1950-04-17

Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, only after the house had adjourned for the Easter recess did I discover that, speaking on March 30, 1950, while I was attending the North Atlantic treaty meeting at The Hague, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) was reported at page 1396 of Hansard as having said:
I cannot see this committee carrying out some of the promises made during the election campaign. The minister said that at no time was there ever any suggestion by any minister of the crown of the removal of the means test. That is as I understood his challenge. Well, I checked up the records, and I found that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) made a radio address from Montreal on June 16, 1949, over station CFCF, and that was pretty close to the election. This is what the minister said . . .
And the hon. member has accurately quoted the newspaper report.
The government will do away with the means test for old age pensions.
That is the end of the quotatiori of what I was reported to have said. Then the hon. member concluded his remarks by saying:
That is contained in the radio speech as reported in the Montreal press.
That is the end of the quotation from the hon. member's remarks. Actually I never mentioned the means test in my radio speech. What I did say was:
The Liberal aim is a nation-wide plan of contributory pensions which will help everyone to enjoy a comfortable and secure old age-automatically and as a right.
This, of course, is part of the Liberal platform, as in effect since 1945.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: The minister was mis-reported?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, in this one report only. Two other newspaper reports I have since seen are correct; but in one report I was misreported. It was in no way due to my hon. friend that this mistake occurred.


John George Diefenbaker: No; I was quoting from the press.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.



URANIUM


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement regarding the purchase of uranium ore.
On March 16, 1948, I announced to the house the policies which had been established in connection with the purchase of uranium in ores and concentrates. These policies involved the establishment of a minimum price which was guaranteed for five years from March 31, 1948. With a view to encouraging further prospecting for radioactive minerals, I announced on December 20, 1948, that the period of the guarantee had been extended by two years, that is, until March 31, 1955. In recent weeks the advisory mining committee on radioactive minerals has been giving consideration to a possible further extension of the guarantee period. The committee has recommended that the period of the guarantee be extended to Mardh 31, 1958, and the government has concurred in that recommendation. It is hoped that this further extension will provide an additional incentive to the search for radioactive ores.
In my announcement of March 16, 1948, I stated that the price for the uranium content of ores or concentrates would be at the minimum rate of $2.75 per pound of contained UsOs f.o.to. rail. I stated further-and I quote from my announcement:
Under special circumstances consideration may be given to the payment of a higher price or to the acceptance of ores or concentrates of a lower grade.
In response to numerous inquiries regarding the application of this special price provision of the purchasing policy, Eldorado Mining and Refining (1944) Limited, the designated purchasing agent for uranium in ores or concentrates, has now established a formula to be used as the basis for negotiating special prices. The details of the formula will be announced shortly by Eldorado Mining and Refining (1944) Limited.
The extension of the period during which a guaranteed price will apply, combined with definite information as to the basis of establishing special prices, will, I think, be helpful to the mining interests concerned with the production of uranium ore.

Uranium


Mr. Green:: Are the quantities of uranium ore now being produced considered by the government to be satisfactory?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government has no reason to be dissatisfied. We would like to have more, but we have sufficient for our own purposes and have a surplus to sell to other friendly governments.


Mr. While (Hastings-Pelerborough):: Would the minister care to comment on the price paid in the United States as compared with the Canadian price?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That will be made clear when the formula is announced. The formula has been approved by the government, but it seems to me rather complicated. I am told it is quite intelligible to mining men, but it was not intelligible to me, and therefore I suggested that the mining men who understand it had better announce it. I understand that the formula will be announced tomorrow.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL


Right Hon.  L. S.@: I should like to follow the established practice of tabling promptly a summary of orders in council; I now table the summary for the period March 1 to March 31, 1950. As agreed to by the house, this summary does not include a summary of treasury board minutes.


John George Diefenbaker: Would it be possible for a member to secure, on request, a summary of the treasury board minutes?


Mr. St. Laurent:: Yes, but I hope that the request will not be made too frequently, because to prepare them involves a lot of work. There will be the greatest possible desire to comply promptly with any reasonable request for information about any treasury board minute.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table two copies of a report of the Department of External Affairs entitled, "Canada and the United Nations, 1949."



PIPE LINES ACT


Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springfield) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 132, to amend the Pipe Lines Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, on April 30, 1949, a bill was passed by parliament entitled the Pipe Lines Act, now carried in the statutes of 1949 as chapter 20. The act is quite lengthy, having fifty-three sections. The bill which I am introducing is intended to clarify the discussion on the construction of pipe lines which took place in the house all last session and has continued this session up to the present.
Since parliament adjourned for the Easter recess I have had the opportunity of discussing this matter with my constituents, who believe wholeheartedly that an all-Canadian route should be followed. Like many others in the house, I believe that our friends to the south are our best neighbours-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the house satisfied with the explanation?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to explain this bill-


Mr. Knowles:: Explain his explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: -and not present his own views on the subject.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The act to be amended by this bill is chapter 20 of the statutes of 1949. The amendment suggested is to subsection 1 of section 12, and it provides that the main line shall be located entirely within Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. ,



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the meeting of the Atlantic pact council in London next month, will Canada take the initiative in pressing for the immediate implementation of article 2, which provides for economic collaboration among the signatory powers? If Canada has made proposals to countries individually regarding this matter, can the minister inform the house as to the nature of any replies received?
Hon. L." B. Pearson (Secreiary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question. As he and other hon. members may have observed in the press, several members of the North Atlantic alliance have expressed an interest in the possibility of giving greater effect to article 2 of the North

Atlantic treaty. It is expected therefore that at the forthcoming meeting of the North Atlantic council in London in the middle of May a useful discussion of this subject will take place, and the Canadian representative will certainly take part therein. Discussions have been taking place between members of the North Atlantic council as to the agenda of the forthcoming council meeting, and in that exchange of views there has been evinced a general desire that some consideration should be given to action under article 2 of the pact. I think that is all I can say on that point at the moment.



JAPANESE GOODS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce similar to the one I asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) on March 16 last. Will the minister make a statement as to what the government intends to do about the dumping of Japanese goods on the Canadian market? It has put a number of men out of work.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am quite unable to make such a statement, for the reason that I have nothing to do with the administration of the dumping clause of the Customs Act.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Minister of Trade and Commerce is supposed to look after that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue? Has anything further been done about the dumping of Japanese goods on the Canadian market?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask a question'-further to what?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is a very good question- further to doing nothing. The people of Canada want something done, because it has put men out of work. Is there any answer?


James Joseph McCann: Certain action has been taken in accordance with the Customs Act; dumping duties have been applied.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How have they been applied- on a fair cost or fair laid-down price in Canada, or on the cost in Japan, where labour is so cheap?


Mr. Abbott:: Read the act.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The act does not help us a bit.
Inquiries of the Ministry ATLANTIC COUNCIL FOR PEACE



PROPOSAL BY PREMIER OR GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government received from the premier or government of France a proposal suggesting the formation of an Atlantic high council for peace? If so, can the minister inform the house as to the reaction of the government of Canada to the suggestion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, the government has received no such proposal, but I have noticed references to it in the press. Until we receive some official information concerning it I do not think it would be wise for me to comment thereon.


Major James William Coldwell: When the minister gets that, will he make a statement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will take that into consideration.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: On
April 4 I asked the Minister of Justice whether an appeal was being considered in the case of a hotel owner in respect of the sentence imposed upon him under the exchange regulations. At that time the minister said he was waiting for a report from counsel. Has counsel's report been received, and, if so, is an appeal to be taken?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: What I said on that occasion was that the foreign exchange control board had written to counsel for a report. About four days ago was the last time that I made inquiry, and the report had not then come to hand.



BANKRUPTCY ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice when the government intends to proclaim the new Bankruptcy Act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We have the matter under consideration with the new superintendent of bankruptcy, and an announcement will be made in due course.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Did he say
"profane" or "proclaim"?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: "Proclaim".



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). In his absence perhaps you will permit me to ask my question, and it will serve as notice to him. Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare at any time make any statement to the management and workers of Ford Motor Company of Canada which they could take as an assurance that they could settle their pension negotiations on the basis of the means test being removed from the old age pension in the not far distant future? In any case, will the minister say whether Ford was justified in assuming that this would soon be done?
[Later: ]


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today a question was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which is so worded that I cannot give him the kind of answer I would be disposed to give. The only assurance I could give would be that the government was most anxious to give this whole question the fullest consideration, and that it was doing so.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: desire to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister received a resolution from the secretary of the Prince Edward Island fisheries federation suggesting a change in the opening date of the lobster season, namely, that Saturday, April 29, be granted instead of Monday, May 1, 1950? If the resolution has been received, what action has the department taken?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, notice was received this morning and the matter is being looked into. I shall probably have an answer by Tuesday or Wednesday.



IRON ORE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (Si. John's East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade-and Commerce. Will the minister make a statement as to the present position of the sale of 300,000 tons of iron ore from Bell island?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have had no recent information about this transaction. It is a transaction between private interests, and is not a matter that would ordinarily be reported to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should direct my question to the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), but I know that the convenience of the government will be considered and therefore I shall direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will it be possible to have a meeting soon of the standing committee on external affairs in order that we may proceed with the consideration of the estimates of that department?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope that we can have an early meeting of the committee. I am quite ready to appear before it at any time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: desire to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development. Has the minister received a petition from a large number of the residents of Crapaud and vicinity, Prince Edward Island, asking for consideration in the location of the trans-Canada highway? If so, what action has been taken?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: I have received no such representation.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: 
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall be glad to communicate with my colleagues and find out what legislation, in addition to that already listed on the order paper, it may be felt necessary to introduce at this session.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Roch Pinard (Chambly-Rouville) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 88, respecting the purchase by Canadian Pacific Railway Company of shares of the capital stock of the Shawinigan Falls Terminal Railway Company.


Howard Charles Green: Will the hon. member explain the bill?


Roch Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the purpose of this bill is such as to justify any lengthy explanation on my part. It deals with a very simple matter which I believe is of limited importance, and which would attract very little attention on the part of the general public. The purpose of the bill is to permit the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to purchase the capital stock of the Shawinigan Falls Terminal Railway Company. By virtue of the Railway Act, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is not authorized to purchase the capital stock of another railway company, and the purpose of this bill is to provide legislative authority for this to be done.
The Shawinigan Falls Terminal Railway Company is a small company operating entirely within the province of Quebec. It was incorporated in 1902 by provincial statute, at which time the capital stock of $200,000 was divided into shares of $100 each. In 1906 the authorized capital was increased to $300,000, the additional $100,000 again being issued in shares of $100 each. This company owns approximately a third of a mile of line, and perhaps a little more than a mile of sidings which are used by industrial concerns in that area, and to carry on its operations it owns and maintains four electric locomotives. Its operations are very simple, consisting of placing on the sidings of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific the cars used by industries in that neighbourhood.
Shawinigan Falls Railway
Until recent years it was found advisable to have this operation conducted on that basis; in other words it was considered economical and advantageous to industry, as well as to the advantage of both major railway companies, to have this work done by the terminal railway. In late years, however, the situation has altered materially, for many reasons, so that it is now practically impossible for this small company to operate effectively. The four electric locomotives are in poor condition and would have to be replaced, and the power to operate them is no longer available. The Shawinigan Water and Power Company, which in fact owns all the shares of the terminal railway company, had surplus power which it could sell to the railway company, and this permitted the railway company to operate. Today, however, the power company has no surplus of power, as a result of the great industrial development that has taken place in that area. For these reasons, and others of less importance, following study and negotiations by both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, it has been decided that the operation could be more effectively carried out by the large railway companies themselves. Instead of using electric locomotives, as the terminal railway company did, they will use diesel engines, which will produce better results and give more efficient service.
That, I think, generally explains the purpose of the bill. I should add that the purchase is to be made by both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, each company paying half the purchase price. As I said before, the capital stock has a face value of $300,000, but the purchase price is to be $125,000, to be paid in equal proportions by the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. In other words each company will pay approximately $62,500 for the capital stock of this terminal railway company. As I stated earlier, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company requires authorization from parliament to make this purchase, while the Canadian National already has authority by virtue of its own act. If hon. members will look at the explanatory note they will see that section 147 of the Railway Act prohibits the Canadian Pacific from making such purchases, while on the other hand if they refer to the legislation setting up the Canadian National Railways they will see that it authorizes purchases of this kind.
If any other information should be required I think it might be better obtained from the representatives of both major railway companies when this bill is referred to the appropriate standing committee.
1600	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Maybank for the second reading of Bill No. 7, respecting Alberta Natural Gas Company, and the motion of Mr. MacDougall: "That this question be now put".
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, this bill, and Bill No. 9, have been debated for a considerable length of time, both this session and last session. During the course of the debate many strong arguments have been put forward as to why these bills should not be passed in their present form. No one supporting the bills has effectively answered those arguments. At this stage in the proceedings I do not propose to take the time to repeat the arguments against the bills, but I would say that those of us who have opposed them, and are still opposed to them, have endeavoured to show why the object of the two companies seeking incorporation-that is, the building of a pipe line to carry natural gas from Alberta to the west coast, running for its main length through the United States-is not in the best interests of Canada.
I may say that we have had considerable success in securing support for our views, if not in this house, at least throughout the country. This has been illustrated by the numerous editorials and other articles which have appeared in the press, as well as the various resolutions passed by organizations and sent to members and governments supporting the views we have put forward. This has been particularly true in the case of British Columbia. As a result I think there is now a considerable body of public opinion strongly opposed to the building of a gas pipe line the major portion of which will run through the United States rather than through Canada. This being so, I believe that, no matter what may be done on second reading of these two bills, public opinion will prevent the building of a line through the United States, even though it seems to be the intention of the government and its supporters in this house to push the bills through in their present form without any safeguards as to where such pipe lines may be built.
There has been a considerable amount of complaint about the length of time this debate has occupied. The debate has been continued for two reasons. The first was to bring the facts of the matter to public attention, and that has been done. As I have already stated,


the result has been that a great deal of support has been stirred up for an all-Canadian route. Second, we had hoped that the companies concerned would announce their intention of building the line entirely within Canada. Such an announcement has not been made by either of the companies, so that we have been disappointed in that hope. Although on numerous occasions it has been stated that all that was required to remove our opposition to this bill was an announcement on the part of the incorporators that the line would run through Canada, no such announcement has been made. This indicates strongly that the company intends, if at all possible, to build the line in the United States. In view of that we must continue to oppose that purpose, and I trust that when the vote is taken on both these bills all members of this house who place Canada's interests first will vote against them.
During the past ten days the majority of members have been back in their constituencies, and have thus had an opportunity of finding out what their constituents think about it. It have no doubt that, as a result, some members will have changed their minds in connection with these bills, and will have come to the point where they can see that they must oppose the bills in their present form.
During the course of this debate government supporters have had recourse to the old trick of attempting to draw a red herring across the real issue by raising the cry of monopoly. The speeches in support of these bills during the two weeks immediately before the Easter recess practically all concentrated on that cry of "monopoly, monopoly." It was stated that by opposing these bills we were encouraging or setting up a monopoly. This was an attempt on the part of the supporters of these bills to place those of us who opposed them in the position of encouraging monopolies.
Such an attempt is shown for what it really is, by the fact that we have given repeated pledges that we will withdraw our opposition if the companies will announce their intention to build the line through Canada; therefore we are not trying to encourage monopolies. I do not think anyone in this house has any such idea. The matter is just as simple as that.
As soon as any company, it does not matter which one, undertakes to build a pipe line through Canada, it will receive my support and I believe the support of everyone in this house. Time and again the argument has been put forward that since one company already has a charter which does not specify a Canadian route, every other company which

