st day of January, 1930-
That would be prior to the provinces taking possession of their natural resources. I do not know the exact date when the act to return the natural resources was passed, but it was some time in 1930, so they must have come into possession of the resources some time after January 1.
-but provision shall be made in the lease issued for such location that after the above date, the products of the location shall be subject to whatever regulations in respect of the payment of royalty may then or thereafter be made.
Whether the regulations put into effect by the dominion government were retained by the provinces after 1930, I do not know; but it may be that those holding these leases on January 1, 1930, were able to have them renewed on the same terms that existed before January 1, 1930. Then in the latter part of his reply to the hon. member for Saskatoon City last evening, the minister said:
Any leases that have been issued were issued subsequent to the transfer of the resources to Alberta.
If what I have just read is correct, would the minister's statement also be correct? I
Alberta Natural Resources

know he qualified what he said by saying that it was according to his best information, or something like that; but what I have read indicates that leases were granted while the dominion government retained possession of the natural resources, that those leases could be transferred, and that they could be extended for a total period of forty-two years, which would bring them up to 1952. Whether or not the bill now before the committee should be amended to protect leases made prior to the return of the natural resources is something I cannot say. But, Mr. Chairman, having this information in my possession, I thought I should place it upon Hansard.


Mr. CRERAR:: When the hon. member for Saskatoon City asked the question last evening, I think I qualified my reply by saying that I was speaking subject to correction. I have not been able in the interval to get full details as to the point now raised by the hon. member for Davenport, but I think there was either a crown grant or a lease given a great many years ago covering an area of tar sand on the Athabaska river corresponding to what the hon. member for Davenport has said. As far as I am aware that was the only lease outstanding. It was not given, however, for the purpose of developing oil. Again I am speaking subject to Correction, because I have not had an opportunity to get all the facts in connection with the matter, but at that time it was thought that these tar sands provided a natural road surfacing material; that is, if you could take the tar sands, with the amount of bitumen they contained, and transport them and surface a road with them, you would have a good surfacing material. It is quite true, as the hon. member for Davenport has stated, that a certain quantity, not a very large quantity, was placed on one of the streets of Edmonton, more as a test in order to see how it would endure.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is there yet; I saw it last summer.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Then I believe a year or two later, though I am not certain as to the time, a certain amount of this material was taken to Jasper park, and the road between the railway station and the Canadian National lodge is almost entirely surfaced with this material. That was done in order to test its durability, and it appears there is no question now as to the quality of this material for hard surfacing roads. At that time, however, the purpose was to use the material for hard surfacing, and not for the extraction of oil.

I believe it was recognized from the first that these tar sands had potential oil value. The problem was to find a formula for treating the sands so as to extract the oil. I recall that the university of Alberta carried on laboratory experiments for some time in an effort to determine a method of extracting the oil from the sand. If my information is correct, it had in its early stages rather doubtful success; but as time went on the resources of science applied itself to the problem, with the result that within comparatively recent years a process, although perhaps not a perfect one, has been discovered for extracting the oil from the sands. As a matter of fact, a company was operating for this purpose on a modest scale near Waterways, and had some degree of success in extracting oil from these sands.
It is obvious to members of the committee familiar with the geography of the district that the handicap in developing this as a eom-merical proposition arises from the fact that it is so remote from the centres of population.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How far from Edmonton?


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is 305 miles by rail and 250 miles as the crow flies.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, about 300 miles by rail transport.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not far for a pipeline?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, it is not far. I know, as a matter of fact, that responsible business interests have been considering the possibility of laying a pipeline from Fort McMurray to the more settled parts of western Canada. Whether or not at some time in the future that may develop remains to be seen. Undoubtedly, however, there are vast quantities of oil in these sands. No doubt science can find a satisfactory method of extracting that oil, and I believe there is every likelihood that at some time in the future, and perhaps not too far, it will become an active eom-merical proposition.
I wish to return to the point that the early efforts toward developing these sands commercially were made with the idea of utilizing them for road surfacing materials, and not for the purpose of extracting oil. The possibilities of oil extraction were always present and, later on, as I said a moment ago, became a reality as a result of many years of careful experimenting.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did the leases not cover oil, bitumen and asphalt?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I should think it likely that they would. I cannot say at the moment,

Alberta Natural Resources
because I have not before me particulars with respect to the leases issued over thirty years ago. I should think it likely, however, that the leases would cover anything that might be taken from the leased area.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I add one further word to what the minister has said? I made a very careful survey covering several days, and my observation was that the difficulty was not that of taking the oil out of the sand. That, in fact, was a very simple matter. The difficuty to overcome-and it has been overcome-was one of getting the sand out of the mine. The sands were shaved off, and the sand itself, a sample of which I have in my hand, acted like a sand blast. In the business in which I was engaged we used sand blasts, and I know that sand blasts will cut right through steel. Therefore, as the shavers or scrapers went round and round on a wheel belt the sand would wear them out. That was the biggest part of the difficulty.
May I add in passing, that the department is greatly blessed in having a man like Doctor S. C. Ells in its employ. I believe it was Doctor Ells who discovered the system of taking the oil out of the sand. It is a simple process which involves the use of hot water, and when this process is used the oil can be taken out in two minutes. I have often said to myself that the Minister of Mines and Resources has a wonderful opportunity to develop the resources of this 'country when he has in his department a capable oil expert like Doctor Ells. I know if I were minister I would be inclined to send Doctor Ells up to the Athabaska district, with instructions to produce oil. I am sure he would produce it in quantities sufficient to warrant the building of a pipeline to Edmonton.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has never brought down the correspondence for which I asked in March, and which I understood was to have been brought down. I would assume that there has been a considerable amount of correspondence between him or his department, the government of Alberta and the leaseholders. I should not be surprised if in that correspondence between the minister and the leaseholders, or those representing the leaseholders, the question of breach of trust was not raised. Under those circumstances I suggest we ought to have the correspondence. Furthermore it would not be surprising if in that correspondence the minister himself was gravely concerned about the question of breach of trust, and raised that question in correspondence with the government of Alberta. Following along that line of thought, I would not be surprised if that
was one of the main reasons why the minister did not proceed with'this legislation last year. I would ask him to state quite frankly what happened on that point.
This morning I read over somewhat hastily the observations made last night by the minister, but I could not find any place where he dealt adequately with the question I have raised. Undoubtedly in law, by reason of the circumstances which have arisen, in a degree the dominion has been occupying a fiduciary position. That fiduciary position will be lifted if this bill is passed and confirmation is given to the agreement between the dominion and the province. That agreement, as a schedule to the bill, is part and parcel of the legislation. When the bill is passed, the last refuge of those who have complained against the legislation will be gone; all their protection will have vanished, and they will be at the mercy of the provincial administration. At that time, of course, the provincial administration will be free to do whatever it likes.
I suggest that the minister ought to tell us whether this theory-possibly it is more than a theory-this cogent argument against what he is now doing was not raised directly by the parties and interests who, I shall not say will be the victims, but will be placed under the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities with respect to leases for petroleum rights originally issued by the dominion over this area. I would ask if that question did not seriously affect the minister's judgment. Is that not one reason why he refused to proceed last year, and one reason which actuated him, if I understand his statement correctly, when he sought to get the consent of these parties. In that connection I think the minister ought to tell us how many leases were issued by his department prior to the transfer and were outstanding in 1941. I mean those that were in good working order, those in connection with which the leaseholders had paid the annual fee or whatever was required by the department even though they might not be operating. I understood there were some 810 leases. That is the number outstanding at the time of the transfer of the resources, but I should like to know how many are still outstanding and might be said to be in good standing legally. Then I should like to compare that number with the number of lease owners who are alleged-I am going to use that word

or who it is said have agreed to this legislation. I think it will be found that a large number have never agreed. If they have not agreed they may be prejudicially affected by this legislation. The position occupied by the federal authority still stands with respect to them.

