1949-04-27

ARRIVAL OF REGINA CAPITALS TO PLAY OTTAWA SENATORS IN ALLAN CUP FINALS

Mr. John O. Probe (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the pleasing custom which from time to time has been observed in the house, I rise on a matter of privilege to inform the house that this morning there arrived in the city of Ottawa a contingent from my city of Regina, the Regina Capitals hockey team-


An hon. Member:: Pretty lucky.


John Oliver Probe: -who have just come to Ottawa to engage with the Ottawa Senators for the Allan cup, emblematic of the championship in amateur hockey for the Dominion of Canada, after surviving the western playdowns. I cannot guarantee any tickets to members of the House of Commons; perhaps they might see Mr. Gorman about that.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Wednesday. April 27, 1949, the hours of sitting of the house shall be the same as on Tuesday, April 26, 1949, and that on Thursday, April 28, 1949, and every subsequent day until the end of the session, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning of each sitting day, and that in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock there shall also be an intermission every day from 1 to 3 o'clock p.m.; that on Wednesday, April 27, 1949, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except questions and notices of motions for production of papers: and further that on Thursday, April 28, 1949, standing order No. 28 shall not be applied.
He said: Having stated to the house that it was the intention of the government to recommend at the end of this week the dissolution of this parliament, I think I need not elaborate upon the terms of this motion. The effect of it would be to make today a day devoted to government notices of motions and government orders, and to sit this evening during the usual hours from seven-thirty to ten-thirty. Tomorrow we would sit from eleven
to one o'clock, from three to six, and from seven-thirty to ten-thirty, and the same on Friday.
The last part of the motion has to do with standing order 28, which provides that on Thursdays and Fridays, when the order of the day to go into committee of supply is called, Mr. Speaker leaves the chair without question put. As I stated on Monday evening, it is the intention tomorrow to ask the house to go into committee of the whole for the purpose of passing interim supply for the period of time required to have an election and thereafter call parliament together again at the earliest convenient day. The government felt that if it were to ask for interim supply on Thursday, it should not do so by Mr. Speaker leaving the chair without question put; the motion therefore will be in the ordinary form, so that members will have the right, if they see fit, to air any grievances they may consider to be of sufficient importance to require the attention of the house at that time.
In view of the evident satisfaction of all groups in the house at the prospect of there being this early appeal to the country, I hope it will be the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion and to co-operate with the government in disposing of matters which are urgent.
May I say just a word more. I think it would be the expectation of the house that if this motion be passed, before government notices of motions are taken up today the orders of the day will be called so that such questions as may be appropriate may be put to members of the government.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has correctly stated, we welcome the announcement that the people of Canada will soon have the opportunity to elect a government. But the suggestion that this motion is for the purpose of expediting the business of this house is mere pretence. This motion is one which no member could deal with very seriously, because it is simply an incident in the method which is being used to bring to an end the life of this government. This government will soon be dead and buried.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: There are medical men among the members who will testify to the extra-

Business of the House
ordinary vitality sometimes shown by a person at the point of death, only shortly before the corpse is actually carried away.
The house is being called upon to deal with a motion as though we were actually meeting here with great urgency to deal with the business of this house. Nothing of the kind is contemplated. After all, if it is the intention of the government to deal with the business of this house, this motion is completely unnecessary. We can deal with the business of the house in the ordinary way. The date of dissolution is a matter for the government, and the Prime Minister has stated that dissolution will be on Saturday. It is wholly unnecessary to compress into a matter of a few days the proceedings of the house, because the government well knows that it cam dissolve parliament and carry on business in the meantime without this pretence.
May I point out, however, that there are certain matters before the house which hon. members are anxious to deal with

evidently more anxious than the government was, having regard to the way in which they have been brought up. It was only as an afterthought that the amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act came up the other night. There is good reason to believe that the intention is to put the amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act at the end of the list, so that, unless all members are meek and submit to the orders of this authoritarian government, there will be no opportunity to deal with that amendment. Following the customary procedure, the government will then say, "Oh, we would have done this for you, but they would not let us carry on the business of government."
It is in keeping with the statement on Monday of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin)-made at a time when I happened not to be here, being engaged in important business concerning the future of the province in which I live. On that occasion, with a great show of bravado, the minister said that he had challenged me before to say whether or not we would repeal the Family Allowances Act, and that since the question had not been answered, he was challenging me again. Of course he knows that we are going to form the new government, and I will give him an answer right now.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the answer is no more accurate than the hon. member's statement, it will not impress the country.
(Inaudible interjection by an hon. member.)


George Alexander Drew: Not so much a humorist as the man who accepted the political support you did in your own riding in the last election.


An hon. Member:: Hong Kong.


George Alexander Drew: If there is one name that no member of this government can mention without shame and humiliation, it is Hong Kong. Fortunately the Prime Minister cannot now launch prosecutions or attempt to put in jail those who discuss it as he did on other occasions. Hong Kong is a name that cannot be mentioned with any satisfaction by any member of this government.
To refer to the point I made a moment ago, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is well aware that meetings were held in this building in 1945 and 1946-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must call his attention to the fact that the debate should be relevant to the motion before the house.


George Alexander Drew: I am pointing out that we are dealing here with a motion which has been presented for certain reasons. I am pointing out in connection with those reasons that various statements have been made, and I was trying to deal with one of those statements. I simply say that the Minister of National Health and Welfare knows perfectly well that my position is clear, and that there will be no repeal of the Family Allowances Act.


Mr. Speaker:: I must call the attention of the leader of the opposition to the fact that I cannot permit any discussion which is not relevant to the motion before the house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, naturally I accept your ruling, and I trust that it will not be necessary for me to make any remarks in relation to comments that also have no relation to the motion.
This motion purports to facilitate the business of the house. A motion was made on an earlier occasion in connection with which argument might have been made with some colour of justification that it was necessary to extend the hours of sitting so that certain measures could be dealt with before a certain date. But let us remember that the date of dissolution is an arbitrary date, and it is fixed by the Prime Minister; because he is the one who will ask for dissolution. If it was the intention before Easter to ask for dissolution, then we could have sat during the Easter recess, carried on the business of this house and had an opportunity to examine the accounts which are presented by the government.


Mr. McCann:: You were in Newfoundland.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Are you afraid of an election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Joseph McCann: You were looking for your ancestors in Newfoundland.


Mr. Graydon:: You are caught red-handed; that is all.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, so far as the business of the house is concerned, the budget has been presented.


Some hon. Members:: A good one.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Isn't it a good one?


George Alexander Drew: The trained seals almost missed that one. The budget was presented-


George Alexander Cruickshank: A good one.


George Alexander Drew: Of course one can understand certain people with very limited understanding thinking that it was.


Mr. MacNicol:: That will hold you.


Mr. Abbott:: What a comeback!


George Alexander Drew: It has been not merely the duty of members of the house to discuss details of the budget, but something a great deal more. If you go back through our parliamentary procedure you will find that the only case in which the house did not proceed with the estimates under the budget was when the government was defeated on a want of confidence motion on the budget itself. There is a good reason for that. There is no greater responsibility resting on members of parliament than the exercise of control over the money available to the government for public business. From the beginning of our parliamentary history, as every student of history knows, the control of parliament over the public purse and over the amount of money that the government can take from the people, is the very hallmark of a free parliament. Nothing could be a more obvious challenge to our parliamentary system than to place before the public a budget which some of the members opposite think is a good one-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Don't you?


George Alexander Drew: -but which has been described as a bribery budget, and that title is becoming more appropriate every day.


Some hon. Members:: Let us vote.


George Alexander Drew: That budget has been presented, but before supply is voted it is the duty of members of parliament, not merely to say by their vote what they think of the broad statements contained in the budget, but also to say what they think about the details of the financial arrangements required by that budget, as set forth in the items in the estimates-items which under our system must be dealt with one by one.
It is the practice in this free assembly, and in similar free assemblies, for each item to be dealt with separately, and the members are entitled to an answer from the responsible
Business of the House
minister to any question with respect to details underlying the figures which are placed before the members of the house. If there ever was a time when the members of the house were entitled to that information, and were obliged to obtain it-


An hon. Member:: Humbug.


George Alexander Drew: -it is at a time like this, when we have found that, with tremendously increased expenditures, we are unable to accept the statements of some of the ministers of the crown.


An hon. Member:: Keep whistling.


George Alexander Drew: This house, as with every other free assembly of the same kind, has a system of committees which are set up for the purpose of examining parliamentary business in detail. It is the function of those committees to analyse, in a way in which it would not be convenient for the house as a whole to proceed without taking more time than would be justified, the problems that come before the house. Through the meetings of these committees the time occupied in consideration of public matters can be shortened.
In addition to the ordinary committees there are a number of special committees of great importance. Early in the session there was an undertaking by the government to set up a committee on radio. There was also a reluctant and belated compliance by the government with the demand for setting up of the public accounts committee. There are several other committees which are called upon to deal with important business. At any time up to the day of presentation of the budget there could have been no question about dissolving the house without proceeding with some of these matters; but once the budget was presented-and according to the members opposite, the present one is an election manifesto-it became our duty as members of the house to examine how the money is to be spent, and we have no right to vote one cent of supply until we have the information we require.
Now we are told that the house is to be asked a second time for interim supply. The house has already dealt with interim supply; and that is the regular and accepted practice. The purpose of interim supply is to provide the money which is necessary to carry on the business of the country while the house is still sitting, and to deal with undertakings which cannot be completed before the end of the fiscal year. That is the basis upon which interim supply is voted. It is also recognized that when preliminary supply is voted there is no debate on the details, because the members will have an opportunity to examine the details on a later occasion.

Business of the House
Unless the members had the assurance of that opportunity they would have no right, as representatives of their constituencies, to vote to the government large sums of money which come from the people. The whole idea of interim supply is related to the knowledge that there will be full discussion of the details of the larger amount, that any necessary adjustment can be made without any effect upon the smaller amount which has been voted, and that the rights of the members of the house shall in no way be prejudiced.
But it goes further than that. With the speculation which was rife from time to time, naturally members were anxious to know whether there was to be an opportunity to debate some of these details. On previous occasions when interim supply was proposed, in order that there would not be unnecessary delay in dealing with details, inquiry was made whether there would be an opportunity to examine these subjects in detail later, and the assurance was given that such an opportunity would be given. So far as the house is concerned, we have been told that dissolution is to be asked for on Saturday, so that there is no argument about how long we are to sit. We are told that parliament is to be dissolved -and we welcome that fact; because if anything ever demonstrated the need for an election to vote into power a really democratic government, the present action of the government demonstrates it.
What is actually happening here is that a motion has been proposed which pretends that there is some business before us which it is the obligation of hon. members to deal with. If there is to be any pretence of business here at all, then the government should proceed to place the estimates before the house so that they may be examined, and so that the affairs of government may be put before the people as they should. Let the government call the public accounts committee; we asked that it be called, and we asked it for a definite purpose. What the government is actually doing is running away from its accounting on all these things. But no matter what course is followed, no matter what course-


An hon. Member:: We are on the march.


George Alexander Drew: You are on the march out of here, and you will stay out. No matter what course is followed, there is one item here which certainly should not be brushed aside by any cheap political attempt to pretend that it was held from discussion because hon. members discharged their duty to deal with the subjects that were before the house. There is a motion to amend the Old Age

Pensions Act. It is not adequate. It does not remove the limitations which exist now.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I would call the attention of the leader of the opposition to the second edition of Beauchesne, citation 293(a), page 95, which says that hon. members must not refer to any debate of the same session on any question not then under discussion. I would ask the leader of the opposition to keep his remarks relevant to the motion which is before the house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, for the reasons which I have outlined, I now present an amendment to this motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), that the following be added to the motion:
That this house is of the opinion that the government should this day proceed to deal with the legislation necessary to implement the motion appearing on today's order paper to increase from $30 to $40 the basic monthly amount of pension to which the government of Canada will contribute immediately after the said motion has been adopted by this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: I knew you would laugh at old age pensions. That is what this government is doing.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Bravo!


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Those of us who welcomed the announcement last Monday evening that there would be a dissolution of parliament feel that in expressing that welcome we were fully justified. The business of the house during this session has been made very difficult indeed for those of us who want to see the business of the country conducted in a proper manner. I am going to try to stay within the orbit of the resolution moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), but I want to say that there are certain matters on the order paper which should be dealt with before dissolution, and I refer particularly to old age pensions.
My predecessor in the position in this party which I now occupy was in large manner responsible for the recognition in Canada of the principle of old age pensions and we of this party have never at any time done other than try to improve the conditions in this regard. I remember that on those early occasions at least my hon. friends to the immediate right were distinctly hostile to the proposal when it was made some years ago.


Mr. Martin:: And vetoed it.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad to see that there is a change today. There are on the order paper certain matters, other than the budget and the budget resolutions, which should be

considered. I agree that this house should have every opportunity of examining the annual financial statement of the government and in a proper and parliamentary manner voting the necessary supply after an investigation of the accounts. But as to old age pensions, the house should sit until that matter has been dealt with by this parliament, regardless of how long that may be, or whether it defers the general election or not.
Then there is the matter of the ratification of the North Atlantic treaty. I regard this treaty as of great importance to this parliament and to this country, and I think that before an election this house should express its considered opinion on the pact as adopted for ratification by the various countries which have agreed to it.
Then those of us who come from the prairie provinces are most anxious that this house should express itself on the international wheat agreement; for I am of the opinion that our trading relationships are becoming very difficult indeed, and that the matter of the international wheat agreement is of fundamental importance to that great area which some of us represent.
These are some of the priorities. I know that there is a necessity to transfer the oil from the Alberta oil wells to the other parts of Canada, particularly to the other prairie provinces; but while that is of great importance at the present time, and has been given very high priority, I should like to have seen the government undertake these pipe lines of itself: then I would have more enthusiasm for them. The other problems to which I have already referred are of fundamental importance to this country, and should be given the highest priority. We are going to vote to give parliament the right to set aside certain rules in order that these matters may be dealt with. I hope that this parliament will not be dissolved until these matters of fundamental importance to our people, and to our country in international relations, have been dealt with in a proper manner.
I agree completely that this house should have been called earlier, and that we should have had a short Easter recess if we were going to be pressed for time; but in any event we are prepared to do everything we can to facilitate the business of the house. We have not been obstructionists, and we do not intend to be. We are going to support to the fullest extent of our ability the legislation that is in the interests of this country.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: It is apparent that there have been some rather serious afterthoughts since the expressions following the announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on Monday night.
Business of the House
I believe that I stated definitely at that time that I had hoped the government would see fit to complete the business before the house prior to dissolution. I have not changed my views one particle since then.
In addition to what has already been said, Mr. Speaker; in addition to all the important legislation that has been mentioned which I should like to see given the highest priority and put through before dissolution, I think the estimates should have been considered and passed. I do not believe, sir, that the dropping of the business of this house and rushing out to the country will smack of anything but indecent haste. I am satisfied it will impress the people that there has been altogether too much manoeuvring for power and position, and not enough consideration of the welfare of the people. It is the duty of the representatives of the people to see to it that the legislation in the interests of the people is completed and passed. Then, and then only, should we go back and ask for a renewal of our mandate. The people are not going to look very lightly upon this business of pausing with shovels in mid-air and rushing off to the country.


An hon. Member:: You will find out.


Solon Earl Low: You will find out soon enough, some of you people. We in this group, Mr. Speaker, especially regret that the proposal for old age pensions was not brought forward earlier so that we could put it through. While we look upon it as completely inadequate, it is a most welcome addition to what has already been provided for our aged citizens.
We further regret that the government has not been disposed to stay here long enough to do something to relieve the poor from the effects of the burdensome high cost of living. It is high time the people spoke in no uncertain terms about this very serious omission. We regret also that the government has not seen fit to assure the people that they will stay here long enough to provide assured markets for our products. This is one of the most important problems facing this country. In common with the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), I feel quite certain that the government sees in its nightmares-and it is having plenty of them-visions of very serious times within the next few months.
Finally, we regret very much that the government has not seen fit during this session to assure the people of Canada that they will stay on the job until they have provided an effective cushion against what is almost certain to be a very serious depression within a short time.
I shall say no more except this: We are prepared to facilitate to the utmost the completion of the program that the government

Business of the House
has set forth, so that parliament can be dissolved and the government can go before the people at the earliest possible day. But, sir, we are not going to be a party to rushing out to the country for power and position. We are going to stay until the last of the business has been disposed of.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word or two in answer to some of the points which were raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), particularly with reference to the supply aspects of the remainder of this session. May I say at the outset that I was not taken by surprise, because I read his speech in the newspaper this morning. Evidently he gave it at a press conference yesterday afternoon.
The purpose of this motion, of course, as anyone can see who reads it-according to the Prime Minister's statement, it is his intention to recommend dissolution of parliament at the end of the week-is to provide an additional seven hours debating time. If one can judge by the time it has taken the house to deal with the measures that have been before it, if we had seventy times seven hours we would not get through the business to which some members opposite have referred as urgent, unless we stayed here until September or October. The purpose of the motion, and the only purpose, is to give the necessary additional time.
As the Prime Minister has indicated, at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning, if this motion passes, I propose to ask the house to grant interim supply.