applies for a charter should receive a similar one. Such an argument means that because a mistake was made when the first company applied for a charter, we should continue that mistake. That is poor logic. Many of us have said that the mistake was made when the general pipe lines bill was put through without a provision that the route must be specified before a charter is granted. We have also said many times that we believe it was a mistake to grant the Westcoast Transmission Company a charter without the route being specified. The fact that those mistakes were made is certainly no excuse for repeating them in this case.
Immediately before Easter one speaker suggested that the Westcoast Transmission Company had tried to deceive parliament by giving a committee of this house an assurance that a route would be built from the northern part of Alberta through British Columbia to Vancouver, and that no reliance could be placed on that statement. Associated with that statement was the matter of another application made by that company to build a line from the southern part of Alberta down through the United States. An attempt was made to show that this company was not acting in good faith, since it had repeatedly announced its intention to build a line through the Yellowhead pass to Vancouver. It is not my purpose to defend any particular company, but I think the issue should be considered in a fair manner. All that needs to be done is to examine the representations which have been made on the application made by this company to the Alberta natural gas and oil conservation board, the sittings of which have occupied some weeks. The reasons given during the hearings, the data and everything else that was given in connection with the building of the gas pipe line from Edmonton, indicated that it would go through the Yellowhead pass to the coast.
As I say, to anyone familiar with these proceedings this is quite sufficient to dispel any idea that this other company is acting in had faith. All these arguments in connection with monopoly and in connection with this other company are entirely aside from the main issue, which is whether the line will be built in Canada and thus serve the maximum number of Canadians, or whether it will be built mainly in the United States and thus will serve a minimum number of Canadians and provide a minimum amount of employment for our own people.
It has been made abundantly clear during this debate that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and this government are determined to put these bills through, for reasons which seem inexplicable to me;
17, 1950	1601
Alberta Natural Gas Company because there is no question that the putting through of these bills, and hence the building of these gas lines in their main length through the United States, will encourage development and employment in the states of Washington and Oregon at the expense of the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta.
I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the house or to give any impression of delaying further the passage of these bills.
I trust that a large number of Liberal members, particularly those from British Columbia since their trips back to their constituencies, will now join with us in preventing these bills from going through, and thus protecting the interests of Canada.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will be joined by many other members of this house in welcoming the assurance I now give you, namely, that this will be the last occasion on which I shall be speaking on these matters on second reading.
I have listened to every word that has been spoken in this prolonged debate. I have no intention now of reviewing the objections taken to the bills, but I wish to make reference to some remarks made in favour of them-or rather I should say the speakers rose to speak in favour of them. I refer first to the speech made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) on the last occasion on which this bill was discussed in this house. In what he said there is one thing with which I can agree in its entirety, and that is that I was his guest at the meeting of the truck loggers' association last winter. If any of you ever have the opportunity of being the guest of the hon. member and the truck loggers of British Columbia, let nothing stand in your way; accept even if the date is a year hence. May I add that if you can survive the Niagara of their hospitality, you are a better man than I am, and I do not need to add "Gunga Din"; I just leave it where it stands.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni made an excellent speech. I have often wondered how it was that such great diplomacy should have gone astray and that the hon. member should be a truck logger. In Vancouver I met his three brothers. They are truck loggers; they are big fellows and they look like truck loggers, this grand family, the four Gibson (boys. This may be apocryphal, because it is all from my imagination, but when I saw the wonderful standing the hon. member for Comox-Alberni had with those three big brothers; when I observed the way
1602	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company in which they fell in line with every suggestion he seemed to make, in view of the fact that most youngsters have nicknames I am quite sure he must have been called "Smoothy Jack" by his brothers in their younger days. That was the type of grand speech that he made in this House of Commons.
I want to disagree with the hon. member's assumption from an erroneous impression that has been abroad in the house with respect to applications made before the board of transport commissioners. I think this idea emanated from the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) who, with his usual diligent research methods, found that an application had been made by the West-coast Transmission Company for the same line which is now being sought by the company whose bill is before us, and that they were in some way saving up that application for the board of transport commissioners, to spring it one day on an unsuspecting public. Any lawyer in this 'house who knows anything at all about the practice before the board of transport commissioners knows that that is the sheerest and merest nonsense. Things do not go there in the way of a letter and then live for ever. Under the practice of the board, an application unproceeded with is as dead as last year's grass. With that comment I leave the remarks made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, except to say that I intend later, in a general way, to answer his suggestion as to the advisability of this matter going to a committee now. I will answer that suggestion in a moment, but I will answer the general statement rather than anything said about it by the hon. member.
I turn now to the remarks made by my old friend the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart). He seemed somewhat perturbed. He honoured me by mentioning me specifically in connection with two or three matters. In the first place he told you that I had stated before a service club in Ottawa-
I have forgotten which one, but I made the statement-the amount of gas now being wasted and what you could do with it in the cities of Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa. He seemed to think that I was misquoted or was using my imagination in the statement I then made. I have nothing to withdraw so far as that statement goes, because today in Alberta the gas from between 600 and 700 oil wells is being wasted, burnt in flares on standpipes running off from these many and various wells. So that one can get some conception of the amount of this gas we have there. It might be worth while noting that CMr. Smith (Calgary West).]


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member referring to the speech made by the hon. member for Springfield a few days ago?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am not referring to the speech made today. He told us clearly what his views were and what he was going to do. I shall not pursue the matter further, because I do not wish to discuss that bill. Rather I shall content myself by saying that I find some difficulty in agreeing with him because in giving power to a corporation the Dominion of Canada has no right to give powers outside Canada. Those powers can be given within Canada only; that is the only way in which parliament can function.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Did the hon. member understand that it was my desire through the act to permit the company to build outside of Canada?
Alberta Natural Gas Company


Arthur Leroy Smith: No; I understood quite the contrary.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It is to delete the words "or outside Canada".


Arthur Leroy Smith: I understand that.
I now turn to the only assurance given the house by anyone supporting the bill, namely that given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). When I heard it I must say I was greatly pleased, because I was not smart enough at that time to appreciate fully what the undertaking was. For a moment I was foolish enough to think that the minister had given us the undertaking that the line would be built within Canada. An examination of his statement does not bear that out. His statement was that no gas would be exported to the United States until the pipe line had been completed to Vancouver. You can build your pipe line to Vancouver on United States soil without having exported any gas to the United States because there would be no gas in the pipe line. The minister could live up to his undertaking by building the line through the United States to Vancouver with no gas being exported, and then at his own sweet time and convenience the pipe line could be filled and the export of gas to the United States commenced. But his undertaking would have been carried out because the line would have been built to Vancouver.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a question of privilege, will my hon. friend give me the reference in Hansard he is quoting from? Is he quoting my exact statement?


Howard Charles Green: Page 792.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will the hon. member please send it across to me?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I think I quoted the minister accurately.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hope you did. If you did not, I ask the right to correct your statement.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Oh, yes.


Gordon Graydon: You have been too busy reading the Senate Hansard.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Please do not misunderstand me. If I have said anything wrong I want to be corrected.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Let us get it straight now.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member may criticize his minister, but I shall do it as it suits my own time, without following his lead. I think it is fair to say that no member of the House of Commons is anxious to favour any one of the three companies that have been before us so far. I think that is
1604	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company a fair statement to make and certainly it is one in which I believe thoroughly. The company that was previously incorporated, the Westcoast Transmission Company, is now before the Alberta board and the hearing has lasted I believe five weeks and should last at least another week. That board is sitting right now and is considering an application for the export of gas by one route and one route only, from northern Alberta across northern British Columbia, down the north Thompson to Kamlbops, down to Princeton and up to Hope and into Vancouver, with a branch line running south to the northwest United States.
Here is the position which I maintain and which I say is a just position. So far as this house is concerned no one company should be in a superior position to any other company. Let there be a fair field with no favourites. Let all the companies be placed in position to come before either of these boards to look after their own business on their own.
How can that be done? It can be done in a number of ways, one of which is by means of a short amendment to the Pipe Lines Act providing that any gas lines from Alberta to Vancouver shall be built on Canadian soil. Then you would not need to interfere with any of the private bills. Perhaps we do not want to do it that way, perhaps we would like to amend the private acts. That is a much more difficult process and in connection with the two remaining companies it is impossible because it has been moved that the question be now put, which ends all amend-* ments.
I am prepared to go further. I am prepared to dispense with legislation provided I can have assurance from the sponsor of this or the other bill, from the Minister of Trade and Commerce in whom the final authority lies with respect to export, or from any responsible person that the line we are now debating will be built from Alberta to Vancouver through the Dominion of Canada. I will be ready to vote for the bill on that assurance.
I am ready to accept that assurance from any one in authority among those who are supporting these bills at the present time. That does not look as though we have an axe to grind or anything of that kind.


Mr. Benidickson:: The suggestion is a very interesting one, but simply to get the assurance from the sponsor of the bill we are now debating would not be binding upon the company incorporated last year.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That has been given already by the sponsor of that bill, the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruick-shank).


William Moore Benidickson: Where does that appear in Hansard?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am quite sure that I heard the hon. member make that assertion, I think during this present session.


William Moore Benidickson: It is not there; it never was made in this house.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will support any legislation that the hon. member or anyone else cares to draft to provide that these pipe lines shall be built within Canada. I want to make it plain that all we are seeking is to have these lines laid in this country. When the hon. member rose I thought he was going to suggest that to obtain this would mean delay, but I think I can answer that. On the last occasion when this bill was being debated Mr. Dixon, the organizer-a very fine gentleman, too- and Mr. Austin Taylor, one of the incorporators, sat all afternoon in the gallery of this House of Commons behind me and a trifle to the left.
There would be no difficulty about getting authority. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) has said that this bill should be sent to a committee where we could find out where the pipe line was going. Why cannot we find out now? We have been debating these bills for weeks on one thing: Where is the pipe line going? Every opportunity has been given to those interested to tell us that. My judgment is that this is where we should find out so that we cannot be accused of passing a bill that is completely in the air.
To those of you who are keen on committees and who do not know just how far any committee should go, may I say that the hearing that is going on right now in Alberta-I do not know whether they adjourned on Saturday, but I do not think so-has lasted about six weeks. A tremendous amount of testimony has been offered. If you are going to form a judgment as to what should be done you are in this position: There are many things entering into the matter, and I do not think that members of a committee of this house are equipped either with the experience or with the knowledge to pass fairly on the details of such an arrangement. Therefore I again make the suggestion that we should find out from these people that they are going to build the pipe line in the Dominion of Canada. If they do that, then I do not care where they build it. Let them tell us that now, and they will get their charters through the House of Commons in nothing flat. Why do we not get that assurance? The only reason-and everybody must now be convinced as to what it is-is that they do not intend to build through Canada. If they had had any intention of building the line through

the Dominion of Canada all that they would have needed to do in the last weeks and months would have been to say so. Having received the many invitations which they have received, I am then driven to the conclusion that they do not intend to build it in Canada. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, until the time arrives when they do so I will oppose the measure, and I will oppose similar bills that may come before the House of Commons on other occasions because in my judgment they are giving away our birthright.
I do not want to close on that note. I want to say a word to the two members who are responsible for the introduction of these measures. Why will they not now, even at this late moment, come forward and say that they will build through Canada? Then we shall all be in agreement about the incorporation of these companies, and the House of Commons can get on with its other business.


Mr. Harris (Danforih):: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Breithaupt). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Mitchell:: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion. I thought I should announce it, even though this is a private bill.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired with the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-La-prairie (Mr. Black). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The question now is on the motion for second reading of the bill.


Joseph Henry Harris: I was paired, Mr. Speaker. If I had not been paired, I would have voted against the bill.


James Arthur Ross: I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I was paired. If I had voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Bill read the second time.


William Moore Benidickson: I move, for the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank), that this bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Before this bill is referred to the committee, I should like to move a motion of instruction, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Mac-Innis). The motion is as follows:
That it be an instruction to the committee to which Bill No. 7 is referred that they have power to amend the said bill so as to provide that the route of any pipe line built by the proposed company will be laid out so as to serve Canadian requirements before any such pipe line leaves Canadian soil.
I wish to move this motion of instruction in view of the fact that this bill has had a thorough airing in this house. Valuable contributions have been made in the debate and we have had the advantage of the knowledge and of the views expressed by some hon. members about the facilities that will be afforded, our Canadian communities through the building of this pipe line. I feel it is the duty of the members of this house, who have heard these debates, to pass on an instruction to the committee, knowing full well that, after listening to these debates, we are more capable of knowing the requirements of the people of Canada than a committee could possibly be. I am not questioning the personnel of the committee, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question which has occurred to me is this. If this motion is in order, is it debatable? It does not appear to be debatable under standing order 38, which sets forth the motions which are debatable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that, on recent occasions when motions of instruction have been moved, debate has been permitted on them. That happened in 1948, on March 15, as is clearly set out both in Hansard and in the Journals. It happened again in 1949, on April
8.	I could give the details as to the motions that were before the house, but it is hardly necessary to take the time to do so. It is, however, quite clear that on both of those occasions a motion of instruction was debated by the house. On the former occasion, namely, March 15, 1948, after a fair amount of debate, a vote was taken on the matter, as

set out in Hansard; and the Journals also make it clear that there was a debate, for this is the entry:
After debate thereon, the question being put on the said motion; it was negatived, on the following division:
That appears at page 255 of the Journals for 1948.