Alberta Natural Resources

This matter has attracted a good deal of attention in the west, and I have had some representations made to me, I suppose largely because of the newspaper reports of the discussion that took place yesterday. This morning I was in receipt of a telegram from a gentleman whom I do not know but who signs himself Robert Wilkinson, and who, I understand, is president of the National Petroleum Corporation Limited of Calgary. As far as I know, this man has not been consulted, and according to his observations he certainly has not given his consent. His telegram reads:
Regarding debate Alberta oil royalty situation operators here strongly support your opposition to passage of this measure particularly now when every encouragement should be given producers and those providing finances for new development. Ten large rotary drilling rigs now idle, all owned by independent operators. Please refer letter editorial page Toronto Star dated 15th July, 1941.
Then he makes reference to Hansard but I could not find the page to which he refers. And the telegram concludes:
Suggest that passage of bill in present form *Bull be near approach to sabotage and must be effectively prevented.
That is how this man characterizes this legislation.
If I interpreted the remarks of the minister correctly, they were to the effect that this legislation would bring about stability and from that there would follow action with regard to the production of oil. This man's statement is entirely contrary to that. He wrote a letter to the Toronto Star on July 15, 1941, and I have a copy of that before me. It was entitled, "Canada's Western Oil", and in it he indicates the reasons why there is no development of these oil fields. He states that the reason for this is the fact that the basic price has been put down so low having regard to the cost of operating that the independent operators cannot go on. He refers to the increased cost of drilling and so forth. He stated that there was $2,000,000 worth of equipment now idle. This position is not due to the position of the leases. This stagnation is due to the low prices which have been set by the oil controller or by some authority as the basic price for crude in the Turner valley field.
His letter was written just about the time the agitation was taking place in the province of Alberta and they were undertaking to do this by other methods, by going to the courts. I submit that that is where the matter should have been decided. It is a dangerous thing to interfere by legislation with a position affecting third parties, to walk in by

legislation of this superior legislature and wipe out the defences that people may have in a court action. I think the minister is taking a pretty serious responsibility upon himself. On principle, this is bad legislation. I am reminded of a position that existed years ago in my own province. While a case was still before the courts an amendment was passed to the conditional sales of chattels act which completely wiped out the defence in an action then pending before the courts. The attorney general of the province was acting for one of the parties while, as attorney general, he was putting through legislation which affected his own position. If the minister wants to see what the courts thought about that state of affairs, I shall send him the citation. The case is the Port Elgin Woollen Mills v. Goldie and McCullough, reported in the New Brunswick reports.
This is a vicious type of legislation because it may affect directly the position of third parties. I do not think the minister can say that these leaseholders have freely and voluntarily consented to this legislation. They have done so under a species of duress. I do not mean that there has been a direct application of duress, but I am told by some of those who have given their consent to the position being attained that is now sought to be attained, that they gave it in the belief that if they did not consent, something worse would happen. A man from Edmonton told me that he could not come out in the open for fear of what would happen to him. That is a dreadful situation, and that may be just what Mr. Wilkinson means when he uses the term "sabotage" in his telegram.
I do not think the minister has followed this thing through to see what the effect of this legislation will be. I contend that he ought to withdraw this bill and review the whole position with reference to stability and increasing the facilities for the flow of oil in the fields of Alberta. The true position has been that it was so unprofitable to drill that the very thing that ought to have-been done has not been done. I am going to read the letter which this man wrote and ask the minister what he thinks about it. It is addressed to the Toronto Star, dated July 15, 1941, which is less than a year ago, and reads:
It is high time that the Canadian public he made acquainted with the developments in domestic production and supply of crude oil. It is even more important that it becomes especially informed about the situation in the Turner valley oil field, in the province of Alberta. Until recently, governmental interference has been negligible, particularly prior to the date of transfer of natural resources from the federal to the provincial authorities in 1930. In consequence,

correspondence. The minister has never yet brought down the file, and he has not given any reason why he did not do so.


Mr. BENCE:: He promised to bring it down.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, and he did not do it. I am surprised at that. I am not going to attribute any wrong motives. I suppose he forgot about it. Any human being is likely to do that. I do not attribute any blame to the minister on that account. But if he will allow this bill to stand over and review the file I think he will find exactly what I have stated to be the case. I have a telegram to-day from a man who is very much interested in this matter; he it was who gave me the information. In the departmental file it will be disclosed that a year ago the minister was tremendously influenced by this doctrine of breach of trust, with which I have tried to deal,-very inadequately, I fear, because I have not had time to study the question fully.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I can say at once to my hon. friend that this is wholly incorrect.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be true, but it is the information I have, and how can I contradict the minister even were I disposed to do so? Why not bring down the file and let us have a look at it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will deal with it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a fair enough proposition,

let the bill stand over. And then I am going to ask the minister to commune with his own conscience. I submit to him in all seriousness that there is an ethical principle involved in putting through legislation of this kind which may affect the contractual rights of third parties. We ought not be parties to it.
I am not going to repeat myself. I think I have made abundantly clear, this afternoon at all events, if I did not do so yesterday, what my position is with regard to this legislation, and what I suggest the minister should do. He should review the whole position. He should not deliver these men, these people who think they have rights, unprotected into the hands of those who may not practise the golden rule.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Chairman, I must
confess that I am amazed-


Richard Burpee Hanson: You are always amazed.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -at the leader of the opposition. So far as the correspondence is concerned there is no objection to bringing it down. I can tell my hon. friend and the

committee the circumstances with regard to the whole matter as I recall them, and I think my memory is accurate. As I recall now, it was in March a year ago that Mr. Tanner, the Minister of Mines and Lands in the province of Alberta, was in Ottawa, and he came to see me about the possibility of getting an amendment-the present proposed amendment-of the natural resources transfer agreement put through. As I recollect, he desired to do that in order to get a measure of stability in the Alberta situation.
That was considered. It looked to me to be a not unreasonable request, for this reason: there was no other province in Canada which had its resources that did not have that right and that power. Moreover-


Alfred Henry Bence: Except Saskatchewan. What about Saskatchewan?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, excepting the prairie provinces.


Alfred Henry Bence: Because their natural resources were not transferred to them until 1930.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend knew I was referring to the prairie provinces, if I mentioned the province of Alberta; it applied to the prairie provinces. It does not apply in Manitoba or in Saskatchewan so far as oil is concerned; at any rate it has not arisen yet. But Manitoba took a different kind of action, and rather drastic action, with timber leases that were outstanding, and it rectified the situation to its own satisfaction without coming back here to get any amendment to the agreement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose the timber licences were in default.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, probably some of them were in default.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course they were.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: And they attached conditions which they had a right to attach.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There was a legal right there.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But we are dealing now with the situation in Alberta. I want to continue with what I was saying about the correspondence. The matter was discussed and examined after Mr. Tanner was here, and it was my intention to recommend to council that a bill be introduced giving effect to what is proposed in the present measure. That became known and of course strong recommendations-I am willing to use that word- were made against it by those representing the

Alberta Natural Resources
licence holders in Alberta. These representations were made, not by correspondence but in person by the people who came here to represent them. The session was getting late and I wrote to Mr. Tanner and told him that I felt we could not proceed with the legislation that session and pointed out that strong objection had been taken to this procedure by many of the licence holders.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What were the grounds of the objection?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The ground was that they feared the province of Alberta, I presume, might raise the royalities.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did they not take the ground that it would be a breach of a condition, that it ought not to be done on ethical grounds?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not recall that that condition was mentioned. At any rate I wrote to Mr. Tanner and said that it would be impossible to proceed with the legislation and I suggested in my letter to him that he should endeavour, or that the Alberta government should endeavour to reach an understanding with the oil interests. It was not a matter upon which we wished to legislate here if there was any considerable measure of opposition. That was the situation a year ago. What happened? The Alberta government later on assessed these dominion licences at the provincal rate of royalty. Exception was going to be taken to that and they made a reference to the higher court in Alberta to see whether or not they had power. That hinged upon the point I mentioned last night as to whether or not the federal government, in section 2 of the transfer agreement, passed over to the Alberta government all powers it enjoyed in respect of these licences. There is no question whatever that had these resources remained with the federal government under dominion administration the dominion had the right to vary the terms of royalty. That is not disputed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think it is disputed, but I should not like to pass judgment on it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I read last night the clause from the form of licence, and for the benefit of those who did not hear it perhaps it might be well for me to read it again. This was the condition of the licences granted. The clause, as I said last night, recites the period for which the licence is issued, the fact that it is renewable, and then says:

and also rendering and paying therefor unto His Majesty a royalty at such rate as may
from time to time be prescribed by order of the governor general of Canada in council on the products taken out of the said lands.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was in 1919?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That was a condition in the licence under which all these operators are operating to-day.