George Alexander Drew: For how long?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will come to that. My hon. friend has suggested that in the whole history of the British parliament there is no precedent for this action. He has not been here as long as I have. If he had been, he would realize that almost identical procedure was followed in April, 1945, prior to the dissolution of the last parliament. Those who were here then will recall that the main estimates were tabled at about the usual time. I have not the date before me, but it was probably the end of February, about the same time as the estimates were tabled this year. As was customary, the estimates were before the members but were not discussed, and the departments were not opened, for reasons that are familiar to all. Before parliament was dissolved in April, the house voted five months' interim supply. The election took place in June of that year, and parliament reassembled on the 6th of September. A further month's interim supply was granted. The main estimates were again tabled and were discussed in the usual way. I do not know 
whether it is proper for me to do so under the rules, but I say now I intend to ask for an additional four months' interim supply.
Hon. gentlemen say that there should be full opportunity to discuss the details of the estimates. I agree with that. But let me say this: In my eight years, almost nine years, as a member in this house, I have seldom found that members discussed the details of the estimates. We open a department, whether it is agriculture or finance or any other; an item is called, and you will find that there is very little discussion of the details of the estimates or of the amount that is voted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know whereof I speak. There is a good deal of general discussion on the administration of the department concerned. I recall one instance in which the amount of the estimate was criticized as being too great, and no instance in which it was criticized as being too small. I recall one instance only in which it was suggested that the estimate be reduced, and I believe that was when the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) suggested that the estimate for the film board be reduced.
During all the time that I have been in the house and associated with the Department of Finance, I have never found anyone on the opposition side-and I must say I have never found anyone on my own side-who said that an estimate should be reduced. Let us not try to fool ourselves, even if we are trying to fool the public.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will transpose that slightly, and say I am stating the facts. I will put it this way-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Let my hon. friend the leader of the opposition not try to fool the house, even if he is trying to fool the public when he says his party intends to give any detailed scrutiny of the estimates. They never have in the nine years I have been here, and I do not believe they intend to do it this year.
In connection with the statement which has been made that there will be no opportunity to consider the details of these estimates, may I say that there will be. There will be exactly the same opportunity that was afforded in September, 1945, to consider the details of every item in the main estimates. If my hon. friend is so confident, as he pretends to be, that he is going to be returned here as leader of the government, he will have an opportunity of changing them. But I think we will find, Mr. Speaker, that the same government will be sitting on this side of the house, and that the same estimates will

be tabled as are now before the house. There will be full opportunity to debate them.
As I have said, the whole purpose of this motion is to afford us a little extra time to discuss urgent business. It has been suggested that the election should be postponed in order to enable admittedly important matters to be dealt with. I think, however, the feeling has been pretty general throughout the country that an early election is desirable; that the people should have an opportunity of indicating what government they want to be in charge of the affairs of this country in the next few years. Even a paper which has supported my hon. friend through thick and thin-and pretty thin some of it was, too- had this to say-and I am referring to an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of April 8:
Let's have it in June.
Talk of a general election in June has been revived. It seems to be the theory of the parliamentary reporters that if Mr. St. Laurent is able to find some encouragement in his Easter tour of the west, and if his followers come back after the recess in a fighting mood, the Prime Minister will give the word.
If only the public interest were concerned we imagine there is no doubt the election would be held in June, because the leaders are in their places, the issues largely are established, one province has no representation in this parliament, and it would be hard to make out a good case for delay.
Then there is something which is perhaps not too relevant, and the editorial goes on:
It seems to us the public interest would be best served by a short, sharp campaign, such as a June date would assure.
Then finally:
We think it is true also that the weighty problems facing parliament, of defence, of finance, of trade, of controls, could better be handled by a House of Commons fresh from the people-and less immediately concerned with party politics than a house that is in its last days.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, since when has it become in order to read newspaper editorials?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have only a word or two more to say. I think this motion is thoroughly justified. There is ample time between now and the end of this week to deal with a number of the important matters which have been referred to, if hon. members want them to be dealt with; and I suggest that we pass this motion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should just like to say a
word on the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I had announced that we would take today for further discussion of the budget. If it is the desire of the house to have the resolution dealing with old age pensions, and the legislation consequent upon it, considered before the debate on the budget is proceeded with, the government will have no
Business of the House
objection to that procedure. It will require the unanimous consent of the house.


Gordon Graydon: You will get it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would ask all those on this side of the house to consent to that being done if it is the desire of the house that it should be done. We did not want to be charged with cutting off debate on the budget, but if it is the desire of the house that, before taking it up again, we call this legislation dealing with old age pensions, the government will be glad to do that.


Gordon Graydon: You mean today?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We had announced that we would deal today first of all with the legislation reported from the committee with respect to pipe lines. It has been carefully considered by the committee, and it is our hope that it would not take much time. Immediately after that, we would be disposed to take up the motion with respect to old age pensions, and to devote the rest of the day to it, if that is satisfactory.


George Alexander Drew: I think perhaps what would satisfy the members would be to call this motion and then proceed, by consent, to deal with the legislation on old age pensions before any other matter is dealt with, so that there may be no question about going right ahead.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As to the general legislation with respect to pipe lines, perhaps hon. members will allow me to say it is believed to be desirable that the legislation be passed before approval is given to applications for charters which would be affected by it. I understand that the applications for charters have been dealt with in another place and are to come to this house this afternoon.
Perhaps we might do this. Immediately after this motion is adopted and the questions and government notices of motions have been disposed of, we might call as the first order the motion dealing with old age pensions. Everyone seems to feel that what is there is good, though some may feel it is not good enough; therefore it may be passed without much discussion. If not, the discussion could be suspended at six o'clock and we could take up the pipe lines legislation at seven-thirty and hope to dispose of it as rapidly as possible; then we could come back to the old age pensions legislation.


George Alexander Drew: Do I understand that the Prime Minister is proposing that before taking up the budget and interim supply we deal with the legislation as to which he is asking for the consent of the house?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We intend to move for interim supply tomorrow at eleven o'clock.

Business of the House
Today my suggestion is that, this motion being passed, we call as the first order the resolution dealing with old age pensions, and that we get as far as we can with it up to six o'clock; that at seven-thirty we call the order dealing with the pipe lines legislation and dispose of it as rapidly as possible; then if we have not finished with the old age pensions legislation, that we come back to that and continue with it until the hour of adjournment tonight, subject to taking it up again as soon as we shall have dealt with the application tomorrow for interim supply.


Major James William Coldwell: Why not go right through with the old age pensions legislation first and then go to the pipe lines legislation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not sure that we would get through with it this week, because the experience during this session has been that even proposals that are thought to be good are felt by some not to be good enough, and it takes a long time to get them disposed of. I would not like to give an undertaking that would prevent us from asking the house for interim supply tomorrow.


Major James William Coldwell: I was not thinking of that. I was thinking of today; instead of taking up the pipe lines legislation, why not go right through with the old age pensions legislation until adjournment tonight? That should give sufficient time.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: We would be prepared to give that matter consideration. We will call it immediately, but at this moment I will not undertake not to ask the house to consider the pipe lines legislation at seven-thirty. We can see then what it may be best to do about it.


Solon Earl Low: The Prime Minister is quite right in saying that the pipe lines legislation should be called not later than seven-thirty, because there are some important considerations there that must be dealt with before the special charters can be issued.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Major James William Coldwell: I think what the Prime Minister has said is satisfactory.


Mr. Knowles:: Will the Prime Minister consider this request? I am not trying to alter the general program he has laid down. Suppose by the end of today we have not finished both the old age pensions legislation and the pipe lines legislation; would he, tomorrow, after interim supply is through, give priority to the old age pensions legislation over the budget?


Mr. St. Laureni:: Over the budget, yes. But on the question whether it would apply to the pipe lines legislation, I should like to discuss

that with hon. members on both sides of the house, because it is something which I think they wish to see passed at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it is clear that the Prime Minister will give priority to the old age pensions legislation over the budget?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, over the budget.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good enough.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: In view of this discussion, perhaps the leader of the opposition would be prepared to withdraw his amendment.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker; I would ask that the amendment be accepted as the basis for the undertaking.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. We will vote on it.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: The amendment is too general. If we accepted it, we could not do anything else until we had disposed of the old age pensions legislation. Because of that, we cannot accept it. If the hon. member insists upon a division, we shall have to have one.


George Alexander Drew: I feel that it is more important than pipe lines or anything else, and I want a vote on this amendment.


Gordon Graydon: If I may, I should like to say one word in response to what the Prime Minister has said, looking at this matter from the practical point of view- and I know the Prime Minister was attempting to do that, as everyone in the house will try to do. If the present plan is followed, experience will indicate, I think, that we will go on with the old age pensions resolution this afternoon, that the discussion will stop at six o'clock, and that from seven-thirty to ten-thirty the oil pipe lines bill will be discussed. The chances are that if discussion of the pipe lines measure went on until ten-thirty, we would then go on tomorrow at eleven o'clock with interim supply.
The Prime Minister and the government have strait-jacketed parliament as to time. That means that there are two days before dissolution. With all the motions and bills that are before parliament, and with interim supply to be proposed, what the Prime Minister is doing is simply to pronounce the death sentence on the old age pensions bill, and I do not think he wants to do that. But that is exactly what would happen, and I tell him that right now. If he knows it, then he must face the fact.


Mr. Reid:: Most unfair.


Mr. Maclnnis:: If the house wants to pass the old age pensions amendment, it lies within the power of the house to pass it. It need not take two days to do it. What is the sense-


Gordon Graydon: Let us pass it now, without discussion.


Donald MacInnis: All right; let us pass it now. Let us deal with these things as they come. The Prime Minister has given an undertaking, and the Prime Minister's undertaking should be satisfactory to the house, considering the situation we are in. There is no reason in the world why we should quibble as the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) has been quibbling.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gordon Graydon: You are just signing the death sentence on old age pensions.


Mr. Speaker:: The amendment before the house is as follows:
That this house is of the opinion that the government should this day proceed to deal with the legislation necessary to implement the motion appearing on today's order paper to increase from $30 to $40 the basic monthly amount of pension to which the government of Canada will contribute immediately after the said motion has been adopted by this house.
This amendment is out of order, because it deals with a matter set out on the order paper by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) for consideration in committee of the whole. At page 17 of today's order paper, under the heading Government Notices of Motions, hon. members will read the following:
The Minister of National Health and Welfare-in committee of the whole-the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Old Age Pensions Act to increase from $30 to $40 the monthly amount of pension to which the government of Canada will contribute.
The debate on the amendment would bring out discussion of old age pensions, which is in anticipation of a debate set out on the order paper. Debates cannot be duplicated.
I would also call the attention of hon. members to citation 350 in Beauchesne's third edition, which states:
It is out of order to move, as an amendment to another question, a motion standing on the order paper as a notice of motion.
Therefore I declare the amendment out of order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I appeal your ruling.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald MacInnis: Who is killing old age pensions now?


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Business of the House Mr. Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And some members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


An hon. Member:: Time wasted.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows: The question before the house is an appeal from the Speaker's ruling. Mr. St. Laurent moved:
That on Wednesday, April 27, 1949, the hours of sitting of the house shall be the same as on Tuesday, April 26, 1949, and that on Thursday, April 28, 1949, and every subsequent day until the end of the session, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning of each sitting day, and that in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock there shall also be an intermission every day from 1 to 3 o'clock p.m.; that on Wednesday, April 27, 1949, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except questions and notices of motions for production of papers; and further that on Thursday, April 28, 1949, standing order No. 28 shall not be applied.
Mr. Drew has moved as an amendment: that the following be added to the motion:
"that this house is of the opinion that the government should this day proceed to deal with the legislation necessary to implement the motion appearing on today's order paper to increase from $30 to $40 the basic monthly amount of pension to which the government of Canada will contribute immediately after the said motion has been adopted by this house."
I declared that amendment out of order, basing my ruling on citation 350 of Beauchesne's third edition, to be found at page 138, and which reads as follows: "It is out of order to move, as an amendment to another question, a motion standing on the order paper as a notice of motion."


Mr. Marquis:: I was paired with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Gordon Graydon: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is away on important international business, and I am paired with him in his absence. Had I voted, I would have voted against Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. Clark:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Desmond). Had I voted, I would have supported Your Honour's ruling.
Motion (Mr. St. Laurent) agreed to on division.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That the name of Mr. Smith (Calgary West) be substituted for that of Mr. Aylesworth; and that the name of Mr. Green be substituted for that of Mr. Robinson (Bruce); and that the name of Mr. Murphy be substituted for that of Mr. Timmins on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. E. O. Bertrand (Prescott) moved: that the second and third reports of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Tuesday, April 26, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar):: By leave of the house I move:
That for the remainder of the session, all private bills from the Senate, when received from that house, be read a first and second time and be referred forthwith, and that standing order 105 respecting the posting of private bills be suspended.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe it requires the leave of the house to make this motion. After all, although the hon. member sought to move it yesterday, he did not give notice except the notice which appears on yesterday's Votes and Proceedings. It is not on the order paper. It requires forty-eight hours' notice. This motion affects particularly all these private pipe lines bills, and if passed it
Adamson
Aylesworth
Barrett
Black (Cumberland)
Bracken
Bradshaw
Brooks
Caouette
Cardiff
Case
Casselman
Charlton
Cockeram
Coyle
Daniel
Diefenbaker
Drew
Drope
Ferguson
Fleming
Green
Harkness
Harris (Danforth)

would cut out discussion on second reading of those bills. That being so I cannot give unanimous consent.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: On a point of order, when approaching the end of a session it has been the custom in years gone by to make such a motion and to refer all matters to the appropriate committee without posting them for forty-eight hours. The objection which the hon. member made yesterday has been removed. Unless the hon. member who just spoke has some special reason for the stand which he has taken, I would ask him to withdraw his objection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Custom does not set aside the rules of the house. However, the objection made yesterday is not overcome. Notice has to be not twenty-four hours but forty-eight hours. If the hon. member wishes to know my special objection, it is that I do not like to see the house deprived of the right to say anything on the second reading of the private pipe lines bills which I take it are coming from the other place.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has not unanimous consent, it is against the rule to proceed with the motion.


An hon. Member:: He has it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, he has not.


Mr. Caslleden:: We do not give it.



FIRST READING-SENATE BILL

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Jessie Kathleen Batiste Latter.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What was the expenditure on the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project in each of the years 1946, 1947 and 1948?
2.	What is the estimated expenditure thereon for 1949 with a breakdown showing how computed?


Mr. McCubbin:: Stand.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I would call the attention of the Acting Minister of Agriculture to this question, because it has been on the order paper since April 4. I should like to have an answer, because in Saskatchewan there is much interest in the various statements made by the Minister of Agriculture in the course of his current agricultural inspection in the province.
I should like to know whether an answer will be given, because this is an important
Questions
matter; it is one about which the Prime Minister spoke when he was in Saskatchewan.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not in a position to give the breakdown of the estimated expenditures for 1949. I would imagine the expenditures for 1946 and 1947 would appear in the public accounts, which have been available for some time. I do not think the accounts for 1948 have yet been published.


John George Diefenbaker: What will the total
expenditures be for 1949? We want to know that.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will ascertain what amount is provided in the estimates in that respect, and if the Minister of Agriculture is not here I shall endeavour to give the hon. member the information.


SUNNYBROOK HOSPITAL-NURSES
Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many nursing sisters are employed at Sunnybrook hospital, Toronto?
2.	Of these, how many have seen overseas service?
3.	What positions are held by those who have not seen overseas service?


Mr. Mutch:: Return as at April 1, 1949:
1.	299.
2.	79.
3.	A matron grade 2, who is second administrative assistant to the matron; a matron grade 1, supervising nursing care in the psychiatric department; the operating room supervisor; the evening supervisor; 20 head nurses; 10 assistant head nurses; 108 general staff nurses; 78 junior staff nurses.


SHIPMENT OF BACON TO UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	Who was responsible for the suggestion and therefore the subsequent decision that 195 million pounds of bacon would be exported to the United Kingdom under agreement for 1948?
2.	What shipments of bacon were made to the United Kingdom during the first three months of the 1948 agreement?
3.	Was any suggestion made by Canada that the total amount of this agreement should be increased?
4.	If so, what reply, if any, was made to this suggestion?
5.	Was the contract for beef reduced or cancelled to enable the United Kingdom to use scarce dollars for bacon instead?
6.	To what extent, if any, did the United Kingdom agree to take bacon beyond the 195 million pounds originally agreed upon?
7.	Under the revised agreement what was the total expected delivery of bacon to the United Kingdom in 1948?
8.	What amount did Canada actually deliver in 1948?
9.	What amount of bacon did Canada expect to deliver to the United Kingdom in 1946?
10.	What amount of bacon was actually delivered in 1946?
2628

Questions
11.	What amount did Canada expect to deliver to the United Kingdom In 1947?
12.	What amount was actually delivered In 1947?
13.	What was the price per pound agreed upon in 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949?
14.	What amount of bacon does Canada expect to deliver to the United Kingdom in 1949?
15.	What amount was delivered during the first three months of 1949?


Robert McCubbin: Stand.


HEALTH GRANTS-NURSES HOMES
Mr. Knight:: 1.	Have any moneys been paid under the Department of Health and Welfare grants for the purpose of new construction of or additions to nurses' homes?
2.	If so, what were the amounts of such payments and to what institutions and in what provinces were they granted?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Stand.


Mr. Knight:: I would draw the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to this question. The answer would be either yes or no, but I cannot get an answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A reply is being prepared. I could give an answer now, but I should like to give a complete answer in conformity with the custom followed when making replies to questions in the house. However, the answer is no. More detailed and explanatory reasons will be given.


HEALTH GRANTS APPROVED AND PAID
Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	By provinces, and for Canada, how much of each of the health grants had been approved by March 31, 1949?
2.	By provinces, and for Canada, how much of each of the health grants had been paid by the dominion by March 31, 1949?
3.	By provinces, and for Canada, what per cent of each of the health grants had been approved by March 31, 1949?
4.	By provinces, and for Canada, what per cent of each of the health grants had been paid by the dominion by March 31, 1949?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Stand.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to draw attention to two questions appearing in my name on the order paper, one with regard to shipment of bacon to the United Kingdom, and the other with regard to health grants. They were placed on the order paper eighteen days ago. The first should require a simple answer. I am anxious to get it, in view of the approaching dissolution and the conflicting stories that are being told with regard to these British bacon contracts. The information which is being given by the Minister of Agriculture is entirely at variance with what I believe to be the fact. As to the second question, having to do with health grants, surely the Minister of National Health and

Welfare has these figures available. They should be presented within the next day or two.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As to the question about
health grants, there is no delay on our part. We are waiting for some information which comes from some of the provinces. I am told that that information should be here tomorrow.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not true with regard to the question about bacon.


HUDSON BAY ROUTE
Mr. Knight:: 1.	Has the government recently made representations to marine shipping companies with a view to having the marine insurance reduced on ships and cargoes leaving the port of Churchill?
2.	If so, what has been the result of such representations?
3.	Does the government expect any reduction in rate in time for the shipping season of this year?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Efforts are being made to obtain the statistical material necessary, and when this is available, it is hoped that a meeting of the commonwealth shipping committee may be called in London, England, to give the matter consideration.
3.	It is not possible to state whether a reduction in rates is likely to be achieved in time to be effective in the 1949 season of navigation.


MOHAWK AIRPORT, DESERONTO, ONT.
Mr. Lennard:: 1.	What disposition is to be made of the Mohawk airport at Deseronto?
2.	Is it to be opened as an R.C.A.F. training centre?
3.	If not, why are renovations being made at this airport?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	This airport is being retained by the Department of National Defence.
2.	Yes, as a summer training camp for R.C.A.F: auxiliary squadrons.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Blackmore:: 1.	Of the 1,386 former commissioned officers employed by D.V.A., how many were on active service outside of Canada and the British isles?
2.	What is the present strength of the investigation branch of D.V.A.?

3.	Of these, how many are former commissioned officers?
4.	Exclusive of officers, how many are dual service veterans?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Nicholson:: For a copy of all letters and telegrams exchanged between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the life insurance companies during 1948 in connection with the construction of rental units under section 11 of the National Housing Act.



POSTAL SERVICE


Mr. Benidickson:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the Postmaster General, officials of the Post Office Department, the civil service commission or any official thereof and any person, persons or groups of persons, since January 1, 1946, with respect to: (a) the appointment of a postmaster, a postal supervisor or principal clerk for the Kenora, Ontario, post office; (b) the grading and staif establishment and salary schedules of the Dryden, Ontario, post office.



REPORT ON WILBERFORCE RADIUM OCCURRENCE

Mr. Hodgson:: For a copy of the report of Dr. Hugh S. Spence and R. K. Carnochan, dated March, 1930, on the Wilberforce radium occurrence.



ROAD CONSTRUCTION IN YUKON TERRITORY

Mr. Black (Yukon):: For a copy of the contract or contracts under which roads are being built between Minto and Mayo and between Minto and coal mine at Tantalus Butte, all in Yukon Territory?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: May I be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of Labour? Has the Department of Labour taken into consideration, or is it considering, any plans whereby it may be able to restore order in the shipping industry in Canada?