Mr. Speaker:: I quite agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that a similar motion was debated at that time. I doubt, however, whether it was proper to debate it. I recall the debate quite well. No one took exception to the debate, and I do not think the Speaker's attention was drawn at that time by the house to standing order 38, which sets forth the motions that are debatable. I do not see any provision in the rules whereby it is permissible to debate such a motion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: On the motion itself, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be of interest to the members of the house if you expressed your opinion as to whether with regard to a private bill that kind of motion can be made without notice. I would draw your attention to standing order 104 which provides that, when a private bill has been read a second time, it is automatically referred to a committee. This is a standing order which, I submit, requires Your Honour to refer the bill to a committee as soon as the motion for second reading of it has been adopted. After second reading, the standing order takes it out of the jurisdiction of the house and Your Honour is required to refer it to a committee. If there is to be an instruction to that committee, this could only be on a motion that would require notice, as do all other substantive motions that come up as new matters. My submission is that, in view of standing order 104, the motion of instruction to the committee is new matter that cannot properly be brought before the house without notice.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to say that in my opinion the motion, if it was in order, should have been made before the motion to refer the bill to the committee, and not after. There is now a motion that the bill be referred to a committee. That motion is not debatable. If the motion were in order-leaving aside for the time being the point raised a moment ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) - it should have been made before the motion to refer the bill to the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree with Your Honour as to the desirability of a motion of this kind being made after the motion for second reading is carried and before the motion to refer has been put. I point out however that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Alberta Natural Gas Company Benidickson) and the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones) were on their feet at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, yes. In fact I did not hear Your Honour put the motion made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River before the hon. member for Yale moved his motion of instruction. I do not believe Your Honour has put it yet. I wish to say, however, that even if Your Honour has put that motion you will recognize, from the study you have had to make of the matter, that there is some confusion as to the way in which this type of motion is to be made. I agree with Your Honour as to the place where it ought to be made; but it is a fact that it has been made at different points on different occasions. As a matter of fact I indicated a moment ago that on March 15, 1948, and again on March 19, 1948, motions of instruction were made. On both of those occasions the motion of instruction was made after second reading and before the motion to refer the bill in question to the committee. The instance on March 15, 1948, was a motion of mine having to do with the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act. The instance on March 19, 1948, was a motion by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) having to do with an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
But it so happened that on April 8, 1949, the following year, the hon. member for Mel-fort (Mr. Wright) sought to move the same kind of motion at the same place in relation to another bill dealing with agriculture, and the Speaker who was in the chair at that time preferred that the motion wait until the motion had been made to refer the bill to a committee.
I recall having had considerable discussion with him and with the former clerk of the house in connection with the matter, and we had to admit that there was confusion in the various citations regarding this matter.
If Your Honour takes the position that there is now before the house the motion of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, then I would call your attention to citation 411 in Beauchesne's third edition, which says:
If an instruction is moved when the motion to leave the chair is proposed, then it becomes an amendment which, if agreed to, supersedes the motion for the house to go into the committee which cannot be proceeded with for the time being.
I submit that according to this citation, which, I confess, is contrary to some of the other citations, a case can be made for moving an amendment either before a motion for
1608	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company reference to a committee is made, or as an amendment to the motion for reference to a committee.
Assuming, therefore, that the correct position now is that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has not yet been put to the house, the motion of the hon. member for Yale should come in before that motion is made.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My point is that no motion for reference to the committee is required or in order. It is a standing order of the house that as soon as second reading of a private bill has been adopted by the house it is referred automatically to the proper committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On motion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No motion is required. The house is not required to make the decision. The standing order makes the decision, and it is only for Your Honour to carry out the decision made by the standing order that, when the house has dealt with a private bill and has ordered its second reading, then it has ceased to have further jurisdiction over that private bill until it has come back from the proper committee to which, under the standing order, it must automatically go.


Gordon Graydon: Better have a talk with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I am having a talk at the present time with Mr. Speaker. I am quite satisfied with the forum I have chosen. When I require advice as to the choice of my forum I will ask the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) for it.	[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: With respect to the observations of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre it would appear that the two references to which he referred are in contradiction. The confusion arises from the procedure in the British House of Commons where there are two motions. In this house we have but one motion. I believe the procedure here on public bills is that the instruction is given before the motion to refer a bill to committee of the whole.
The point raised by the Prime Minister is,
I feel, well taken. Private bills are of a different nature from public bills. I have said that previously in the house. The principle of a private bill is approved on second reading, subject to confirmation upon satisfactory proof when the bill is before the committee.
As the Prime Minister has so well pointed out, standing order 104 makes it obligatory to refer a private bill, once it has received second reading, to one of the standing committees. It has been the practice in the house


to put the motion; but this is merely procedural and the motion is not debatable. It has however been the practice to put the motion. However, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, it is not necessary to put the motion, as such a bill must be referred to one of the committees. I believe I should follow out the suggested procedure; and I think it would expedite proceedings in the house on all private bills if, beginning today and for the future, when a private bill has received second reading Mr. Speaker were to refer it to one of the standing committees.
I rule accordingly. Therefore I do refer this bill to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Gordon Graydon: What happens to the motion? The Prime Minister washed it out.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: We will send it over to you.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: You may have it for future occasions.



PRAIRIE TRANSMISSION LINES LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benidickson for the second reading of Bill No. 9, to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines, Limited,, and the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Edmonton East): "That this question be now put."
Owen Lewis Jones: Mr. Speaker, when I last spoke in the debate I felt that one or two points in connection with criticism concerning the stand taken by the group to which I belong should be cleared up. Criticism has been made of small minorities in the house for exercising what, to my mind, is the right of all minorities, that of expressing themselves in the only way possible, namely by speaking and by talking about the subject under discussion. It is true there is a limit to what can be done and that limit is the patience of the government to wait until our speakers are exhausted. That point has just about been reached. I do not think the hon. member meant to suggest for one moment that minorities have no rights in this house. It is true that he did not suggest that might is right, but he might as well have said it because of the manner in which he referred to the action taken by the minority in regard to this bill.
I take strong exception to the way in which this bill has been presented. For two sessions now we have not been able to change it one iota. All we are asking is that a Canadian route be guaranteed, but we are told that we must accept the bill as it is. This is not the only raw material we are shipping from Canada to the United States in order to help build up that country. I have in mind lumber, ore and pulp. These materials are

being sent to the United States where they are being fabricated into high-priced commodities. Naturally our Canadian youth follow the raw materials because they find more attractive pay and working conditions in connection with their fabrication than are to be found in the saw mills and mines of Canada. We should keep our raw materials in Canada to build up our own industries. We should encourage our youth to develop a Canadian concept of society rather than a United States concept. They should be encouraged to stay with us and develop our own country.
Reference has been made already to the homes and communities that would be built up in western Canada and I do not intend to repeat those arguments. In British Columbia-this is possibly true of the other provinces-there is a good deal of unemployment at the present time. We have not done a great deal to solve our unemployment problem through the development of our own industries. I do believe that if this pipe line were constructed through the interior of British Columbia the development that would follow would entirely wipe out unemployment in that province. Not only would it do that; it would help to balance our economy and conserve United States dollars.
On the other hand the claim is made that a monopoly is being built up by allowing this one company to carry on, although, there are two companies now. The very nature of a gas pipe line is a monopoly the way things are handled today. Once the gas crosses the border and is in the hands of the United States distributors a monopoly is created. I should like to quote a statement made by Senator Gillette in the United States Senate as reported in the Congressional Record of Monday, March 20, 1950. He was dealing with the question of monopolies based on pipe lines and he referred to the throttle-hold on society which these monopolistic enterprises had. Reference has been made to the vast empire we are throwing away by allowing this commodity to go into the United States, because once it has reached that country it will be helping to develop industry there. Referring to monopolies, Senator Gillette states:
I think there is no question about that. I thank the Senator from Illinois. It is very evident that these producers, astute businessmen as they are, are not throwing money down a rathole. They know exactly what they are doing.
Referring again to the threats I mentioned a few moments ago-in plain English-what is meant is that they will go out on strike. They will go out on strike not because they cannot make money on their sales of natural gas in interstate commerce. They are making a great deal of money, as the Senator from Illinois has pointed out. They will go on strike because they cannot make all the money the traffic will bear. They will go on strike, let the
Prairie Transmission Lines gas stay in the wells, or go sailing off into the clouds, make not a nickel on the gas sales, but prevent consumers from obtaining a cubic foot of it to heat homes and cook meals, and they will continue making plenty of money on their oil production, letting the gas consumption go by.
What they are telling the American public, in effect, is that if they are not privileged to sell a product on which they have an almost total monopoly at the price they demand-the American public will simply have to bear with it the best it can.
This is a boycott which. I am sure, the American people will not endure. Indeed, any concerted effort by a group of producers to withhold their product from interstate commerce would be an illegal boycott subject to prosecution under the antitrust laws.
Somehow, I cannot believe that the threat is anything more than implied. I cannot seriously believe that any such threat would be carried out.
And again:
Surely those who imply such a threat, who even hint at it, know that what they are asking for, in return, is legislation of a character so drastic as to make them yearn for the good old days when they had nothing to worry about but federal power commission regulation of rates on the sale- just the sale of gas into interstate commerce-not the whole production and gathering of the product.
I wonder if possibly they are requesting the congress to retaliate by removing the bounty placed on oil and gas production through repeal of the annual 27J-cent depletion allowance on petroleum?
He ends up with a comment which covers the whole argument, as follows:
Monopoly as generally understood means control of a product both as to quantity allowed to reach the market and price. If you control the quantity you automatically control the price. Hence, the petroleum industry can be set down as definitely a monopoly.
And again:
There is no need1 to cite chapter and verse on the character of this industry. It is enough to note that it is increasingly dominated by a few giant corporations which own and control one of the most vital natural resources modern man has ever discovered.
I merely quote that to show the value that was placed by the United States congress on a commodity which we are handing over so lightly to anyone who cares to purchase it. Not very long ago a royal commission was appointed to investigate the Alberta oil industry, and I should like to quote a very apt reference that was made in that report:
The importance to a nation of available reserves of oil is emphasized by the following quotations. Mr. Coolidge, a former president of the United States, said:
"It is even probable that the supremacy of nations may be determined by the possession of available petroleum and its products."
A memorandum to the French government after the last great war, of its wartime oil commissioner, Mr. Berenger, is said to have contained the following passage:
"He who owns the oil will own the world, for he will rule the sea by means of the heavy oils, the air by means of the ultra refined oils, and the land

Prairie Transmission Lines by means of petrol and the illuminating oils. And in addition to these he will rule his fellow men in an economic sense, by reason of the fantastic wealth he will derive from oil-the wonderful substance which is more sought after and more precious today than gold itself."
I quote that merely to show the value of the commodity with which we are dealing today. I plead, as has the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), that there be a reconsideration of the decision regarding this bill. Before this bill reaches the committee I should like to see the company change its attitude. I trust that public opinion will force them to do what we are asking them to do. Before concluding I want to say that I know nothing about the personnel of this company. I do not know anything about the financial arrangements of the individuals concerned or anything else. I am fighting solely for my own province. I have faith in my province, and the legislature of that province has unanimously supported the stand we take. The Canadian Legion, boards of trade, individuals and communities throughout the whole of British Columbia have pleaded and begged their members, irrespective of politics, to support the attitude taken by this group in favour of an all-Canadian route. I am afraid if we do not fight for our province they will take the bait that is dangled before them by some of the United States members of congress. I have a copy of the Congressional Record for March 9, 1950, and I should like to quote a portion of a letter read into the record by the Hon. Hugh Butler of Nebraska. In it are these words:
My idea in writing to you is this. We Americans care nothing for the political angles, but what is best for all of us for our betterment as a whole and national safety problems. I have read many times of Canadians wanting to join us, provinces or certain districts. Why not start negotiations to see if British Columbia would vote to join us and make Columbia our forty-ninth state. Then Alaska would become the fiftieth state. This is the best method to keep our borders contiguous and realistic in adding new states. Otherwise, to make far-away places or islands, states, is laughable. This would make it possible to better build up our coast defences of the west in radar and landing fields. Hope this sounds sensible . . . I
I merely read that into the record to show that there is >a feeling on the Pacific coast that we are neglected by the parliament at Ottawa. Our needs are not properly considered, and I feel on the question of these pipe line measures our needs are definitely not being properly considered because not one member of the cabinet has given any intimation that he would support our point of view and assist us in getting the line constructed through British Columbia. In conclusion, I want to plead again with this company to reconsider their application, and

before it is too late to insert in it a promise to go through the province of British Columbia.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in the rather long debate that has taken place on these two measures I have only taken a small part of the time. I am not claiming that there is any virtue in .that. Perhaps it is the other way around because I am convinced that the debate that has taken place on these bills has served a useful purpose. I have just returned from the province of British Columbia where I spent the Easter recess, and I know that the people of that province are concerned about the route that the proposed pipe line will take. If other members from British Columbia receive the resolutions and letters from important public bodies and individuals that I receive, they must be aware of how the people of British Columbia feel. I am not under any illusion that anything I will say is going to affect the course of government policy in this matter, because in my opinion, the bill is a private bill only in name. As for the attitude towards them on the government side of the house, they are certainly government measures. The government will see to it that they pass.
There is, unfortunately I think, a feeling in this country that our resources are unlimited. Almost every day public speakers at various functions refer to "Canada's unlimited natural resources". Canada's natural resources are far from being unlimited, and the same is true of the natural resources of the American continent as a whole. In the country to the south of us they are getting rather scarce because the people of the United States have been more assiduous in developing and exploiting them than we have. For that reason alone we should be very careful how our natural resources are going to be developed, and who is going to benefit by their development.
I am convinced that if this natural gas pipe line goes first through United States territory, serving the lower mainland of British Columbia last, the United States will benefit more than Canada from a Canadian natural resource. That is my main reason for drawing the matter to the attention of the house again, in order to see if it will not even now exercise not only its prerogative but its duty to protect the interests of the Canadian people. Among the large number of resolutions I have received there are two that have come to hand within the last three weeks which I wish to put on the record. I do so for two reasons. The institutions which have passed the resolutions are important ones in the life of the province

of British Columbia, and I have been a member of both of them for a long number of years. The first resolution I wish to read to the house is one passed by the city council of the city of Vancouver which I received in a letter under date of March 29, 1950. The letter including the resolution is signed by the city clerk and reads:
I wish to notify you of the following resolution passed by the Vancouver city council on March 27, 1950:
"That the city council advise the federal government of its opinion that the routing of a gas pipe line through British Columbia is imperative for the industrial development of the regional area through Vancouver. Further, that the Vancouver members of parliament be forwarded a copy of this resolution and their support solicited."
There are no C.C.F. members on the Vancouver city council. They are Liberals and Conservatives, supporters of the government and supporters-*


Mr. Laing:: Non-partisans.


Angus MacInnis: Oh, yes, non-partisans. I know how non-partisan they are, and if you want to go into that I will gladly do it. They are non-partisan in the morning when they are addressing the city council; they are Liberal or Progressive Conservative in the afternoon when they are addressing meetings of those parties and they are coalitionists in the evening when they are addressing a coalition meeting. If you want any more I can give it to you. I know what "non-partisan" means, and it is pure bunk. They are members supporting the opposition and the government; but in respect to this resolution they are unanimous. They ask this government to see that the pipe line goes through British Columbia and serves that province first. It seems to me that this long debate has served a useful purpose. I have in my hand a clipping from the Vancouver Province of April 12, which would be last Wednesday, containing a short comment on a letter received by the city council, I assume in response to a copy of this resolution, which reads:
Vancouver gas needs come first
City council was assured Tuesday by Reconstruction Minister Howe that Vancouver natural gas requirements will be met before gas is exported to to the United States.
If that does not mean that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has decided that the pipe line will go through British Columbia first, it is merely double talk.