Alfred Henry Bence: And after that it was set at a definite amount for a definite length of time by order in council of October 29, 1920.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: When the licences were first issued, no rate of royalty was fixed, but they had power to vary it from time to time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And they did in 1920. They made it a definite length of time.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They had power to vary it. At any rate, I am not going to get into an argument with my hon. friends of the legal profession because I quite realize, I hope, that I have the short end of the stick in a debate of this kind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a question of fact.


Alfred Henry Bence: What then was the purpose of section 2 of the agreement of December 14. 1929, if it was not to preserve these rights?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The contention of some authorities, I believe, is that the purpose of that section was that the government of Alberta would observe the conditions of these licences, and one of the conditions of the licences was that the federal government had power to vary the royalties from time to time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As I
understood it, the legal question with respect to section 2 was, did the government, having regard to the language of the section, have the right to raise royalties, or were they bound by the condition as it then existed. That was the legal question and that is the question that should have been left to the courts.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In ordinary cases there is a good deal to commend the position just taken by the leader of the opposition. However, let me pass on. There is no question that under these licences-it has never been disputed at any rate-they were under the necessity of paying 10 per cent royalty. There is no question about that.

Alberta Natural Resources


Richard Burpee Hanson: After a certain period.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, from 1930 on. There is no question that to-day the royalty that can be collected in Alberta on these oil licences is 10 per cent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To-day, yes. I think that is right.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Now what is proposed here? My hon. friend made a great deal of play on the fact that it was this condition of affairs that was leading to the cessation of drilling.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, that was only one factor. The main factor was the low price of crude.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: So far as the low price of oil is concerned, we have nothing to do with it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The oil controller has.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: Unless the Alberta government should change its mind.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There will be a minimum of 5 per cent, and they can vary it in between those two points. I do not think that is the factor that has led to the cessation of drilling-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I never said it was.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -and to the condition which we are trying to remedy under this amendment to the agreement. The reason why drilling has ceased is the reason which I stated last night-uncertainty, instability, lack of security, doubt as to what may happen in the future.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This man says that the reason is the low price fixed and maintained by law. He probably knows what he is talking about.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If that is so, my hon. friend cannot urge it as a reason why this legislation should not pass.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are
two separate things.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That has nothing to do with it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My hon. friend urged that as a reason why there is instability-because of this situation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Suppose we were to throw this bill out of parliament-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Throw it out.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Would that change the price paid for oil?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No. You could begin de novo and get a fair price.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is moving
rapidly from one position to another. It would not affect it at all. The main purpose of this is to get stability. I do' not know whether these people who hold these oil licences, when they sent a representative here to discuss the matter, knew what they were talking about, but I presume they did. When they tell me that an agreement of this kind, giving stability for ten years not only on dominion licences but on the provincial licences that have been issued since, would lead to development and help to relieve the oil shortage, I say with due deference that I must pay more respect to their opinions than to those expressed this afternoon by the leader of the opposition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
about those who have not agreed, who, I believe, are a majority?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot at the moment say how many, but I know a considerable majority of the leases that were outstanding when the resources were transferred cover areas in which no drilling has been done and in which oil will perhaps never be found. I stand by the statement I made yesterday, that of the active interests that have possibilities of producing oil, a considerable majority support this legislation. I do not know who Mr. Wilkinson is; I never heard of him or his company, but I believe I am within the mark when I say there are scores of oil companies-


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is
probably a driller.


Mr. EDWARDS:: If I may intervene, Mr. Wilkinson is a very well known and successful operator in the drilling of oil wells.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am glad to have a halo hung around Mr. Wilkinson's head. I do not wish to do the gentleman any injustice.


Manley Justin Edwards: He is no friend of mine

Alberta Natural Resources


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There was another point mentioned by the leader of the opposition, a complaint he made about the pro rata production provisions under which the wells in the Turner valley are operated. That, again, is a matter of. provincial legislation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
may have been all right at one time.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It was made possible by an amendment passed in 1938. It was believed that in some wells, unless there was a control of production, that is of the amount of oil allowed to be taken from the well, say in each twenty-four hours, the well would be exhausted more rapidly and in the end less oil would be taken from it. Those regulations have, I understand, been in effect in most oil producing fields in the world. I do not, however, think it really has anything to do with this discussion.
I come back to the point I made last night, that in the judgment of those who, I believe, are competent to judge, this measure will provide stability for a period of at least ten years. Every person holding a provincial or dominion licence in Alberta will know what is ahead of him for the next ten years. Under those conditions I submit that there will be increased interest, more encouragement to capital to go in and develop and operate all these drilling rigs which the leader of the opposition said were now idle-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say that. This man said they were idle.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, the authority my hon. friend quoted said they were. They will have a chance to get to work. What is the alternative?


Alfred Henry Bence: Leave it to the Alberta government. They can provide stability if they want to.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If this measure is defeated, the alternative is that the corresponding measure in Alberta ceases to have any effect. The agreement remains just as it was.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Ten per
cent royalty.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It will probably start again the long procession through the courts to determine whether or not the government of Alberta have the power to assess a higher royalty.


Alfred Henry Bence: Only if they insist on
proceeding.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Please let me continue. It will probably start a long procession through the
courts again to determine what the powers of the Alberta government are under the transfer agreement, and during all that period the people who would be interested in drilling wells under conditions of stability stand back.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
a perfect non sequitur.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is a perfectly pertinent fact in regard to this question. The result will be to lessen the production of oil in Alberta, increase the oil difficulties of this dominion, and do no one any good.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister might now give some attention to the question of breach of trust that I raised. He has evaded that in every case.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will deal with that now. I dispute that there is a breach of trust. Suppose this legislation does not pass-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then
there is no breach of trust.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -then the Alberta government take action through the courts to establish that they have the right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right;
then that will be the position; that will be the law.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Would there be any breach of trust then by the federal government?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; they
will be relieved of responsibility. But until that point is determined, they will say there is a breach of trust and they will have the right to say it.	'


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think my hon. friend is
straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not at
all; there is a principle involved.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As I said last night, I
have no hesitation whatever in recommending this measure to parliament; I have no doubt that it will lead to stability of conditions in Alberta that will promote development and help to relieve our present difficulties.