Hon. Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour):: As my hon. friend well knows, there is a jurisdictional dispute going on between two organizations connected with deep-sea shipping on the east coast. When I was active in the labour movement the parent organizations usually played some part in the settlement of these disputes. I think that my department has given more time to this dispute than to any dispute since I have been Minister of Labour. As I said the other day, many employers and employees come to my 29087-166i
Inquiries of the Ministry department, to my officials and to myself, for advice. We give them that advice free of charge. But they sometimes go to other people in other political organizations-and I am not referring to the party to which my hon. friend belongs-for advice, and sometimes they pay well for it.
As my hon. friend knows, after the unanimous recommendation of the board we advised both parties to accept it. The employers did, but the other people in their good judgment or otherwise did not. I am one of those who believe that both employers' organizations and trade union organizations sometimes make errors of judgment. The Canadian seamen's union called the men out on the street. I said to a delegation the other day that it is the easiest thing to get workingmen on the street, but the big problem is to get them back to work again. In my judgment, the hallmark of trade union leadership and employer leadership is to see that you negotiate agreements without lockouts or strikes. I think it is fair to say now, Mr. Speaker, that the most powerful and respected unions have negotiated their agreements in that manner. In conclusion, may I say that I have received many endearing telegrams such as one receives only from the communist party; the language is obvious. May I say, too, that at this stage in life I am not going to be a decoy duck for the communist party. In saying that I should like it to be understood that I am not casting any reflections on the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis).


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? I should like to ask him if he does not consider that this strike again emphasizes the need for a national labour code so that matters of national concern can be dealt with nationally?
While I am on my feet may I ask the minister whether he has any knowledge of the fact that there are serious disturbances on ships at sea? I have a message here stating that the radio officer and the fourth engineer on the s.s. Dingwall have been threatened. I do not know how true that is.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I say to my hon. friend that this matter comes under the national labour code. For generations my people have followed the sea and I believe that the captain should be the captain of the ship.


Major James William Coldwell: I agree with that.


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely, I knew my hon. friend would. When a ship is in jeopardy no one goes to a communist organizer to remedy the situation. It is to the captain that people turn. I have been raised in the school that believed in the principle, "women and children first and the captain in supreme command of the ship." I know whereof I speak.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Two years ago I was in the West Indies. A captain came to see me from the Hamilton Park. This captain came from Quebec and was a very fine fellow. He said he had to sleep with a revolver under his pillow. His nerves could not stand the strain and he was through. If we want a Canadian merchant marine today, we have to return to the principles of the sea that made the British people what they are.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Emmerson (Westmorland):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, of which I have sent him notice. What is the status of the Moncton airport as authorized by the Department of Transport and the air transport board, and how is it listed in the North Atlantic regional manual of ICAO? Has the status of Moncton airport been changed recently? On whose authority was clearance at Moncton recently refused for an Air-France transatlantic Constellation, and why?


Some hon. Members:: The order paper.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: 
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister has spoken about the importance of this matter, I should like to raise one other point and seek clarification upon it. Is it not correct that the Constellation of the Air-France line, which has association with ICAO, was forced to unload a large quantity of gasoline at Sydney and proceed to another airport because no customs inspection was available at the time, rather than because of any regulation relating to the use of the airport itself?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I believe that is the position, and it was for that reason the hon. gentleman asked the question. The Air-France Constellation was obliged to unload some gasoline owing to the fact that there was no customs clearance at Moncton. In the last part of my answer I stated that that position is being explored because, in the ICAO manual, Moncton is designated as an international alternate airport. There has been no change during the last two years. By some error customs clearance was not made, but I understand that will not occur in the future.



STATUTORY HOLIDAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State concerning the observance of public holidays. This year the 24th of May falls on a Tuesday which will make it inconvenient for those who go to camp or other resorts over the Saturday and Sunday. It will make it difficult to conduct business on Monday owing to the fact that the holiday falls on Tuesday. Will the Acting Secretary of State take up with his colleagues the question of having all statutory holidays fall on a Monday?


Hon. Colin Gibson (Acting Secretary of State):: The hon. member was good enough to inform me he was going to raise this question today. I should like to inform the house that this is a matter upon which many recommendations have been received. Upon examination it has been found that many of our national holidays are statutory holidays, and

that to change the dates requires an amendment to the various acts, such as the Bank Act and the Bills of Exchange Act. I had hoped that it might be possible to bring in a measure this year to amend those acts in order to provide for some of the holidays, excluding Christmas and New Year's day, being observed on a Monday. Of course, it is too late in the session to hold out any hope that this can be done during the present session.



QUESTION AS TO SAFETY OF CANADIAN NATIONALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs? I should like to ask him if he would bring the house up to date with respect to the situation in China and particularly the safety of Canadian nationals as well as those who are in official positions? I asked a similar question some weeks ago, but since that time the situation has become worse and many people have been inquiring with some anxiety about the position of our people. Perhaps the Prime Minister would be kind enough to bring the house up to date on this matter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall inquire as to the position at the latest hour on which we have a report. As the hon. member knows, the situation is changing almost hourly. We have requested the Canadian ambassador to take the responsibility for decisions without waiting for instructions from Ottawa because of the urgency of the situation. Everyone knows that there is a unit of the Canadian navy standing by for the removal of Canadians. The ambassador has been very much concerned about knowing at all times where Canadians might be in order that he could communicate with them if it became necessary to do so. I shall ascertain the most recent information we have concerning Canadians who are in that area.



COARSE GRAINS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Lesage (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: In
the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I should like to ask a question of the ministry. It arises out of telegrams I have received protesting against the abandonment of freight subsidies on feed grains. I know that they have not been abandoned, but I should like the government to confirm the fact that the
Inquiries of the Ministry payment of such subsidies will be continued after July 31, 1949.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I should like to say that this matter has been under consideration. As the hon. member points out, there has been no announcement of the abandonment of the policy of paying freight subsidies on coarse grains. On the contrary, I have been in communication personally with the Minister of Agriculture, and it is his intention to recommend that they be continued. Thereafter I communicated with all my colleagues in the cabinet and I ascertained that they were disposed to join in his recommendation that this policy of paying the freight subsidies on coarse grains be continued after July 31.


Mr. John Bracken (Neepawa):: A question comes to my mind in connection with the answer given by the Prime Minister to the question asked a moment ago by an hon. member on the opposite side of the house with respect to the subsidy on feed grains. When the main estimates were tabled, it was noted that apparently there was no appropriation for that purpose. Is it the intention to have an amount for that purpose in the further supplementary estimates?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. That was the course that was followed last year. In the main estimates, when they were tabled, provision was made for the payment of this freight subsidy until the end of the then current crop year, and provision was made in the supplementary estimates which last year were brought down at the usual time in June. I assume that a similar provision will be made in the first supplementary estimates after the new parliament will have assembled.


John Bracken: At the moment there is in the estimates no item for this project?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ronald Moore (Churchill):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, notice of which has been given. Have fishermen of the Thicket Portage, Pikwitonei, and Wabowden areas of northern Manitoba requested the federal Department of Fisheries to guarantee loans on their behalf for the purchase of livestock feed until their fish is purchased under the Fisheries Prices Support Act?



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. J. W. MacNaughl (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: I will bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the minister, and an answer will be given.



SHIPMENT THROUGH PORT OF CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I notice that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not in his seat, so I shall address a question to his assistant. In view of the fact that the British food ministry is noted in press dispatches as being willing to take all the wheat available at Churchill, Manitoba, will the minister urge upon the wheat board and upon his colleagues the necessity of making a maximum amount of wheat available at Churchill this year?


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: will take the question as notice. I am not aware whether or not the contents of the press report are accurate, but I will see that the subject matter of the question is drawn to the attention of the appropriate authorities.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ronald Stewart Moore: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, of which I have given notice. Did the minister or any of his officials receive a recent communication from the Churchill chamber of commerce with respect to the Churchill school problem? If so, can the minister make a statement to the house?


Lionel Chevrier: Quite some time ago representations were made to the Department of Transport by the minister of education of the province of Manitoba urging the payment in lieu of taxes of a school grant, because of the large number of transport officials and other government employees at the port of Churchill. After consideration the government decided to make a grant of a certain amount of money in lieu of taxation. I did recently receive from the port Churchill chamber of commerce a letter approving the position of the department but complaining that the proposed size of the school was inadequate. That is a matter which does not concern my department and I am sure it does not concern any other department of the federal government. There is nothing that can be done with reference to the size of the school. That is a matter for the educational authorities of the province of Manitoba.
On the orders of the day:


Arthur Leroy Smith: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I hope he will give me just a second to explain it. It is a serious matter. The question was asked from my left yesterday, I think it was, with respect to freight charges on thoroughbred animals moving about the country. I volunteered to him the information that I thought part of the difficulty had been rectified for a year. The facts are these. The Canadian Freight Association has in times gone by given a special rate to these thoroughbred animals-bulls, and so on-which move from fair to fair. An announcement was made that that rate was to be cancelled as of June of this year, I think. In the meantime the position has been altered and the rate has been extended for a year. But those rates also apply to bulls-and I mean imported stuff-that we need badly in this country to improve the calibre of our stock. Nothing has been done with respect to that item. Will the minister look into the matter? It is a serious one particularly in western Canada where we are trying so hard to improve the grade of our livestock. The cancellation of these rates would render it at least difficult, if not impossible, to have service from this fine type of animal. I realize that it is not the minister's direct business, but will he be good enough to make inquiry and see if the old state of affairs cannot be maintained with respect to animals moving to different fairs, even to the royal winter fair in Toronto?


Lionel Chevrier: I think I know what the position is with reference to that particular item. Many years ago, I am informed, the railways granted a special rate to thoroughbred cattle as opposed to other cattle, but because it meant a great deal more work and took a great deal more care to transport thoroughbred cattle, it was a more costly movement. Truck competition arose and carried most of the ordinary breed of cattle, with the result that the railways found themselves handling only the thoroughbred cattle and losing to the trucks the cattle which were not so costly to move. Under a section of the Railway Act- I have forgotten which one, but I think it is section 345-the railways have the right to grant a special rate, and this was an exceptionally low rate. Because the competition was such as I have described, they brought the rate back to its former position. I have not gone into this particular point, but it may be that by way of complaint it would be

possible to bring the matter before the board. I shall be glad to explore the matter.


Mr, Smith (Calgary West):: I am merely asking that this be looked into, because it affects a very fine class of freight.



LIFTING OF MOUNTAIN DIFFERENTIAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Is a press report correct in stating that the mountain differential will be lifted by July 1?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no doubt that the press report is correct, and the decision of the board has been handed down to that effect.


George Alexander Cruickshank: My second question is this: Did the premier of Ontario take any part in seeing that we got this measure of justice?


Gordon Graydon: Did you?



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. Is it true he is now giving consideration to a change in practice so that no longer will it be necessary to refer applications submitted by those desirous of procuring positions as postmasters to the defeated Liberal candidates before the competent officers in his department can take appropriate action to make such appointments?


Hon. Ernest Bertrand (Postmaster General):: The answer is in the negative.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. Has his attention been called to a news item given out over the radio recently at Lethbridge, Alberta, to the effect that the chamber of commerce of Lethbridge had been informed by the minister or his department that membership dues to the chamber of commerce would now be allowed as income tax deductions?
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the broadcast or the news item.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister look into it and make a report tomorrow?


James Joseph McCann: I shall look into it.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a further question of the Minister of National Revenue. The other day someone sent me a form which had been sent out by the minister's department. This form was to be filled in by taxpayers, and contained a number of peculiar items. For instance, it asked how much it cost to have your wife's hair dressed; they wanted to know how much your children spent in buying moving picture tickets, how much you yourself, spent in barber shops, and so on. I was wondering what the object of that information could be, and whether the minister is familiar with the form?


James Joseph McCann: I have never received any form of that kind, but I should be pleased to look at it if the hon. member would send it to me. I presume however that it is sent out for purposes of obtaining statistics, and that it would be issued by the bureau of statistics.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Wood Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question yesterday of the Prime Minister, at which time he replied that he would look into the matter and give an answer later. My question was whether or not the government contemplates bringing in an amendment to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I am not in a position to answer that question at this time.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


Paul Joseph James Martin: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Old Age Pensions Act to increase from $30 to $40 the monthly amount of pension to which the government of Canada will contribute.

Old Age Pensions Act


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Graydon: Carried.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With the unanimous consent of the house-


Paul Joseph James Martin: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


Gordon Graydon: Hear, hear. Next stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Martin moves, seconded by Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West), that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on this resolution.


Gordon Graydon: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Graydon: Let's show the old people what we can do in half an hour.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Gordon Graydon: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Graydon: Oh, don't stop it; don't stop it; don't stop it!


Donald MacInnis: You were trying to stop it.


Mr. Mariin:: May I just suggest to hon. members that perhaps the most convenient way, and the method by which we would save the most time, would be to defer discussion until we reach the stage of second reading of the bill, and the committee stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can we reach that stage today?


Gordon Graydon: Let us go on with it now. We should pass third reading today.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Martin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 237 to amend the Old Age Pensions Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the first time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Gordon Graydon: Now; carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: the second reading of the biU.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Martin has moved that this bill be now read the second time.
(Mr. Martin.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Might I suggest that we permit the bill to get into committee and then my hon. friend could make his speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Amount of dominion contribution.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think the way in which this house has shown its desire to make sure that this bill gets through is significant. It indicates clearly the universal support of hon. members for the proposal that something a great deal better should be done for our elder citizens. I am not surprised at the urgency my hon. friends to the right seem to be showing because it is time they did.


Mr. Green:: What about the speech I made on April 7?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Vancouver South is perfectly justified in dissociating himself from the position his party has taken on this matter.


Howard Charles Green: I was speaking for my party.


Gordon Graydon: Do not try to talk it out; let it go through.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends to my right did not hesitate to take an hour and a half this afternoon to delay the business of the house by moving a purely political motion. I would also remind my friends to the right that a little over a month ago, on March 3 to be exact-


An hon. Member:: March 17.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, on March 3-fifty of their members in the Ontario legislature voted against a motion which called upon the government of that province to make the $10 monthly supplement payable to all pensioners in Ontario. Among those who voted against that was the premier, Mr. Kennedy, who is the member for Peel.


William Henry Golding: I think the hon. member is going beyond the proper limits of discussion.


Gordon Graydon: He is making a political speech.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Peel should refrain from interrupting.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member mentioned the member for Peel.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member should not interrupt. He is out of order in discussing what happened in the legislature.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not wonder that the hon. member for Peel in this house does not like what the member for Peel in the other house did. Hon. members in this house claim they are anxious to see this measure pushed through, but in the other house to which I referred their followers voted against a similar motion. These are the people who profess that they want to do something for social security in this country. They show their concern or interest in social security when they think it is politically wise to do so, but it takes a Tory like Arthur Meighen to state the position of the Tory party. I quoted him a few days ago to show that he stated quite clearly that in his view the unfortunates of the world should be cared for by private charity, but they should not get help as a matter of right-


Gordon Graydon: Get on with the bill.


Mr. Sinclair:: Two days ago the hon. member for Peel rose and protested bitterly against any interruptions while he was making his speech and I think in common courtesy and decency he should refrain from interrupting.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Now I have heard everything.


William Henry Golding: I should like to call the attention of hon. members once more to the rule that the hon. member who has the floor should not be interrupted when he is trying to make a speech. As the hon. member for Vancouver North has said, from time to time we hear hon. members on both sides appealing to the Speaker to keep order when at another time they are the ones who do the interrupting. I appeal to all hon. members because the responsibility of maintaining the dignity and decorum of the house is as much their duty as it is that of the Chair. I appeal to hon. members to refrain from constantly interrupting.


Mr. Fleming:: On a point of order, I should think the hon. member for Vancouver North would be the last person to complain about anyone else interrupting because no one interrupts as much as he does.


John Ewen Sinclair: On the point of order-


William Henry Golding: I would ask hon. members to resume their seats and allow the hon. member to continue his speech.


John Ewen Sinclair: On a question of privilege,
hon. members will recall that when the hon. member for Peel was making his protest two days ago I said that while I had interrupted I never objected to interruptions
27. 1949	2835
Old Age Pensions Act
myself. As the hon. member for Peel is the WOrst-or the best-interrupter in the house,
I think he should remain quiet when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is speaking.
The Depuiy Chairman: If hon. members will just keep quiet and allow the member who has the floor to make his speech we will make some progress.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. members who are urging that we get this bill through are taking up time with all these interruptions. Perhaps I should assume some responsibility for the many interruptions that have been made because I have been panning the Tory party -and rightly so-for the stand they have taken on social security and for their attempt to make out that they are the protagonists of a larger old age pension. I am a little perplexed, Mr. Chairman, at your ruling that I cannot refer to what took place in the Ontario legislature, but I shall abide by it.
I shall not go further into the incident that took place on March 3, but I feel that you must permit me to say something about the administration of the old age pension supplement in Ontario. I am not now referring to what has happened in the legislature; I am referring to the amount of pension that the people in Ontario get.


William Henry Golding: Order. I must call the hon. member's attention to the fact that we are discussing section 1 of this bill. I do not think there is anything in this section that has to do with the policy or program of Ontario or any other province.


Donald MacInnis: On the point of order, it will be recalled that we allowed this bill to go into committee without a debate on second reading. When that was done I think it was fully understood that anything that we would have said on second reading could be said in committee. There are only one or two sections to this bill and I think we could make more progress if we went on in the ordinary way to deal with these matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The need for increasing the amount of the old age pension, as is provided by section 1 of the bill, is very clear. I submit that one of the evidences of the need for that increase is the situation with respect to old age pensioners in the province of Ontario. According to a report in the Toronto Star of April 2 of this year there are in that province about 80,000 old age pensioners.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Seventy-five thousand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says 75,000; the difference is not great. I am quoting the Toronto Star.


An hon. Member:: That would not be very correct.

Old Age Pensions Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: According to the latest report, only 6,923 of that number were getting the full amount of the $10 supplement provided in that province. In addition to that number, there are 14,354 who get a portion of the $10 supplement, but only a portion; in other words, amounts ranging from $10 down to perhaps five cents. That leaves
58.723	out of 80,000 old age pensioners in Ontario-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Seventy-five thousand; you will have to revise all your figures.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even if the total figure has to be reduced to 75,000 it then means that
53.723	out of 75,000 do not get one cent of the supplement provided by the provincial government of Ontario.


Mr. Case:: How many of the 58,000 applied for it?


William Henry Golding: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I accept the suggestion to use the figure of 75,000 it makes the percentage that much worse as to those who do not get it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What are you quoting from?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am quoting from figures in the Toronto Star of April 2, 1949. My interest was such that I wrote them down in this little book.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Did George McCullagh not close that paper?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not yet. He may be trying to, but that is off the subject. I quoted those figures for two reasons, on the one hand to show the need of somebody doing something for old age pensioners in a huge province like Ontario, and on the other hand to show that the Tory party, in the one province of the country where it is in power, is not doing anything very creditable for these people.


Mr. McGregor:: Tell us about Saskatchewan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Saskatchewan pays $5.