Howard Charles Green: That is what it is.


Angus MacInnis: Certainly the people of British Columbia have been given the impression that their needs will be met first, and that can only be done if the pipe line goes through 55946-103
Prairie Transmission Lines British Columbia first. If that is not done a letter like this is simply an attempt to deceive the people of that province.
The next resolution I have is from the Vancouver, New Westminster and district trades and labour council, a body of responsible trade unionists interested in British Columbia affairs. They are interested in having this pipe line constructed in British Columbia because they are concerned among other things with the employment situation. As hon. members know, last winter there was a great deal of unemployment in British Columbia, and although the situation is not as bad today many are still out of work. So it is understandable that the delegates to this trades and labour council, I imagine representing more than half the labour force in British Columbia, would be interested in the route to be followed by the proposed pipe line. Their resolution was as follows:
Whereas an all-Canadian route for the proposed natural gas pipe line from Alberta to British Colum-bit will help control the gas in Canada until most Canadians have first been served: and,
Whereas employment will result in Canada both from construction and future maintenance than any other proposed route.
Therefore be it resolved that this Vancouver, New Westminster and district trades and labour council strongly urge the dominion government to authorize the proposed all-Canadian route.
And be it further resolved that copies of this resolution, be sent to Prime Minister St. Laurent, members of the dominion cabinet, and to B.C. members of parliament.
I considered it important, Mr. Speaker, that some British Columbia member should put on record the views of the Vancouver city council and of one of the central labour bodies in this matter, in order that hon. members might learn of them before the final vote on the bill now before us.
Statements have been made from time to time by hon. members supporting these bills that it would be desirable to have the pipe lines go through the United States because if that were done the construction cost would be less. Surely that is a weak argument in a matter of this kind. If we wanted to deal with all our natural resources in that way I imagine cheaper routes and easier disposition of our resources could be found in the United States; but if that were done the greatest advantage from those natural resources would go to the United States. I noticed that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) took that position when he addressed a meeting in Vancouver during the Easter holidays. The report of that meeting, which is rather brief, states:
Dr. MacDougall said: "If the line goes through the U.S., Vancouver will get the gas cheaper, because the Americans will help pay for the cost of the line."

Prairie Transmission Lines
There we are told that if Vancouver is to get the gas more cheaply, the United States must get the greater part of the gas, and that therefore the pipe line must go first through the United States. I should like to know who is right, or who is giving the most nearly correct information. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said Vancouver would be served first; the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said Vancouver would be served best if it were served last. This would be really funny if it were not so tragic. It is regrettable that some of our people are so anxious to give away our natural resources.
I think this is the time-it may be too late when we are in committee-for British Columbia members to show some regard for the opinion of the people of British Columbia and see to. it that when this pipe line is built it will serve the residents of Canada first.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the wonderful development of aviation I was able to leave Vancouver yesterday morning and arrive in Ottawa last evening. After spending a week in my home city I became convinced that I could do no less for the people of Vancouver-Quadra, regardless of their party affiliations, and in fact for the people of British Columbia as a whole, than give a brief summing up of this pipe line argument before these two bills are sent to committee.
Before going on to do that may I express the hope that at least some of the Liberal members from British Columbia will rise during this debate and tell us what they think of this question. Not one Liberal member has spoken on this particular bill, so they all have the opportunity of stating their stand. In view of the extent to which the interests of British Columbia are involved in this matter, I challenge those members to state their position on this pipe line bill.
The bill we are now discussing is described as an act to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited. I believe that this particular bill is an orphan. At the moment the sponsor of the bill is not in the chamber. It has even lost its father. He is not sufficiently interested to listen to the debate on his bill. It has been interesting to see how this particular bill to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited has been sidetracked by the government. It always seems to happen that the Alberta Natural Gas Company bill is given priority. Even two weeks ago today when the bill to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited came up for debate, after the first speech the sponsor of the other bill, who is also a parliamentary assistant,

COMMONS moved that the debate on this Prairie Transmission Lines bill be adjourned. As you know, Mr. Speaker, a vote was called and the sponsor of the Prairie Transmission Lines bill, the member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson), did not even vote against the adjournment of his own bill. I repeat, therefore, that this poor bill is an orphan.
This raises an important point. It is obvious that the full weight of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and the Canadian government as well as the Liberal party, with the exception of the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), is behind the application of the Alberta Natural Gas Company for incorporation. I suggest that it would be interesting to go a little further into this picture. I think it will be found that a certain financial house in New York, which is behind the applicants for Alberta Natural Gas Company, is the spider in this huge web. That is the spider which is going to devour the people of British Columbia. What is happening here is that United States interests are being aided and abetted by the Canadian government to put this pipe line through the United States on its route to the Pacific coast.
Some of the Liberal members from British Columbia are putting up an alibi by talking monopoly. They would be far wiser to check upon this huge government monopoly, this monopoly composed of the Canadian government and this financial house in New York. There is the real monopoly to be fought. What do we hear? We hear these British Columbia members shouting-


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Would the hon. member mind giving us some proof of what he is saying? Is he just bringing charges out of thin air, or has he some proof?


Howard Charles Green: I am saying that behind this proposal there is a New York financial house, and the minister knows which one it is just as well as I do.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I do not.


Howard Charles Green: That evidence was given before the Senate committee last fall, I believe. There is no need for the minister to be coy about the matter, or to suggest nobody knows about it. It is common knowledge. There is the real monopoly that threatens the people of British Columbia. Yet we have these Liberal members setting up a straw man, by saying that those of us who are opposing the proposal that the route of the pipe line should be through the United States are really fighting for a monopoly.
The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) took that stand in British Columbia just ten days

ago. I have here a dispatch from the Vancouver Sun, dated April 6, 1950. The heading is "Two Pipe Lines all Canada can stand." The minister, when he was interviewed on this question, got out of it-


Mr. Homuth:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This house is now adjourned because there is not a quorum.


Mr. McLure:: No, there is not a quorum.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, there are twenty-one members. There is a quorum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I have not counted the members yet-


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Order; there is one member
coming in now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I have now counted the members, and I have discovered that the members who are in their seats now number-
Mr Homuth: I must protest your ruling because there were only eighteen members here when I rose.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I
understand the feeling of the hon. member; and, although I cannot find the reference in Beauchesne at the moment, I should like to say that when a member rises and directs the attention of the Speaker to the fact there is not a quorum at the moment he rises, what takes place is a count of the members. If by the time the Speaker counts the members there are twenty present, the house is not adjourned.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It depends on how slowly the Speaker counts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: The
member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) has the floor.


Howard Charles Green: I was discussing the interview given by the Minister of Fisheries when he was in Vancouver a few days ago. He has now reached the conclusion that there should be two pipe lines, one to go through Canada and one to go through the United States. This is the first time that anyone has-


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I do not mind the hon. gentleman making a speech, but I do object to his quoting from a paper what I am alleged to have said. In this case it is entirely wrong; I said nothing of the kind. I know of no difference in the pipe line bills presented to this house. So far as I am concerned, they can all go through the house, and the best deal that we can get out of all the applications should be the one we choose.
Prairie Transmission Lines


Howard Charles Green: They have not all been the same, because the one company that secured incorporation gave a pledge it would build the line through Canada.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. If I were your client, would you tell me that the pledge the company gave would bind the company and its successors in future years as to where the pipe line would be built? Would you say that the company is compelled to build that pipe line in Canada?


Howard Charles Green: It is not a question of future years. The company gave a pledge that this pipe line would be built through Canada. In my opinion that pledge is binding. If the company does not fulfil the pledge, then it will certainly be worthy of the utmost censure, and I will be one of. those who will censure it; of course it is unfortunate that the government, in providing for these pipe line charters, did not insist on having the routes stated in the bills. But the point I am making is this. That company would never have got a charter if they had not given a pledge that they were going to build through Canada.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: If the sponsor of this bill will get up and say that he has the assurance from them that they are going to build this pipe line in Canada now, I will certainly support your recommendations here.


Howard Charles Green: If the sponsor of this bill stood up in the house and pledged that this company would build their line through Canada first, I would have no further objection to the bill; although I think it would be much wiser for parliament to insist that this provision should be written into each of the charters and also that the Pipe Lines Act itself should be amended.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: If they were serious in their pledge, they would agree to that now.


Howard Charles Green: I did not hear what the minister said.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I said that in my opinion if they were sincere in their pledge that they were going to build the pipe line through Canada they would be the ones who would be asking to have their bill changed.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) said two or three weeks ago that the Westcoast Transmission Company would be perfectly ready to have their charter amended to that effect.
I must, however, get back to this question of the shadow monopoly which is being talked about especially by the British Columbia Liberal members. I do not blame them because this is the only excuse they have for their

Prairie Transmission Lines stand on these bills. They have had a hard time to think up arguments. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) is quoted as having said:
Some members are opposed to a monopoly, but they also demand that only one company get a franchise.
Nobody in this house has demanded that only one company get a franchise. That statement by the Minister of Fisheries, if he is correctly reported, is entirely misleading. What everyone who has opposed the pipe line bills has said is that any group of applicants for a charter who will come in and say they will build their line through British Columbia will get their bill through without any difficulty. But the applicants for these two bills, the Alberta Natural Gas Company and the Prairie Transmission Lines Limited, have so far been extremely careful not to give any such undertaking.
Then about a week ago we had the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) quoted as making a similar statement. Radio reports were to the effect that he had said that those who were opposing these bills were only fighting for a monopoly. If he said that, he knew it was utter tommyrot because such has not been the case. Then we had the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) quoted as making a certain statement; and incidentally it would be interesting to know to what spot he has disappeared this afternoon. He was in the house earlier in the proceedings, but when the vote on the last bill was called he was not to be found. It will be interesting to see whether he is here for the vote on this particular bill. He is quoted in the press of April 11 as follows:
Mr. Goode said he and all other B.C. Liberal M.P.'s-with the exception of George Cruickshank-
Who of course has been a great problem child for the other British Columbia Liberal members.
-were opposed to any bill which would grant a monopoly to any natural gas company in western Canada for a pipe line.
And there were similar statements by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall). He is quoted as saying:
We are faced with a complete positive monopoly of the Pipe Lines Act by a private company unless the charter is granted to the other companies. That one company was granted the charter and the other refused is not democratic.
All these Liberal members know that the reason, and the sole reason, one company obtained a charter was that they pledged themselves to build through Canada. I therefore repeat that this talk of monopoly by

these government supporters from the province of British Columbia is merely a little bit of shadow-boxing, the setting up of a straw man in order to knock him down.
I was glad to hear some reference today to the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Two or three weeks ago he was asked a prepared question in the house, and in reply he said that he would not agree to gas being sent to the United States through a pipe line before the pipe line reaches Vancouver. That statement, read according to the ordinary use of the English language, simply means that until the pipe line had been laid right into Vancouver he would not allow any gas to be turned on in the United States. But he has been careful all the way through the piece never to make the statement that he would not grant a permit to a company unless that company laid an all-Canadian route. All he needs to do to stop these debates is to get up in the house and give his pledge that, as the responsible minister, he will see that no permit is granted unless the route is to go through Canada.
Then to come down to the plan of the Prairie Transmission Lines Limited, I have here their petition to this house; and it sets out clearly where they intend to build this pipe line. This is their object:
To construct, maintain, own, operate and use a pipe line or pipe lines to transport natural and artificial gas and oil in, the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia commencing at a point in the general Calgary area in the province of Alberta and thence to a point in the vicinity of Blairmore in the said province and thence to a point in the vicinity of Kingsgate in the province of British Columbia and thence to the United States of America leaving Canada at a point at or near Kingsgate in the said province of British Columbia-
Which is in the far eastern part of the province.
-re-entering Canada in the vicinity of Blaine-
Which is on the coast.
-in the state of Washington and proceeding north to the Vancouver area in the province of British Columbia,-
Since last year they have added these words:
-or to the said destinations by such other route or routes as may be authorized by the board of transport commissioners.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose for the dinner recess I had just completed reading the first objective of these

applicants for incorporation of Prairie Transmission Lines Limited. It sets out the route along which they propose to build a pipe line.
I have here, in addition, a copy of the map filed last fall by these same people in the Senate. I only wish there were some way this map could be reprinted in Hansard, because I believe if hon. members could have a good look at it they would be satisfied that we are on the right side of this case.
In effect, this is a map of the state of Washington. The Canadian boundary appears across the map within a couple of inches of the top. The proposed pipeline starts at Macleod in southern Alberta, goes through the Crowsnest pass following the Canadian Pacific railway line, passes Fernie and Cran-brook, then crosses the American boundary, still in the eastern part of British Columbia. It goes almost due south for well over a hundred miles until it reaches the city of Spokane, which is quite a large city in the state of Washington. Then there is a branch line to the north which crosses the Canadian boundary in order to reach the smelting city of Trail. It goes only about twenty miles over into British Columbia.


Arthur Laing: Why show it to Newfoundland?


