1950-05-08

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. McCulloch.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That the name of Mr. Winters be substituted for that of Mr. McCann on the special committee on radio broadcasting.
That the name of Mr. Hatfield be substituted for that of Mr. Brooks on the special committee on the Dominion Elections Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the third report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, presented to the house on Thursday, May 4, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
FIRE AND FLOOD DAMAGE	.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this last week end has been one of great anxiety, even suffering and distress, for a large number of our fellow citizens, especially in two separate areas of this country. When I heard yesterday of the terrible fire that was raging at Rimou-ski I sent telegrams to the mayor and to the archbishop, which perhaps I might read, because I feel sure that all hon. members would like to be associated with the sentiments I expressed in these telegrams.
The telegram to the mayor was as follows:
A Son Honneur le Maire Victor Lepage Rimouski, Que.
Je suis horrific d'apprendre l'etendue du sinistre que vient de subir la ville de Rimouski. A la population de votre ville et en particulier aux families, aux institutions et aux rr.aisons d'affaires si durement eprouvees, vous voudrez bien trans-mettre l'assurance de ma plus entiere sympathie.
Louis-S. St-Laurent
The telegram to the archbishop reads as follows:
A Son Excellence Mgr Courchesne, ArchevSque de Rimouski,
Rimouski. Que.
La nouvelle de la tragique conflagration de Rimouski me cause un vif chagrin. Je tiens a vous adresser, a vous, ainsi qu'aux autorites du semi-naire et des autres institutions religieuses qui ont etd eprouvees, 1'assurance de ma tres vive sympathie.	*
Louis-S. St-Laurent
In this morning's Montreal Gazette the message to Mayor Lepage is translated as follows:
I am horrified to learn the extent of the disaster Rimouski has suffered. To the population of your city, and especially to the families, the institutions and the business firms so badly affected, I would ask you to convey the assurance of my deepest sympathy.
The message to Archbishop Courchesne is translated as follows:
The news of the tragic conflagration at Rimouski causes me deep sorrow. I would wish to extend to you and to the authorities of the seminary and of the other religious institutions which have suffered losses the assurance of my deepest sympathy.
Some hours earlier we learned that flood conditions in the Red river valley had taken a turn for the worse. Last Saturday I gave the following statement to the press:
From end to end of Canada, the people are deeply concerned about the anxiety of their fellow citizens in Winnipeg and the Red river valley. We are all anxious to have done whatever can be done to relieve the distress and suffering of those whose homes have been invaded by the floods. All agencies of all governments, as well as the Red Cross and other voluntary organizations, are doing all they can to help, and we all hope that the disastrous conditions may soon be ended.
Over the week end the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) went to Winnipeg to see that everything that could be done Ijy agencies of the federal government was being done. He returned this morning and brought the following letter to me from the premier of Manitoba:
May 7, 1950
Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, P.C., K.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
As you will know by reports that have already reached you, our flood situation, which we had hoped would by now have passed its peak, is becoming increasingly serious. Recent heavy rains throughout most of the Red river valley area have added tremendously to the volume of water, the area of flooding and resulting damage. For two or

Fire and Flood Damage three days during the worst of the rain and following it, extremely high winds caused still further damage, making relief activities very difficult and in some cases impossible. From the international boundary north to lake Winnipeg, an area some seventy miles long and varying in width from five to thirty miles is now covered with flood waters. This area includes many towns and villages, greater Winnipeg and the city of St. Boniface. In greater Winnipeg itself, in spite of emergency diking operations, several areas containing not only a large number of residences but three large hospitals and other public buildings, already have been in large part evacuated.
The situation took such a sudden turn for the worse late last Friday afternoon as to indicate the necessity of immediate action to evacuate two hospitals and two large residential areas; I therefore convened late that night an emergent meeting of representatives of some of the organizations most active in flood relief, including representatives of the army, the Manitoba Red Cross Society and of the police, engineering and health departments of the city of Winnipeg.
Hon. Stuart Garson, Minister of Justice, had just come to the city for the purpose of investigating the flood situation and conferring with our government regarding it, so we were fortunate in being able to have him sit in at this emergency conference.
Following a full discussion at this meeting, it was unanimously agreed that the situation had become so serious that all flood relief efforts should be centralized immediately. Acting on this advice, with the meeting still in progress, and with the approval of everyone present, I asked the army to take charge of the co-ordinating operation, it being understood that all other organizations and individuals would continue to give their full co-operation and assistance. Your colleague, the Minister of Defence, was good enough to approve of the army under Brigadier R. E. A. Morton acting in this capacity.
As you are aware, the province of Manitoba already has been receiving all the federal aid which we have asked for and that is a great deal. Practically a month ago army headquarters here and I had discussed the possibility of a flood this spring and had made full arrangements regarding the circumstances in which the army would be called upon to assist. The actual document covering this agreement was signed by me on April 13 last. Similarly, the navy and the air force, though not operating under a specific agreement, have extended to the province and to all other agencies at work on flood relief, the utmost co-operation.	The
R.C.M.P., in which of course both the federal and provincial governments are interested, has also given us service and co-operation, leaving nothing to be desired. It is unnecessary for me to mention other federal assistance, such as district engineers, department officials, and by no means least of all, your own two ministers, Mr. Claxton and Mr. Garson, having done everything possible to help in this emergency. I would like, therefore, to express to you our deep appreciation of the wholehearted assistance that has been so readily forthcoming from all federal agencies. Exactly the same is true, I am glad to say, of the municipalities, local and volunteer organizations throughout the area and the province.
In spite of all this effort, however, the situation became not only serious but critical last Friday, resulting, as mentioned, in my declaring a state of emergency, and asking the army to assume overall charge of all flood relief activity. It is still critical, and I feel that its effects are so great as to require in many cases expenditures so large that they are beyond the capacity of individuals, organizations, municipalities and even the provincial government, to assume.