George Alexander Drew: Subject to a means test.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. I have not the figures here, but in Saskatchewan old age pensioners receive a supplement which averages well over $4, in fact close to $5. Look at what the average amounts to in the province of Ontario. It amounts to something in terms of cents when you consider it in relation to all the old age pensioners in the province. My hon. friends to the right, the Tory party, might well try to get this measure through without any discussion, so as to avoid the truth being stated, but they are not going LMr. Knowles.]
to get away with it any more than they got away with a certain discussion the other day when they were trying to make out that they were the protagonists of family allowances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends across the way are saying, "hear, hear", but it is their turn now. They are so pleased with themselves that on the very eve of an election the government has at last yielded to public pressure and brought in this amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They listened to my advice.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is that pressure enough?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where have you been all the time? The amendment proposes to increase from $30 to $40 a month the amount of the pension as provided by federal statute, in other words, the amount of the pension of which the federal government will contribute 75 per cent. That the amount should be $40 does not need to be argued at all. As a matter of fact, it certainly should be not less than $50 a month. However, it is good that we are moving up toward that figure. Until well into 1943 the pension was only $20 a month. In the summer of 1943 it was raised to $25; in 1947 it was raised to $30, and now we are moving on up to the minimum figure that should be given for a decent old age pension.
There are, however, certain deficiencies in the bill before us that should be drawn to the attention of the government as forcefully as possible. The Prime Minister today referred to the bill as one that the house would approve. He said the only thing that would be found wrong with it would be that there was not enough in it. He was right. There is not enough in it in terms of the amount of the pension. As I say, it should be $50.
Another shortcoming, and a very serious one, is one to which I called the attention of the minister by means of a question on the orders of the day yesterday. Section 1 proposes to increase the amount of the pension from $30 to $40 per month, but it does not raise the ceiling on a pensioner's income. At the present time according to the act-we will stick to monthly figures although the act is phrased in annual terms-the pension is $30 a month, and the ceiling on a pensioner's income is $50 per month. That means that a pensioner can now draw the full $30 pension and have $20 a month as other income. If he earns anything more than $20 the amount of his pension is reduced so that the total, including his pension, is not over $50 per month. The ceiling of $50 a month, how-

ever, is not changed by the terms of this bill. The result is that the ceiling of $50 remains so that now a pensioner can have a pension of $40 per month provided he has other income of not more than $10. Although yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with his usual fanfare, told me that the present government makes the most generous provision for other income anywhere in the world, that so-called generous provision being $20 per month in the case of a single person, other income is now reduced to $10 a month in the case of a single person. As if that is not enough-


Paul Joseph James Martin: What jurisdiction does better?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Pardon?


Peter Francis Martin: What jurisdiction anywhere does better?


Stanley Howard Knowles: This government did better before this bill was introduced. This government allowed other income to a single pensioner of $20 a month. The minister boasted of it yesterday, but today he is reducing other income in the case of a single person to $10 per month. He shakes his head, but he cannot deny it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shake my head because the conclusion the hon. member seeks to draw is wrong. What is important is how much money the pensioners get-


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the minister cannot deny-


Peter Francis Martin: -under this amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister cannot deny- I think I have the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but under the amendment he will find that pensioners will get an amount higher than that paid pensioners in any other part of the world with the exception of four individual states in the United States.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not the point before us at the moment. What I am telling the Minister of National Health and Welfare-and he does not deny it and cannot deny it-is that this measure will reduce from $20 to $10 the amount of other income that a single old age pensioner may have. I should now like to show the minister that in the case of a married couple it is even worse. At the present time a married couple can have a pension of $60 per month. The ceiling on their income as provided in the act, is $90 a month. They now have a pension of $60 and they may have other income of $30 per month, or $15 each. But when the pension is raised to $40 a month, or $80 or a married couple-and we welcome that wholeheartedly-the ceiling of $90 still remains, which means that a married couple,
29087-3.S7J
Old Age Pensions Act
who are now entitled to have other income of $30 a month apart from their pension, can only have other income of $10 a month, only $5 each.
The minister has boasted about the other-income provisions of this government. He is now proposing something that, so far as both single persons and even more so in the case of married couples are concerned, is worse than it was in the original act of 1927, and worse than it was when Mr. Ilsley made the change in 1943.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend unless he consents to my so doing, but I know he wants to be absolutely fair in the impression he creates. What my hon. friend says in so far as income is concerned is true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I am saying.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is obvious, but the important thing is what goes into the pockets of the pensioner. Under this amendment ninety per cent of the old age pensioners of Canada are going to receive up to $10 a month more by way of pension. That is the important thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to see figures to prove that assertion. When you realize what I have just said, and the minister does not deny the truth of my analysis of this act, I doubt his statement. What I am trying to get over to the minister is that when he raises the old age pension by any amount he should, since he is so proud of his other-income provisions, raise the ceiling by that same amount. In other words, the same spread should be maintained. The thing that amazes me about this is that the government should make this mistake again. They made it in 1943. I ask hon. members to cast their minds back to the situation at that time. The pension was $20 a month or $240 a year. The ceiling was $365. In other words, the pensioner could have $125 a year other income. We remember that figure; it was in existence for a long time. About June of 1943 Mr. Ilsley, who was then Minister of Finance, brought in an order in council to increase the old age pension. He raised by $5 a month. In other words he put it at $25 a month or $300 a year, but he did not change the $365 ceiling. I remember very well pointing that out to him the day he did it, and showing the inequities that would develop. Like the Minister of National Health and Welfare now, he admitted it but felt that what he was doing was all right. Well, six months later, or perhaps seven or eight months at the most, Mr. Ilsley realized the mistake that he had made and the ceiling on income at that time was raised from $365 to $425, which had the effect of restoring the original spread back to what it was in the original act; thus under the spread at that

Old Age Pensions Act
time, apart from the six or eight months that Mr. Ilsley reduced it about $5 a month it was a little over $10 a month. Under this provision the spread will be only $10 a month in the case of a single person, which is less than it was in the original act, because that was $125 a year, and in the case of married people it will be only $5, which is a whole lot worse than it was back in those early days.
I submit that the Minister of National Health and Welfare-politically, if for no other reason-should not want to go out in this election campaign having on his conscience or on his soul the same mistake that Mr. Ilsley made in this matter in 1943. It is not too late to bring in another bill amending the other sections of the act simply raising the ceiling by the exact amount of the pension. Everyone knows that I think the means test should be done away with altogether, and if there was any kind of motion that I could make today to do it- and be in order-I would be making it right now; but I have to accept the government's position in this matter, and I am simply pleading with them for all I am worth that they do not worsen the position in the matter of other income from that which they agreed to in 1947.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is not just an academic point to talk about to keep the thing going for a little while. This is a plea I make to the minister to do something about it before this session ends. Speaking on the point, may I remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare of what I am sure he knows, that the factor that constitutes income in a great number, perhaps the majority, of cases, is the ownership of a small home. Many of these old people have a home, with the result that they have income computed on it at as much as $10 a month in the case of a single pensioner or more than that, in the case of a married couple, and they really are just as much in need of a bit of extra cash as are the other people, and heaven knows that they need it badly. It is most unfair discrimination even if the minister says it is only ten per cent, and I do not accept that figure. It is most unfair to discriminate against these people who do own their own little homes or have some little resources. They too should be getting this increase, and many of them will not get it because of this worsening of the position with respect to other income.
I say again, Mr. Chairman, that it is not just an academic point; it is not just a suspicious fear that some of us have because we are always ready to see the shortcomings in what the government brings down. It is something that happened before. This government made this very same mistake in 1943,
IMr. Knowles.]
and I challenge hon. members on the opposite side to refresh their memories on the point. They will remember that during those seven or eight months they received many protests about it, and no doubt it was the fact that they carried these protests to Mr. Ilsley that resulted in the change being made early in 1944, which restored the other income allowed to the figure it had been.
There is one other deficiency among many in the bill that is before us. It disappoints the nation in that it does not implement the very definite rumours that circulated from one end of this country to the other that in addition to an increase in the amount there would be a lowering of the eligible age. I have not before me the newspaper clippings that appeared. I am sure the minister knows that they appeared. The other day I asked a question based on them. These reports emanated from these usually reliable sources here at Ottawa. They appeared in Liberal newspapers, and they certainly made clear to most people that we were to expect-without fail -just before the election, an increase in the amount and at the same time a lowering of the age to 65. In these rumours there was some conflict as to whether that age would be lowered for women alone, or whether the lowering would take place for both women and men. As we talk to people in these halls and get the hints and whispers and bits of gossip as to what is going on we got the word that it was pretty well settled on the other side of the house that they would not dare go to the country at this time without making that change, namely a lowering of the age as well as an increase in the amount. I should like to know what happened to that proposal. What was the reactionary influence or the reactionary pressure that dissuaded the minister from going ahead with that proposal to lower the eligible age?
There are some other questions, Mr. Chairman. One wonders how soon these amounts will reach the people of Canada. Will they reach them before the election or will it take more time-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just as quickly as we can get agreements with the provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister should tell us what indications he has from any of the provinces as to whether they will carry out the terms of this agreement. Mind you, adding this extra $10, if you ask the provinces to pay up to 25 per cent, means a pretty heavy burden on the provincial treasuries. When you realize that some provinces, Quebec and New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, have not been paying any supplement on top of the $30, the question arises, can they afford to pay their twenty-five per cent of this increase? Will they do it, even if they can

afford it? Then, we are faced again with this whole question of a squeeze play between the dominion and the provinces, particularly with respect to the provinces from Ontario west, and Nova Scotia, which are paying some kind of a supplement. Take British Columbia, for example, which is paying a supplement of $10 a month on top of the $30. If they make an agreement with the federal government on the $40 basis, they will have to use $2.50 of that extra $10 to pay their twenty-five per cent of the federal $40.


Peter Francis Martin: Where is that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In British Columbia, where they are paying an extra $10. That raises the question, what will they do with the other $7.50? Will they add that on and pay a pension of $47.50, or will they take that money and use it perhaps for some other social purpose? That same problem will arise in the various other provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. Then there is the procedural question as to when these provinces can call their legislatures back and implement this legislation. All of them are prorogued; some of them have been dissolved. Therefore we are back to the same situation that we had in 1947. The Minister of National Health and Welfare admits that the amount being provided by federal statute is really not enough. He would like to see more, and so he tosses the ball to the provinces, and puts all the political pressure on them that he can to add to the amount. The fact is that the responsibility for old age pensions should be completely federal, as Mr. Bennett promised in the election of 1930.


Robert Henry McGregor: You did not give him your support.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not understand the interjection made by the member for York East. He knows that if it had not been for my predecessor, Mr. Woodsworth, we would not have received old age pensions as soon as we did.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends are saying oh, oh, but they know that to be the fact.


Mr. Irvine:: Ask me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) says to ask him about it. He was here. Everybody knows what happened back in 1926.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Have you that famous letter? We have not heard it read as yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have read it in this house myself. It is now framed and hangs on the
Old Age Pensions Act
wall at Woodsworth house down at 301 Metcalfe street, and we would be very glad if you would come down and read it.
The point I am making is that all of us who are interested in this question of old age pensions, and students of sociology who have followed this thing, agree that the responsibility for these pensions should be a federal responsibility. To the extent that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) brings in these partial increases and then tosses the ball to the provinces, putting the political squeeze play on them to add to the amount, we keep it a dominion-provincial matter. We also retain the difference in the amount in the various provinces and the old age pensioners are the victims of that game of political football.
I agree that we do not want to delay this matter. I was delighted with the gentlemanly spirit in which the Prime Minister agreed to change the order of business in order to give this matter priority over the budget and a certain amount of priority over other matters. But I do feel that the Minister of National Health and Welfare should go a few steps further and pay some attention to the points I have raised this afternoon.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I am as interested in our aged people receiving a full pension as anyone in this house or outside of it because I know conditions. This measure does not give everything I asked for, but it does give something. Last year I stood up in this house and commended the premier of the province of Ontario for increasing the pension by ten dollars per month. I thought that was good politics, though some people thought it was smart politics. I say, if it is smart politics, let us have more of it and let us have it more speedily.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare now comes along and proves my statement that it is a wise thing to do. This measure grants ten dollars per month extra to everyone and means that our aged people and our blind people will receive $40 per month. When the province puts in its share of the extra amount I expect that in many of our provinces old age pensioners will receive $50 a month. I commend you, Mr. Minister, for your common sense in seeing the needs of the people. I hope that next year when you return we will get the other two things for which we have asked.


Frederick Davis Shaw: It seems rather unfortunate that when a matter such as this comes before the house, especially in the prevailing circumstances there should be an indication of juggling for credit such an attitude indicates further fighting for election advantages. I

Old Age Pensions Act
had hoped that this matter would be passed by the house without discussion. It is true that it comes before us after much probing, years of prying and pressing, but nevertheless it comes before us offering something to the pioneer citizens of this nation. This "something" takes the form of ten dollars additional in the basic pension.
It seems rather unfair, if I may put it that way, that what the provinces might be doing should be brought in at this particular time. Such action savours strongly of political jockeying. In dealing with the provinces, I believe I could take our own as the outstanding example in the Dominion of Canada. Our provincial government has endeavoured, in the light of all the circumstances confronting it, to offer the most generous proposal to the pioneer citizens of that area. In the province of Alberta, not only do the pensioners receive a basic pension of $30 per month, but they now receive the $10 supplementary bonus. I underline the word "receive".
Moreover, these people are granted hospitalization, medical, dental and optical services. I say that when you take the average pension payment in my province, it proves to be the highest paid in the Dominion of Canada. Adding to that the other services which are received, I believe I would be completely justified in repeating what I said before, namely, that in my province we have a shining example for the people to observe.


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: You struck oil.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Chairman, it is true that we struck oil, but let us not lose sight of the fact that it is as a consequence of the sane and sound policies pursued by the government of that province that these payments have been made. Alberta is not the only province in Canada in which has been found the product known as oil or the product known as gas.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but they forced me to digress. I could take the provinces in Canada, starting with the one on our west and ending with the one on our east, but I shall not do so. I could probably expose certain conditions which it would not be pleasant for any of my hon. friends to hear. This would be particularly true when considered in the light of our own policies carried into practice in the province of Alberta.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, falls hopelessly short of what we would like. During this session and throughout past sessions of this parliament since my colleagues have occupied seats in this house, we have pressed for a lowering of the eligibility age. We have

pressed for the removal of the iniquitous and obnoxious means test. We have asked for a pension which would guarantee those pioneers of our country a decent standard. We are not forgetting for one moment that we have pressed for these things. We are still pressing for them, but on the other hand we are grateful for the little bit more that has been granted to us by this bill.
We are supporting the bill, Mr. Chairman. I should like to ask the minister, following the observation of the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), just how much more obnoxious this means test becomes under a practical application of the conditions in this bill? We regret very much that consideration was not given to the principle of lifting the ceiling on income which would have been a step towards the removal of the means test, but certainly it would have been a step in the right direction. I shall not occupy more time upon this occasion. We shall support this measure, but we shall be back in greater numbers than ever after the election pressing for more generous treatment for those who have played so large a part in the development of this nation.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to detain the house for more than a moment. I believe I can say all I have to say before six o'clock. I should like to add my voice to that of the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in speaking of the courteous and gentlemanly action of the Prime Minister this afternoon in allowing this matter to receive priority. While deploring the inadequacy of the amendments, I wish to thank the minister for bringing them in, and to say that I am glad we are going to get them through before parliament is dissolved. It must be a source of great pleasure to the government to know that their legislation finds so much favour with the official opposition that they want the amendments to go through without any discussion whatsoever. This is one issue at least on which the opposition is in agreement with the government, that is, that the old age pensioners are getting all that they are entitled to.
There are two or three points to which I wish to refer. Perhaps I should deal first with the one raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that it is to be regretted that the minister did not see fit to raise the permissible income when the amount of the pension was raised. I am convinced that should have been done, even if only to the extent of the $10 raise in the pension. The minister said that 90 per cent of the old age pensioners would benefit to the full extent of this $10 increase. I doubt if the minister realized the implication of

what he said; because if 90 per cent of the old age pensioners will benefit to the full extent of the $10 increase, it merely shows the extent to which poverty is rampant among the old people of this country. When my hon. friend maintains that 90 per cent of old age pensioners will benefit to the full extent of the proposed increase, when permissible income is, single persons, only $600 a year; married couples, only $1,080 a year, nothing further need be said. In this rich country, where we boast of our increasing wealth and our increasing national income, we certainly should be ashamed of ourselves that, with that increase, the standard of living of these old people is deteriorating.


Mr. Blackmore:: Social credit will provide for them.


Donald MacInnis: I wish I were as confident of that as are my friends in the Social Credit group, provided they are confident of it; but I doubt if they are, in their saner moments.
There is another point which I want to make. I urged on the Minister of National Health and Welfare in 1947 when we were dealing with amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act at that time, that provision should be made for the wife of a pensioner when she is not eligible for pension in her own right. In all other cases where the government makes provision by way of a pension or an allowance, provision is made for the wife of the beneficiary. Why should wives of old age pensioners be an exception to the rule? A married person receiving war veterans' allowance receives an additional amount because of his wife; and the same applies with respect to other pensions. I would ask the minister to give further consideration to this point. I do not know whether it is possible to amend the bill that is before us now in order to provide for the points both the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I have mentioned.
There are a number of other things that I was going to say, but I think I will leave it at that, except to say that I think the old age pensioners of this country should be grateful for the kind of system of government we have, under which periodically the government must appeal to the electorate for another term of office; and in appealing to the electorate it must have something to offer it. I have been interested in politics for quite a long while; and I regret to say that in Canada governments generally do not believe in social services as a matter of policy. They believe in social services as a matter of political expediency. I say that because all the improvements in our social services come just before elections. I think it would be a good idea to have elections more often.
Old Age Pensions Act The Deputy Chairman: Shall the clause carry?


Clarence Gillis: No.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.
William Henry Golding: Shall section 1 carry?
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Coming into force.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why does the minister propose leaving to proclamation by the governor in council the date of coming into force of this measure? 1 can understand that time may be required to negotiate agreements with the provinces, but that does not affect the date of coming into force of the act. We could still have the act coming into force immediately, and then the government negotiating agreements with the provinces. I can understand that in respect of probably most of the provinces complementary legislation may be required, but I still do not understand why this section in the bill is necessary. Would the minister explain?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This was the recommendation of the law officers of the crown. There will be no delay, as soon as we get the necessary agreements.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it the intention that the act shall not be proclaimed and that it will not come into force until agreements have been negotiated with the provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The moment we conclude the first agreement we will proceed with it.


John Oliver Probe: I should like to hear that; I could not hear what the minister said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The moment we get agreement with the first province there can be a proclamation.


John Oliver Probe: The first agreement with any province proclaims the bill.


Peter Francis Martin: Yes.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Is it necessary to have agreements with the provinces in order to proclaim the act?


Peter Francis Martin: Yes; obviously that is so, when the province contributes 25 per cent of the pension.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: It is only enabling legislation, is
it not?