Howard Charles Green: You had better get up and tell your own story about this gas bill. The main line continues past Spokane, toward the coast. About half way from Spokane to the coast there is another branch line, this time to- the south. It goes down to the point where it serves the United States atomic energy plant at Hanford with a branch off to Yakima. Then goes farther south branching off to Walla Walla, and then right down across the boundary of the state of Washington into the state of Oregon. The main line continues out to the coast, which it reaches between Everett and Seattle. Then it turns south and goes to Tacoma, south through Washington, and down to Portland in the state of Oregon. All that British Columbia gets at the coast is a stub line to the north which crosses the boundary into Vancouver. In other words we have the pipe line in Canada for a short distance through the mountains in East Kootenay, and then two small stub lines which come over the boundary at Trail and at Vancouver.
This means, of course, that, so far as development is concerned, this company plan to develop the states of Washington and Oregon. As a matter of fact I do not think they are concerned what places they develop. All they want to do is to get that pipe line into the largest market by the shortest possible route, regardless of the interests of the Canadian people. That is the position taken
Prairie Transmission Lines by these applicants for incorporation, under the name of Prairie Transmission Lines Limited; and I believe the route suggested by the Alberta Natural Gas Company would be practically the same as the one I have just described. I should be very glad if any hon. members wishing to do so would take a look at this map.
This plan means the developing of Washington and Oregon rather than British Columbia. It means also that Canada is at the end of two stub lines. There has been some talk of being able to serve Canada before the Americans are served. However, I was impressed by the evidence given by Mr. Abner Faison Dixon, who is the key man behind the other application. Giving evidence before a Senate committee last year he said, in effect, that it would be impossible for a line to run through American territory and not serve American points until Canadian points are served. If the line is to go all that way through the United States, American points will be served, make no mistake about it, and Canada is going to get what is left.
This plan means something more. The suggestion has been made that this need not be settled by parliament but left to the board of transport commissioners, about whom we have heard so much. Well, the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada have no authority whatever over that line, once it crosses the United States boundary. The only control they are going to have over this pipe line to the Pacific, if the plan of those asking for incorporation of Prairie Transmission Lines Limited is followed, will be control over two small stub lines coming up from the United States. Furthermore the consent of the federal power commission of the United States is required for the pipe line to enter that country and also for it to be laid throughout the United States. That federal power commission will be the body which will really say what is to happen and what is to be done with this pipe line.
As I pointed out before, there is no agreement between Canada and the United States that this gas will come back to British Columbia in the amounts required. I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will not contradict that statement; he will agree that Canada has no treaty whatever with the United States concerning either oil or natural gas going from Canada across the American boundary. On that point there was some interesting evidence given last fall in the Senate committee by Mr. Dixon. He said he would think an. agreement would be insisted upon by the Canadian authorities
1616	HOUSE OF
Prairie Transmission Lines stating that gas would unquestionably go to British Columbia in the amounts required. But there is no such agreement and last fall there had not been even any negotiations undertaken. All these difficulties would be avoided by having a Canadian main line to Vancouver. That is all the opponents of these bills are asking.
The plan set out in the map I have described has another serious feature from the point of view of western Canada. It ignores the existence of natural gas and oil in the Peace river country. This is of tremendous importance to British Columbia because these are the only oil-bearing areas in the province and they constitute the most promising part of the province from the point of view of the development of oil and natural gas resources. The route through the United States is not designed to serve the Peace river district and Mr. Dixon admitted that in his evidence last year.
The result of putting the line through the United States will be that there will be no outlet to the Pacific coast from the Peace river areas of Alberta and British Columbia and their oil and gas will be dammed back behind the oil and gas produced in the Edmonton area. That is the position those areas are in today with regard to wheat. It is a tragedy that there is no rail outlet from the Peace river to the Pacific coast. We have never been able to bring about the construction of that line and the people of the Peace river have to ship their wheat down to Edmonton rather than over a shorter route to tidewater at Prince Rupert, Vancouver or New Westminster. If this line just crosses the corner of southern British Columbia to enter the United States, Peace river oil and gas will be in the same position as their wheat. Furthermore these people have been wanting a highway. If the pipe line went through the Yellowhead pass it would tap the Peace river and provide an outlet to the south and these people would have a highway as well as a pipe line.
I was amazed to note the attitude of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) in this debate. For the last few weeks every time this question has come up he has been heckling and jumping up and talking about some Tory monopoly. Incidentally he never would have been elected if it had not been for Tory votes because we did not put up a candidate against him. Yet his riding stands to gain more from having a pipe line through the Yellowhead than any other riding in British Columbia.
The same is largely true of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) who spoke a couple of weeks ago. He referred to an old


William Moore Benidickson: Why does not the hon. member introduce a bill?


Howard Charles Green: A bill was introduced two weeks ago. I suggest to the sponsor of the Prairie Transmission Lines Limited bill, who has now come back to the chamber although he did not bother to be here late this afternoon, that he get up and pledge on behalf of the people for whom he is speaking that they will abandon their plan to put the main line through the United States and will follow an all-Canadian route; also that they will accept the amendments to their charter necessary to provide that that will be the only power given. If he does so I am confident that all opposition to his bill will cease.
If he will not do it, and if the sponsors of the Alberta Natural Gas Company will not do the same thing, then I warn members of the house that they face a fight to the finish. We have taken our stand on this question and we do not propose to step aside and see Canadians living on the Pacific slope of Canada sold down the river just to please some big interest friends of the Canadian government.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken on this bill before, and I am sure my friends will be glad to hear me, having just come from British Columbia
Prairie Transmission Lines today. It was raining when I left there, and we need a little oil, but strangely the people of the province of British Columbia-


An hon. Member:: Louder.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It will be louder before I have finished. I did not think the time would ever come when the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and I would be seeing eye to eye.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a logical tie-up.


Howard Charles Green: It is a good tie-up; it is a better tie-up than you have got.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On this particular issue the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is far more popular with the people of British Columbia than the hon. member for Coast Capilano (Mr. Sinclair). While I was home I had the privilege of being entertained at a few meetings in my riding. I did not have to call the meetings; they were called on my behalf.


Arthur Laing: They called for you.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) had better go home and mend a few fences in his riding or I will quote some of the wires I have on my desk that come right from his riding. On this particular issue the people of the province of British Columbia may be a little bit selfish. I am willing to admit that, but they are not as selfish as the people of Ontario or Quebec. We may be a little selfish. We are trying to build up industry within our own province. We are trying to get some of the things to which we think we are entitled. I give every credit to the sincerity of those members from the province of British Columbia who have read speeches written in Wall street. I want them to give me credit for sincerity in what I say, and I am not reading any speech prepared for me by anybody in Wall street.


An hon. Member:: That is apparent.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I prepare my own. I can understand that my colleague would not appreciate that fact, never having made one that he wrote himself. I want to say what I think about this matter. I will be glad to let any of my colleagues take the floor for twenty minutes if they would like to, but in the meantime I am making a speech, and I am making it on behalf of the people of my riding. I have just come from there, having arrived by aeroplane today. When I got out of a taxi at the entrance to the building the division bell was ringing and there was a vote. I was pleased to be able to arrive just at the moment when a vote was being taken on that particular measure sponsored, I understand,
1618	HOUSE OF
Prairie Transmission Lines by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), a little part of Toronto. What do they care about British Columbia?


Mr. Sinclair:: Seconded by him.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is the same thing. It is a little district up there. I want to assure you that they have the nicest C.P.R. station in the Dominion of Canada at Kenora in the Rainy river district, which is very well described by its name. They have a lovely station there.


William Moore Benidickson: It was raining in Vancouver.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I find the hon. member for Spadina, with all the great interest he has in the province of British Columbia, seconding this motion. Then I noticed the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Howe) taking a keen interest in it, and I knew perfectly well how anxious they were to hear me speak on this particular bill. I have just come back from the province of British Columbia where there are not eighteen people in the entire province who favour the United States route. There are not eighteen people in the entire province. Probably I am in a more fortunate position than other members from the province of British Columbia because I happen to represent the best riding within the province. Each and every one of the associations in my district has passed a resolution endorsing an all-Canadian route. It has been said before and was said again tonight and I will say now that, in so far as I am concerned, I will withdraw all opposition if the sponsors will come forward and say, as one company did, that they will follow an all-Canadian route.
I do not care which company builds the line but I care a great deal whether Canada is served and my province is built up.
What may surprise some hon. members who are not familiar with their own provinces is that the cheapest form of power in the world is natural gas. We have heard all about the building of new dams at Niagara for the creation of more hydroelectric power, but the cheapest form of power in the world is natural gas. The people of British Columbia want to secure some of that power. We want to do something about decentralizing industry. We are not so keen about building up Hamilton, Port Arthur and other places in Ontario as we are about building up our own province. We admire Quebec. You know, Mr. Speaker, Quebec is probably the most historic province in the dominion.


An hon. Member:: Except Newfoundland.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is one of the most delightful to visit. The maritimes are not too bad, but probably Quebec is the most historic.


At the same time we would like to do a little building within our own province on the Pacific coast. We have every resource in. the world with the exception of oil and gas. We sincerely believe that there are oil and gas in northern British Columbia and the Peace river district. I am sorry that my good friend and colleague from that district is not here at the present moment. As has been mentioned before, I cannot understand why he prefers to see our resources developed for the benefit of the United States rather than Canada. If we develop oil and gas in our great northern country, as we think we can, we will have the richest province in the world. For that reason I can well understand there is a certain amount of jealousy in some of the provinces of central Canada. I can well understand why they would like to concentrate industry as they have in the past and prevent development on the Pacific coast, but I cannot understand some of my colleagues from our most beautiful province. I should like to say just a word or two about our province, where we have the finest climate in the world. If you were to come up to my office tonight, Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to show you some beautiful flowers that were picked in my garden yesterday morning. When you have a province with a climate like that, a province with youthful-


An hon. Member:: Members.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, they have some good members out there, too, though I am a little disappointed in one or two of them, in the amount of time they have taken while saying nothing. As I may have mentioned once or twice in this house before, I do not come from Vancouver island or Victoria; I come from the great Fraser valley, where we have everything except this natural gas. I should like to quote a little item that I saw while I was home. I am sorry I cannot say whether it is from the Sun or the Province, but they they are both good newspapers. As a matter of fact the circulation of those newspapers is among the greatest in Canada. Of course we have an advantage in that respect, because out in Coast-Capilano we have the largest pulp mill in the British empire. That riding is fairly well represented here, though not as well as during the period when I looked after it myself. This clipping contains a dispatch from Burnaby, which incidentally is one of the largest municipalities in British Columbia. At one time they had an excellent administration, particularly in their school board. It is not so good now, but they are doing their best to get by. This dispatch is headed, "Gas for B.C. before U.S., M.P.

promises." I am making no promises at all; I am just hoping for the best. The dispatch goes on:
Canadian consumers will get all the gas from Alberta they require before any is exported to the United States, Tom Goode, M.P. for Burnaby-Richmond, told fellow members of the Burnaby Lions club Thursday night.
I hope that sinks in a bit. That is not my say-so; those are the words of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode).


Howard Charles Green: Talking through his hat.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The clipping goes on:
Mr. Goode said he is against a monopoly for distribution of the gas and criticized Howard Green, Vancouver-Quadra M.P. and George Cruickshank, Fraser Valley M.P., for their filibuster in the house against granting a second franchise for distribution of the gas.
The company now holding a franchise had no intention of constructing a pipe line in his opinion, said Mr. Goode.
He said Richmond municipality should not have to contribute towards the proposed Marpole bridge.
I am not interested in that just now, though I have seen many articles in the newspapers about it, and out there they say the federal government is going to spend four or five million dollars on the construction of that bridge. The hon. member promised that British Columbia would get gas before it went to the United States. Well, Mr. Speaker, the place to make such promises is right here in this chamber. There has been some talk about monopolies. We believe that in some things you must have a monopoly. I am going to make the statement definitely that, no matter what companies get franchises, only one company will build a pipe line within the next fifty years. Make no mistake about that. I do not expect to be in this chamber that long-


An hon. Member:: Why not?	.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Because I am going to move "over there". Only one company will build a pipe line, no matter how many franchises are granted. There is only one source from which the money can come. Most of it will be provided by United States investors. I understand there is another pipe line bill to be considered. I may not be in order in referring to that just now, but I will have something to say about it later on. 1 have no authority to say so, but I believe the company which some of my youthful friends permitted to get a charter last year would be agreeable to incorporating in that charter a provision that the route shall be all-Canadian. On the other hand I think it would be ridiculous to ask only one company to put that provision in its charter, without asking all the others to do the same thing. Put it in all the charters. Speaking for 55946-104
Prairie Transmission Lines myself, and I believe for certain of my friends across the way, we would be prepared to immediately withdraw our opposition if provision were made for an all-Canadian route. Why should that not be done? I should like some of my western friends in particular to study what has happened in connection with our international waterways. The records are available. I know many hon. members are busy, working hard in behalf of their constituents, but let them take time to study what happened in that connection. Once this gas or oil leaves Canada, international complications enter into it and you can have no guarantee that any portion of the gas or oil will be returned to Canada. I am surprised that some hon. members do not take advantage of the fact that we have a library in this building where they can get some information on these matters. I am surprised that some of them have never heard about the million and a half dollars expenditure under the river at Detroit, between Detroit and Windsor. By means of this, we were to get gas on the Canadian side. After that money had been expended, the United States decided there was not enough gas to supply us, so we did not get any. Let some of these people realize that there has never been one member, so far as I know, who has spoken in this so-called filibuster-we do not agree with the term- who has said that we should not export gas to the United States. Of course, we want to export our surplus gas to the United States, but we want to serve Canada first. We think it is not too much to ask some of our eastern friends to go along with us on that. Let us develop our own province and our own dominion. Let us keep a reserve within the country.
Last year, I think it was, I was heavily lobbied, as I presume the rest of the members were, in connection with processing our salmon within our own province. I have mentioned this incident before, Mr. Speaker, but it is worth repeating. These lobbyists came to me, and said we should process the fish in our own province. I think they were right. At that time the fishermen could have obtained five cents a pound more by shipping the fish to Bellingham, not far from Vancouver. These interests said, "Let us process this fish in British Columbia." Some of these same people are now saying, "Let us build a pipe line to the United States; let us build up Idaho and Washington rather than our own province of British Columbia."
These same interests, Mr. Speaker, lobbied me, and rightly so, about our timber. Incidentally, the province of British Columbia produces 55 per cent of the lumber produced

Prairie Transmission Lines in Canada. These lobbyists said that the logs should not be exported to Oregon and Washington, but should be manufactured within the province of British Columbia. I believed they were right, and I supported them. These same individuals now say that we should ship gas down to the states of Idaho and Washington. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the greatest hydroelectric development in the entire world is at Grand Coulee, right in the area to which these people want to send natural gas. The greatest development on the Pacific coast has been ' in the states of Oregon and Washington, the spot to which they want to send this gas in order that more development may take place.
Some of us believe, Mr. Speaker, that it would be better to keep this gas within our own country, and develop our own country.
I do not like to take up the time of the house on this matter, but we feel that the sponsor of this bill should frankly state whether or not it is the intention of the company to build the line through Canada. The sponsor of one bill, on which I cannot speak, since I have already taken part in the debate on that matter, said he had not the faintest idea where the company was going to build its line. I do not think any of the members opposite hold any brief for the Westcoast Transmission Company, but that company has made a definite commitment, in the form of an application before the Alberta petroleum board, to build a Canadian route. Hon. members do not have to take my word for it; it is a matter of record. In its application, the company said it intended to build a Canadian route. Why some of these Toronto stock brokers or Wall street ambitionists could not make the same statement, I do not know. One company has made that statement in the form of a formal application before the board. So far as I am concerned, the provision covering a Canadian route could be inserted in the charters of all companies. I am speaking of the western outfit, and the people in eastern Canada can talk about Sarnia and Wisconsin.
I am primarily concerned with my own province, and western Canada. If such a provision could be inserted in the charter of every company, I would be satisfied.
It is rather difficult to talk for forty minutes when you have not a prepared script written for you by Wall street. In the first place, I am interested in talking to you people because my riding is interested. I have just returned from that riding, which is the finest riding in British Columbia. I know how the people of British Columbia feel about this matter. There are not eighteen residents in the entire province of British Columbia who favour the route to the United States. I do 

not know just what the population of the province is, but I suppose it is approximately a million. My riding has about 50,000 in it, and 48,000 of them think Cruickshank is quite smart.