Under these circumstances, and again assuring you that this province greatly appreciates the assistance already given, I would request that you formally recognize this situation as a national emergency and let us have your assurance of federal financial assistance commensurate with our needs. I am unable at present to state what these will ultimately be. All the people best qualified to prepare an estimate have been, and still are, too busy with the emergency of the flood for me to ask them to given even a casual estimate. In fairness to them, I feel that they should not attempt a considered estimate until the floods have subsided. Several of my cabinet colleagues, departmental officials and others have, however, along with me, conferred with Hon. Stuart Garson during his much appreciated three days here. We feel that he has a good understanding of our position in this matter. What I would request at the present time is that you give us the assurance that assistance will be forthcoming from the federal government. My officials and I will be glad to meet with your government's representatives in order to discuss details of the arrangement.
I wish to thank you in advance for the consideration that I know you will give to this request from the province of Manitoba which has had the misfortune to suffer such a catastrophe at this 1950 flood.
Yours sincerely,
Douglas Campbell
On receipt of this communication from the premier of Manitoba I immediately called a special meeting of council. Following the meeting I dispatched to the premier of Manitoba by telegram the following reply:
Ottawa, May, 8, 1950
Hon. D. L. Campbell, M.L.A.,
Premier of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Man.
Immediately upon his return to Ottawa, Hon. Stuart Garson delivered to me your letter of May 7, 1950, outlining the present position with regard to the serious floods in the Red river valley in your province. We are glad that all of the federal agencies and authorities in your province have been extending to you any assistance which you required since this is what they had been instructed to do.
We have been following the development of this flood closely from the beginning. We felt that the heavy snowfall in the Red river valley, especially in the American part of it, coupled with the late spring break-up, was bound to create some measure of flooding on the Canadian side. The transformation of this serious condition into one of really critical proportions by the untimely and heavy rains and winds of the past few days is a misfortune of the first order.
In view of the serious news which comes out of the United States part of the Red river valley to the effect that heavy rains there may possibly create another flood crest, we entirely agree with you that the immediate efforts of your government and our own in this matter should be directed towards meeting this physical threat of flooding. But we can assure you that as soon as you feel free to open up the question of federal financial assistance, upon the basis of this being beyond your capacity to deal with alone, we shall be glad indeed to discuss it with you.
No doubt you will want to know now in general terms upon what basis financial assistance to you will be considered. Until the extent of your misfortune is determined, no one can be specific, but I

can say in general terms that in arriving at the amount of our assistance to you, we shall apply the same principles as those upon which our assistance to the British Columbia government in connection with the Fraser river valley floods was determined.
Louis S. St. Laurent
In the case of the disastrous fire at Rimouski, the federal government has taken precisely the same kind of immediate action that was taken at the very beginning of the flood in the Red river valley and that has been taken in respect to other disasters. The special facilities of the armed forces and all other federal agencies in the area were made available at once to assist in emergency action and the provision of emergency relief.
I merely want to repeat that I am sure all the people of Canada sympathize with those who have had the misfortune to be overtaken by these catastrophic events.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members of this house will join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in the expression of sympathy he has conveyed to the citizens of Rimouski in the appalling disaster that struck that community during the past week end. We all regard that expression of sympathy as voiced not only on behalf of the members of this house, but on behalf of the people of Canada, following one of the worst and most tragic disasters that have occurred in this country.
Hon. members also will be pleased to learn of the steps that have been taken with respect to the situation in Manitoba, though I believe there is room for further comment on another occasion as to the way in which certain things might have been done, which this tragic event will emphasize.
These disasters bring vividly and dramatically to our attention the fact that any community in this country, large or small, may be visited some time by a calamity far beyond the power of municipal facilities to cope with, and far beyond the ability of the citizens of that community to deal with effectively. Rimouski is already looking to the future and seeing what may be done to repair the damage that has been done; it has been estimated locally that it will require at least a quarter of a century to do it.
There is still great emergency in Manitoba. These events, entirely different in character, nevertheless demonstrate the need in every community of some voluntary civilian organization to deal with emergencies of this kind.
For some years since the end of the war the need for civilian defence forces has been under consideration. These tragedies might well suggest to us that we should not limit
Fire and Flood Damage our thinking in that connection to situations of a military or semi-military character, but should recognize that without warning a disaster as great as that resulting from war itself may call for the immediate well-organized efforts of the citizens of that community, of the surrounding countryside, or even of the whole country. So it would seem that these two events, having regard to their magnitude and the agony which has accompanied them, should impress upon all of us the desirability of creating the kind of organization that has been so clearly and ably suggested from time to time by General Worthington-not merely in order to deal with the direct or indirect effects of war but in order to deal with any emergency that may arise.
Both in Rimouski and in Winnipeg there are stories .of the magnificent heroism of people who have risked everything, not only to save their own families and their own homes, but to help others; and in so doing they have been actuated by the most unselfish motives and worked to the point of utter exhaustion. But no matter how wholehearted and unselfish may have been their effort, the inescapable fact remains that no integrated municipal or community organization existed for this purpose.
As we extend our sympathy and the offer of the support and assistance of the people of Canada on this occasion, I would strongly urge hon. members to think of the lesson these tragedies have brought home, and consider the advisability of the early organization of voluntary civilian forces to deal with any such occurrence in the future.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, we wish to join with all hon. members in expressing our sympathy to those who have suffered in these great disasters of the past few days. The sudden and overwhelming fire in Rimouski, bringing loss and tragedy, I think has pointed up the innumerable smaller catastrophies affecting many others in this country which we have suffered from time to time, particularly in recent months. This is one phase of the disaster at Rimouski that should cause us to think of fire protection and precautions against fire all across Canada, in order that property and human life may be saved.
I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will take the same steps with respect to Rimouski that he proposes to take in regard to the flood in the Red river valley. Those of us who know what was done in the Fraser valley in British Columbia under similar circumstances are glad to know that the government contemplates the same pattern of relief for the Red river valley. I hope that