Mr. CHURCH:: I oppose any variation of this transfer agreement between the government of Canada as represented by the Minister of Mines and Resources and the government of Alberta as represented by the provincial minister of mines. I do so first from the legal point of view and, second, as a matter of public policy. It is strange the enthusiasm of the present minister for this proposed variation. It is strange the things that are done in the name of the war. You can hardly blow

Alberta Natural Resources
your nose, as the hon. member for Temiscouata said one day, without its being said it is for the war. You can scarcely blow your nose now anyway because we have dollar-a-year men limiting the length of your handkerchief.
The principle of law in this variation transfer has been before the privy council in what was known as the Alberta great waterways case, which was on all fours with the proposed agreement. The law is quite clear. The crown in the name of the dominion or the crown in the name of the province cannot vary agreements or contracts or bonds or any such matters. They may do it in British Honduras; this variation agreement is almost on a parallel with the Alberta privy council case to which I referred, but the decision of the privy council in the great waterways case was the ground on which the bill of sale was based when the province of Ontario purchased the $32,000,000 property of the power companies in the Niagara district. All the papers in this new agreement matter should be tabled. Who is asking for this thing? There are 860 leases affected by this agreement. Did the holders of any of them object? If one objected, that one on behalf of himself and the other leaseholders could enter action against the attorneys general of the province and the dominion to set aside the proposed transfer in view of the decision of the privy council.
I oppose this measure on other grounds. We have a supreme court in Canada. Under the Supreme Court Act it is the duty and function of the government, where vested rights are involved as in this particular transfer agreement; it is not only the duty but one of the functions of the Attorney General of Canada, that is the present Minister of Justice who is measuring up as a great lawyer and a gentleman who, I believe, will be a great Minister of Justice, to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The functions and duties of the government in transfer agreement cases of this kind are set out in the decisions of the privy council to which I referred. Under the Supreme Court Act it is the function of the government of the day, where doubt has arisen, to refer the matter for the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada. There is doubt in this case; both governments knew they had no power to vary these contracts legally and so make an agreement as a matter of policy. If they did not know that they would not have framed this bill in this language. They knew the courts would set it aside, on the ground that the government had no right to vary a contract in the manner indicated. A reference should have been made to the Supreme Court of Canada, and in less than three months a

decision on the text of the reference would have been given. It was bad enough in peace time to squander the natural resources of this country, the products of the sea, the soil, the forest, the mine and so on. I hope the hon. gentleman will not leave


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am coming back immediately.


Thomas Langton Church: If you would also leave the agreement alone it might be better for the resources of the country, or if you would leave the decision to the people. Where do the people who own this property come in? The dominion government is simply the trustee of the public domain of this country. Our natural resources have been squandered so much that future generations will wonder what kind of people were sitting in this parliament to allow that to go on. I remember 1927, when it was proposed to hand over the natural resources of the whole Ottawa valley to the Sifton interests. We were in opposition at that time; we started a debate and talked out the bill, so that it did not go through. If it had gone through, all the resources of this great Ottawa valley would have been handed over forever to private greed and gain.
This is the second war session we have done something in the way of giving away the natural resources of Alberta in the name of the war. Last session a bill was introduced by the Minister of Mines and Resources having to do with power development in Banff national park. Considerable discussion took place on that bill, and many questions of law and public policy were raised. At the time, in 1927, the Ottawa valley matter was under consideration I quoted some of the words of the late President Theodore Roosevelt and the late Sir Adam Beck on the need of a national policy for our resources. Perhaps I might recall what I quoted at that time. The late President Theodore Roosevelt said:
The people of our country are threatened by a monopoly more powerful than has ever been seen, as it affects very closely their domestic and industrial life. Our next generation will witness a shortage of those natural resources, petroleum and gas. The price of coal will be such that hydraulic power turned into electrical energy will, owing to its cost, become the prevailing factor for transport, for manufacturers, for lighting and heating our towns. Our hydraulic power alone, entirely and judicially employed, would be adequate for the present needs of transport, industries, municipalities and private individuals.
And Sir Adam Beck, in opposing the bill that would have given away those great natural resources which belong to the people of the whole dominion, said:
In my judgment, no government in Canada can stand against the opposition of the public

Alberta Natural Resources
opinion that will be expressed by the people of the provinces of Ontario and of Quebec once it is fully appreciated what sacrifice of their interests is involved. . . .
He was then referring to the giving away of the Carillon water power development on the Ottawa river, and the right to export power to the United States. Ever since I have been a member of this house I have been asking for a national policy with regard to oil, gas, coal and power. We have 42 million horse-power available in Canada of which less than one-sixth, or 7 million horse-power, has been developed, and of that a part is only seasonal. Here you are, giving away the heritage of the people without their authority or consent. I have also asked for a national policy in connection with coal. There was a debate in this house on that subject on my resolution for a national coal supply, all British, on March 18, 1923, and that discussion went on for ten years before anything was done about a coal supply from Alberta or the maritimes or Wales. We also had many debates, from 1923 on, on a policy of conserving the oil, coal and petroleum resources of Alberta and other parts of Canada. The government have had almost twenty years in which to formulate a policy. Why did they have to wait for a war to come along before doing anything about it? I agree with what was said in this chamber last evening by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) that notwithstanding the royalties, leases and all that sort of thing, the time now has come when instead of proposing amendments such as this the government should bring in a national policy with regard to coal, gas, oil and the power inherent in falling water. Here we are giving away these natural resources in the name of the war, and calling it conservation. What sort of conservation was it when we gave Japan large quantities of our resources of timber, pig iron, scrap iron, aluminum, nickel, platinum, copper and all the rest. Our natural resources were given to our enemies to make munitions for land, sea and air, who are making war against us on the seven seas.
I can tell you that one of these days, when this giving away of the heritage of the people is fully understood, there will be a rebellion in this country. Public opinion will be against such squandering of the public domain. This coming winter we are faced with a coal shortage, but what are we doing? We are sitting around here amending a transfer agreement that will bring about ten times as much litigation as we have had in the past, and Alberta since 1930 has had a lot of it.
As I have said, any or all of the 860 people holding these leases can issue a writ against the attorney general of the province and the dominion and have this whole agreement set aside. The people of Alberta should have voted on this deal, because I venture to say that in the years to come it will be regarded as just as iniquitous as the Ottawa valley and other gifts of resources. What was refused in the Ottawa and Georgian bay canal principle of dealing with resources in the days of peace is now put forward as a conservation measure in days' of war. I do not believe a single gallon of oil will result from this agreement, because there is no doubt it will be taken to the law courts and kept there for years.
We had this matter of conservation and public ownership under discussion from 1902 to 1930, in Ontario, which finally has been redeemed from this sort of power slavery of private greed. I think every other province should do the same thing; for if it had not been for the power development in Ontario our effort in the last war would have been greatly reduced. At one time during that war fifty per cent of the munitions produced in the war came from Ontario, thanks to the magnificent power reserves that were available here under public ownership at cost. I believe that if the dominion had had a national policy designed to preserve these natural resources of the sea, the soil, the forest and the mine; the coal resources, the oil and gas resources and the power resources, it would have been a blessing to the people of this country long before the war began, and it will come quickly, after the war. It belongs to the people.


George Hugh Castleden: I understood the minister to say that at the present time there was a curtailment or stoppage in the production of oil. To what extent has there been curtailment, or by what percentage is last year's production to be reduced this year?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I did not make the observation to which my hon. friend alludes; I think it was made by the leader of the opposition.


George Hugh Castleden: Then I should like to know if it is true.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think it was made by the leader of the opposition. I understand, however, that certain conservation measures have been put into effect in the Turner valley field which for the time being reduced, with the existing number of wells, the amount of oil produced. But those measures were taken to lengthen the life of the field. I am not a technical expert in the matter of oil produc-

Alberta Natural Resources

tion, but I understand that you can take oil from a well in a way which will lengthen its life, and in the end get more oil, or you can follow another method which for the moment will give you more oil, but which will shorten the period of operation of the well.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: That is correct.


George Hugh Castleden: Was there any deliberate curtailment in the production of oil?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There was no deliberate curtailment a4 far as I am aware. The only measures taken were measures for conservation.