James Sinclair: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I hear a sceptical laugh. When I was elected in 1940, I took the seat away from a Conservative who had held it for 25 years. He was a good friend of mine, and a fine man. I had a majority of 427 in that election; in the next election my majority was 1,500 and in the last election I had a majority of over 8,000. Laugh at that.


James Sinclair: Over 8,000?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, and in this particular election the C.C.F., Liberal and Conservatives were united.


James Sinclair: May I correct the hon. member? The parliamentary guide for this year shows the hon. member's majority was 7,014.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, I do not mind being out four or five hundred.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) does not mind being a million out.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not mind being out by six or seven hundred. You know, I have never been defeated yet, and I do not intend to be defeated. I found out what the press of British Columbia had to say, and let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that nothing touches the people of Canada more closely than the press. The press of British Columbia are 100 per cent for a Canadian route. Each and every Liberal association in British Columbia has, so far as I know, voted for a Canadian route. The Conservatives can speak for themselves but, owing to the efforts of their members, I presume they are in exactly the same position. I know exactly where the C.C.F. stand in this matter. When the provincial government made up of the three parties-


James Sinclair: You have some great bedfellows.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I would rather be a bedfellow of those who are working for the people of British Columbia than be the odd guest of those who are working against the people of British Columbia.
I had not intended to take up so much of the time of the house, Mr. Speaker. I am not just sure how long I have been speaking. I certainly do not want to delay proceedings-


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


George Alexander Cruickshank: -as I realize how anxious some of my colleagues are to say a few words

about the development of Canada for Canadians rather than the development of our good friends the United States, particularly the states of Idaho and Washington. I am sure that many of my colleagues would like to say a few words in this connection in the twenty or thirty minutes at their disposal. I am sure the minister of reconstruction would like to say a few words about building Canada. There are so many new titles around here now that I am not just sure to whom I am referring when I quote the title of any particular position; but the title of minister of reconstruction intrigues me and I believe that the minister of reconstruction-


An hon. Member:: Which one?


George Alexander Cruickshank: -coming from that
other portion of Canada, and having had the privilege of speaking in Toronto and then in Mexico, would love to come out and tell the people of my province: "We are going to build Canada for Canadians; we are going to develop the natural resources of our own dominion for the benefit of our own people prior to assisting any other country, no matter how friendly they may be." I am sure he would like to say that. I am sure he would like to say it in Spanish, the language in which he no doubt spoke in Mexico. I am sure he would like to say that to them as fellow maritimers. We come from one extremity of Canada; he comes from the other extremity. Neither of us has had what we consider to be fair treatment. We think that our fellow members within this house would like to assist us in seeing that we are assured the rights to which we are entitled under our democratic form of government; and we think that our fellow Canadians would like to assist us in building a greater Canada by building a greater British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Benidickson moves,
seconded by Mr. Mclvor, that Bill No. 9, to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited, be now read a second time; and Mr. Macdonald (Edmonton East), seconded by Mr. Welbourn, moves, that this question be now put. The question is on the motion that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: On division?


Howard Charles Green: No.
55946-104J
Prairie Transmission Lines Mr. Speaker: Those in favour of the motion will say "yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will say "nay".


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the "yeas"
have it.
And more than five members having
risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Joseph Henry Harris: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Breithaupt). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Aylesworth
Blair
Brooks
Casselman
Catherwood
Charlton
Coldwell
Coyle
Drew
Fleming
Fraser
Fulton
Gillis
Graydon
Green
Harkness
Hodgson
Jones
Knight
Knowles
Lennard
Maclnnis
Ncseworthy
Tustin
White (Hastings-Peterborough)
White (Middlesex East) -26.
Benidickson), which was agreed to on the Mr. Harris (Danforih): I was paired with o owing lvision.	the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. YEAS
Messrs:
Abbott
Anderson
Applewhaite
Arsenault
Ashbourne
Bater
Beaudoin
Benidickson
Bennett
Bertrand
Beyerstein
Blackmore
Blanchette
Eoisvert
Bonnier
Boucher
Bradette.
Bradley
Brown (Essex West)
Bruneau
Cauchon
Cavers
Claxton
Cleaver
Corry
Cote (St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville)
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Cote (Verdun-La Salle) Croll
Cruickshank
Dewar
Dickey	.
Dion
Dumas
Eyre
Fair
Ferrie
Follwell
Fournier (Hull)
Fulford
Garson
Gauthier (Portneuf)
George
Gingues
Goode
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Henderson
Hetland
Hosking
Howe
Huffman
Isnor
Jutras
Kent
Kickham	.
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth) Laing
Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge)
Langlois (Gaspe)
Larson
Leduc
Lefrancois
Lesage
Little
Low
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) McCann McCubbin McCusker
McLean (Huron-Perth)
Major
Masse
Martin
Matthews
Mayhew
Monette
Murray (Oxford' Pearson
Breithaupt). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I refer this bill to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Next order of business.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: We have a large number of other private bills, and if there were no objection I would ask Mr. Speaker to call them.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That means reverting to the large number of divorce bills, and I will not consent. I refuse to have the business of this house juggled by this government to suit their personal interests.


James Sinclair: Perhaps the hon. member has overlooked the fact that after Bill No. 66 there are Bills No. 67 to No. 106, which I believe have not yet been called.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, yes, they were.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the sponsor of those bills to ask that all divorce bills should stand, and when the bills were called earlier in the day they were permitted to stand. I hope I did not make a mistake, and that I was carrying out the wishes of the house and of the sponsor. The hon. gentleman nods, so I take it I am correct.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	Has the government made proposals to the provinces, seeking their co-operation for the establishment of a contributory scheme of old age pensions without a means test?
2.	If so, on what date were the proposals made?
3.	Have replies been received from any of the provinces, and what was the nature of such replies?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Stand.


Angus MacInnis: Might I ask when I may expect an answer to this question? It has been on the order paper since February 21. It is a very simple question, and there is no
Questions
reason in the world why the department concerned should not give an answer one way or the other.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be very glad to give immediate consideration to the representations of my hon. friend.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


SASKATOON, SASK., GRAIN ELEVATOR
Mr. Ross (Souris):: 1.	What amounts of different types of cereals, seeds, or other commodities were stored in the federal government grain elevator at Saskatoon, during the year 1949?
2.	Who were the owners of these cereals, seeds, or other commodities?
3.	What amount of charges were assessed to these owners?


Clarence Decatur Howe: t l.
CANADIAN GOVERNMENT ELEVATORS Saskatoon Elevator
-	Wheat (bushels)	Oats (bushels)	Barley (bushels)	Flax (bushels)	Canada Rapeseed	Screenings (bushels)	Charges
Stocks in store, January 1, 1949, for ac-					(lbs.)		
	580	8,183	134	18,022	10,277,130#		S 8,005.00
Received January 1, 1949-							
December 31, 1949, for account of 5							
	7,640				883,045	18,160	206 27
							
Total stored		8,520	8,183	134	18,022	11,160,175#	18,160	8,211.17
Shipped January 1, 1949-							
December 31, 1949 for account of 9							
owners, plus cleaning or drying							
loss, invisible loss, deficit at							
weighovcr	6,767	7,998	7	17,830	11,160,175#	18,160	15,546.38In store, December 31, 1949	1,250	185	127	192	Nil	Nil	23,757.55
t NO TE: For revised table, see page 1807.
2.	It is not desirable to publish the name of the owner as this would reveal the details of the individual's business to his competitors.
3.	See statement.


VAMPIRE JET PLANES
Mr. White (Middlesex East):: 1.	How many Vampire jet planes have been purchased by the Department of National Defence for use in Canada?
2.	From whom were they purchased?
3.	What was the unit price?
4.	How many are now in service?
5.	Where are they located?


Mr. Blanchette:: 
FEED GRAINS
John George Diefenbaker: As on March 27 what was the price set by the wheat board on (a) western feed oats; (b) first grade feed barley, at Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: (a) Ninety-six and a half cents per bushel basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur for

Questions
No. 1 feed oats; (b)$1.41J per bushel basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur for No. 1 feed barley.
The same prices would apply to the' trade at Regina, Saskatoon and Winnipeg less the freight to lakehead. When retailing oats and barley, the trade would add a merchandising charge.
The Canadian wheat board disposes of oats and barley at the lakehead and does not quote on a Toronto or Montreal basis.


COVERDALE, N.B., NAVAL BASE
Mr. Brooks:: 1.	Were tenders called for work done at Cover-dale naval base, Coverdale, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what was the amount of each tender, and who received the contract?
3.	What was the total cost of this construction?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Three contracts have been
awarded for construction, maintenance and repairs at Coverdale naval base, Coverdale, New Brunswick.
Contract (a): Maintenance repairs to buildings at the W/T station.
Contract (b): Painting interior and exterior trim of accommodation and operating buildings.
Contract (c): Construction of 16 buildings, well and water-storage tank, and contract work exterior to buildings.
1.	Contract (a): As the repairs required were of a general nature, plans and specifications were not prepared. Negotiations were entered into with a local company who were considered to be in a position to effect the necessary repairs in * a satisfactory manner and the contract was awarded to them on a cost plus a fixed fee basis.
Contract (b): Yes.
Contract (c): Yes.
2.	Contract (a): Answered by No. 1.
Contract (b): 1. $3,689; 2. $3,810; 3. $3,930;
4.	$6,481; 5. $10,190.
Contract (c): 1. $191,311.50; 2. $192,352; 3. $201,316.35.
Contract (a) awarded to W. Ronald McLaughlin, 490 St. George street, Moncton, N.B.
Contract (b) awarded to A. N. Clarke and Son, 131 Botsford street, Moncton, N.B.
Contract (c) awarded to Modern Construction Ltd., Downing street, Moncton, N.B.
3.	Contract (a): $1,100; contract (b): $3,689 plus $558 to cover items not included in the original specifications; contract (c): $191,311.50 plus $14,204.53 to cover items not included in the original specifications.


LOANS OR CREDITS TO OVERSEAS COUNTRIES
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Have any Canadian loans or credits, extended to overseas nations since January 1, 1945, been cancelled?
2.	If so, what loans or credits, and in what amount?


James Sinclair: 1 and 2. No loans or credits, extended to overseas nations since January 1, 1945, have been cancelled.
Among outstanding obligations of foreign countries are claims by Canada for payment in respect of supplies furnished to several European countries during the period of military occupation commencing in June, 1944. Settlement of these claims is subject to negotiations with the governments concerned. An appropriate statement concerning settlement of these claims will be made in the house at a later date.


POLYMER CORPORATION, SARNIA    SALARIES AND WAGES
Mr. Noseworthy:: In the Polymer Corporation, Sarnia, Ontario, how many people are employed at the present time in the following categories and what is the total monthly wage and salary cost of each group: (a) hourly rated employees; (b) salaried employees; (c) executives from assistant managers to president?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Number of Employees as of
Month End
(a)	All wage payroll
employees		1,307
(b)	All other salaried
employees		648
(c)	Senior executives2	6
Total	 1,961
Notes: includes overtime pay.
includes president, executive vice-president, manager, assistant manager, comptroller, and secretary-treasurer.



POSTAL SERVICE


Mr. Isnor:: 1	Were tenders recently called in connection with the purchase of lock boxes for various small post offices in the Halifax district?
2	If so (a) on what date; (b) where were advertisements posted; (c) what newspapers carried advertisement?
3.	What are the names and addresses of those who submitted tenders, and the amount of each?
4.	Who was awarded the contract?
Wage and Salary Cost for February, 1950
$280,053!
154,674
6,965


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) February 21, 1950.
(b)	In offices of-Chief architect, Department of Public Works, Ottawa, Ont.; district architect, Toronto, Ont.; district architect, Montreal, P.Q.; district architect, Halifax, N.S.
(c)	Chronicle-Herald, Halifax, N.S.; Mail-Star, Halifax, N.S.; Herald, Montreal, P.Q.; he Canada, Montreal, P.Q.; Star, Toronto, Ont.; Daily Commercial News, Toronto, Ont.; Canada Gazette, Ottawa, Ont.
3.	Rest-Glow Mfg. Co., Limited, 6845 St. Urbain St., Montreal, P.Q., $9,487.20; Engineering Products of Canada, Ltd., 5035 Ontario St., East, Montreal, P.Q., $10,550.00; Summers Industries Limited, Smiths Falls, Ont., $11,749.00; Rubenstein Brothers Co., 50 Craig St., Montreal, P.Q., $12,546.00; The Robert Mitchell Co., Limited, Drawer 5, St. Henri Postal Station, Montreal, P.Q., $21,427.00.
4.	Rest-Glow Mfg., Co., Limited, Montreal, P.Q. at $9,487.20.



COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS  TARIFFS, FEES, ETC.

Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	On what grounds and for what reasons did the copyright appeal board1 allow increases in tariffs to be made by the Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada, Limited, Toronto, in each of the years 1949 and 1950, to date?
2.	What is the total amount of fees that have been
levied by the said association against (a) the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:	(b) private radio
stations, in each of the years 1947 to 1949, inclusive?
3.	What fees have been authorized to be levied against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the year 1950 by the said association?


Mr. Bradley:: 1.	In the reports to the Secretary of State from the copyright appeal board, no grounds or reasons are given for the change in the tariffs of Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada, Limited, as approved by the board.
2.	Fees authorized to be collected from the various radio stations for licences to use the association's repertoire are as follows:
Year	Radio stations	Amount
1947,	Canadian Broadcasting Corp., $122,804.43
private stations, $122,804.43
1948,	Canadian Broadcasting Corp., $126,547.68
private stations, $126,547.68
1949,	Canadian Broadcasting Corp., $136,081.89
private stations, $136,081.89 3
3.
1950,	Canadian Broadcasting Corp., $147,747.53
Questions



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO AGRICULTURE IN NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: 1.	What steps, if any, have been taken for the promotion of agriculture in Newfoundland, during the past year?
2.	What work, if any, is to be done during the coming fiscal year for the same purpose?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	The Department of Agriculture has been working in co-operation with the department of natural resources of Newfoundland in taking over those activities which normally are performed by the federal department. Responsibility for inspection of animals for contagious diseases was taken over during the past year. An inspector was also appointed to examine for disease and insect pests plants and plant products entering Newfoundland. The provincial entomologist was also transferred to the federal staff.
Officers of the federal department were sent to conduct surveys during the summer of 1949 for plant diseases and insect pests. A soil specialist was also sent over to consult with the Newfoundland soil survey staff. Several other officials went to Newfoundland in connection with discussions on grading and inspection of agricultural products.
The sum of $251,168.94 was paid in freight assistance on the moving of 12,554 tons of feed grain to Newfoundland. It is expected that about $2,000 will be paid toward meeting the cost of agricultural limestone.
2.	Effective April 1, 1950, the demonstration farm, formerly operated by the Newfoundland government, became part of the experimental farm service of the federal Department of Agriculture. This involved the transfer of buildings, livestock and equipment and a staff of five employees. This farm will now be operated to give the same type of service as federal experimental farms in other provinces. This will include research and demonstration on improved agricultural methods.
Discussions have been taking place with the Newfoundland authorities concerning the inspection of fruits and vegetables, poultry and eggs, and dairy products. It is expected that the Newfoundland authorities will co-operate in establishment of this type of work during the present fiscal year.
Newfoundland has asked the agricultural economics division of marketing service to conduct a survey during the coming summer on the marketing of farm products in Newfoundland. The survey will be under the direction of officers of the federal department, and the staff will be drawn from both federal and provincial employees.