Fire and Flood Damage similar and generous assistance may also be extended to the citizens of Rimouski.
In mentioning Rimouski, may I say how much I regret that the member for Rimouski (Mr. Belzile) is lying gravely ill in a hospital in this city. His personal loss in the destruction of his home, and the fact that he is unable to speak to his constituency at this time, are circumstances which we deeply regret.
So far as the flood in Manitoba is concerned, I hope that steps will be taken immediately by the governments of Canada and the United States to ensure that disasters like those which have occurred in the Red river valley within the last century and a half will be prevented in the days to come.
We wish to express our sympathy to the people of the Red river valley, and to those who have suffered devastation and loss as a result of the Are in Rimouski.
(Translation):


Mr. J. G. L. Langlois (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, as representative of a lower St. Lawrence constituency almost adjoining that of Rimouski, I heartily echo the. feelings of sympathy which the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. party have expressed for the people of Rimouski.
I was passing through Quebec yesterday when I heard of the catastrophe. I immediately got in touch with localities in the vicinity of Rimouski in order to find out about the situation and to make sure that the good people of the stricken city received the assistance they required.
I also contacted federal authorities, especially the Prime Minister's secretary in Ottawa. It was reassuring to learn that the Prime Minister himself was already giving personal attention to the Rimouski disaster.
This tragedy affects me all the more since for more than five years I had the honour of attending the seminary of Rimouski which was partially destroyed by the fire.
In addition I was pleased to see the dispatch with which, considering the lack of communications, the military authorities answered the appeal for help that had come from Rimouski, in order to provide every possible assistance, under the circumstances, to these people in distress. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) also placed the services of his department at the disposal of local authorities. The Montreal and Quebec divisions of the Red Cross dispatched relief groups with amazing rapidity.

I should like also to congratulate the civil and religious authorities of Rimouski for organizing relief squads and providing valuable assistance and help to the stricken people.
Early yesterday, both on my own behalf and in the name of my constituents, I offered my sympathy to His Excellency Monsignor Courchesne, archbishop of Rimouski, to the civic authorities-the mayor and aldermen of the city-and I also offered to place myself at their disposal and to substitute for, if possible, their doughty representative (Mr. Belzile) who, as was pointed out a few moments ago by the leader of the C.C.F. party, is confined to the hospital by a serious illness.
I repeat the offer of service I made to my fellow citizens from Rimouski and assure them of my entire devotion in this respect.
And now, to His Excellency Monsignor Courchesne, to the mayor and aldermen of the city of Rimouski, to the authorities of my alma mater, to the clergy and the people of this prosperous lower St. Lawrence city, I once again express my most sincere sympathy.
(Text):


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I was inclined to express by applause that those who preceded me had said all I thought should be said or could be said on an occasion of this kind. On further thought, I would not want this opportunity to pass without expressing our sympathy, both to the people in the devastated Red river valley and to those who met with such a tragic experience in yesterday's fire at Rimouski. I compliment the government on the action that they have taken. I think that the faith I expressed last week in them and in their sense of fairness in this respect has been vindicated. I just want to say that we stand ready to back the, government in advancing any financial assistance that may be required to relieve the situation, both in the Red river valley and in Rimouski, Quebec.
I was particularly happy to hear from the Prime Minister's own lips that the pattern of assistance established between this government and the government of British Columbia in respect to floods in that province would be used to assist the people in Manitoba and Quebec. We endorse that wholeheartedly, and extend our sympathies to those who have suffered.


Mr. L. A. Mutch (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, as one who comes from the Red river valley area, where for weeks the hearts of the people have been filled with anxiety, I want to say that the people in

that area will find some relief in the recognition that, when they have dealt with the situation that confronts them at the moment, there will be assistance to begin again. While there will be gratitude, and appreciation of all that is done to compensate for the situation as it now exists, the persisting anxiety will be in relation to co-operation in the future to see to it that, so far as may be humanly possible, this thing does not occur again. But for the moment the thought that will be in the minds of my people, and of the people of the other constituencies in the Red river valley, will be gratitude for recognition of their problem, and for some assurance for the immediate future. The long-range hope will be that it may not stop at that.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I have the privilege of joining in the sentiment just expressed by the member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch), as well as the sentiments expressed by those who spoke earlier? It is not unknown for me to be critical of the government, -but on this occasion I merely want to say, as one from Manitoba, that we appreciate the action the government has taken, and the assurance that the same pattern as that followed in British Columbia two years ago will be followed in the Red river valley and in the city of Winnipeg and its suburbs with respect to federal financial assistance.
I agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that this is no time to attempt to assess the actual amount to be offered, but I am sure I speak for the people back home when I say it will mean a great deal to their morale to have this assurance from the Prime Minister.
I have one or two questions to ask about this matter, and if Your Honour will permit them now, I would not have to ask them when the orders of the day are called. I am in your hands.