Pipe Lines Act


Gordon Graydon: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 190, respecting oil or gas pipe lines-Mr. Chevrier -Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make my remarks at the appropriate time which, I would gather, is the present. I find some difficulty with the bill. At the outset may I say that I am entirely in favour of the construction of pipe lines. In what I shall say I shall try to be of assistance to hon. members in reaching some understanding of what we are doing.
It may be news to some hon. members that there are more miles of pipe line than there are miles of railway in the United States. That has been the development, and it means there is only one way which has been found suitable to carry oil and gas.
I make this exception by stating that there are certain gases described as top fractions in the refining of oil, the lighter hydro-carbons which are now sold in western Canada in bottles. These are steel bottles, and they are used extensively now in the farming communities. I believe we have had them for only a year or two, but they have a considerable history in the United States.
I built my first house in Calgary in 1912, and I have never burned a pound of coal from that day to this. Those of us who are located near this natural gas are most fortunate and, broadly speaking, we are anxious that other persons should share our enjoyment of this ideal fuel. Generally speaking, however, in my province we are not being so generous as to say to all the rest of you, and particularly to the United States, "Burn this fuel," unless we are fairly well satisfied in our province that we are going to have enough left to keep ourselves warm, to do our cooking, and so on.
At the bottom of this whole matter is one question, namely the quantity of gas available. To that end, in Alberta some time ago we appointed a commission of which Mr. Bob Dinning was chairman. That commission held a number of hearings in an endeavour to arrive at a conclusion as to the quantity. The lowest estimate of proven gas fields at that time was four and a half trillion feet. I believe that estimate was made by Dr.

Hume from Ottawa, whom we all know, a man of considerable reputation as a geologist. However other estimates made went as high as ten trillion cubic feet.
Since that time other large and new reserves have been established, so that today I do not think anyone knows what the reserves in that country actually are. To say that they are immense, or to say that they are equal to anything yet discovered on this planet, is simply to repeat a truism; it is an absolute fact.
So the idea was conceived by various persons-and I believe there are five different concerns seeking incorporation, to which number may be added another man who visited me this morning wishing to make the sixth. Am I correct when I say there are five?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, five applications.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The minister says there are five, and this man is anxious to make the sixth. Considering this matter we must bear in mind that there is one pipe line of greater urgency, and that is the one which the Imperial Oil Company wish to build from Edmonton to Regina, a length of some 500 miles. Of course to do that they must cross provincial boundaries and that is where the dominion government enters into the picture. Aside from that I do not think at law the dominion government would have any concern with the matter.
Perhaps hon. members would be interested in a bit of history. In 1912 gas was discovered at Bow Island, between Lethbridge and Medicine Hat. Sir Clifford Sifton and Mr. Coste constructed the first pipe line from Bow Island to Calgary, a distance of about 150 miles, although I do not pretend to be accurate about that. In any event it was a long pipe line for Canada.
Prior to that, gas had been used in Medicine Hat, which town was christened by Sir Rud-yard Kipling, on perhaps his only trip out here, as being the place with all hell for a basement. All you had to do to get gas was to put a hole in the ground and the various manufacturing concerns in Medicine Hat owned their own well. I am sure that there are a lot of people in this house as old as I am who remember going through Medicine Hat before the days of electricity-hydro was unknown then-and seeing how it was cheaper to bum gas all day in the gas lights rather than pay a man to turn them out in the morning and on again in the evening. The supply was tremendous and is still ample for the uses in that city.
Finally the city got control of the gas lands around there and now operates the gas supply. I believe it has been sold as low as five cents

per thousand cubic feet. You people in Ottawa burn a gas which is made from coal or oil and perhaps pay around $1 per thousand feet, although I do not know the exact figure. I doubt if it could be produced for less. It must be remembered that artificial gas has not the heating qualities of natural gas and you can see what this means in the west with respect to fuel. The present price in Calgary is in the neighbourhood of 25 to 30 cents per thousand cubic feet and we can heat our houses for about one-quarter or one-fifth of what it costs down here. The company then raised their price tremendously and as a result lost their franchise. We have been doing a little battling from that day to this.
Then the Turner valley field was discovered. I have forgotten the year when old No. 4 well blew in. A pipe line was built from Turner valley to Okotoks, and then another one was built from Turner valley to Calgary. In Calgary we have been getting all our gas from the Turner valley.
I should like to pay a compliment to the Alberta oil and gas conservation board. During the days of the early discoveries sufficient gas was burned in the air to heat and light a city the size of Toronto for fifty years. That will give hon. members some idea of the waste we had at that time. As a result of the activities of this board, not one foot of gas is being wasted. Not only does the gas supply the heat for all the drilling units for miles around; the gas is used over and over again. It is used first for its lifting power to bring the oil to the surface of the wells which average about 8,000 feet in that particular area. It is then put into a Smith separator-that is not named after me as there are other Smiths in the world-purely for expansion purposes, the oil going out one place and the gas going out another.
The gas then goes to an absorption plant where the higher fraction or white gasoline is taken out, and from the absorption plant it goes to compressors. These compressors pipe the gas back into the formation. In other words, if you have 2,000 pounds pressure at the bottom of your well and you have compressors that can put the gas up to 4,000 feet, it then goes back into the ground and again produces oil. The gas that is not burned or sold keeps going around in that circle.	_
The next development was the discovery of huge fields near Viking which supplied Edmonton and the towns along that line. Then came the discovery about a year or a year and a quarter ago of the Leduc oil field. Along with this discovery were tremendous gas discoveries. One result is that today gas
Pipe Lines Act
is being wasted by being burned in the air, but it is the only thing they can do. Then there are the three, four or five fields which have since been discovered and which have added tremendously to the proven reserve which I am sure at the moment amounts to something in the neighbourhood of fifteen trillion feet. Of course that gas will do a lot of heating.
We in Alberta agree that gas should be used elsewhere but only to the point where we ourselves are safe in the use of that which Providence has thrust under our feet.
For the first time we are dealing in the dominion parliament with the export of gas, but in this connection I should like to call something to the minister's attention. I am not sure where dominion jurisdiction leaves off and provincial jurisdiction begins. In my judgment the principle of this bill is good but it seems to me that there should be some central authority to deal with this matter since it is now interprovincial in character.
I should like to call the attention of the minister to a statute which may not have been brought to his attention. I am quite certain that it had not been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when along with Mr. Manning, the premier of Alberta, he gave a press interview at which they both agreed that the export of gas was purely a provincial matter. I refer to chapter 54 of the 1927 consolidation which seems to have been first enacted in 1907. It is called an act to regulate the exportation of electric power and certain liquids and gases. The word "fluid" is defined as follows:
(b) "fluid" means petroleum, natural gas, water or other fluid, whether liquid or gaseous, capable of being exported by means of pipe lines or other like contrivances, and produced in Canada.
Under that act no one can export natural gas from Canada without first receiving a permit so to do. I think that permit is issued now by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I believe I am right about that. This bill has a number of provisions, some of them very interesting, and is an obvious effort to conserve the gas produced for the people where it is produced.
In the city of Calgary we have certain problems among these companies which we are about to incorporate. Provision is made for building a pipe line to our border, and their idea is to carry it beyond the border, the largest sale being in the neighbourhood of Spokane, Seattle, Tacoma, and so on. That seems to be the closest market. There is another bill making provision for the bringing of this gas to Winnipeg, and the bringing of it further east into Ontario is contemplated by that company. I do not know just how

Pipe Lines Act
far they intend to go at this end. But there is provision in that bill that permits so granted may be cancelled at any time. There is provision in that bill that if any person exceeds the amount of gas covered by his permit one penalty, for instance, is cancellation of the permit. Other penalties are, of course, fines. I remember the sum of $5,000 being mentioned.
Under the main bill the idea is to put these pipe lines under the jurisdiction of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. I come back to the oil and gas conservation board of Alberta, which I mentioned a moment ago. I know a little about that situation because I drafted the act. There was a great row before the legislature of the province of Alberta when we tried to bring that about. We were fought by all the oil companies, but I think it is a fair statement to make-and perhaps the hon. member for Athabaska will bear me out-that it is now accepted as a very excellent piece of legislation.
I know, too, that the people of Alberta are anxious, not only to have a common carrier in the way of a pipe line, but that the owners of those pipe lines should be common purchasers. That means that any act of the owner of the pipe line discriminating against what we hear referred to so often as the smaller man will inevitably be done away with. With that, of course, I am in full agreement. We have some fears, however, if this bill passes as it is presently drafted. May I assure you, Mr. Chairman, as I said at the outset, that in the final result I do not intend to vote against the bill, because I know that an oil pipe line from Edmonton to Regina is a "must" at the present time. By trial and error I think we now have achieved in Alberta the best organization on the American continent for handling a situation concerning which the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada and its engineers know absolutely nothing. That is not said in criticism in any way. They know nothing because they have had no experience whatever in the matter.
For example, we have a situation which will arise there in the course of perhaps a matter of weeks. We will have over-production of oil, having regard to the refinery capacity in western Canada. The refineries are owned by two companies, the Imperial Oil Company and the B.A. Oil Company. The B.A. Oil Company has refineries at Moose Jaw and Calgary, and the Imperial Oil Company has refineries at Calgary, Edmonton and Regina, but the capacity is limited.


Mr. Burton:: Do not forget the co-operative refinery in Regina.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes, there is a small refinery there. I am very happy that they are also drilling their own wells in the Leduc area and are in the oil business. I am glad the hon. member mentioned that to me. We are going to reach the position very soon where our oil production will exceed the refining capacity. What this oil and gas conservation board must do, and will do, is to fix quotas on every well. We have had to do that before. They will have to fix quotas on every well so that each individual who is producing oil will get his share of whatever market there may be.
As I said, this board has had a lot of experience in Alberta, and they have tremendous experience as to the producing capacity of the wells. No doubt most of you have heard the expression, "gas-oil ratio". That means how many thousand feet of gas it takes to bring the oil to the surface where it can be used by man, where it can be refined, and all that sort of thing. By reason of their experience they are in a position to judge accurately, and they know when it is uneconomic to produce. In other words, you do not get enough for your oil for the amount of gas which you produce, and largely waste. All gas in the Turner valley is now rateably purchased by the Royalite Oil Company. It is not known by that name now; it is the Madison Pipe Line Company, but it is really the same outfit. Every person who produces gas there gets his rateable share of the gas which goes into the pipe line, and which is paid for in Calgary.
There is another feature that the Alberta government have very much in mind, and that is the tremendous future of the uses of natural gas, certainly in connection with salt, and the uses which can be made of it in an industrial way. You are all well aware that the government of Alberta built what we call an ammonia plant just outside of Calgary. There natural gas and natural gas alone supplied all the ammonia necessary in explosives manufactured in Canada, and a great deal of the requirements of the United States and Great Britain. That plant was designed by a Canadian chemical engineer, Mr. Richie Donald. I am very happy to mention his name here because United States interests have come up there time and time again, and down in Texas and along the gulf coast they are duplicating the type of plant he built in Canada. It is a great compliment to a Canadian engineer that he is being copied by the best men they have down there.
Today we do not need ammonia for that purpose. It is being used to make fertilizer, and the plant has been purchased by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company. Fertilizer from that plant is being sold in

competition with all other companies. It is being sold largely on the gulf coast of the United States, even in spite of the freight rates. Certainly under the Marshall plan a good deal of that fertilizer is going over to England.
I am anxious that the minister should give us some assurance on two points. The first is that these lines will be common purchasers. I can see nothing wrong with that. The second point on which I wish to have assurance from the minister is that the splendid machinery that the province of Alberta has set up in connection with production will not be disturbed. I am not saying for a moment that the dominion, with its board of transport commissioners, is going to take these powers away; but it does seem to me that in this bill we should have some statement affirming the fact that the present method of production may be continued.
In order to operate you must have constant supervision by production engineers to determine things such as gas-oil ratio, to determine at what rate the wells shall produce so that it may not injure the field, that one man may not injure his neighbours. You must have very exacting regulations with respect to the abandonment of wells. I tell you, sir, that when a well strikes water in a formation which a little higher up is producing oil and gas, the laws of nature work. The water is heaviest and is at the bottom, the oil is next and the gas is on top. If you improperly abandon one well which lets the water into the formation where prior to that fact there was no water you can immediately see what will happen. As the gas is withdrawn there is hydrostatic pressure behind the water and it comes up the producing horizon, and in that way you may lose a whole oil field. That has happened in other places and can easily happen with us.
There are two things that I should like to know. I want to know first of all that in my own city in southern Alberta steps will be taken by someone-again perhaps the question of jurisdiction will arise-to see to it, first, that we do not suffer from lack of gas, and second that we do not suffer in the price that we shall have to pay because higher prices may be offered by such cities as Seattle, Portland, Vancouver and Winnipeg, which may force our prices up.
I do not want to delay these bills, but I do seek to impress upon the minister not the necessity of going slowly, because this is an urgent thing-we have to do it-but the necessity of an assurance from him that as we proceed and gain experience we can have a review of this whole position so that the points that I am making can be taken care of.
Pipe Lines Act
I know three of the companies that are ready to proceed immediately. You will not build a pipe line to Winnipeg next summer because it is a slow process. You are building an oil line from Edmonton to Regina. It is a $30 million project and it is a sixteen-inch line. It should be a twenty-four inch line. That is what they wanted to build, but they simply could not get the rolled steel and so they are taking the best they can get and it will be a sixteen-inch line.
Perhaps this has not a great deal to do with it but, Mr. Chairman, I thought you might be interested in it. All oil comes from Turner valley to Calgary now by pipe line. Here is a rather strange thing. Say in the absorption plants there is a lot of white product. You cannot put a partition in a pipe line, so what they do is this. They just shut off the intake of crude and they put the white product behind it, and it goes all of that twenty-five miles, or wherever it is, into the refineries at Calgary, and the division is still there as plain as can be. In other words there is some quality about it which prevents it from mixing. The little bit of white product that is in with the heavier oil is refined by other means.
As I say, I am mentioning these two major points not to delay the matter further. I trust, sir, that you will forgive me for having taken more time than I had intended.


Solon Earl Low: I had not intended to speak at this stage but for the sake of economy of time and in order to give the minister an opportunity to answer the questions which the hon. member for Calgary West asked, as well as the questions that I shall raise, perhaps it would be wise at this stage to make a general statement and to mention two or three more specific matters.
At the outset let me assure the committee that we are desirous of having this bill passed at the earliest possible moment. We feel that it is a most important bill. So far as it provides authority for the regulation by the board of transport commissioners of pipe lines for conducting oil, we think that the bill is excellent. However, there are some things about it which I think the committee ought to weigh very carefully before the bill is passed. Let me say in a general way that the people of Alberta-that is the province that at this particular moment is most concerned with this legislation-do not feel that the bill as it stands provides sufficient protection either to the people in the province or to the oil and gas industries there and elsewhere in Canada.
By wise and effective policies the Alberta government has stimulated exploration and development of the oil and gas fields. It has

Pipe Lines Act
given that quality of leadership which has resulted in the remarkable development that has taken place in the past fifteen years. Moreover, the government of Alberta has very wisely taken every precaution to apply conservation measures designed to ensure three very important needs, namely, first, the fairest possible treatment of all producers in the province, whether large or small; second, the maximum possible recovery of petroleum products from the bowels of the earth; and third, continuous and adequate service to the Alberta people of the products that are brought up from the earth.
It is safe to say that the conservation program in Alberta, as it now stands, is considered to be the finest to be found in America. I cannot go beyond the boundaries of America because I do not know very much about other places, but certainly it applies to America. The best brains to be found in the world in the field of petroleum engineering have been applied to this problem. The minister of lands and mines, the Hon. Mr. Tanner, has applied himself brilliantly to the construction of this conservation program, and to him must go very great credit for its outstanding success to date. He and his colleagues, working in the closest co-operation with the oil and gas industries, have applied the lessons that have been learned over many decades from producers, from refiners and from carriers not only in the province but elsewhere in America. They likewise have learned many lessons from the experience of oil producers and companies within the province of Alberta going back to the early years of the present century-I suppose as far back as 1912, as the hon. member for Calgary West has said. Particularly valuable to them has been the unfortunate experience in the Turner valley, which was the first major field developed in Alberta. For many years no conservation methods were practised in that field. Gas was the lifting power which brought the oil to the surface from as far down as eight thousand feet.
The scramble and rush to get as much oil as possible out of the ground in the shortest possible time to meet the needs of the Canadian people wasted hundreds of cubic feet of a very valuable asset by allowing it to be burnt in huge flares after the liquid petroleum had been taken from the gas. For years these flares could be seen throughout the whole valley day and night. As a result of that terrific waste of gas in the Turner valley, the best experts available have estimated that 75 per cent of the potential oil supply in that field will remain under the ground. If you can just imagine it, only 25 per cent of the potential oil supply will be brought to the

surface simply because of the criminal wastage of the gas which lifts the oil to the surface.
These wells are very deep and, up to the present time, no satisfactory or successful pumping methods have been devised for them. It was as a result of this tragic experience that the present Alberta government, very early in its life, began the business of conserving gas pressure in order to secure the optimum production of liquid petroleum products. Various methods were used which I do not intend to describe this evening, but following the building of the conservation program a non-political petroleum and natural gas conservation board was set up to administer its provisions. As the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) has said, this board has done a remarkable job. They have looked after the needs of the people of Alberta and of the oil industry. They have devised methods of returning gas into the oil structure by what are known as repressuring methods so that it can be used over again for bringing liquid petroleum to the surface without wastage. They have devised also methods of pro-rating production that have succeeded in extending the maximum of justice and fairness to all producers, large and small. They have, without doubt, succeeded in preventing waste and in lengthening by many years the life of the oil and gas fields.
While doing all of this, the conservation program has ensured that the first call on oil and gas production will be for the purpose of servicing the needs of the Alberta people, and of continuing that service for as long a period as it is possible with the reserves that are available. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that the conservation policy adopted has been accepted wholeheartedly by the producers, and the policy has been so wisely administered that further intensive exploration and development has taken place. This has brought Alberta to the admirable position which she occupies today in the production of gas and oil.
There are a great many more things which I could say about this conservation program, but I must hurry on. Let me simply stress that it is essentially in the interests of all of the people of Canada that the Alberta government and the petroleum and natural gas conservation board shall not in any way be interfered with adversely in the continuation and further development of their conservation program. Like the member for Calgary West, I cannot stress that point too strongly. If anything were allowed to interfere, the interests of all Canada would be adversely affected to a greater extent than anyone now might realize. It is for that reason that the people of Alberta are so concerned about this