Orders for Returns



R.C.A.F.-LOAN OF TRAINING PLANES TO FLYING CLUBS

Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Have arrangements been made to lend Royal Canadian Air Force Chipmunk trainers to flying clubs for reserve training?
2.	If so, under what conditions are these loans to be made?
3.	How many Chipmunks are to be made available for this purpose?
4.	To which clubs are they being distributed?
5.	Will similar loans be made to flying schools?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	No, but such a proposal is now under consideration.
2.	It would be proposed that the aircraft would be used exclusively for reserve training. Other conditions of loan have not been finalized.
3.	Proposals provide for the loan of a maximum of 33 aircraft.
4.	The flying clubs to which loans would be made have not been determined.
5.	No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


CROWN CORPORATIONS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES


Mr. Wright:: 1.	What are the names of all crown corporations, government agencies, or government enterprises, owned in part or in whole by the dominion government?
2.	What were the profits or losses on each such company, agency or enterprise during 1949 and/or their last financial year?


Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	What boards, agencies, companies or other organizations under the federal administration showed a financial surplus for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1949, or at an earlier date?
2.	What was the surplus in each case?
3.	What was the deficit shown by each of the said organizations, if any?



SUBSIDIES ON RAW AND MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS

Mr. Wright:: 1.	On what products, either raw or manufactured, were subsidies paid during 1949?
2.	What were the rates and total amounts of subsidies in each case?
3.	On what services were subsidies paid during 1949?
4.	What were the rates and total amounts of subsidies paid in each case?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Stanley Howard Knowles: For a return showing the title and date of each memorandum and study prepared by the directorate of health insurance studies on matters related to health insurance, dated since April 1, 1945, as reported on March 16, 1950.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there can be no objection to part of this motion on the understanding that all my hon. friend wants is the title and date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think that is all the
motion asks for.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, consideration should be given to the appointment of a special committee to report upon the choice of a distinctive Canadian flag.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving this resolution I should like to point out that the flag question has been discussed on many occasions in former parliaments. In 1924 the government appointed a committee of officials to select a design for a Canadian flag. There were debates on the subject in 1931, 1932, 1933, 1935, 1937 and 1938. In that year the prime minister, Right Hon. Mr. King, and the then leader of the opposition, Right Hon. Mr. Bennett, agreed that a committee should be appointed to recommend an appropriate design. Then there was an important debate on a resolution introduced in 1939 by Mr. Cameron McIntosh, and in 1942 a private bill was introduced by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix). However, the most important discussion on the subject in recent years took place in 1945, when the then prime minister moved for the appointment of a committee to consider and report upon a suitable design for a Canadian flag, which committee sat in 1945 and 1946.
Perhaps it is well to point out that Canada does not possess a national flag other than the union jack, except to the extent that orders in council of 1924 and 1945 permitted the use of the red ensign under certain circumstances.
The first question which arises is as follows: For what does a distinctive flag for Canada stand? Mr. Speaker, borrowing some of the words used by Mr. McIntosh, I would give the following definition. I believe a distinctive flag for Canada would stand for

individual freedom; national freedom; national unity; the rallying force in the defence of the nation in times of emergency; the common sentiment of the Canadian people; our past history; our past resolutions; our past achievements; the ideals which will lead us to overcome all that is ignoble, untrue, and all that is of a defeatist nature in the days to come. It would also exemplify the coronation oath which was taken in 1937 by His Majesty, as King of Canada. It would stand for the equality of Canada with the United Kingdom, and the building up of the commonwealth of nations. It would stand for the Statute of Westminster of 1931, by which Canada was designated not as a colony but as a sovereign nation within the ambit of the British commonwealth. It would stand also for our devotion to Canada; our national defence; our national pride, honour and glory.
Since we have acquired the right to amend our own constitution, to decide the appeals from our courts in Canada, it should stand also for our new independence. It should stand for our newly acquired prestige since the second great war, both within the commonwealth and amongst the great nations of the world. Mr. Speaker, may I remind this house that at the January conference, all the premiers of the provinces of Canada, as well as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), reasserted the fact of Canada's independence in the commonwealth, and the desirability of making any provincial or federal amendments to the constitution entirely within Canada and by Canadian means.
A distinctive flag asserts nationality, whether it is flown afloat or ashore. When flown officially in foreign countries, it indicates the occupancy of embassies and consulates by the country of the flag. When flown at international gatherings, it shows that its country is present; and when flown at international sport meets, it is shown to indicate the winner of athletic events. Without a national flag a country cannot be recognized as being present.
A distinctive national flag engenders patriotism in the hearts of the people, and it raises enthusiasm for its country in the minds of those who see it. It teaches all, and especially the young, to love their own country or to support their country; it constitutes a rallying point in times of stress, and brings strength and respect. A distinctive Canadian flag should engender and bolster unity among the people of Canada. At no time in our history has this sentiment of unity been greater than it is now. The people of this country are seeking for a
Canadian Flag
symbol to which they can look with devotion and pride, and which will represent the ideals and the qualities of a citizen of this great country.
The next question which might be raised is whether the time is appropriate. Even in 1945 the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, in moving the resolution, made this statement:
There have been suggestions by some persons that this is not an important matter, and that it should not be brought forward at this time. With this I emphatically disagree. In the life of every nation symbols are important, and perhaps the most important of them is a national flag. We need only to think of the vast affection and loyalty that has attached to the Union Jack in Britain and throughout the commonwealth, and I yield to no one in the house in my admiration for that great symbol of empire. In the same way, for our neighbours to the south the stars and stripes have been an inspiration to national unity and national endeavour. We in Canada have shared the Union Jack, and we shall always honour it as the symbol of much that is best and most precious ini our heritage; but we have had nothing that has b'een peculiarly and indisputably our own, that would symbolize Canada -all of Canada and everyone in Canada. There should be something that all can see and look to with pride, as the symbol of this great nation of ours, to which affection and loyalty can attach, and which can become the sign of the unity and purpose that will make Canada great.
I agree particularly with the last statement of the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, Mr. Speaker, and especially that one which relates to affection and loyalty to Canada, for at no time has it been more evident than now that it is necessary to instil into the minds and hearts of our people a strong feeling of loyalty, faith and devotion in Canada and its democratic institutions. Canadians must be united, not only in defence but in the development of the vast natural and spiritual resources which we possess. All other nations in the commonwealth have their own national flags, some of which are distinctive, and the lack of such a flag by Canadians created some unhappy incidents during the war; at international meetings; at Olympic and other sport events; at public demonstrations in Canada and elsewhere. We can be loyal to the King of Canada, and still own a distinctive Canadian flag. I do not think that there are any subjects more truly loyal to His Majesty in any part of the commonwealth at present than in Canada, and this is evidenced by the great attachment and devotion, not only to Their Majesties themselves but also to their popular representatives, Viscount and Lady Alexander.
The Hon. Paul Martin at the first meeting of the Canadian flag committee in 1945 said:
There has been too little, not too much, national pride in that country. We are part of a great commonwealth organization that has been an example to the world, and we have every intention of

Canadian Flag
remaining a part, and of helping it on to greater and better things. We hope for much from the new United Nations Organization, in which we feel that we will play our full and active part. Our gaze is turning more and more outward, and in carrying our responsibilities in the new world, we will be better fitted to do our part if we have an essential feeling of internal unity and oneness. That is why, I think, it is important to give greater emphasis to the Canadian aspect of things, and1 why it is desirable that the work of this committee should result in an acceptable and appropriate design.
Mr. Speaker, we do not think of one who has a well-developed sense of local pride in his own city as lacking in his own patriotism, nor should we think of one who has a good sense of Canadian pride as being only the least devoted to the purposes and principles of the commonwealth of nations. Mr: Speaker, I believe it will be the responsibility of the present parliament to select a distinctive Canadian flag. I believe that all the parties represented in this house, at their national conventions in recent years, have passed resolutions in favour of the selection of a flag which will mark the spirit, pride, loyalty and devotion of Canadians to our country.
It would, of course, be much better to delay the adoption of a flag than to decide now upon the selection of one that is not so distinctive. In moving this resolution, I wanted it to be clearly understood that in accepting it this house would be accepting the broad definition that I have outlined as to what is a distinctive Canadian flag, namely, that it should not contain the emblems, symbols or designs of any other national flag, whether in whole or in part. I would, of course, much prefer to have this resolution in the hands of the government where it belongs, but I hope that this house will agree with me that I am expressing the wish of the majority of the Canadian people in asking for an opinion of the members regarding the formation of a committee to select a distinctive Canadian flag.
Mr. Speaker, I hope there will soon be a distinctive Canadian flag, a new symbol born to mark all that is good and all that is great in Canada; one that we can transmit to our children so that they may wave it cheerfully, salute with pride and defend, if need be with their lives, for the great privilege it represents of being Canadians.
As Mr. Ilsley said in closing his remarks in 1945:
I earnestly hope that It will be unanimously adopted by the house, and that the work of the committee will settle now and for all, and for the good of Canada, and through the growth and influence of Canada, for the good of the commonwealth and the community of nations, this question of our national flag and symbol. The children of today and, let us pray, the children of tomorrow,

will strive for and gain a new peace, a new freedom and a new security under the protection of the flag of Canada.


Mr. Bona Arsenauli (Bonaventure):: I wish to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, in support of the resolution of my colleague the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard). For many years there has been a growing sentiment in every part of Canada in favour of a distinctive national flag for Canada. Although a young nation, Canada finds herself today one of the most important powers of the world. In the course of the last half century our country has had to its credit great achievements from which Canadians derive a growing national pride and this pride translates itself, as we can feel more and more as time passes, into a distinctive Canadian spirit in every section of our country.
May I remind you, sir, that at one time some of us French-speaking Canadians were under the impression that this distinctive Canadian spirit was limited to the population living within the boundaries of the province of Quebec. But if that ever was the case, such a situation does not exist any longer. At this point I wish to warn my French-speaking compatriots from the province of Quebec against an error which is far too common among certain classes of our French-speaking population who are too often inclined to take it for granted that the only real and true Canadians in this country are those of French descent, the other part of the Canadian population being labelled or earmarked as "les Anglais", the English.
I have sat in this house long enough now to know beyond any doubt that the great majority of our English-speaking colleagues, whatever their political affiliations, are just as true, sincere and good Canadians as any of our French-speaking colleagues in this house; and the people who have elected them to this parliament must also share most of their views on most of our national issues. May I also add that the election of a Frenchspeaking Canadian Prime Minister, with such an overwhelming majority, at the last general election, makes it obvious that this truly distinctive Canadian spirit exists outside the province of Quebec as well as within the boundaries of that province. As a result, never before in our history has there been a time when the great majority of Canadians, English-speaking as well as French-speaking, were ever prouder of being Canadians. Except perhaps for certain countries controlled by the communists, wherever in the world a Canadian may go today he is welcomed, greeted and respected as a Canadian as soon as he identifies himself as such. The time has therefore come when Canadians, proud as they are of Canada, their homeland, should

be given a distinctive sign by which they can easily, promptly and fully identify themselves at first sight as Canadians. The time is now ripe, Mr. Speaker, when this country should be given a distinctive national flag by which she can identify herself and distinguish herself from other parts of the world as well as from other nations of the commonwealth, a Canadian flag distinguished from any other national flag in the world; a Canadian flag that would make every Canadian boy and girl live not for the country from which his or her ancestors came one, two, three, nine or ten generations ago but live Cor, work for, fight for and be ready to die for Canada, his or her sacred native land.
My colleague the hon. member for Ottawa East has quoted a statement made by the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley. May I quote what the leader of the C.C.F. party, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), stated in this house on November 8, 1945, as reported at page 1939 of Hansard:
1 wish to see Canada with a distinctive flag, and in my opinion the red ensign with a coat of arms on it, which I would rather say nothing about, is not a distinctive flag . . . The flag of the British commonwealth is the union jack, and we respect it, but I am pleased indeed to know that my hon. friends to the right are prepared to recognize that the time has come when Canada should have a flag of her own.
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, the then prime minister of Canada, stated in this house on February 14, 1938, as reported at page 438 of Hansard:
The use of the union jack on anything that is distinctively Canadian in the United States does not help to emphasize the individuality of this country or its distinct nationality; it helps to submerge them altogether.
And finally, our present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), then minister of justice, stated in this house on November 13, 1945, as reported at page 2097 of Hansard:
The purpose for which it is suggested there should be a distinctive national flag is ... to have a symbol that all Canadians can look upon as distinctively their own, not because they want to discard the union jack, but because the union jack is not distinctively their own and because they feel that their nation has now reached the stature in the family of nations that requires it to have something which can be regarded as its own.
I am sorry that we have no such statement from the leader of the Progressive Conservative party or any of his lieutenants. It has been suggested before in this house that the Canadian population was not quite prepared to accept at the present time a distinctive national flag as well as a national anthem of our own.
It has been said also that more time was needed before a government could face those
Medals and Decorations two issues without arousing controversy which might endanger national unity in this country. Who will ever know the answers to those questions until such time as the Canadian people have had an opportunity to express themselves with respect to them?
Therefore I say that unless proper legislation is introduced and adopted by the house to give our country a national and distinctive flag, and an official national anthem, and within a reasonable time, a referendum should be held on those two questions. This should be done at the earliest possible convenient moment.
This procedure has been taken before. In 1941 a referendum was held on a controversial issue. This is the only accurate and democratic way of learning the will of the majority of the Canadian people with respect to those important subjects. I for one hold the sincere conviction that if such a referendum were held today in Canada concerning those two issues, in all provinces of Canada, without exception, the yeas would have it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Bona Arsenault: That in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the advisability of setting up a special committee of the house to consider and report upon the creation of an entirely Canadian system of military and civilian medals and decorations to be awarded to Canadians for services beyond the call of duty and for other meritorious services, in time of war as well as in time of peace, and also for services rendered to Canada by men or women of nationalities other than Canadian, as a means of promoting good will and understanding between Canada and the other countries of the world.	*
He said: Mr. Speaker, the resolution is clear, and little need be added to it. If adopted it would have the effect of setting up a committee of the house to consider and to report upon the creation of an entirely Canadian system of military and civilian medals and decorations to be awarded to Canadians for services beyond the call of duty, and for other meritorious services in time of war as well as in time of peace; and also for services rendered to Canada by men and women of nationalities other than Canadian as a means of promoting good will and understanding between Canada and the other countries of the world.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Social Security SOCIAL SECURITY