Some hon. Members:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: If we could dispose of the matter now, I think it would be advisable to do so. I would ask that members make their questions brief, and deal only with this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, sir. May I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Will he tell the house what his department is doing to assist the local authorities in Winnipeg in caring for any illness that may develop, or in getting supplies to help prevent an outbreak of illness of serious proportions?
Fire and Flood Damage


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As I told my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker, when he asked me that question on Saturday night, the Department of National Health and Welfare has been in touch with the department of health in the province and has offered any facilities that it has in the matter. Under the circumstances it must be guided by the consideration and judgment of the provincial department of health.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question of the Minister of Finance? In view of the fact that this situation is likely to last for some time, is there any way in which the minister can use his price control authority to see that there is no profiteering in the Winnipeg area?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I think the local government has full jurisdiction in that matter. Certainly no consideration hias been given to the federal government's re-entering that field.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Introduction of bills-The Minister of Agriculture -Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939."
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, when this bill appeared on the order paper on Thursday last and the order was called, I asked permission of the house to have it stand. It arrived on the order paper by the usual course, through the law clerk. But we raised the question whether it should not be preceded by a resolution. While there is some doubt about it, in order to be certain we thought we should have it preceded by a resolution. I would therefore ask permission of the house to withdraw the bill, with the intention of having it reintroduced by resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the Minister of Agriculture have leave to withdraw the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill withdrawn.



BARTER TRADING


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move,



Z256 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Barter Trading
seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, a report of the Canadian Press dated May 5, 1950, which attributes to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) who sailed this morning to attend the commonwealth economic conference in Sydney, Australia, as the representative of Canada, a statement that he believes an organization will be set up in accordance with his recommendations to this house on March 13, 1950, that an organization be established to promote barter trading between Canada and other nations, which statement of policy is directly contrary to the statement of policy made on behalf of the government on different occasions by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and therefore suggests that at Sydney a plan will be put forward which violates the well-established constitutional principle of collective ministerial responsibility to the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker:: Standing order 31 reads as follows:
(1)	Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business (standing order No. 15) has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon.
It would therefore appear that the motion as presented at the present time complies with that provision. The second part of the order reads:
(2)	The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter.
The hon. member has done that. The third part of the standing order reads as follows:
(3)	He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: May I, Mr. Speaker, before you express your opinion, venture some comment on the terms of the suggestion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: If the house would agree that the Prime Minister proceed-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, if that practice, which is not contemplated by the rule, is conceded, then I assume that you would offer me the opportunity to make my observations first in support of the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: That procedure could be adopted if the house were agreeable to it. If the house agreed that the leader of the
(Mr. Drew.]
opposition should make certain representations before I decide whether or not the matter is urgent, and then that the Prime Minister make his remarks before I make my decision, I shall be glad to carry out the wishes of the house.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I do not want to ask the house to make any change in procedure. If it is not in accordance with practice, I do not want to ask it.


Mr. Speaker:: The question that I must first decide is whether this matter is one of urgency within the rules of the house. The leader of the opposition wishes leave to adjourn the house to discuss a statement which appeared in the press, and which attributes to the Minister of Fisheries, who is on his way to the commonwealth economic conference in Sydney, certain statements which he is alleged to have made in connection with the setting up of an organization in accordance with his recommendation to this house on March 13, 1950.
Standing order 31(6) (c) reads:
The motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session.
My recollection of previous debates in the house during the session is to the effect that this matter was fully discussed at that time. My recollection is that the Minister of Fisheries referred to this matter when he spoke in the house either on the debate in reply to the speech from the throne or on the budget, I am not sure which, and that other hon. members also spoke on the matter at that time. Therefore it occurs to me that it is reviving discussion on a matter that has already been discussed during the present session. Moreover, there is also citation 176, in Beauchesne's third edition, which reads as follows:
The "definite matter of urgent public importance", for the discussion of which the adjournment of the house may be moved under standing order 31, must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.
There will be other opportunities to discuss this matter before the organization can be set up. In my opinion, a motion to adjourn the house under this standing order should be very carefully considered before it is put to the house. The business of the house is arranged from day to day, and that business is announced at the close of business of the previous day. A motion under this rule disrupts the arrangements previously made. Hon. members who have come prepared to discuss one matter are suddenly called upon to discuss some other matter. Therefore I think that the urgency must be such that the question cannot be discussed reasonably soon in accordance with the regular procedure

of the house. With reluctance I must say that in my opinion the matter is not one of such urgency that it should be discussed at this time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Labour. I have given him notice of it. Press dispatches on Saturday indicated that the newspaper guild was certified as the bargaining agency for Canadian Press. Subsequently it was charged that the Canadian Press refused to bargain collectively or employ guild members in the Ottawa bureau. The government appointed a conciliator, Mr. Stitt of Ottawa, to investigate the charges. Before he could act, on Friday the Canadian Press discharged twelve employees.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Arnold Croll: I am getting to the question now, but I have to give the background, Mr. Speaker. That required closing the bureaux in Newfoundland and in Saskatchewan. My question to the minister is this:	Is the
minister aware of these difficulties, and will he inform the house what action is being taken, particularly in reinstating the twelve discharged employees.


Hon. Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour):: What my hon. friend says is substantially true-I should not say "substantially"; it is true. I did meet a committee of the guild on Saturday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Louder.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend says "louder".


Stanley Howard Knowles: We want to hear you this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Humphrey Mitchell: Someone suggested to me that if you heard me you would not understand me. What the hon. member for Spadina says is true, Mr. Speaker. The newspaper guild has been certified by the Canada labour relations board as the official bargaining agency for employees of the Canadian Press. They did ask leave to prosecute, but I have always felt, in my judgment, for what it is worth, that the most important thing is to negotiate agreements and not to run off to the courts, for the benefit of the lawyers particularly. In my experience that policy has worked reasonably well. I appointed Mr. Stitt, a barrister of this city, as an industrial disputes commissioner-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Speaking about lawyers, what about your deskmate?


Humphrey Mitchell: He is a good fellow, like yourself. Mr. Stitt is at the present time looking into that phase of the dispute. I have been informed that he has been able to get the two parties together at least to talk to one another. That is often sometimes difficult on both sides when the employees are first organized. I did meet a committee on Saturday at the request of the guild, which indicated to me that eleven of their members had been laid off. They requested that Mr. Stitt also look into that part of the dispute. I have already indicated to him that I wish that to be done.
I think everybody in the house, irrespective of party, will join with me in the hope that this dispute will be settled to the satisfaction of the members of the guild and of the Canadian Press.