Alfred Henry Bence: I would point out in reference to the remarks of the minister that section 2 of the agreement dated December 14, 1929, contained the following statement with respect to the matter of leases:
. . . and further agrees-
That is, the provincial government.
-not to affect or alter any term of any such contract to purchase, lease or other arrangements by legislation or otherwise.
That is much broader than the minister has indicated to the committee. It covers not only the originally leased contracts, but any arrangement by legislation or otherwise.
Actually what happened in this instance was that in 1920 an order in council was passed for the specific purpose of giving stability to oil production in Alberta. That stability was given by virtue of the fact that the men who owned the leases knew definitely the amount they would have to pay, and knew it would not be exceeded by the amount set out in the order in council.
I suggest to the committee that if there were any instability, such instability was created by the action of Alberta, and that Alberta itself could easily stabilize the thing without the necessity of this legislation, by agreeing that section 2 did not give them the authority to change the royalties. If the province would agree to that, there would be no necessity for any litigation in the courts, no necessity for uncertainty in the minds of the leaseholders, and no necessity for members of this committee, who, I suggest, have only a meagre amount of information before them on which to base their judgments, to pass upon something which I contend, with the leader of the opposition, is definitely a breach of trust. After all. if there is any dispute in the courts as to whether Alberta was entitled to increase its royalties, surely it is not the duty of this parliament to settle the matter for the courts, and to place Alberta in the preferred position they have endeavoured to

obtain, by deliberately coming out and committing what I consider to be a breach of section 2 of the agreement.
I ask the minister to inform the committee as to whether or not that stability could be obtained just as easily if Alberta would take the action I have suggested. I would also ask him the question I propounded last night, namely, whether or not section 2 of the agreement dated December 14, 1929, was considered by the law officers of the Department of Justice, and whether the minister obtained an opinion from that department as to the reason for the incorporation of section 2 in the agreement at that time, and whether or not it was put in for the purpose of protecting the dominion government against possible action for damages. In the event of any uncertainty in the minds of the law officers of the Department of Justice as to the dominion's liability for damages, did the minister consider whether or not the dominion government should make itself liable for any damages which were actually incurred as a result of the passing of this legislation? I should like to have an answer. Was this matter referred to the Department of Justice and, if not, does the minister not think it should be referred before we pass upon it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The bill we are considering received the approval of the Department of Justice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As to its
form, but not on the legal point raised.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It was approved as to
form. The question of policy involved would not naturally be one for the Department of Justice to consider.


Mr. STIRLING:: Section 2 is a contentious section.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Section 2 was agreed to
by both parties to the agreement ten or twelve years ago when it was passed. I have not consulted the Department of Justice as to whether or not in its opinion that section carried over to the Alberta government the power which the federal government undoubtedly had to vary leases.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did the minister not think it wise to consult the law officers of the crown as to the legal effect, not the policy, of this bill? Surely that is a pertinent question. If that has not been done,
I suggest it ought to be.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What does the leader of
the opposition mean by the legal effect?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I mean the legal effect of paragraph 2. I need not

Alberta Natural Resources
2S27
read the agreement, but I shall read the part in question:
And whereas by paragraph 2 of the said natural resources transfer agreement the province agreed that it would carry out, in accordance with the terms thereof, every contract to purchase or lease any crown lands, mines or minerals and every other arrangement whereby any person had become entitled to any interest therein as against the crown-
That is to say, they were to carry out the position as it was.

and further agreed not to affect or alter any term of any such contract to purchase, lease or other arrangement by legislation or otherwise, except either with the consent of all the parties thereto, other than Canada, or in so far as any legislation may apply generally to all similar agreements relating to lands, mines or minerals in the province or to interests therein, irrespective of who might be the parties thereto.
There is a definite commitment on the part of the province. To seek to do this by legislation, when a vexed legal point has arisen with respect to the principle, is wrong. The principle is wrong to seek to undo something to which Alberta agreed. Otherwise the minister of lands and mines of Alberta would not have come and asked for this legislation. It relieves them of an obligation imposed upon them by paragraph 2 of the transfer agreement. The minister is not doing himself justice when he plays into the hands of a government which wants to do by an indirect method what it cannot do directly. That is what he is doing. If bad, it is bad in policy, bad in substance, bad morally, bad in law and bad in equity. For the moment I cannot think of any further language to describe it


Mr. ROSS (Calgary East):: I understand
the oil controller has expressed the opinion that this legislation would be helpful in our war effort. If that is so, I cannot agree with the leader of the opposition when he says that the matter should be referred to the courts. That would mean that more than a year would elapse before the case could be disposed of. Anything which will help our war effort we should have as quickly as possible.


Alfred Henry Bence: How do we know it will,
though?


George Henry Ross: I understand
the oil controller expressed that opinion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
only hearsay.


George Henry Ross: Has the minister considered the alternative proposition of placing a ceiling on the royalties reserved by the crown under these oil leases? We have a ceiling on wages and a ceiling on nearly everything else in this country. I think the minister should consider placing a ceiling of
44561-179J
10	per cent on the royalties payable. They have never collected more 'than that, and I cannot see why it would not create as much stability as this legislation, if not more.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And it would settle the matter.


George Henry Ross: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: And from the law officers of the crown.


George Henry Ross: Yes. This matter is too serious to deal with at this time without further consideration by the oil controller.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I might deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Ross). So far as I am aware the question of placing a ceiling on royalties was not discussed with the oil controller, and I do not think it had been raised until it was brought up by the hon. member. It occurs to me that if you are to place a ceiling on royalties it can be done in two ways. First, it can be done by an understanding with the Alberta government. As a matter of fact this legislation does provide a ceiling for a period of ten years, although there may be a difference of opinion as to
Alberta Natural Resources

what that ceiling should be. It provides a ceiling for ten years not only on the licences that were issued by the dominion government prior to the transfer of the resources, but on the licences issued by the provincial government subsequent to the transfer of the resources.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It does not cover those who did not agree.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is first class at interrupting.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right; I do not want to be nasty about it. You have not quite stated the position. This does not provide a ceiling upon those who are not parties to it. It affects only those who have agreed to it. Let us have the true position stated.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As I stated, I am a bit
handicapped-


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is only those who come into the arrangement.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will let my hon. friend finish, then.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wanted to have it correctly stated.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend is finished I would be grateful if he would let me go on foi a while.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do not make misstatements.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, you are.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Perhaps it would be a good idea if both hon. gentlemen addressed the Chair.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The other way to get a ceiling on prices on royalties would be by arbitrary action of the oil controller under the powers given to him under the War Measures Act. I would point out to the hon. member for Calgary East that if that procedure were followed any ceiling that might be established would cease to have effect when the war was over.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So it
should.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We would then revert to the old condition of affairs. I am going to adhere to my argument that this does establish a ceiling on royalties in Alberta for a period of ten years. As I said a moment ago, there may be a difference of opinion as to where
fMr. Crerar.]
the ceiling price should be; nevertheless a ceiling is established. I think when you compare it with the prices prevailing in fields in other parts of north America it will be found that it is established at a reasonable level.


Manley Justin Edwards: There was one point the minister seemed to be quite sure about in his statement last night, and it is something over which I have been considerably exercised since. He referred to the undoubted power of the federal government to alter or change the terms and conditions of a lease by regulation after the lease had in fact been passed over to a private individual. This very matter has been the subject of judicial questioning only as recently as April of this year. The provisions of section 2 of the natural resources agreement came before the supreme court of Alberta in connection with the case of Anthony v. the attorney general of Alberta and the minister of lands and mines, reported at page 833 of volume 1 of 1942 "Western Weekly Reports". The question there was the right of the province to alter the terms and conditions or to refuse renewal of a timber lease which had been issued by the dominion government prior to the transfer of the natural resources, and which, therefore, came within the purview of the Alberta resources agreement, under this section 2 to which we are referring. I quote from the judgment. Referring to the Alberta government's order in council, it says:
The order in council of July 25, 1940, prohibiting renewal of timber licences for more than ten years after the date of sale affects or alters the plaintiffs' licences which are renewable while merchantable timber remains on the limits and is ultra vires as being contrary to section 2 of the natural resources agreement. I declare the said provision in the order in council to be invalid and ultra vires as against the plaintiffs.
That in turn is supported by no less an authority than the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Spooner Oils Limited vs. The Turner Valley gas conservation board and the attorney general of Alberta, which is cited in the Supreme Court Reports for the year 1933. With the permission of the Chair I would like to read what I consider is pertinent to the subject under discussion as found in the judgment of the Chief Justice of Canada. Here you had an oil and gas lease similar to the ones which are being discussed and which are contemplated by this very bill. I quote:
The lease declares, in express terms, that it is granted by the Minister of the Interior, pursuant to regulations made for the disposal of petroleum and natural gas rights, by orders in council dated respectively the 11th days of March, 1910 and 1911, "a copy of which regulations is hereby appended". The term is twenty-one years,-