Angus MacInnis: That in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of seeking the cooperation, of the provinces for the purpose of formulating a program of social security that will be national in scope, adequate in its provisions, and that will cover all the people of Canada in every circumstance where the individual or the family is, for reasons beyond their control, deprived of earning a living.
He said: Mr. Speaker, if I thought this resolution would have as easy a time as the two immediately preceding it, my comments in proposing it would be brief indeed. However, I am afraid the government is not so ready to accept an over-all social security program, such as I am now suggesting, as it is, if one may judge by the two preceding motions, to accept a distinctive Canadian flag and to set up a committee to look into the granting of medals. If it were as ready in the present instance to accept my suggestion, there would be no real necessity for a long debate.
At the last session of parliament I introduced a resolution substantially similar to this one. I believe it was moved on October 3, 1949. On that occasion I made what I thought was a reasoned case for the enactment of an over-all social security program for Canada.
Tonight, first of all, I should like to reply to some of the criticisms of my resolution of last year made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). May I first of all draw attention to the fact that the resolution I introduced last session was found to be out of order because of the wording, and with that in mind I have this year made the slight amendment necessary to bring my resolution strictly within the rules of the house.
My resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of seeking the cooperation of the provinces for the purpose of formulating a program of social security that will be national in scope, adequate in its provisions, and that will cover all the people of Canada in every circumstance where the individual or the family is, for reasons beyond their control, deprived of earning a living.
Because of the criticism offered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare I have in my present resolution made a slight change in the third to last line. One of the reasons given by the minister for refusing to accept my resolution was that in it I had asked that social security apply to every citizen of Canada. He pointed out that there were many

Canadians who do not live in Canada, and that for that reason he could not accept my resolution. I think that criticism was on a par with his other criticisms. They were petty, niggling objections. If I had attempted to cover all the people in Canada I have no doubt that he would say he could not accept it because of that. I do not suppose that I could formulate a resolution that would be so word perfect that the minister could not find fault with it. I imagine he would find fault with any resolution unless the government was ready to accept it.
However, it will be noted that the resolution in its purpose is the same as the one introduced last year. It asks the government to seek the co-operation of the provinces. I should like to quote from page 481 of Hansard of October 3, 1949, where the minister is reported as follows:
Then, another objection I see to these very doubtful terms is that the resolution as a whole takes no account whatsoever of municipal responsibility.
Surely when the minister made that statement he must have realized that I have been long enough in this house to know that if I were to ask the government to seek the co-operation of the municipalities I would be told by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that they are the creation of the provinces and for that reason this government could have no dealings with them. I point that out to the minister because I know that would be his stock answer if at any time I had made the suggestion which he found fault with me for not making. The minister went on to say:
Then again-and I have to interpret the resolution very strictly, because of its implications-this resolution in its final terms does not take into consideration a citizen or individual who might himself be guilty of an act which would put him out of the wage-earning market, or the income-earning market -and there are a few such individuals. A man could deliberately-and we have had such cases- dismember his two hands, and yet under this resolution he would be entitled to benefits.
I submit that that is a new low in criticism, even for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As a matter of fact under the law in Canada today a person would receive compensation, even if his injury were caused by his own negligence or even worse. Even if that were not the law, does any member of this house suppose that if Tom Jones or Bill Doe or somebody else were to cut off his two hands-that is a far-fetched mutilation- he would be allowed to starve? Decidedly not. If a man takes another's life we feed and look after him until we put him out of the way by legal processes, and we would clothe and shelter this other man and provide someone to feed him because he would not be able to feed himself. As I say, this

is a new low in criticism of a resolution put forward in a serious manner. The minister went on to say:
The final observation I would make in this particular is to indicate, as I said at the outset, that there is no country in the world with a provision of this kind. Take a country where, it may be suggested, social security benefits are most comprehensive-and it has been suggested the United Kingdom is such a country; for the purposes of argument let us accept that suggestion. But in the United Kingdom there is no social security measure which provides social security assistance for all citizens of the United Kingdom in every circumstance where an individual or family is for any reason deprived of the opportunity of earning a living.
I submit that there is such legislation in the old country and I submit that there is even such legislation in Canada. It may not be adequate, but any person not able to provide for himself is now provided for either by federal, provincial or municipal legislation. But any reasonable deduction from the terms of the motion and the words used to explain it would be that what I was proposing was that we should integrate our program so that every individual, be he citizen or resident- I will go that far with the minister-shall be entitled to food, clothing and shelter if he is unable to provide himself with these things for reasons beyond his own control.
That is the essence of our social legislation, to make provision for those people who for reasons beyond their control are no longer able to provide for themselves. Sooner or later we will reach the position where that provision will be made on a more adequate and orderly scale than at present. I am sure that if the minister did not find himself in the position where he had to reply to a resolution which he knew the government would not accept he would agree with that point of view. I think I can leave the minister's criticism there. I was sorry I did not get an opportunity to reply to him at the time, but perhaps his criticism is not worthy of a reply even now.
There are one or two other points I wish to make. When I introduced the resolution last session-and I appreciate that the minister noticed my effort to avoid as far as possible, and it was completely possible, the making of political insinuations or the drawing of political comparisons-I had one purpose in view, and that was to get the principles of the resolution accepted by the house. I also pointed out that I knew all the tricks if I merely wanted to make political capital.
When the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), who followed me in the debate, began his remarks he made a statement to the effect-I have not got his speech before me-that C.C.F. members alwav-
Social Security
made it appear that they were the only people who were interested in social security matters. I do not believe that any C.C.F. member takes that position. Certainly I did not take that position in introducing the resolution, but even if I or other members of the C.C.F. had done so members of the Progressive Conservative party should be the last to accuse us. My memory of the Conservative party, and it goes back for more years than I care to admit, is that they have considered themselves as being the real guardians of all the true patriotism in this country. But as a matter of fact, not only does the C.C.F. take the lead in these matters, but it is admitted by people who are opponents of the C.C.F. that we do lead.
I am going to put two or three references on record tonight for those who might care to try to refute them. We have had considerable discussion about old age pensions during the present session, and I imagine we will have more before the session is over. During my part in that debate I made reference to the many times that I have heard old age pensions discussed in the house. In 1931, under the government of the late R. B. Bennett, we had a fairly long debate on how the old age pension legislation came to be enacted. I wish to read to the house a short statement made by the then prime minister, Mr. Bennett, which will be found at page 4200 of Hansard for that year. Referring to a speech that had been made by the then leader of the opposition, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, he said:
What would the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) have said if when the bill was introduced he had listened to the speech he has listened to this afternoon? What would he have thought? He was the man who forced this upon a reluctant administration.
He was referring to the old age pension.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre never made any bones about what he wanted, he was frank and open about it, and he said, "the necessity of one party is my opportunity, and I am going to press it to the full for the benefit of my friends." And he did.
When you find a man with as little sympathy for the C.C.F. as the late Viscount Bennett making a statement of that kind you can accept it that the statement is correct. I should like to quote now from an editorial that appeared in a publication which has never shown any partiality towards the C.C.F. The editorial I now have in my hand appeared in Maclean's magazine of August 1, 1948, following three federal by-elections which were won by the C.C.F. in May and June of that year. The editorial reads:
Old line politicians are talking too much, and doing too little, about the recent victories of the C.C.F. To listen to some of them, you'd think the


Paul Joseph James Martin: The resolution which is now before the house, in the amended form in which it has been presented, certainly has a more desirable content than it had before. In spite of the criticisms which have been levelled by the hon. member who has just spoken regarding my objection to it in the form in which it was discussed in this house a few months ago, I cannot deny that one of the underlying benefits of the resolution is that it calls upon the government to consider the advisability of seeking the co-operation of the provinces for the purpose of formulating a program of social security that will be national in scope and adequate in its provisions.
A great deal of the discussion that has taken place in this house with regard to the matter of social security envisages a responsibility to be borne entirely by the central government. Speaking on behalf of the government on a number of occasions, I have sought to indicate that our belief with regard to the implementation of a social security program is predicated upon the conviction that, in a federal state like Canada, we must have the co-operation of the provinces, not only in the formulating of programs but in the administration of them. I hope that the resolution which has been introduced by the hon. gentleman will serve to dissipate the opinion that exists in many quarters that the party to which my hon. friend belongs believes that social services should be maintained entirely by the federal

Social Security
government. His resolution does not envisage that; and, because it does not, I am glad to be able to give with regard to that particular portion of the resolution a word of commendation.
There is one point that the hon. gentleman has failed to emphasize: not only should the government consider the advisability of seeking the co-operation of the provinces in connection with this matter, but perhaps his statement would have been more complete if he had said that the government in fact does, in its policies and in its administration, continually seek the co-operation of the provinces with regard to the formulation of a program of social security.


Mr. Hodgson:: It did not on the baby bonus.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says that it did not with regard to the baby bonus. I can only take that as another indication that the party to which my hon. friend belongs does not really believe in family allowances.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Where did you get that from?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If he really believed in
family allowances the hon. member would not use the phrase "baby bonus". I may say that the program of family allowances was vigorously opposed by the party to which my hon. friend belongs-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You did not consult the provinces on it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: a program that has now won wide acceptance by the people of this country and which is bringing increasing social benefits to the children of this nation, over four million of them, every month. My hon. friend says that we did not consult the provinces. I can only take that as another indication that he is not himself satisfied about the validity of family allowances as a social security measure. On Wednesday the government, through the Department of National Health and Welfare, will be discussing with the ten provinces, through the dominion council of health, important matters affecting the health of the people of this country. Every year-twice a year, as a matter of fact-we sit down in Ottawa with the provincial departments of health, discussing ways and means of making more effective the kind of co-operation which my hon. friend says that we should seek in attempts to formulate more adequate programs of social security. Two weeks ago we sat down 
again with representatives of all the provinces to further the development of our physical fitness program. On May 25 we are sitting down with all the provinces to discuss the whole problem of rehabilitation of the handicapped of this country, at a conference that has been summoned as a result of the invitation extended by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. All along, in almost everything we are doing in this field, we are seeking continually the co-operation of the provinces because we believe that while there are some matters such as workmen's compensation and mothers' allowances that traditionally have been initiated, and are now being administered, by the provinces, there are other matters that can more effectively be undertaken as a result of joint co-operation.
Old age pensions is one of those. That represents a joint co-operative effort. That act came into being on an enabling basis and its effective provisions were made possible only in the light of action that was taken subsequently, as a result of basic legislation passed by this parliament, followed by provincial action; and that act has not been without significance. Unemployment insurance came into being as a result of the determination of this government to do what this resolution suggests, to seek the co-operation of the provinces. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act we had no power under the constitution to deal with the matter of compulsory contributions to make unemployment insurance effective. To bring that about, we asked the provinces if they would endow the federal government with the necessary constitutional power to enact the Unemployment Insurance Act. That consent was given and we now have the Unemployment Insurance Act. But the important consideration for the point that I am making now is to realize that that legislation came about as a result of co-operation between the dominion government on the one hand and the provincial governments on the other; and in the process of that collaboration we have developed, in spite of what the hon. gentleman persists in saying to the contrary, a social security program in this country of which we have every reason to be proud. That does not mean to say that it is perfect; but to underestimate it is not to act in a responsible way. Our total national expenditures now amount to $2,400 million. Of that sum we are spending for

health and social welfare on federal and provincial accounts over $850 million. I ask my hon. friend who has just spoken-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Keep the figures straight. That is not $850 million out of $2,400 million. Keep the figures straight.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I ask my hon. friend who has just spoken if he can give me one country that spends out of its total governmental expenditure as much on health and welfare as does the Dominion of Canada. And of that $850 million-and as a matter of fact, that is an underestimate; that is not the exact figure-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Paul Joseph James Martin: You can make your speech later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) gets away with this without challenge-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Out of that $850 million we are spending on federal account almost 80 per cent; and to say that we are not developing a social security program in this country is not in conformity with the facts.


Angus MacInnis: Eighty per cent of what?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Family allowances represent this year an expenditure of close to $300 million as a result of which we are paying every month to over four million children, representing close to two million families, moneys with which to improve nutritional standards, health opportunities, educational advantages and so on. Does anyone in this house deny that our family allowances legislation is comparable with that of any other country in the world? Does anyone in this house deny that there is no family allowances act in the United Kingdom, in Australia, in New Zealand or in those other countries that have them such as France, Belgium, Switzerland, where the amounts are comparable?


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have only a limited time.


Angus MacInnis: You did not give the figures.
Mr Martin: There is the Family Allowances Act. Does anybody deny-


Angus MacInnis: I deny it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does anybody deny that our Old Age Pensions Act is a matter that repre-
Social Security
sents a progressive step? My hon. friend has said nothing about the increases in old age pensions. He has said nothing about the reduction in the age limits-


Angus MacInnis: I did not say anything about the increase in the cost of living, either.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -of our blind pensioners from 40 to 21. The real trouble about my hon. friend is that he persists in making these statements, and as long as he goes unchallenged he is happy; but the moment he is challenged, he continually interrupts.


Angus MacInnis: What statements?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend deny-


Angus MacInnis: Give me the time to deny; the minister has asked me to deny, and I say to him to give me the time to deny.


Howard Charles Green: Eleven o'clock.


Angus MacInnis: You cannot have it both ways.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend deny the value of the veterans' charter?


Howard Charles Green: Eleven o'clock.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only take it that the irritation with which my hon. friend is obviously seized at the moment is due to the fact-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is due to the misstatements of the minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that he does not like it to be told that anybody but the C.C.F. can bring in social security legislation, when the fact is that every bit of social legislation put on the statute books of this country in this parliament was put on by a Liberal government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Holler louder; your speech is weak.


Howard Charles Green: That is a lot of nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what irritates my hon. friend most.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Dream some more.


Howard Charles Green: Eleven o'clock.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I adjourn the debate, Mr. Speaker?
On motion of Mr. Martin the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall move to go into committee of supply and we

Business of the House shall call the following departments: Citizenship and Immigration, Mines and Technical Surveys, Resources and Development. Then we shall proceed with the resolutions to set up the following committees: on the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, and amendments; on national research council; and on radio broadcasting. If these resolutions pass, we shall take up the three resolutions in the name of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton).


Gordon Graydon: I take it from what the minister has said that the first items in citizenship and immigration, mines and technical surveys, and resources and development will just be called, and then asked to stand.


Alphonse Fournier: That is right. We will not discuss estimates tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 18, 1950