RAILWAY EMPLOYEES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour, especially in view of the good humour he is in today. Can the minister bring the house up to date, if not today, at some time in the near future, on the state of the negotiations between the railroad workers and the railroad companies?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know whether my hon.
friend has been asked by the parties concerned to raise this question on the floor of the House of Commons, which I doubt very much. As my hon. friend well knows, a board of conciliation was established and we went through all the machinery of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. If my hon. friend has not seen the reports I shall be glad to send him a copy of the majority and minority reports.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I already have a copy.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is how the matter stands at the moment, and further than that I do not wish to make any statement today.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: May I be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of Labour? Have any representations been made to the minister's department requesting that the supplementary benefits under unemployment insurance made

Inquiries of the Ministry available by the recent amendments to the act be extended until such time as the unemployment situation is relieved?


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not reach my office until a moment or two before the house assembled. I could give an offhand answer from memory, but I should like to check before I do that. If my hon. friend will wait until tomorrow morning I shall be glad to answer his question.


Clarence Gillis: I sent the minister notice.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is my fault; not my hon. friend's.



SALES TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Rooney (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Revenue. Will the acting minister give consideration to the abolition of the sales tax on cigarettes and tobacco sold to veterans in military hospitals?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Acting Minister of National Revenue):: The hon. member gave me notice of his question but I believe that this is one that could more appropriately be directed to the Minister of Finance, and I have therefore communicated it to him.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is a question which has been under consideration for some time, but, as I have had occasion to explain in budget debates before, there are some difficulties involved. I shall give fresh consideration to it, and when the budget bills are under consideration perhaps I will be in position to give my hon. friend an answer.



ABOLITION OF SALES TAX ON MATERIALS USED IN OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY AND HANDICRAFTS IN MILITARY HOSPITALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Hendrick Rooney: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Will he give consideration to the abolition of the sales tax on materials which patients in the veterans hospitals purchase for occupational therapy and handicraft work, on which these patients make a few dollars by personal sales?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall give consideration to that too.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 55, respecting the Limitholders' Mutual Insurance Company.-Mr. Lesage.
Bill No. 84, respecting United Grain Growers Limited.-Mr. Weir.

Mr. A. A. Macnaughion (Mount Royal) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 152, to amend the Canadian Red Cross Society Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before this motion for second reading is carried, as I am sure it will be, I think we should note that it is a most interesting coincidence that we should be dealing with a bill respecting the Canadian Red Cross Society on this day. As has already been made clear by the remarks made commencing at three o'clock, the Canadian Red Cross Society has been living up to its great traditions during the past few weeks, and particularly during this past week end in connection with the tragic disasters at Rimouski and at Winnipeg and throughout the Red river valley. It seems to me that everything that was said in this house the last time this bill was up has been more than vindicated. Your Honour will remember that on that occasion members on all sides of the house paid glowing tributes to the work of this organization.
In these two tragic occurrences we have had evidence of what the Red Cross can do and of the speed with which it starts to work wherever there is need. I am sure members of this house will be most anxious to see this bill put through. If I might suggest it to Your Honour, I think this bill will so readily meet with the concurrence of hon. members that this is one instance in which it is hardly necessary for you to suggest that the bill be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. I am sure that if the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton), who is sponsoring the bill, asks that we go directly into committee of the whole after it has received second reading, no one will object. Among other reasons I think it would be a good idea to get the bill through today so that we can make up for what happened last session. Hon. members will recall that we passed a similar bill last session, thinking we had done a good job, only to discover that our friends in the other place had emasculated the measure in such a way that by the time it got back to us it was not worth putting through. I should like to ask the hon. member for Mount Royal, when we get into committee, wherein the bill,

as it has now been passed in the other place, differs from the bill they rejected last year. I think only a minor detail has been changed. At any rate I hope that the bill can be put through all its stages today, and we shall know this time that after it is passed by this house it will shortly become law.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the bill. As member for a constituency which is pretty much under water at the present time, I want to take the opportunity of saying "many thanks" to the Red Cross. They have come to the rescue again. It is brought forcefully to the attention of people in the danger zone that the Red Cross is doing a wonderful job. On behalf of the people of my constituency I thank the Red Cross for what it has already done in the evacuation of flood victims.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should remind the house that if the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, before the debate is concluded I want to make a few brief remarks by way of endorsation of what has been said by previous speakers about the Red Cross. I have a personal reason for being grateful to the Red Cross for their work in Canada. On various occasions I have seen their work in my own community. First of all I want to express my appreciation to the officers of the Canadian Red Cross for providing hon. members with an excellent brief on the history, constitution, policy and program of the Canadian Red Cross Society, prepared by them for members of the Senate and House of Commons. I have read the brief, and I find it quite informative. It is my intention to pass on to others some of the information contained therein, because I know that they will be just as much interested in it as members of the house.
My first direct experience with the Canadian Red Cross was in France during the first world war, and my second was in the Halifax disaster of 1917. Living in a pioneer community, I have noticed throughout the years the excellent work the Red Cross has performed in the isolated districts of my constituency. In 1948 there were serious floods on the Columbia river, and at that time the local organization of the Canadian Red Cross Society did an excellent and valiant job. Only today I picked up a local paper from my constituency and was pleased to find that the Red Cross is still ready to meet
Canadian Red Cross Society Act any emergency. In the Trail Daily Times of May 3, 1950, there is an article under the heading:	"Flood committee prepares for
action." The article reads:
Following on the heels of a request for flood precautionary measures ... a meeting of the disaster committee of the Red Cross Society was held . last night at the city hall. Leo Levey, chairman of the committee, stressed the obligation of the Red Cross that the preparation for disaster must not await the occurrence of a catastrophe but must be planned in advance. The Red Cross committee discussed plans for rescue, transportation, communications, food, shelter, clothing and medical care, and discussed methods of co-ordinating the work with that of other groups in the event of a disaster.
I mention that, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that the people concerned in this organization are prepared to meet any emergent situation. Again I concur in all the remarks made by previous speakers about this most excellent organization.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Oni.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks about this bill. I want to say at the outset that I am in favour of it. It is my opinion, and the opinion of many others, that the Red Cross has proven to be one of the greatest assets for good that we have in the whole Dominion of Canada. In my own riding it has worked wonders amongst the poorer people, those who have had problems of illness and other adversities with which to contend. The Red Cross has always come to their assistance in every way possible.
In the sparsely settled northern part of my riding there is a Red Cross organization which I do not think can be bettered or equalled by those in other parts of Canada. It is an organization of real people. The good they have done in the last fifteen or twenty years, and the service they have performed in gathering things together to send overseas, has been remarkable. About twenty years ago, a small Red Cross organization started in the village of Wilberforce, with one nurse; now we have a hospital almost in the centre of the county, with six nurses, and it has become inadequate to take care of the situation. We are working on a project for a hospital to take care of the whole county, one which will be more or less a county hospital under the auspices of the Red Cross.
I am wholeheartedly in support of the bill.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with hon. members who have already spoken in support of this measure, and of the suggestion that we endeavour to put it through the house this afternoon. There are two branches of the Red Cross with which I have come into contact from time to time. First there is the