Alberta Natural Resources
You will notice the language here is exactly that quoted by the minister:
-and the lease is "renewable for a further term of twenty-one years provided the lessee furnishes evidence satisfactory to the Minister of the Interior to show that during the term of the lease he has complied fully with the conditions of such lease and with the provisions of the regulations under which it was granted".
Among the "provisos, conditions, restrictions and stipulations" of the lease there is this:
(2) That the lessee shall and will well, truly and faithfully observe, perform and abide by all the obligations, conditions, provisos and restrictions in or under the said regulations imposed upon lessees or upon the said lessee.
The regulations "appended" to the lease contain the following:
That is the same form of lease that is still being issued.
21. The lease shall be in such form as may be determined by the Minister of the Interior, in accordance with the provisions of these regulations.
It appears that the lease is framed upon the view that the rights of the parties inter se are to be ascertained from the provisions of the lease, from the regulations, a copy of which is appended thereto, and such further orders and regulations and directions as may be made from time to time during the currency of the lease under article 9 of the lease or sections 23 and 24 of the regulations. The last mentioned sections are in these words:
"23. No royalty shall be charged upon the sales of the petroleum acquired from the crown under the provisions of the regulations up to the 1st day of January, 1930, but provision shall be made in the leases issued for such rights that after the above date the petroleum products of the location shall be subject to whatever regulations in respect of the payment of royalty may then or thereafter be made."
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury:) That is, by the dominion.


Manley Justin Edwards: Yes, of course, it can only be, because this is the 1910-11 regulations.
"24. A royalty at such rate as may from time to time be specified by order in council may be levied and collected on the natural gas products of the leasehold."
Note this, "as may from time to time".
But, it is argued that, notwithstanding the form of the lease itself, the concluding words of s. 1 of the regulations of 1910 and 1911 have the effect of incorporating, as conditions of the lease, all subsequent regulations made during the currency of the term. The sentence in *which these words occur is this:
"The term of the lease shall be twenty-one years, renewable for a further term of twenty-one years, provided the lessee can furnish evidence satisfactory to the minister to show that during the term of the lease he has complied fully with the conditions of such lease and with the provisions of the regulations in force from time to time during the currency of the lease."
"The regulations in force from time to time during the currency of the lease" should be read, it is argued, as embracing all subsequent
regulations whether incorporated in the terms of the lease, by force of some provision of the lease or of the existing regulations, or not.
And here is what the Chief Justice of Canada said:
We cannot agree with this view of the effect of these words.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Certainly it would be bad law.


Manley Justin Edwards: He states:
The view suggested involves the result that the terms of the contract may in every respect be altered (as regards rental, as regards royalties, as regards the obligations of the lessee in respect to the working of the mine); and by one party to the lease acting alone, without consultation with the other; and with the result (a result which, as we have seen, actually follows in this case from the acceptance of the respondent's contention) that a contract radically new, in its essential terms, may be substituted for that explicitly set forth in the document executed by the parties and the specific regulations that it incorporates.
It will be observed that the proviso, in express terms, affects only the right of renewal. On the supposition that the proviso relates to this right of renewal, and to that right alone, we arrive (on the construction advocated by the respondents) at the truly extraordinary result, that, even under the renewed lease, the lessee is not bound by s. 29; although his right of renewal is dependent upon compliance with that section prior to the completion of the original term. It is difficult, no doubt, to think it could have been intended that the lessee's right of renewal should be conditioned upon the performance, during the term antecedent to its renewal, of obligations which the lessee was not required to observe as contractual terms of the lease. But to us it seems clear that, if it had been intended to incorporate, as one of the terms of the lease, a stipulation that all future regulations touching the working of the property should become part of the lease as contractual stipulations, that intention would have been expressed, pot inferentially, but in plain language.
That is the judgment of the Chief Justice of Canada. I submit, in the light of the reasoning in both these cases, that there is very great doubt as to whether even the federal government can by regulation change and alter the terms of one of these leases, I come back to the thought which was uppermost in my mind. God knows that I do not want to do anything which would militate against the maximum production of oil in Alberta. But my solicitude on this occasion is this, that the firms and institutions and individuals who gave this federal government their money and bought these leases years ago, and have paid the rentals year after year, and have gone ahead and drilled wells and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, are going to be cut off so far as the rest of their leases is concerned. We in effect are
Alberta Natural Resources


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Edwards) is to be congratulated upon his industry in looking up the decisions affecting this matter. I am quite certain the minister himself was not aware of these decisions or he would not have consented to this legislation. I suggest to him that he withdraw the bill in the light of the declared law of the country, because his primary premise is based on a false theory. I did not dare go that far last night, because I had not given consideration to the question, but there is no doubt, from the language of the chief justice in the case referred to by my hon. friend, that there is a contractual arrangement which cannot be altered. What this bill is trying to do is to violate a legal decision and to do by the backdoor method that which cannot be done directly. I do not think the minister wants to put himself in that position. I would not if I were minister. I would therefore ask him to move that the committee rise and report progress so that he may review the whole position. That is the proper procedure for him to take. It is what I would do; it is what anybody would do who is seized of the gravity underlying the whole principle of this bill. I have no brief for anyone, but if I had known about those decisions-I am not familiar with decisions in the western courts, nor have I had time recently to read decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada - I would have put them on the record last night, and I think I would have been justified in doing so. Again I appeal to the minister to move that the committee rise so that he may have the whole position reviewed and obtain an opinion of the Department of Justice. In the light of the statement of the chief justice, in that oil case, in the light of the declaration of the supreme court of Alberta in the case regarding the timber land, the minister will agree that he ought not to proceed to violate by legislation, which no doubt he has agreed to do on the strength of certain erroneous suppositions, a position which should not be so violated. He should not do what could not be done in any other way. Legislating away the rights of other people is bad legislation. It is bad in principle, bad in law and bad in ethics. I do beg of the minister that he review the whole position. The session is not over yet. The question of stability is fixed by statute. They

Alberta Natural Resources
cannot raise the rates. The question of stability is washed off the slate by reason of these decisions. I am quite sure the minister did not know of these legal decisions. I am certain he would not have brought the measure along if he had known of them. He would have said to the government of Alberta, "The courts of the country have spoken and we do not propose to legislate the rights of people away." Once again I beg of the minister that he adopt what I believe is the manly course, what I believe is just and equitable, with regard to this legislation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Of course I am not in a position to make a legal argument against the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Edwards). I do not know the point upon which the case he cited turned, but I assume from a simple reading of the terms of the licence-and I was so advised-that the federal government, had those resources remained with it, had the power to vary the terms.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Supreme Court of Canada says no.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know whether its decision turns on that point. I know that when the licences were first issued in 1911 they provided that no royalty should be paid until 1930; I know that in 1919 they were amended and royalties provided for.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But no one contested it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That may be, but the provisions of the lease appear to be explicit on that point.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister puts his judgment against that of the chief justice.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not accept that statement, because as I say I do not know whether the particular case cited by the hon. member for Calgary West turned on that point.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why not get legal advice?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: However, that is not the most material part. I have stated that this measure will conduce to stability in Alberta. I think it will assist in the financing of wells for the production of oil that is greatly needed at the present time. If this committee and the house want to take the responsibility of preventing this legislation from goiqg through, and tying it up and continuing that instability, that is a serious responsibility to assume. Everyone knows that oil production is necessary for our war effort. Therefore notwithstanding the fervent appeal made by the leader of the opposition I am afraid I cannot accede to his request to withdraw the measure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not asked the minister to withdraw it. What I suggest the minister would be well-advised to do is to ask that the committee rise, and then review the whole position in the light of the two legal decisions. It is quite apparent to me, after hearing the decision as read by the hon. member for Calgary West, that the chief justice of this country has decided against a major premise on which the minister bases his argument.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is wrong. The major premise on which I based my argument was that it would produce stability.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is one major premise. W'e will say both are major. I will not quibble as to which was more important. But certainly one major premise was the right to increase the royalty. That is definitely out. As to stability, if that decision is right you have stability now at 10 per cent.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If that be the case, why are there so many idle drilling outfits in Alberta?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The reason was given in Mr. Wilkinson's letter, that the base price of crude is too low. That should appeal to the minister as a business man.
I do not suggest withdrawing the measure or throwing it out, but I suggest that the committee rise now and that the minister review the general position' in the light of these judicial decisions. That, I submit, is a wholly reasonable course. If the minister adopts a judicial attitude, if his mind is receptive, he will be guided largely by what the law officers of the crown tell him is the effect of these decisions; and, if I apprehend the situation correctly, I believe the law officers will tell him that the rates of royalty cannot be increased if the legislation stands as it is. If that is the result that flows from that decision of the Chief Justice of Canada, certainly the minister would not lend his powers and the powers of this parliament to violating a contract which in a parallel or analogous case the courts have said in effect cannot be done. This government would not put itself in that position; the minister would be the last man to want to do it. If the minister does not take the course I suggest, he will be taking a grave responsibility upon himself, because he will 'be open to the
Alberta Natural Resources