bill. It is therefore our responsibility as members of this parliament to see to it that nothing in the bill will adversely affect the life of the Alberta oil and gas fields, or adversely affect the interests of the people of Alberta who have first claim on the production of the fields, or prejudice the rights of individuals or producers in the various fields. Likewise, it is just as important that we see that everything is in the bill which is required to give full protection to those measures which are designed and are now being applied to ensure the optimum of life and production of the various oil and gas fields in Alberta, or in any other province for that matter.
This bill has been before a committee and while it was before the committee the minister of mines and lands in the province of Alberta made a presentation, as did the attorney general of the province of Alberta, on the legal phases of the bill. The Hon. Mr. Tanner, who is the man in charge of the development of oil and gas in the province and who has had a long and successful experience in that field, made a rather lengthy statement to the committee from which I should like to quote briefly. I should like to do so in order to show the members exactly how the people of Alberta feel about this program which I say is in danger of being adversely affected if we are not careful about the terms of this bill.
Mr. Tanner says:
Now. to go further with this returning of the gas to the structure: our practice today puts the company in the position where it buys the gas we say it can, reserving or conserving the gas that we need to continue our production and get greater ultimate recovery. Now, that practice has been carried on for years. There is no objection raised by the companies, producers, or anybody else, because they know that over a period of years they are going to benefit. Now, this gas may be returned to the structure for two purposes; either to conserve the gas for future use, or to use it for repressuring purposes. You should have more oil with conservation. Now, let me deal with this briefly: First, we have the return of the gas to the structure; and to me, Mr. Chairman, that is just as essential as anything we can do in production, and it makes all the difference in the long run whether the business is to be a profitable one or otherwise. And if you wish to check on the soundness or otherwise of such a conservation program you have only to take the Commercial Commission in Texas-they are just getting around to this point now; in fact, as a result of their latest legislation they have put themselves in the position where they can carry out this program right to the letter.
He means the type of conservation program which is now in effect in Alberta. He continues as follows:
After all, our position is that of a young producing province and we have been able to learn and to benefit as a result of their experience;
Pipe Lines Act
He is speaking of the people in the various states in the United States, including Texas. Then, he continues:
We in Canada-I speak particularly of Alberta- own 90 per cent of all the mineral rights in the province, and that gives us authority over our own minerals which they do not have in many of the states. From that it will be clear to you, I am sure, that the return of this gas is essential, and that we must have this regulation which provides that a company will buy gas from the fields we designate and in the quantities we designate. In other words, we want them to honour our conservation program.
Those are the words Mr. Tanner used. He is speaking on behalf of 800,000 people in Alberta. The people of Alberta feel fairly sure that the province has the right to apply the conservation methods to industries within the province. But constitutionally, the province has absolutely no jurisdiction over interprovincial pipe lines and hence cannot declare them to be common carriers or common purchasers. It is impractical, I have been told, to make gas pipe lines common carriers as it is possible to do in the case of oil pipe lines, but the people of Alberta feel that a satisfactory alternative to declaring gas lines as common carriers would be to declare them common purchasers. What do we mean by declaring the gas pipe lines common purchasers? Here is the answer. I will try to explain it briefly. If a gas pipe line is declared to be a common purchaser, then the company would be required to purchase gas from all producers in a field if the producers have the gas for sale and offer it for sale at a competitive price. This, of course, is provided that the pipe line extends into and begins purchasing from that field. This provision would be designed to ensure fair and just treatment to all producers in that particular field. Let me emphasize to the committee that, without this provision, there could be no guarantee whatever that all of the producers, large or small, in that particular field would receive fair and just treatment from the pipe line company.
Let me just illustrate. It is perfectly possible in a certain field-for example, in the Leduc field, if that is where the pipe line company intends getting some of its gas-for a gas pipe line company to get control, let us say, of three out of four wells on 160 acres or a quarter section of land, but not get control of the fourth well. If they begin purchasing gas from the three wells of which they have control, but neglect the fourth and just let it go, it is possible for that gas pipe line to drain all of the gas out from under the fourth well and to take that well's assets away from it, and it is possible for them to be sold down the pipe line without any compensation whatever to the fourth well. That is not fair treatment. That is why it is abso-

Pipe Lines Act
lutely essential that in this bill somewhere there be a provision to enable the board of transport commissioners to declare a pipe line carrying gas to be a common purchaser, making it necessary for them to purchase from all the wells, all producers, in a field if they penetrate that field and begin to buy, provided of course that will apply-


Mr. Jaenicke:: Pro rata.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, pro rata of course. In the second place, by declaring a pipe line company a common purchaser, it would be possible for the board to ensure equitably pro-rated production or pro-rated reduction in production if the interests of the field and/or the people of the province require it. It has been argued, and will be argued further I suppose, that the province has the right already to apply its conservation measures even to the extent of declaring the pipe line company a common purchaser within the province. But I say, Mr. Chairman, that there is grave doubt at the very best as to whether the province has sufficient right- that amount that would make it possible to avoid serious and grave constitutional difficulties at a later time.


John Horne Blackmore: An unchallengeable right.


Solon Earl Low: Yes. What the people require, and what they are entitled to under the circumstances, is an unchallengeable right to the declaring of a pipe line company a common purchaser and for the exercise and application of all of these regulations of the natural gas conservation board. There is at least reasonable uncertainty about it; and because of that uncertainty the Alberta people are asking for certain amendments. When we come to the proper clause I propose, on behalf of the people of Alberta, to submit amendments particularly covering this question of common purchaser, and we shall see what happens to them.


William Henry Golding: We have allowed rather wide discussion on clause 1. I note particularly from what the last speaker said that he will discuss certain proposals when we come to the appropriate clause.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the chairman please speak more loudly?


William Henry Golding: What is actually before the committee at the present time is clause 1; that is the short title. If hon. members could refrain from making second-reading speeches until we get to the particular clause they wish to discuss, I think we would make more progress.


Mr. Harkness:: In view of your remarks, Mr. Chairman, I shall say little at this point. The hon. member for Calgary West gave an

excellent and clear exposition of the background of oil and gas development in Alberta. As a result, I think he has put all hon. members of the house in possession of the picture so that they have or should have a fairly good idea of what this bill is about. Consequently I shall make only two observations at this time.
First I should like to make it absolutely clear that I am completely convinced of the necessity of a bill such as this which will make it possible to construct pipe lines which will enable the oil now being produced in Alberta to be marketed. I pointed out earlier in this session that the coming big problem -the one which is now upon us in Alberta- is the matter of transportation and marketing of the oil. Those problems can be solved only by the construction of pipe lines. The pipe line which the Imperial Oil is at present starting to build from Edmonton to Regina is an absolute necessity; and the sooner that it can be constructed, the better for the economy of the entire country.
I think, however, this bill can be improved in certain respects. As we go forward through the clauses I trust that the minister will be agreeable to receiving amendments in connection with some of them, particularly to protect the people in Alberta who are probably most directly concerned at the present time and will be most concerned in the future, particularly as to the export of gas. Personally, I have an amendment that I wish to propose. As I say, my chief interest in the matter at this time is the protection of the consumers of gas in Calgary and southern Alberta. I am sorry that this bill is being dealt with at a time when we are rushed, and when everybody is anxious to get through the thing as rapidly as possible. I trust, however, that that fact will not militate against the acceptance of amendments which I think would improve the bill; and I believe it can be improved considerably in some respects.


Lionel Chevrier: I think perhaps I should immediately put at rest the minds of hon. members who have spoken, in connection with some of the points which they have brought up. I do not think there is any doubt that the house in general will favour the principle of this bill as exemplified by the three speeches which we have heard from the opposition, first because of the necessity of the bill and next because, in one particular case at least, of its urgency. But I am somewhat surprised at the remarks of one hon. gentleman who has great knowledge of the law, in that he should have any fears at all in connection with the matters which he submitted. That is why I want to rise at this stage to put his mind and the minds

of others immediately at rest. Let there be no misunderstanding about this bill. It proceeds in no way to take over the rights of the provinces or to invade their field. It is a bill of federal nature simply because, as the hon. member for Calgary West stated, the pipe lines extend from one province to another. If it were possible to move the oil within the limits of one, two or three provinces, then this legislation would not be necessary. So that on the question of interference with the Alberta oil and gas conservation board, let me assure the leader of the Social Credit party, and the two hon. members from Calgary, that there is not the slightest intention on the part of the government or in any of the terms of the bill, to interfere with the program of conservation of that body, or with its activities in any way whatsoever. And I do not think it could, even if it wanted to, because this parliament has not jurisdiction so to do.
The hon. member for Calgary West wants to be reassured of two things, the first of which was that these lines should be or will be common purchasers. I said a moment ago to him, when his attention had been momentarily drawn away from the debate by one of his colleagues, that he is too good a lawyer and knows too much about constitutional law to suggest that introducing the element of common purchasers would be a matter within the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament.
I say this to him with a great deal of deference. The matter was gone into carefully before the committee. The attorney general of Alberta moved an amendment seeking to make the carriers of gas pipe lines common purchasers. When he and his associates discussed this with me, I indicated immediately a doubt concerning the legality of that position. He said, "Perhaps you are right, but it is a matter which I think should be given consideration." I did give it very careful consideration, and submitted it de novo to our legal officers. They immediately came to the conclusion that not only would it be dangerous but that it was ultra vires of the federal parliament to attempt to make these common purchasers.
There is no intention on the part of the bill to control in any way the question of production or of prices. Those are matters of provincial jurisdiction, and we are not going to enter upon them in any way whatsoever. This bill deals with the transportation and construction of gas and oil pipe lines and the transportation thereof from one province into another. Neither does it deal with export of gas and oil. I did not wish to interrupt the hon. member who spoke a moment ago when he made reference to that very import-
Pipe Lines Act
ant matter; but I should point out to him that this bill has nothing to do with the export of gas and oil. The bill does not touch that in any way. It is a fact that the act dealing with the export of fluid and electricity has something to do with the export of electricity and, incidentally, of gas. But certainly this bill has absolutely nothing to do with that.
The second assurance the hon. member desired to receive was that the people of Alberta should not be disturbed in their control over the production. I can give him the assurance immediately that they will not be. This bill does not seek to control the production. I do not think parliament has the right to do that, and certainly I know of no attempt in any of the provisions of the bill to interfere with control or production. So that the pro-rating of oil and gas, to which he referred, will not be interfered with in any way.
The leader of the Social Credit party wants to have the assurance that sufficient protection is provided to the people of Alberta and to the oil companies. I believe that was the expression he used. I do not think there is the slightest doubt that the rights of the people of Alberta, so far as their natural resources are concerned, are left in the same manner and in the same position after the passage of this measure as they now are. So that they will not be interfered with.
Then, oil companies made representations to the committee. In so far as I could ascertain from their evidence, I think they were unanimous in their support of the bill. The hon. member for Calgary West referred in glowing terms to Mr. Richie Donald. I had a great deal to do with that gentleman during the war years, when I was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Munitions and Supply at that time. Mr. Donald was director general of chemicals and explosives, and did an outstanding job for Canada in those years. He has been here to consult the authorities on more than one occasion in connection with this bill, and I believe he is satisfied with its terms.
The hon. member for Calgary East wanted to be assured that the people of Alberta would be protected in so far as the export of gas was concerned. I believe I have sufficiently covered that point.
I hope I have succeeded in convincing the committee that there is no attempt whatever to control prices or production, or to interfere in any way with the operations of the Alberta oil and gas conservation board, or any of the rights of the provinces in connection with their natural resources.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Would the minister permit a question, for purposes of clarification? Did I understand him to stay that it would not be possible to export?

Pipe Lines Act


Lionel Chevrier: That it would not be?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Not under this bill; this bill does not control the export of gas or oil. It has to do with the construction of pipe lines.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But it would not prohibit it?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh no.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Chairman, not having legal training I must confess that sometimes these matters puzzle me, and they may be puzzling some other members. I have reference to the difference between the jurisdiction of the federal government and that of provincial governments in a matter of this kind.
I heard the assurance given by the minister, and I must confess he has me pretty well convinced. However there are one or two points about which I should like to ask him. Since the railways bear some analogy to the case with which we are dealing, in view of the fact that they come under the same authority, why is it that a railway when it is dealing with labour in British Columbia is not subject to the British Columbia minimum wage laws? How is it that they are subject to federal regulations? Labour is a commodity-


William Henry Golding: Order. The committee at the present time is discussing the short title, section 1 of the bill, which states that, "This act may be cited as the Pipe Lines Act."


Rodney Young: My question has to do with the minister's recent remarks made under the same section.


Lionel Chevrier: I could answer the hon. member's question, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the bill. It is a constitutional matter which would require some time to explain. It is a fact that the conditions of labour on the Canadian National Railways, for instance, are governed by a national agreement, and that it would be quite impractical to have different labour legislation affecting the operators of the railways in nine or ten different provinces. This procedure is by virtue of an agreement between the men and the company. Then there is a further legal problem which I do not wish to discuss at this time.


Rodney Young: If a pipe line goes through two or more provinces, with one province under its jurisdiction making a decision that the pipe line shall be considered a common carrier, while the next province says it is not a common carrier, does not the same thing apply?


Lionel Chevrier: It is not the province which would do that. This bill seeks to give the power to the board of transport commissioners to decide whether an oil company may be a common carrier.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The point I tried to make with respect to jurisdiction was that this bill must be read in conjunction with the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act. In that act the power is given to the governor in council to make regulations and to issue permits. No one may export gas from Canada without a permit issued under chapter 54.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Here are some of the powers given to the governor in council by section 3:
The governor in council may make regulations not inconsistent with this act for giving effect to the object and intention thereof, and by such regulations may impose fees to be paid thereunder by applicants for licences or others.
2. Such regulations shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days after the making thereof-
Then it speaks about proclamation in the Canada Gazette and exemptions and then section 5 reads:
No person shall export any power or fluid without a licence, or any power or fluid in excess of the quantity permitted by his licence, or otherwise than as permitted by such licence.
Then the act goes on to forbid the construction of lines without a licence. Then with respect to licence to export section 6 says:
Subject to any regulations of the governor in council in that behalf, the governor in council may grant licences, upon such conditions as he thinks proper, for the exportation of power or fluid where a right to export exists by lawful authority.
2. Such licence shall be revocable upon such notice to the licensee as the governor in council deems reasonable in each case.
Then there is provision that the governor in council may set out the provisions of a licence and subsection 2 of section 7 reads:
Every such licence shall be revocable at will by the governor in council if the licensee refuses or neglects to comp_ly with any of the conditions imposed with regard to the'supply and distribution of power or fluid in Canada.
Under that statute the government has taken the authority to cancel licences and do all sorts of things with respect to the production and distribution of power or fluid. I think the minister will credit me with saying at the outset that I did not suggest there was a jurisdictional quarrel, but I have been confused by the act I have just been reading. There is no doubt that under that act the government has the right to make regulations and there is no doubt whatsoever that under regulation they could make the export of gas in compliance with the rights of the board to which I have referred. I hope the minister

follows me because I think that is stated rather plainly in the legislation.
It may be that what I have just been reading is beyond the jurisdiction of the dominion government, and I am not going to suggest that it may be. What I am trying to do is to have this problem cleared up. It would be very simple for the minister to give assurance that those who know how to handle this business are not going to be interfered with by those who do not know anything about it. I am not being critical of the board of transport commissioners, but it does seem to me that it would be a great waste of time to set up a technical staff under that board, which will have to be done if that board is going to do the things it is allowed to do, when such a staff is set up already and operating most successfully in Alberta.


Lionel Chevrier: I hope the hon. gentleman in his anxiety to be helpful is not confusing the provisions of this bill with those of the act he has just cited. The board of transport commissioners will have certain powers, more particularly set out in sections 12, 13, 14 and 15, but they certainly will not have power to authorize the export of gas or fluids. That power, with which we are not dealing at the moment, is in the hands of the governor in council.
The bill with which we are dealing has to do with the construction of pipe lines for gas and oil. My experience with respect to the export of power is quite limited, but it has been the practice for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe)-taking Ontario as an example-to communicate with the hydroelectric commission when there is any question of the export of power from that province. I take it that in connection with the export of fuel or gas the practice will be the same.
Then again the question may never arise. There may never be set up or authorized by this parliament a company with power to export gas from Canada. I presume that when that condition arises it will be dealt with under the act to which my hon. friend has referred.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Let us carry
this to its logical conclusion. I say again that I am not being critical for criticism's sake. If I understand the minister correctly, he says that this bill has nothing to do with the export of gas or the movement of gas, it merely provides that certain persons may be given the right to carry it by pipe line. But rights of expropriation are provided for under this bill within the province. Certainly the province has the right to expropriate or to authorize
Pipe Lines Act
other persons to expropriate within the province. As I say, this act provides for expropriation.
I know the Railway Act does the same thing, as I had something to do with it, but the question of jurisdiction is not just as simple or clear-cut as the minister suggests.


Lionel Chevrier: I have the opinion of
Justice.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am glad to hear that. I have had a tremendous amount of experience in expropriation proceedings for railways and that sort of thing. I am not saying for one moment that Justice is wrong, but I think I may be forgiven if I have some doubt in my mind as to whether this bill does not interfere with jurisdiction. I shall say no more.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Speaking, not as a member of the government but just as a lawyer, may I say that I was very interested in listening to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. In our respective practices we have had to do with matters that are affected by this statutory legislation. I had always been under the impression that in my province the provincial government, representing the crown in the right of the province, had, as owner of the natural resources of the province, the right to say what should be done with them. In my province the legislature of Quebec has said that no one enjoying a licence to cut timber on crown land can export that timber in an unmanufactured condition. I think as the owners of the fee, being vested with the ownership of these forests, they have the right to say that, just as in British Columbia it was held that they had the right to say what kind of people should work in underground mines that were held under concessions from the crown.
They do that not as legislators but as owners who determine how they want their property to be used. When it comes to external trade, of which export is a portion, I would imagine that the federal parliament would have the right of veto, would have the right to say, "You are not exporting anything, no matter where you take it from, unless you get a licence under this act." But I do not think the parliament of Canada would have the right to say to those operating on crown lands in the province of Quebec, "You shall have the right to export wood cut on those crown lands." That wood is simply not exportable. I would imagine it might be the same situation with respect to gas taken from concessions in any other province. I would imagine the province would have the right to say, "We will allow you to exploit these lands provided you do not send the product from these lands outside Canada."

Pipe Lines Act
In that case I do not think any licence granted under federal authority would authorize a concessionaire to export contrary to the conditions of his concession from the owners, that is to say, the provincial government.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is a term of the contract.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: A term of the contract, and I do not think, whatever be the terms of the federal legislation with respect to permits, that such a permit could give one holding a concession the right to violate his contract. It might very well be that, although the owner under the contract did not forbid exportation, parliament could say, "We will not allow you to export gas because we have the control of foreign trade, we will not allow that commodity to go out without a permit, and we will not give you a permit." I do not think, however, they could do the reverse and say, "We will allow you to export it no matter what the province, as the owner of the land from which it is taken, wants you to do with it."


Solon Earl Low: At this point I think the Prime Minister might be able to reconcile the opinions which have been expressed by him with those expressed by the minister to his left.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They are reconciled.