Canadian Red Cross Society Act work of the Red Cross in many of the outposts. I have seen what they are doing particularly in the far northern part of Ontario, and I have come to realize of what great benefit the organization is to the people living there. I have also seen the work of the junior Red Cross in Canadian schools. I think that is a phase of their activities that has not been mentioned in the house, but it is one of great importance. From their brief I notice that today there are thirty million young people throughout the world who are members of.junior Red Cross societies, and who are securing through that agency training in citizenship, personal health habits, social responsibility, and international amity.
With the world torn by factions as it is today, it is most encouraging to find that there is a voluntary organization comprising within its membership sixty-six nations of the world, an organization by means of which through its international conferences, international league and international committee, some sixty odd nations can get together and find a common basis of agreement. To me that is one of the great phases of Red Cross work, and certainly I will support any move that will strengthen this organization throughout the country.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the standing orders this bill would be referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills. During the course of his remarks the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested that the bill should not go to that committee but should go to the committee of the whole. That can be done by unanimous consent. Does the house give unanimous consent to having this bill referred to the committee of the whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the said bill.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Limit of real estate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member indicate now wherein this bill differs, if at all, from the bill passed by this house last session?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: There is one slight
difference. The bill introduced last December had no limitation on the value of the real estate held in Canada. This bill has a limit of $200,000, which the society believes sufficient for their purposes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was this limitation of $200,000 set out in the bill in the form in which the society asked that it be passed this year?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Yes.


Mr. Carroll:: My recollection of the bill of last year is that there was no limit on the value of the property. In this bill the $200,000 refers not to the value but to the annual value. Is there any difference there, in reality?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Perhaps it would be better if I gave one or two details of what the society means by "annual value". I refer to the resume, which I am sure all hon. members have received:
The general rise in real estate values and the extension of services has made it necessary that the limit on the annual value of the real estate which the society may hold under its present legislation he increased from $100,000 to $200,000 . . . Calculating the annual value at five per cent of the original purchase price or cost of construction, it will be seen that a limit of $200,000 would cover the real estate presently owned by the society and allow for some slight increase in its holdings.
It should be appreciated that "annual value," as far as the Canadian Red Cross Society holdings are concerned, is only an academic term, as no revenue is derived from such holdings and as many of the properties are so situated-for example, outpost hospitals-that it is unlikely that they would have either rental or sale value.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 2, consideration in committee of Bill No. 7, to incorporate Alberta Natural Gas Company- Mr. Maybank-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Slewari (Yorkton):: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Chairman, I call your attention to the fact that I adjourned this debate.


The Chairman:: In committee there is no adjournment of the debate; an hon. member may speak as often as he desires.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member was on his feet when we adjourned.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Did the hon. member
adjourn the debate on this bill or on the other bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Greenwood was on this bill and the hon. member for Yorkton was on Bill No. 9.


Alan Carl Stewart: As I understand it there is no adjournment of the debate in committee, and I was first on my feet.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: That is correct.