charge of forcing through a measure which in effect violates a decision of the highest court of appeal in this country. Let him review the whole position, and if the legal effect of those decisions is as indicated, then I am sure he will never proceed with this measure.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not want to intervene in a legal discussion, but it seems to me that the leader of the opposition is taking the ground that because there has been a court decision on another matter which may have some bearing on the subject under discussion, this parliament should not, in the light of new conditions that have arisen, legislate to do something which the court several years ago held ought not to be done. I do not think this parliament should accept the position that it is bound by judgments of courts from time to time and should not exercise the sovereign power that is vested in the parliament of Canada.
Here we have a sovereign power, the parliament of Canada, entering into an agreement with a province, which has powers of its own. In other words, the governing bodies in the province and the dominion are, according to the argument now advanced, curtailed of their sovereign right by a judgment of the courts. I cannot accept that position. This parliament must do what in its opinion is best for the people of this dominion in the light of conditions as they exist at the time.


Alfred Henry Bence: They should have all the information.


Thomas Miller Bell: The bill has now been debated; the two governments concerned have, I assume, discussed 'this matter at great length and naturally have examined the implications of the measure, and in the light of the information that has been given this committee by the minister in support of this bill I think this parliament is justified in adopting the measure. I cannot accept the view that judgments of the courts on legal points, given under economic and social conditions existing at a former time, should restrain this parliament from doing something which now seems to be in the interests of the country. I urge the minister to go forward with his bill.


Alfred Henry Bence: I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary East when he asked the minister, in view of the discussion that has arisen and of the circumstances and of the questions that have been asked, at least to put this matter over for a short time in order that we may obtain this other information which seems to me to be so important, before this committee can intelligently decide whether or not this is a

proper measure to be passed by this house. I think the minister has rather unfairly endeavoured to put the onus on the members of this committee for blocking this legislation, when he is not in a position to give the information which we have requested since yesterday. In view of the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary West and his reference to legal decisions with respect to the point which I raised a short time ago and about which the minister has advised the committee he knows nothing, he should, I think, at least obtain the judgment of the law officers of the Department of Justice before asking us to pass this bill. Furthermore, surely we are to be given the right to examine the correspondence and representations made on behalf of the various parties involved.
And what about the information we should have had as to the number of leaseholders affected, who have not agreed to this change? That information should be given to the committee before we, as representatives of the people, are asked to pass anything like this, before we are asked to do something which might, and I think will, discriminate against minorities. We also should be given further information beyond the bald statement made by the minister yesterday that this meets with the approval of the oil controller. Surely there must have been reasons advanced by the oil controller. Did he examine the situation and come to any considered judgment with regard to it? I suggest that despite what the minister has said, we are not fully cognizant of the situation and of all the facts we should have before we pass such a drastic measure as this. We are taking a very grave responsibility on our shoulders if we do pass it, in view of the lack of information and evidence in our possession.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall section 1 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, Mr. Chairman, I am not willing to have this bill carried, and I think the minister is taking an attitude which is not justified by the situation. I have asked the minister not to withdraw the bill but to give further consideration to the effect of the bill, having regard to the legal decisions which have been cited here to-day and which require study not only on his part and the part of his departmental officials but by the officials of the Department of Justice If the effect of those decisions is, as I apprehend it to be, that the federal government itself, if it had not transferred the natural resources, could not have varied the terms of

Alberta Natural Resources
the leases, in accordance with the understanding which apparently was in the mind of the minister; if that is the effect of the decision of the chief justice, then I suggest that one main reason for bringing in this legislation falls to the ground. Undoubtedly that is the position; and that is a matter which should be very carefully inquired into, and the bill should be laid over for further consideration until that position is determined.
There is no doubt that the minister did agree to bring down the correspondence, and he has not done so. I have not attributed any motive; I think it was a lapse of memory, but there may be something in that correspondence which would throw some light on this situation, and this committee is entitled to see the correspondence before the bill proceeds further. The minister might very well do what I suggest and, if he decides to go on with the bill, have it called again at a later date. In the meantime let us have the correspondence, and let us submit the whole legal position indicated during 'this debate, especially by the hon. member for Calgary West, to review by the law officers of the crown. They will give an opinion based on the decisions^ as to one of the major premises of the minister. If their opinion is as I think it will be, then I venture to prophesy-and it is always dangerous to prophesy what any individual will do-that the minister will not proceed with this bill, because the royalties under the leases are fixed, and there is stability. That answers his other argument.
I think I am making a reasonable request of the minister. I am not asking him to throw the legislation out the window, to withdraw it or anything like that. I am asking him to review the position in the light of the new developments and the new facts that are now before this committee. I cannot acquiesce in the doctrine that if there is an established position qua the public domain and individuals, as the courts have said there is, the legislatures of this country may wipe that out without compensation. Certainly in the United States there is the doctrine known as eminent domain. We have the right of expropriation here. We can wipe out a vested interest; but there is a corresponding obligation on the part of the crown or the state, when it does that sort of thing, to place its citizens who are thereby affected in a position equally good. That is embodied in the constitution of the United States. That is embodied in the bill of rights there. That is one of the most sacred doctrines of this country; and we should not give adherence to a theory that rights conferred on the citizens
of this country, confirmed by judicial opinion, may be wiped out over night, at the will or whim of a legislature, without the right of compensation. There is just one overriding provision. That is, if those rights were obtained by fraud, then of course it is a sound principle that fraud vitiates everything, and any rights based on fraud should not be respected by the courts.