Solon Earl Low: I hope they are. In doing so I hope he will feel like giving us a statement tonight that will clarify the whole position and set at rest the minds of the people of Alberta. I want to deal with the very question that has been the subject of discussion between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Calgary West. While the Prime Minister was in Edmonton he was approached by newspaper reporters and was asked specific questions with regard to the export of gas from that province. The Prime Minister was interviewed by the Edmonton Journal, and, as reported in that paper on April 12, he said:
The product, natural gas, is an Alberta natural resource, not a dominion one. There has been legislation interfering-
Meaning in other provinces.
-with the wishes of private interests in similar cases concerning resources. The dominion government cannot authorize or order the export of a provincial resource. The dominion government would have no right to step in if the province decided against export. That is a decision for the Alberta government and the voters of Alberta.
In the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines the Minister of Transport said this just yesterday:
Now the dominion government has the right to control the imports and exports of a province. Of

that there can be no doubt. That is clearly set out in the British North America Act, and if that is clearly set out why should that power be limited by asking the written consent of the province to do thus and so. That is the main objection.
Here is the point, and I think it is the point at which the hon. member for Calgary West was aiming, and on which I have not been satisfied as yet. Let us say a pipe line company is organized and a pipe line built to convey gas out of the province of Alberta to the province of Manitoba. It begins to operate under this act as it now stands, and let us say it goes into the Kinsella field in Alberta and begins to purchase gas for transportation out of the province. The petroleum and natural gases conservation board find that the situation demands the return of that gas to the structure for conservation purposes, and they so order, but the gas is being purchased by the pipe line company under this act, and the dominion government, through the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, is the only one that can regulate the movement of that gas out of Alberta and into Manitoba.
What we want to know is, will the order of the conservation board apply? Will it not be interfered with? Will it be possible under the act as it stands for them to say that the gas will go back into repressure so as to make possible the optimum recovery of liquid petroleum, or will it be possible for the company to flout the order of the board and say, "We are going to take this out because the act says we can"? That is the position we are in, and we want to know definitely where we stand.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I cannot change the constitution. In my view the resources of a province are controlled by the legislation of that province. If there is legislation in the province of Alberta saying that the owners of fields where there is gas must comply with regulations made by a board set up under the authority of that legislation, I think as a lawyer they would have to do so, because that is control of property and civil rights within the province. The federal government has the right to control export but it cannot force export. It cannot say that property belonging to the hon. member shall be taken from him and exported.


Solon Earl Low: I haven't any.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The laws relating to the hon. member's property are under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature, but if it is something that is free to be dealt with the federal government can say, notwithstanding that it is free to be dealt with, "We will not give you a permit to export it unless you comply with such and such regulation".


Arthur Leroy Smith: Or to cross a boundary.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Or to cross a boundary- unless you comply with such and such regulation. But they cannot make exportable something that is governed by a provincial law which makes it non-exportable.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is it not the situation that once the gas or oil is produced it is a product the same as wheat? Wheat which is grown becomes a product. Once it is in that stage it is produced goods, and the province then has no right to prevent its export to another province, in spite of what the Prime Minister has just said. I think that is where the difficulty is likely to arise.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In spite of what the hon. member has just said, the legislature of the province of Quebec has made pulpwood, which is a product of the forest, non-exportable from Canada in an unmanufactured state. That has been going on for over thirty years, and that law has been respected and followed, and is and has been in practice, recognized as valid legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
George Alexander Cruickshank: I happen to be sponsoring a bill of one of these private companies. I want assurance that it will not be run through tonight because, apart from the Prime Minister and the leader of the Social Credit party, most hon. members who have spoken have mumbled and could not be heard. I want assurance that these bills will not be passed tonight.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There are no private bills to be passed tonight.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If we had a loud speaker in this chamber we could hear all hon. members.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-General rules as to construing.
Howard Charles Green: Section 3 provides for the special acts. Will these acts be referred to the committee on railway, canals and telegraph lines?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry that the chairman of the standing orders committee is not here. He has been dealing with that. My understanding is that this came before the committee on standing orders today and that a motion was made covering the point. I am not in a position to say whether the bills will be going before that committee, but I presume the usual practice will be followed.
Pipe Lines Act


Howard Charles Green: When the bill was up for second reading it was suggested by members of the various opposition parties that not only this foundation bill but also the special acts should be referred to that committee, and I would ask that that be done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Standing order 104 makes it compulsory.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that they will be referred to the committee.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The committee to which the minister referred is the committee that considered petitions. It dealt with certain irregularities which were said to exist in the form of the petitions.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Board may order inspection or inquiry.
Howard Charles Green: Apparently the board of transport commissioners is given wide powers to regulate these companies and to carry out the regulations under the bill. Has the board any staff who can do that work? It does seem to me that it would be necessary to have experts if the job is to be done properly and if this work is not to be merely a formality.


Lionel Chevrier: Of course the board of transport commissioners will get additional staff if it is required; but there would be no object in taking on staff until it is known what companies are going to proceed. We do know that one company is anxious to proceed immediately the legislation goes through. In so far as the others are concerned there is no knowledge, and there would be no object in setting up a large staff until it is known what will be required of the board. There are sufficient engineers now to deal with one application, and if more are required they will be obtained.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Powers of company.
Mr. Hazen:: When land is taken without the consent of the owner where is provision found in the bill for taking the land?


Lionel Chevrier: Section 30 deals with that point.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 to 28 inclusive agreed to.
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, this is not a relay race. There has been so much noise that we could not tell when you were calling any

Pipe Lines Act
special clause. May I ask that you revert to section 24?


William Ross Macdonald: That has been passed.


Solon Earl Low: I know you raced along.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member wishes us to revert to section 24; is that the idea?


Solon Earl Low: Yes. In view of the statement which the Prime Minister has made, and particularly because I have not yet been convinced that the two statements, the one that I quoted which was made by the Prime Minister in Edmonton and the one made in the committee by the Minister of Transport, have been reconciled, and because I still feel that the province of Alberta or any other province which produces oil and gas is not sufficiently protected under the terms of this bill, I am going to move, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), the following amendment, which would be 24(a):
No company shall transport out ot or export from any province oil or gas produced in that province without the written consent of the lieutenant governor in council of that province.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That would be an interference with provincial jurisdiction. If the provincial legislature wishes that to be the law in the province it can do so by its own legislation if it can be done at all under our constitution. This would be making legislation here for a province. If the province wishes to have that applicable within its territory, and if anyone can do it, the province has the right to do it by its own legislation. But I think this amendment would be an unwarranted attempt by this parliament to deal with something which, if it can be done at all, is within the jurisdiction of the province. The province has the right to make its own laws about its own resources. If it wants the laws to be such that written permission will have to be obtained it can do so, but why should we say so when it is something which is within the jurisdiction of the province?


Solon Earl Low: My answer to that is simply that it would be a recognition on the part of the federal government that in putting through this bill the rights of the people of Alberta and of any other province that produces gas and oil will be respected, and that their program of conservation would not be interfered with.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just add one word? In the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines a written amendment was offered covering this point and it was voted down. Later on it was admitted by those who proposed the amendment that it might well be of doubtful validity as regards the federal

parliament. After that another amendment was proposed such as the one which my hon. friend now emphasizes.


Solon Earl Low: That admission was not made by anyone with whom I was associated.


Lionel Chevrier: I am saying that the admission was made to me that the first amendment was of doubtful validity. I will go a step further and say this. The attorney general of the province of Alberta I think at one stage stated: "If it is felt that this amendment does not meet the point because it may or may not be doubtful then I now move this one", and he produced this, which I think goes further-I said so and I say it now with all respect-in so far as the constitutional aspect is concerned than the original one. The Prime Minister has covered the point far better than I can. I think there is no doubt but that this is imposing a condition on section 24 which is entirely out of order.


Solon Earl Low: I feel so keenly about this matter-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. member will permit me, I have a rather important announcement to make to parliament which was to be released at nine o'clock. Will he permit me to suggest that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again this day so that I can make this announcement to parliament.
Progress reported.	[DOT]



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, might I have the consent of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of making an announcement to the house which it was agreed might be made at an hour corresponding to 2.00 a.m. Thursday, London time, that is nine o'clock daylight saving time tonight in Ottawa. It has to do with the prime ministers' meeting in London and is in the following form:
During the past week the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs have met in London to exchange views upon the important constitutional issues arising from India's decision to adopt a republican form of constitution and her desire to continue her membership of the commonwealth.
The discussions have been concerned with the effects of such a development upon the existing structure of the commonwealth and the constitutional relations between its members. They have been conducted in an atmosphere of good will and mutual understanding, and have had as their historical background the traditional capacity of the

commonwealth to strengthen its unity of purpose, while adapting its organization and procedures to changing circumstances.
After full discussion the representatives of the governments of all the commonwealth countries have agreed that the conclusions reached should be placed on record in the following declaration:
"The governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, whose countries are united as members of the British commonwealth of nations and owe a common allegiance to the crown, which is also the symbol of their free association, have considered the impending constitutional changes in India.
The government of India have informed the other governments of the commonwealth of the intention of the Indian people that under the new constitution which is about to be adopted India shall become a sovereign independent republic. The government of India have however declared and affirmed India's desire to continue her full membership of the commonwealth of nations and her acceptance of the king as the symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such the head of the commonwealth.
The governments of the other countries of the commonwealth, the basis of whose membership of the commonwealth is not hereby changed, accept and recognize India's continuing membership in accordance with the terms of this declaration.
Accordingly, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon hereby declare that they remain united as free and equal members of the commonwealth of nations, freely co-operating in the pursuit of peace, liberty and progress."
These constitutional questions have been the sole subject of discussion at the full meetings of prime ministers.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, all hon. members and all Canadians will rejoice in this new demonstration of the traditional capacity of the commonwealth to strengthen its unity of purpose while adapting its organization and procedures to changed circumstances. Everyone will rejoice in the fact that, notwithstanding the exercise by the people of India of their right to determine the form of their domestic government, it has been found possible to have India remain a member of the commonwealth and to continue for the peace of the world the association of those nations whose traditions give them the same concept of a proper way of living and of democratic processes designed to further the welfare of the men and women of their respective nations.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I know that the information which the Prime Minister has just given to the house will meet with the warm satisfaction of every member of this house, and of the people of Canada as a whole. This is one of the most momentous decisions made in many years. India embraces approximately one-fifth of the world's population. This is the first occasion in the long history of the British partnership of nations that an eastern nation, with a long tradition extend-
Commonwealth Conference ing into the ancient background of Asia, has joined as a full and free partner with the other nations of the commonwealth.
This is indeed a great achievement of understanding and good will. It may well mark the beginning of a new period of growth and development of the greatest institution of free men that the world has known. It will be recalled that on different occasions in the past a suggestion has been made concerning the extension of this great democratic fellowship, to which we belong, to nations other than those which previously had been members. It will be recalled that one of the leading statesmen of the commonwealth, during the years of war, suggested the possibility that membership in the commonwealth might be extended to certain of the western European nations.
Whether that suggestion ever becomes a reality, at least it can be said today that the British commonwealth takes on a new scope and new meaning with this free and voluntary association of a great Asiatic nation of more than 400 million people, associated now with Pakistan and with the other eastern nations as well as the nations of the western world which belong to that commonwealth. We now see a broader foundation for the carrying forward of our ideals than we have known within our lifetime. I think every member present will join in what has already been said in expressing satisfaction at this fortunate result, and expressing the hope that this may be the beginning of an ever-widening and strengthening friendship between those in Great Britain, on the North American continent, in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and now in Asia, to assure a common idea of human freedom.
Mr. M. J. Cold well (Roselown-Biggar): Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that everyone in this chamber tonight is thrilled by the announcement that has just been made. I should like to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) in saying that this is indeed an historic occasion. This commonwealth, of which we are proud members, has not been created according to any preconceived notion. It has "broadened down," as Tennyson said, "from precedent to precedent." Founded first as an empire, it is sometimes said to have been acquired indeed in fits of absentmindedness. But be that as it may, it has developed at last into something better than our forefathers could have conceived. I think that this is a great tribute to the statesmanship of the government which saw that the granting of freedom to India would obviate much strife and suffering, and would cement rather than destroy the relationships among the component parts of this
2656	HOUSE OF
Commonwealth Conference commonwealth. It was said by a great statesman for whom I have every respect, though I sometimes disagree with him, that he could not preside over the liquidation of the British empire. This is not the liquidation of the British empire. This is the evolution of something far greater than the empire has ever been. I recall an interesting conversation which I had with one of the Indian delegates at the recent commonwealth conference in London. We were at Oxford together the last Sunday of the conference. He said, "You know, this is a great and steady people." He was referring to the people of the British isles. He said, "Your country and mine would do well to remain as close to them as we can." I replied, "The announcement that has been made from time to time at this conference by your delegates that you anticipate that India will soon be an independent republic might make it difficult indeed to find a suitable method of retaining our association." He said to me, "Oh, well, I know; but these British will succeed in finding a formula." I think it is the glory of our parliamentary democracy that when we have to make changes we make them in this way -by consent-and thus new formulas can be found.
Let me add this. The announcement just made should also bring to our minds a thought more arresting than even those which have already been expressed. We are now associated with a great people differing in creed, in colour and in all that guides the long evolution of a race and determines its characteristics. I hope that this will enable us in our country, and those in the countries associated with us, to end forever every vestige of racial and religious discrimination and intolerance among the peoples of this commonwealth.


Solon Earl Low: I feel that I should join with the other hon. gentlemen who have spoken in expressing our great satisfaction that statesmanship has triumphed and that India has decided to remain in close association with the other parts of the British commonwealth. While I was at the United Nations assembly in the autumn of 1947 I almost came to the conclusion that India would not stay within the association of nations, the British commonwealth. There seemed to be considerable bitterness, and some of the delegates there were free to express that bitterness toward the western world, Britain and all things British. However, at the parliamentary conference in London last autumn there was a great improvement in the attitude of the representatives from India and we saw some hope there that India would reconsider and would yet stay within the commonwealth.
[Mr. Coldwell.1

Now she has decided that, while expressing her freedom, she will voluntarily remain a member of the commonwealth and stand shoulder to shoulder with all the others in the march forward to much greater achievements and particularly in establishing more firmly the solidarity of that great commonwealth as the greatest force for peace and security in the world.
We are happy, Mr. Speaker, and highly gratified at the announcement that has been made jointly here and in the other parts of the empire this night.



PIPE LINES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 190, respecting oil or gas pipe lines-Mr. Chevrier-Mr. Golding in the chair.
Solon Earl Low: With regard to this amendment which I have moved to be called clause 24(a), just before the vote is taken-and I do not wish to delay the committee for more than a moment or two-I should like just to present to the committee the feeling of the people of Alberta with respect to this whole matter. They are concerned. In the last two days I have read editorials in practically every newspaper within the province of Alberta commenting on the seriousness of the situation with respect to this bill dealing with pipe lines and the export of gas in general. I should like to quote briefly from the editorial in the Lethbridge Herald of March 9, 1949, as just one representative pronouncement of the kind:
The one suggestion of the Dinning commission which is of special importance is that, if it comes to exporting some of our natural gas, then the government of Alberta should accept the responsibility for co-ordinating the supply which is available for that purpose, and that it should be the sole agency for making the deal on behalf of the people of Alberta.
Then this is the important point:
That means that natural gas export should not be made a wide open promotional scheme with little or no control on the producing end. We entirely agree with that. If we have gas we can spare over and above a reasonable reserve for Alberta's own needs for a very considerable future period, then the government must be the agency of the people in seeing that it is brought together and allocated.
It is the desire of the people of Alberta to make whatever gas there may be available, available for purchase, and to be able to control the situation so that the field will not suffer because of lack of pressure. In the committee the other day, the Hon. Lucien Maynard, attorney general of the province of Alberta, in dealing with this whole constitutional question, wisely I think said this, as

will be found in the transcript of evidence before the committee:
My only wish is that the advisers to the province of Alberta could be as emphatic in their views on the constitutional questions involved as are the advisers to the dominion department.
One of the problems we face is that our mineral rights are not all held by the crown. Some are held by the crown, but some are privately held. When we come to deal with crown rights, we are in a far different position to that of dealing with mineral rights held privately and disposed of privately.
We have the whole province checkered with mineral rights which are held here and there by the crown and in the same area there are mineral rights which are held by private corporations or individuals.
The constitutional question is complicated by the fact that you have to deal with the ownership of mineral rights. Our object in drafting the suggested amendment was to enable the province to retain control for purposes of conservation of these mineral rights held either by the crown or by individuals, and also to provide for a common purchaser of minerals produced, whether those minerals were produced from crown lands or from privately owned lands.
I do not wish to go further. I wish merely to emphasize the feeling of unrest on the part of the people of Alberta, and their desire to see to it that every effort was made to put into this bill those protecting clauses which would make absolutely sure that the conservation program will not be interfered with. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am content to have the amendment go to a vote.


William Ross Macdonald: All in favour of the amendment will say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


William Ross Macdonald: Those opposed will say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


William Ross Macdonald: In my opinion the nays have it.


Solon Earl Low: I should like to have a standing vote, Mr. Chairman.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 52, nays, 53.


William Ross Macdonald: I declare the amendment
lost.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, two members walked in on the other side while the vote was being taken.
Section 24 agreed to.
On section 30-Application of Railway Act.


Douglas King Hazen: As we are making rapid progress, I should like to ask a question with respect to section 21 (1), with particular reference to the words, "lands vested in the crown." Does that refer to lands vested in the crown in the right of the dominion?


Lionel Chevrier: No, in the right of the province.
Pipe Lines Act


Douglas King Hazen: Do we not usually refer to the lieutenant governor in council, when we speak of the province?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed it covers both.


Douglas King Hazen: I do not think it is clear. There is no definition of the word "crown" in the interpretation section.


Lionel Chevrier: It follows rather closely the practice in the Railway Act.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section carry?


Howard Charles Green: No. I should like to ask-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. May I point out that the section to which the hon. member for Saint John-Albert referred is already carried. We are now discussing section 30.


Howard Charles Green: Has any consideration been given to the use of railway rights of way for any of these oil and natural gas pipe lines? For example, what about pipe lines running through the Rockies? I presume they would have to go through one of the passes used by the railways. It would seem to be an unnecessary expense to put through new rights of way. If the cost is higher than necessary the Canadian people are going to have to pay the difference. Have any steps been taken to investigate the feasibility of using railway rights of way? The railways have very efficient maintenance staffs, and surely there would be a great saving, particularly through the mountains, in using rights of way already there instead of having new ones for hundreds of miles.


Lionel Chevrier: No investigation has been made of the problem. Furthermore, I am informed by the railways that they are not very anxious that their rights of way be used; and neither are the pipe line companies anxious to use those rights of way. I am further informed that it would be somewhat dangerous in most cases to transport oil along railway rights of way because of the fire likely to come from the locomotive, and a consequent danger of fire and explosion. However, if the matter is feasible it could be done by way of agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 31 to 38 inclusive agreed to.
On section 39-Board may declare companies to be common carriers.
John Oliver Probe: In this section as it now reads it is optional with the board to declare a pipe line company a common carrier. I have certain reservations with respect to pipe lines. I would certainly have preferred to see the development of pipe lines under some form of public ownership. But in view of the fact that the government accepts the responsibility

Pipe Lines Act
for granting these charters to private pipe lines for the carrying of oil and gas, it seems to me that we should at the same time make  it mandatory rather than optional that where investments of this type are permitted, and where the work that it being done is of a public transportation variety, it should not be optional whether oil line companies carry the products of small or large producers, or the production of their own affiliated companies to the exclusion of others in proximity to the field, or to say whether or not the consumers can acquire the products subject to the wish of the carrier companies.
In my own city of Regina, which is affected by one of the proposed oil lines, we have two refineries, of which one is privately owned and the other a co-operative refinery. The pipe line we are likely to get will be owned by the private company. As the bill now stands, there is nothing mandatory on that company to cause it to carry the products of the other company from the field or from any other source from which it may purchase the products it wishes to refine.
I understand that certain technical objections were raised in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to declaring the pipe lines to be common carriers. I listened carefully to the hon. member for Calgary West when about an hour ago he explained the procedure by which oil fractions of various types can be sent along one pipe line almost simultaneously. I have personal knowledge of the variety of oil products that were carried in the pipe line constructed by the military forces overseas to run from Cherbourg to Rouen. I am sure many hon. members are familiar with that pipe line. For the reasons I have just given, the objections put forward to a pipe line being considered a common carrier do not impress me. Therefore, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley:
That section 39 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"39. A company to which this part applies is hereby declared to be a common carrier."