Alan Carl Stewart: In connection with these bills I was interested to see in the Hardisty World a short article, part of which I shall read:
Alberta is having enough troubles these days deciding how best to make use of her great resources of natural gas, without having the situation messed up by Ottawa too. And that is just what is happening with the present filibuster going on in the nation's capital.
The article goes on to say:
What makes this all-Canada argument seem futile, at the present time at least, is that assurances have been given by a great many people that gas from Alberta will be guaranteed to British Columbia users before it is sold to Americans in the Pacific northwest. No one, of course, argues that the Americans are not going to get Alberta gas. Regardless of who builds a pipe line a great deal of the gas will have to be sold to U.S. cities. If it were not for the great gas market these cities are, there would be no pipe line because British Columbia alone does not represent a big enough market to justify building an expensive pipe line.
Then the hon. member for Calgary West made some remarks that I should like to place on Hansard. Speaking to the members of the Ottawa Gyro Club, he is reported as having said:
Emphasizing the urgent need for markets, Mr. Smith stated that 67,000 barrels of oil per day are being produced where 150,000 could be produced daily but there is nowhere to sell that amount. "That is one of the tragedies of this business," explained the speaker. . . .
The M.P. from the province that was "born lucky" explained that gas and oil are found together and so abundant is the latter that "enough gas to supply the needs of Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and all eastern Canada is being wasted in flares. If we had a market for our gas, we could continue our search for oil," said the speaker in conclusion.
Some of us in western Canada are particularly concerned that no misuse shall be made of this natural resource; and that if later on gas and oil are found in Saskatchewan or in the Peace river district of British Columbia, it will not be wasted or improperly used. We are not concerned, nor do I think most hon. members of this house are concerned, with any particular pipe line company. I do not know the representatives of these companies and have not been interviewed by them. I assume that applies to most of the members in this house. We are concerned, however, and deeply concerned in making sure that the people of Canada are first served with gas and oil. So far as the bill before the house is concerned, it applies to the building of a gas pipe line. The member for Calgary West says that there is an ample supply of
Alberta Natural Gas Company gas to fill the needs, not only of Canada but of the United States as well, for a great number of years.
We are not altogether satisfied with that assurance. I should like to discuss this afternoon the steps that have been taken to safeguard Canadian interests. I want to stress that the duty of protecting the public is purely a provincial duty. The natural resources in all these western provinces were handed back to the provinces by the federal government. They have full control of these resources, and tomorrow or any day can say that not one gallon of oil or one cubic foot of gas will be sold outside the province. The provincial government has that power, and having the power the duty devolves upon the provincial government.
Incidentally the government of Saskatchewan, which has allowed a large number of leases to be granted to people coming from Houston, Texas, and elsewhere, if gas or oil is discovered in large quantities, has a duty to safeguard the public. The provincial government can prohibit the export of gas or oil. What we are considering here is the matter of the safeguards for the public. Those of us who were born in the western provinces, and have lived there, are deeply interested in the welfare of those provinces. We have watched the freight rates, which I am not at liberty to discuss today because that matter is before a royal commission, and we have found that the western economy has been sadly impaired by the fixing of fictitious rates. I cannot go into detail about them today, but those of us who have studied the rates are convinced that is so.
In the province of Alberta alone we have a great supply of coal, water power, natural gas and oil, yet there are no large manufacturing concerns in that province such as are located in other parts of Canada. In the city of Winnipeg we have cheap hydro power, perhaps the cheapest on the North American continent. In spite of this there has been no development of industry. Western Canada will not be developed merely by letting this gas and oil go out all over the North American continent. We must first try to develop industries in the province of Alberta, the province of Manitoba, the city of Winnipeg and the other provinces. It is vital to our province that any governmental agency, whether it be provincial or federal, that has any control over the matter, exercise that control to ensure that these natural resources are not lost to the people of Canada.
We must now see what safeguards there are before this house. The matter of the immediate sale of this oil and gas is a mere bagatelle. It will give employment for a

Alberta Natural Gas Company short time, and it will give the people who hold the charters a great amount of money, but in the long run we may find as they did in Texas, Oklahoma, and the other states of the United States, that we have a bunch of dry holes and the communities are deserted because the industry has sold out all the gas and oil. We do not want that situation in the western provinces. We do not want our people to be forced to leave those provinces and migrate to the east or to British Columbia. If you are a bright lawyer now, you will go to the east or move to British Columbia and pay $1,500 for the privilege of entering a law practice. We do not want that situation in Canada. We look to the governmental agencies, particularly the provincial government that is in full control of these resources, to make sure that the people of the prairie provinces are taken care of first.	.
This bill that is before us is not a bill to fix a route. It is merely a bill to give the company a charter. It is being passed under the general Pipe Lines Act that was passed by a previous parliament, when many of the members who are sitting here today were not in attendance. As I pointed out in a previous debate, that bill was fostered and helped by those who are opposing this bill today. They were in favour of the initial bill that laid the groundwork for any private' bill. These members gave that initial bill full support. The only question today is which route should be chosen. I listened with a great deal of care to the member for Edmonton West the other evening, and I should like to congratulate him on his presentation. If it became a matter of a route, those in my constituency and those to the west of me in Saskatchewan would certainly favour the Yellowhead route. We cannot understand why the government of British Columbia, which endorsed a certain resolution favouring the Yellowhead route for the pipe line, did not endorse that route for the trans-Canada highway as well. It would have meant that the highway needed to protect the pipe line would have been built alongside of it. The British Columbia government picked another route entirely for the highway, and it goes through Banff; it does not touch Edmonton at all.
In this house we are concerned also with the welfare of the consumer in Canada, whether he is in British Columbia or elsewhere. I am not in favour of this house deciding; and whether the bill before the house is approved or rejected, we will not be deciding the route at all. It will simply


mean we are refusing one company a charter that we have granted to five other companies. Speaking again for the province of Saskatchewan, and I think possibly the Manitoba and Ontario members may take the same view, the bill that was before the house a year ago sponsored by the member for Fraser Valley concerning the West-coast Transmission Company did not even cover the provinces of Saskatchewan or Manitoba. It was only concerned with British Columbia and Alberta. It made no provision for furnishing gas or oil to any of the other provinces, whereas the bill before the house today applies to the whole of Canada.


Mr. Cruickshank:: And the United States.


Alan Carl Stewart: And the United States.


George Alexander Cruickshank: First.


Alan Carl Stewart: Not first; you are wrong there.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member interrupted me the other day about a dozen times.


Alan Carl Stewart: I say again that if I were to speak in favour of any particular route, I would speak as the member for Edmonton West did, in favour of the Yellowhead route.
The attitude of the members opposed to this bill is not understandable to me. The member for Vancouver-Quadra is a lawyer, and a year ago in this house he spoke in high terms in favour of the general pipe lines bill. Yet in speaking in the debate in this house the other evening-


Mr. Green:: Last year I did say that it had to serve Canada first.