Thomas Miller Bell: The leader of the
opposition mentions the bill of rights and the law of eminent domain in the United States as having some bearing on this matter. We are not part of the United States. We are a country which operates under a constitution and a code of law, and where the Canadian code of law is silent we usually go back to British practice and precedence. What is the analogous constitutional position under the British constitution?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course, Britain has no written constitution, which always has been a matter of congratulation there, because they can go on and make constitutional precedents from time to time as they desire. Here we have a written constitution, and there have been times when it has been difficult to have existing situations conform to the constitution, in the best public interest. But the universal practice in this country is that if the crown deprives a citizen of his property, the citizen has a right of compensation. It is a universally recognized principle in this country, especially in the federal arena, that if the crown takes away my rights, I may by petition to the crown ask for a fiat and have the whole matter tried in the courts; and the courts are delegated by certain statutes of this country not to give me my right back but to give me a money compensation in lieu of my rights. I do not think anyone would ever want to promote any other theory than that, because it would be against sound conscience.
I appeal to the minister to review the position. If the law officers of the crown say that the decisions are wholly inapplicable, then of course the minister is on pretty sound ground with regard to his second major premise, that they had the right to vary the terms if the transfer had not been made. I do not think that is true, and I listened very attentively to that decision. If the minister finds that the law officers of the crown say that the decisions are applicable, then certainly he should review the whole position and tell the province of Alberta that since we negotiated, the courts have passed on this very question. I think it was only in April of this year, which was only last month, that
Alberta Natural Resources

the decision in the Anthony case was handed down. I am told that the decision was given in February and that it was reported in April. That is since this bill was introduced. That is now the law of Alberta. If the principles applicable to the Anthony case are at all analogous to the facts in this case, then I am sure the minister will not proceed with this legislation. It would be shocking if he did, because he would be putting the imprimatur of his approval on a position which is illegal. I am sure the minister does not intend to do anything of that kind; he would not be a party to it for a minute. Neither should the House of Commons be a party to that kind of legislation.
My suggestion, therefore, is that the minister ask the committee to rise, report progress, review the whole position and get the opinion of the law officers of the crown with respect to this particular situation. Let him get all the circumstances in connection with this legislation, and the facts upon which it is based, having regard to the judicial decisions put on record this afternoon by the hon. member for Calgary West. That is a reasonable request, and I suggest that the minister should have no hesitation whatsoever in accepting it. If he finds the position as I think he will find it, then I believe he will not proceed with the bill. If he finds the facts are not as I think they are, then there would be some justification for his proceeding, and he would probably have the bill put through.
I do not wish to take up the time of the committee in debating this question, no matter how important the principle is. The mere instance of the bill and the effect on some of these people are not worth spending much time upon. But there is a principle involved-


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member permit a question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: He is using time quite generously. Would he mind letting someone put a brief question?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the most nonsensical statement I have ever heard, and I do not propose to permit him until he has shown somewhat better respect. The hon. member was not even in the house when this bill was under debate on second reading.


John Horne Blackmore: I was in the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think not.
I watched to see, but he did not intervene. The question was a foolish one, and I am not going to allow-


Thomas Vien: The statement of fact as to whether or not an hon. member was in the house is determined by the statement of the hon. member, and is not subject to discussion. If the hon. member says he was in the house, then that ends the discussion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will say this, then, sir, that technically I think your ruling is correct. But I looked at the hon. member's seat, and he was not there. I looked around to see him, and I wondered why he was not there.


Thomas Vien: But it is not permissible
to discuss the point-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that.


Thomas Vien: -because the leader
of the opposition might not have seen the hon. member, and furthermore he might not have been in his seat.


John Horne Blackmore: I want to know
whether the leader of the opposition will
permit a question?


Richard Burpee Hanson: If it is thfe type of question the hon. member just asked, the answer is no-and without any debate. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee, but there is a principle involved-


John Horne Blackmore: Obviously not!


Richard Burpee Hanson: Order; I ask for order.


Thomas Vien: Order, please. It is not permissible-	.


Thomas Miller Bell: We know the rule.


Thomas Vien: -to repeat an argument over and over again. I have been listening to the leader of the opposition and I believe I gave him very reasonable latitude. But the point the leader of the opposition was developing just now, when he was interrupted, is one which has been made three or four times since I took the Chair at a quarter to five o'clock. Therefore I would point out to hon. members that the business of the house is a serious matter. It is not desirable that the discussion should be curtailed, but on the other hand I expect the cooperation of hon. members to offer serious arguments to the question before the Chair.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, it
seems to me there are three or four matters involved in this question. The first one is this: Shall the province of Alberta have a right to her natural resources equivalent to the right each over her own natural resources

Alberta Natural Resources
possessed by New Brunswick, or by Ontario, or by Prince Edward Island? This bill is designed merely to confer upoD Alberta that right-and no more.
My second question is this: At the time the province of Alberta was formed had the dominion parliament the right to confer upon that province rights over her resources equivalent to the rights possessed and enjoyed by New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Ontario over theirs?
Third: If the dominion government did not possess that right, why not? If it did possess the right, then did it confer upon Alberta power over her resources equal to those possessed by New Brunswick? Then, if for any reason, through legal terminology or through any other deficiency whatsoever, the dominion government in making an endeavour to pass on to Alberta in 1930 rights equivalent to those possessed by New Brunswick, failed to do so -the dominion having the desire, but failing to carry out the intention-has the dominion government at the present time the right to remedy the defect, and to pass a measure which shall in effect transfer to Alberta sovereign rights over her resources, equivalent to those enjoyed by Prince Ediward Island?
If these questions are answered in the affirmative, then there is no doubt at all about the power of this parliament to pass this measure and to make it effective.
May I for a moment or two turn to the two cases cited by the hon. member for Calgary West. In listening to them for the first time one obviously had some difficulty in assessing them accurately. However, listening to those cases as they were being read, I gathered that the first one was not analogous at all, and did not apply to this debate. The decision of the Alberta supreme court was on the question whether or not Alberta had the power to make an order in council affecting the leasing of timber rights in Alberta, transferred to that province in 1930 by an act which this bill is designed to supplement. There is no analogy whatsoever between that situation and the one which confronts this parliament. What we are now trying to determine is whether or not this parliament of Canada has the authority to confer upon Alberta complete control over her resources. The second case to which the hon. member for Calgary West referred had to do, perhaps with the question as to whether or not this parliament had the power to pass on to Alberta the necessary powers. It certainly has nothing to do with the power of this parliament to pass this measure. I say that the matter for us to decide is whether or not we shall pass this measure. If, after we shall have passed the bill, a court
sees fit to rule that the legislation is invalid, then it will be the responsibility of the court. But as to the matter of passing the measure, and of endeavouring, in so far as in us lies the authority, to confer upon Alberta sovereign rights over her natural resources, I maintain that this dominion government unquestionably has that power to pass such an act, and should do so.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As every member of the committee is aware, I do not profess to be able to pass any opinion upon legal arguments. It is ten minutes to six o'clock and since it is quite obvious that we are not going to complete this measure this afternoon, I intend to * move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. A short time ago the leader of the opposition was in a mood of sweet reasonableness. When my hon. friend who leads the opposition assumes that mood- and I think he does it sincerely; he has evidently cultivated it to some extent

he is almost irresistible. I am now, if I were not before, fully persuaded as to the qualities that have led my hon. friend so far along the path of success. There may be something in the point he has raised, but my own surmise is that the case referred to by the hon. member for Calgary West probably turns on a different point. At any rate, we shall endeavour to get that cleared up. Even though the hon. member for Calgary West and the leader of the opposition may be right in the point they have raised, I still think that the main reason for giving favourable consideration to this measure still stands. We shall all be probably a little wiser for thinking it over, and so I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Richard Burpee Hanson: May I say to the minister with respect to the war appropriation resolution that the official opposition feels that it should be passed this week in order that the biggest item on the whole legislative programme may be out of the way. We will endeavour to facilitate progress. I would say that when the Minister of National War Services is finished we may possibly arrange or decide that any questions which may arise with respect to other ministers could be taken up at some other appropriate occasion. I do not think we should hold up the two important measures that are in the offing, Bill No. 80 and the budget. I urge this course because I do not contemplate sitting here all summer. I want to offer to the minister this notice that we wish to facilitate
Income and Corporation Tax

the passing of this resolution with reasonable discussion with respect to national war services.


Thomas Miller Bell: We shall be glad to facilitate discussion, but it comes as rather a surprise to me to hear the leader of the opposition, who told us yesterday that the war appropriation resolution was the most important matter before the house and ought to be scrutinized, say that he is going to put through this important measure this week because there are other matters in the offing. If there was anything in what he said yesterday, we should not limit in any way the discussion of these large appropriations that are now before us.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think we have had a fairly ample discussion.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 28, 1942