Lionel Chevrier: Besides the technical reasons to which my hon. friend referred, other reasons were given in the committee as to why it would not be advisable to place upon the board the mandatory obligation of making these pipe lines common carriers. I think the board should be given the discretion of deciding whether it is advisable to make them common carriers. There may be some companies where it will be necessary and there may be other companies where it will not be necessary. Then there are the additional technical reasons that were given by one of the witnesses, namely, that the carrying of different types and grades of oil and gas would be
[Mr. Probe.l	, i
objectionable in the field of oil pipe lines. Therefore I have to object to this amendment.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 17; nays, 104.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 40 to 50 inclusive agreed to.
On section 51-Power of board to order extension of services.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier this evening, I am particularly concerned about the way this bill may affect the interests of consumers of gas in southern Alberta, particularly in Calgary, Lethbridge and the towns in between. These people are served from the Turner valley. The city of Calgary is particularly concerned about the future of its supply of gas and how this bill may affect both the supply and the price.
To begin with, Calgary got its gas from Bow Island. According to the geologists that field should have lasted for a long time but it was rapidly becoming exhausted and Calgary's supply of gas was getting short when the Turner valley field was brought in. As I said, Calgary has since obtained its supply of gas from the Turner valley.
Many people in Calgary and southern Alberta fear that the passage of this bill may adversely affect their interests. I would remind the committee that these people do all their heating by gas and they have invested many millions of dollars in gas appliances. As a matter of fact, they have invested a greater amount in these appliances than will be expended in Alberta on the building of pipe lines. Therefore they have a large financial interest as well as their interest in having sufficient supplies for heating over a long period.
The evidence produced before the Dinning commission as to the amount of gas available was not conclusive and the people of Calgary are not convinced that there is sufficient gas available to warrant export at the present time. As a result they are opposed to it. In addition to that fact, I understand that a price for the gas that will be supplied to the pipe line which will take it from Turner valley to Spokane, Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, and so on, has already been established in the neighbourhood of 18 cents a thousand feet.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but surely he cannot discuss the export of gas or oil from Alberta to Spokane under this section. This section deals with the connection of the pipe line company's installations with those of municipalities in order to serve the latter, and that and that alone.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I submit, on the point the minister has raised, that this is all under

part III, gas lines, and the only purpose of constructing a gas line in that area would be to export gas. That is one of the reasons why the bill is before us.


William Ross Macdonald: I think probably that is one of the reasons why the bill is before us, as the hon. member for Calgary East has said, but as he well knows it is necessary in committee to refer strictly to the clause under consideration. I doubt if the exportation of gas is involved here.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I propose to move an amendment to this section, and what I am saying is strictly relevant to it.


William Ross Macdonald: It may be relevant to the amendment, but I cannot allow a discussion at this time with respect to the exportation of gas. As this section reads at the present time, it relates to the distribution of gas to municipalities.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the whole of part III deals with gas lines, and what I am saying is directly applicable to gas lines. I submit from that point of view it is in order. To continue, the price which it seems likely will be paid for gas for export if this bill passes, and if pipe lines are built under it, and under this particular section-


An hon. Member:: I rise on a point of order. If certain members are not interested in this bill they should go out.


William Ross Macdonald: I suggest to all hon. members that they should not converse in the chamber. I also have to ask the hon. member for Calgary East not to discuss the exportation of gas under this section.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no place else to discuss it. It is under gas lines, and what I have to say is strictly relevant to gas lines. That is what I am talking about. As I was saying, the proposed price to be paid at the well-head is 18 cents a thousand feet. The price that Calgary is paying at the present time is 10J cents per thousand feet. The result is that there is a very strong likelihood that the price of gas may be doubled in Calgary if a gas line is put in to export gas to the United States. I think you will admit, Mr. Chairman, that is applicable to this section, and naturally is a matter of very considerable concern to the citizens of Calgary. In addition to that, the southern Alberta consumers of gas have no protection as to price at the present time. The Calgary Gas Company buys its gas from various wells in the Turner valley, and the price which the board of utility commissioners sets is dependent on market conditions and what the gas may be sold for. If the gas is going to be sold for 18 cents to a pipe line company to take it away to the United States 29087-168
Pipe Lines Act
it is quite clear it is going to be impossible for the Calgary Gas Company to get the gas at approximately half that price. That is one of the chief reasons for concern over this matter.
In addition to that, there was given before the Dinning commission a considerable amount of evidence to the effect that the export of gas at the present time, until sufficient reserves have been definitely established, would be premature, and may and will result in the non-establishment of chemical industries which otherwise would be established in Alberta. There is a very large field for chemical industries based on gas, but they will be established only if a gas supply is assured with continuity for a considerable number of years. Until the proven reserves of gas, as shown by the Dinning report, are considerably increased, it seems to me that the export of gas at the present time is premature.
In view of these facts, and particularly to provide for the protection of the consumers of gas, which means every citizen in Calgary, Edmonton, and the towns between, I should like to move the following amendment to section 51:
Present section 51 becomes 51 (1).
Then I should like to add a subsection 2 reading as follows:
(2) No person shall be permitted to export gas from a province until it has been shown that no city or other municipality or community in such province, then being supplied by gas, will be thereby prejudiced either as to supply or price.


Lionel Chevrier: In the first place the amendment is not relevant to the section under discussion, and in the second place it has to do with the question of price, which I think is not within the jurisdiction of parliament. The amendment reads:
No person shall be permitted to export gas from a province until it has been shown that no city or other municipality or community in such province, then being supplied by gas, will be thereby prejudiced either as to supply or price.
This is something which, as the Prime Minister said earlier, can be controlled by the province if it so desires. I submit that to attempt to bring in this amendment, particularly to section 51, at this time when it is entirely irrelevant, is out of order, and I am objecting to it.


William Ross Macdonald: The Minister of Transport has raised a question whether or not the amendment is in order. I have read section 51, and I have also read the amendment, and there does not seem to me to be any relation between the amendment and the original section. For that reason, and for other reasons that the minister has mentioned, I have to rule the amendment out of order.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Pipe Lines Act
Sections 52 and 53 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


Solon Earl Low: Next sitting of the house. May I ask that third reading be held over until tomorrow morning?


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Solon Earl Low: There are certain further things that I should like to study overnight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill
be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Chevrier moves, seconded by Mr. Fournier (Hull), that this bill be now read the third time.


Solon Earl Low: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Solon Earl Low: No.


Howard Charles Green: There were amendments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No amendments were made to the bill in committee. When amendments are made it is not customary for a bill to be given third reading on the same day on which it is reported from the committee. But quite frequently-I might say it is the custom -a bill is read the third time on the same day on which it is reported from the committee when there are no amendments.


Major James William Coldwell: May I just say a word? I am not interested in holding the bill over, but if the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and his colleagues from Alberta wish to give consideration overnight to some of the replies which have been made, that courtesy of the house should be extended to them.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not going to object, but the point is this. I think my hon. friend is as anxious as anyone in the house that these five private bills gp through. If third reading is held over until tomorrow, then the private bills would likely be held over also. It would be far better if we could get third reading tonight. Then we would have some assurance that consideration of the private bills could be taken up in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and come back here for discussion, if that be necessary.


Solon Earl Low: I can assure the minister that, whatever we may submit to the consideration of the house, we shall certainly not be long.
[The Chairman.!
If possible, I should like to have third reading held over until tomorrow morning.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The private bills have not had first or second reading yet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Solon Earl Low: Next sitting.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 26, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. C. D. Coyle (Elgin):: It is not my desire at this time to take more than a few minutes of the time of the house. I do wish, however, to draw to the attention of the government, as emphatically as I can problems of vital concern to those who sent me here to represent them in this House of Commons.
The county of Elgin, which I represent, is nearly seventy miles long and twenty miles wide, and lies along the north shore of lake Erie, where there are located such centres as Port Stanley, Port Burwell and others, which constitute some of the finest summer resorts in Canada. In addition to such industrial centres as the city of St. Thomas, which is also one of Canada's larger railway points, there are several other thriving towns and villages, as for example, Aylmer, with the largest tobacco receiving depot in the British commonwealth. There are also many other towns and villages such as Rodney, West Lome, Dutton-to mention only a few-where the stability and prosperity of our agricultural economy have a very direct bearing.
The county of Elgin has built up over the years a very efficient mixed agricultural economy, with considerable production in dairying, beef cattle, beans, corn and tobacco.
Although the agricultural economy of Elgin county is diversified, perhaps to a degree greater than many other areas of Canada, we also have our specialty fields; and our primary producers, like those elsewhere in this country, find themselves dependent upon export markets for the sale of their goods. This is particularly true of our most recent industry, the production of tobacco, which has experienced a very considerable development in the last twenty years, and which has contributed much to this country.

In the province of Ontario there are ten counties, including the county of Elgin, which have in the past twenty years built up at considerable expense to the farmers an efficient tobacco industry. Today in Ontario approximately 3,500 farms are devoted to the production of tobacco, covering an acreage in excess of 99,000 acres. Of this total there are about 725 of those farms located in the county of Elgin, with an acreage of approximately 19,500 acres. When this industry was in its infancy in this country a strenuous effort was made to improve quality and to secure for these producers an export market. These efforts over the past twenty years met with a large degree of success, and the industry was able, in addition to supplying the Canadian demand, to build up export markets, particularly in the United Kingdom. Today deep concern is felt about our ability to hold those markets, and what effect their loss may have on the tobacco growers in the future.
In 1947 Canada shipped to the United Kingdom market 22,233,110 pounds of tobacco in various forms, to the value of approximately $12,507,000. In 1948 that market was reduced by about forty-two and a half per cent when our shipments of tobacco to the United Kingdom were cut to 12,681,000 pounds, valued at $6,946,535.
It is quite true that circumstances in the United Kingdom have caused that nation to reduce their imports of tobacco, as well as some other goods, but the total reduction in United Kingdom imports amounted only to approximately 15 J million pounds in 1948 as compared with 1947.
Imports of tobacco from Turkey into the United Kingdom in 1947 totaled only 430,786 pounds. In 1948, when purchases from Canada were reduced by forty-two and a half per cent, purchases from Turkey increased from 430,786 pounds in the previous year to over ten million pounds, and these purchases were made at a price a few cents in excess of the cost per pound of Canadian tobacco.
A review of British import and valuation figures given in the Accounts of Trade and Navigation shows that the average price of imports from Turkey was 56-8 cents per pound as compared to 54-7 cents per pound from Canada. This will indicate that our inability to hold this market does not arise from any excess cost of Canadian tobacco.
We are told by the government that we are losing this market for tobacco because of a shortage of dollars. The tobacco farmers in my county understand that the shortage of dollars has been largely responsible for the 42'5 per cent reduction in the amount of 29087-168i
The Budget-Mr. Coyle tobacco purchased by the United Kingdom. They also know that the number of dollars available to purchase tobacco and other things is dependent to a large degree upon the extent of the sale of British goods on the Canadian market. Today, faced with a possible long-term loss of this market, the farmers are asking whether everything possible has been done to help the United Kingdom build up a supply of dollars through the sale of British goods in Canada. This would enable the United Kingdom to purchase tobacco and other Canadian goods.
It is also known that the capacity of the United Kingdom was seriously impaired during the recent war, but as this situation improves the farmers want to know whether the percentage of increase in exports to Canada has been as great as the percentage of increase in exports to other countries, and particularly those countries to which the United Kingdom is now turning for supplies formerly purchased from Canada. We fail to understand why the United Kingdom exports to Turkey, for example, in 1947 should increase approximately 100 per cent over 1946, while exports to Canada only increased approximately one-third. The people are asking, and with considerable justification, whether the government at Ottawa is doing everything to assist them in retaining these markets which have been built up at great expense over the years. The United Kingdom trade statistics fail to reveal a satisfactory answer. These statistics reveal that British exports of iron, steel and manufactured products to Turkey, from whom Britain is now buying huge quantities of tobacco, were increased from $2,688,000 in 1946 to $4,215,000 in 1948.
A further study of the trade figures shows why it is that, while Britain finds it necessary to cut her imports of tobacco from Canada by over 42 per cent, at the same time she increases her imports of tobacco from Turkey from 430,000 pounds in 1947 to over ten million pounds the following year. Britain was able to pay for that tremendously increased supply of tobacco from Turkey by exporting electrical goods to Turkey to the value of $5,252,000 in 1948 against exports of $2,347,000 in 1946, an increase of over 100 per cent. Those increased purchases from the tobacco growers of Turkey were also made possible by exporting to that country machinery of various classes which was in short supply in Canada. Of this class of goods Britain exported to Turkey in 1948 $5,250,000 worth as against $2,333,000 in 1946.
The examples which I have cited explain why the United Kingdom has had a favourable balance of trade with such countries as Turkey and today is turning to those coun-
2662	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. McKay tries for goods formerly purchased from Canada, with the result that exports from Canada are rapidly falling. I mention this case of trade with Turkey because it is a very serious matter to the tobacco growers of the district I represent, as well as to the Canadian economy as a whole. It took many years of very careful marketing for the tobacco growing industry of this coifntry to establish a reputation for our tobacco in foreign markets. The taste for and satisfaction with Canadian tobacco was not built up in a year, and many of our producers fear that if we lose the British market for too long the demand for Canadian tobacco may be lost.
This is a matter of serious concern to the tobacco farmers and all who are directly or indirectly dependent upon this industry. They are asking the government to indicate by its actions that it is doing all in its power to retain and develop these markets for Canadian tobacco. It is hoped that some means will be found to enable the United Kingdom and other commonwealth countries to earn the dollars with which to buy our tobacco, bacon, cheese and many other things for which we have already built up a considerable market. We stand to lose this market unless some action is taken now by our government to meet the problems of the present and the future.


Mr. E. B. McKay (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this occasion I feel I should first commend the government for its action in increasing the exemptions for income tax from $750 to $1,000 for single people and from $1,500 to $2,000 for married persons. For the last two sessions this group has been advocating an increase in exemptions and, while it falls far short of what we had hoped for, I feel that we should be thankful for small mercies.
I deplore, however, the fact that, while in some cases the nuisance taxes have been removed, the eight per cent sales tax, an indirect tax, still remains. Without any question this tax is a very heavy burden on the people with small incomes which in the past have been too low to be subjected to income tax at all. As a matter of fact about one-half of our population in this country is in that particular category. The eight per cent sales tax is placed upon most manufactured goods and it forms a very large part of the burden placed upon the homemaker who is attempting to maintain normal living conditions.
At the manufacturers' level this tax is only eight per cent, but retailers advise us that it actually runs from eleven to twelve per cent


at the retail level. If this is a correct statement, anyone can see that this indirect tax, while it may be an easy tax for the government to collect, is nevertheless contributing substantially to the increased cost of living. I am one who firmly believes that had this tax been reduced, or had the government seen its way clear to entirely removing it, it would have drastically reduced living costs for nearly all the Canadian people.
As I said a moment ago, there are many people who do not have incomes large enough for them to pay any income tax. Nevertheless, when they purchase goods in stores, all those people must pay the eight per cent tax which is, as I said, placed upon manufactured goods. This tax is placed on shoes that children must wear, upon their clothing, upon furniture that must be purchased for homes; and even in the case of little children, the penalty is imposed upon the toys that they require in order to have a happy life. It seems to me that it would have been a nice gesture on the part of the government, even if they did not have any particular regard for reducing the high cost of living, had they done something for the little children. It is obvious to all why the government took off the tax on chocolate bars and on pop. It is a tax everyone noticed. But it is much more necessary that the eight per cent sales tax should be taken off toys that little children have to play with, and from'household goods generally.
On the whole, I think this indirect tax, this eight per cent sales tax, is not being publicized widely enough throughout the country. I am satisfied that the government increased the exemptions-and I commend them again for doing so-because of public demand. Most of the public do not realize, I am quite satisfied, that the eight per cent sales tax is the one tax that is probably adding more to the cost of living than any other tax we have in the Dominion of Canada. The government of course will be hesitant about removing the tax without a great deal of pressure. I recognize, as do all hon. members, that the government must have money with which to operate. In many respects the income tax probably is the fairest tax that could be levied. But I believe that some consideration should be given-and if it cannot be done in this session, it should be considered in the next session of parliament-to the entire removal of the eight per cent sales tax. If the government find that they need the $400 million or so that this tax normally brings to the treasury, I would suggest that they reimpose the excess profits tax. I think I am fair in saying that the

excess profits tax rendered to the treasury approximately the same amount of money as the sales tax. If that were done, the government would still be getting from business the revenue that is necessary, and at the same time it would relieve the people in the lower income brackets who are finding it difficult to make ends meet.
I now want to say a word with regard to the necessity for railway construction in western Canada. I recently completed a tour of an area that for a number of years has been advocating the construction of branch lines of railway. The people in that area for twenty-five or thirty years have been waiting for loose railway ends to be completed. In instances where branch lines have not been completed, we have for cattle and grain shipments long hauls that could normally be avoided by the completion of a link of twenty-five or thirty miles of railway. I have in mind a railway in southwestern Saskatchewan one terminal of which is twenty-five miles from another one. People in either case have to travel back to a large centre a hundred miles before they can even start on the main part of a journey. These people not only have to pay extra money out in railway fares but they have to pay out that much more on their cattle traffic, their wheat and other commodities which they raise; and in turn, they have to pay more in freight on the goods which come in. The net result of this is that their cost of living is high.
I would suggest to the government at this time that they do something in the next session of parliament to see that these loose ends of branch line railways in southern Saskatchewan are completed so that the people in those areas will get a much more satisfactory service than they have had in the past.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. McKay the debate was adjourned.
Standing Committees STANDING COMMITTEES



BANKING AND COMMERCE


Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Halton):: I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to revert to motions. By leave of the house I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris):
That the standing committee on banking and commerce be empowered to sit while the house is sitting, and that its quorum be reduced from fifteen to ten members.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the hon. member what legislation is to be referred to the committee during the balance of this week?


Hughes Cleaver: It is anticipated that a noncontentious trust company bill will reach the committee tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: By leave of the house, Mr. Speaker, I desire to present the fourth report of the standing committee on standing orders.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As announced previously, it is the intention that the Minister of Finance should move tomorrow, at the opening of the sitting at eleven o'clock, that the house go into committee of supply to ask for interim supply. After interim supply is granted, as formerly announced, it will be the disposition of the government to call the order dealing with the budget. But there will be in Votes and Proceedings a notice of motion dealing with the international wheat agreement. If it were the desire of the house to have that matter considered tomorrow, the government would have no objection to moving it then; but the government would not ask to have it considered tomorrow unless it was the desire of the house to do that rather than go on with the debate on the budget.
At ten-thirty the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on March 14, 1949.



Thursday. April 28. 1948