Alan Carl Stewart: The hon. member did not go that far at all. Here is what my friend said the other evening, and I do not suppose he wants to take this back:
Let me point out to the minister that when that bill was put through the house-
That is the original pipe lines bill.
-last year there was not the slightest suggestion that the board of transport commissioners would have the power to decide whether or not a route to the west coast should go through the United States.
That is what the hon. member says; yet in section 9 of the Pipe Lines Act we find this:
A company operating a company pipe line from a place in Canada to a place on the international boundary line may exercise, beyond such boundary, in so far as permitted by the laws there in force, the powers that it may exercise in Canada.

I am going to stress too that despite the statement of the other evening, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra knew when he voted for this other bill that it was providing for the export of gas beyond the boundaries of Canada. He was quite clear on it then, but he was not the other evening. I do not want to requote what has been so ably said by the hon. member for Skeena, but I have here a number of quotations of what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said in the house when that bill was passed by the government in this parliament. Then in addition it has been stated here that the house did not know that this was a very urgent bill, that they did not have much time to study it and they just slapped it through in the dying days of the session.
If you refer to the debate on that, the Minister of Transport said this, as reported at page 2512 of Hansard:
While there is some urgency because of the importance of these projects, at the same time parliament is breaking new ground in the matter of general pipe line legislation, and the bill deserves the most careful consideration of the house.
He told you that, a minister of the government. Then he went on and said this, as reported at page 2510 of Hansard:
I expect that these projected pipe lines will cross both provincial and international boundaries . . . The information which I have at the moment Is that there are a number of private companies seeking to get special enactments for the purpose of proceeding almost immediately with the construction of these lines.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister say how many?
The minister named five. Then at page 2512:


Howard Charles Green: The
official opposition approve of the principle of this bill . . . We do hope that it will be possible to bring this Alberta oil into Ontario and also into British Columbia. I see no reason why eventually it should not be piped down to the Pacific coast. It is likely also that there will be a surplus which of course can be sold in the United States. It is a very encouraging picture, Mr. Speaker.
That is the bill that was passed by the government, passed in the very words, without any restrictions that you ask here, when you say, "We want an amendment to provide that the main supply will be kept in Canada".


Howard Charles Green: It says so there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Read on.


Alan Carl Stewart: Then we go on:
The bill we are now considering is a key bill based, as the minister has said, on the fact that the pipe lines will cross interprovincial and international boundaries.
Still no safeguards. Then again at page 2513:
As the minister said, there are already five companies interested in applying for such acts . . . but I presume there will be more as time goes on.
Alberta Natural Gas Company
And when they do he lets the other five through and turns the other two down. Then again the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said that special acts of different companies should be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. It was the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra who made the suggestion that this bill, upon which the present bills are based, be referred to a committee of the house for study. It was referred back from the committee unamended and passed.


An hon. Member:: Who is filibustering now?


Alan Carl Stewart: Then they conduct a filibuster in parliament claiming that the government has forgotten about "Canada first". They thought about that a year or more after the basic bill was passed in this house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What are you doing now?


Alan Carl Stewart: I am telling you what you did in the other house, and you did the same thing.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was never in the other place.


Mr. Harkness:: I would ask the hon. member to read Hansard far enough to show where I moved an amendment.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He does not want to.


Alan Carl Stewart: I will now refer to the C.C.F. stand on this bill. The then hon. member for Kindersley, as reported at page 2514 of Hansard, said:
We also agree that the principle of the bill-
And you do not move an important amendment if you agree with the principle of the bill.
-should be endorsed on second reading, and that it should then be referred to the committee on railways, canals, and telegraph lines for further consideration.
I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said:
The official opposition approve of the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, because we are strongly in favour of the development of the oil resources of Canada-provided of course that, once developed, they are wisely used. We believe that oil and iron can form the foundation upon which Canada could become a great world power. It will be remembered that there is no great power in the world today or in modern times which has not had a great production of iron and steel;'together with oil they are of the utmost importance in these modern times.
Again, nothing about any restrictions.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: We want to build in Canada, not outside Canada.


Alan Carl Stewart: Yes; it is "Canada first" again from the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.

Alberta Natural Gas Company


Howard Charles Green: Will you read what I said about "Canada first"?


Alan Carl Stewart: At page 2513, the hon, member for Vancouver-Quadra said:
The oil and gas should be used in Canada as much as possible. I would point out to the minister that two of the five companies which he has named are proposing to pipe gas from Alberta down to the Pacific coast, but their main purpose is not to pipe gas to Vancouver but to pipe it to Seattle and Portland in the west coast states of the United States. There is a far bigger population in those two states than in British Columbia, and I believe that the intention is that the main line of these pipe lines will be to these states with a branch up to Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: On a question of privilege, will you go on and read where I said I would not stand for that, that it had to go through Canada first?


Alan Carl Stewart: You did not say you would not stand for it.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, I did.


Alan Carl Stewart: On your question of privilege, you did not say in that whole debate that you would not stand for anything nor did you in that debate move any amendment that would give that bill any more power to protect the public than there is in it today. Not one such motion was made by you.
Now I want to point out to the committee that, in connection with this whole matter, which I think amounts to a tempest in a teapot, you are only opposing the matter of charters to companies to go along with five charters that you did pass.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, no.


Alan Carl Stewart: That is all you are
doing.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No.


Alan Carl Stewart: The hon. member for Fraser Valley has stated "Oh, but the company I am now acting for will withdraw the application they made to build down to the states." But ten days after he passed the bill giving the other charter, they applied not to go through his own province but to go down to the United States of America.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Alan Carl Stewart: That is what they did.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just a minute. You mentioned my passing a bill. I am flattered to hear that I passed a bill. I did not know that I had that much control of this parliament.


Alan Carl Stewart: My hon. friend cannot say that he did not father the bill.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I sponsored it, yes; for an all-Canadian route.


Alan Carl Stewart: No. The bill had nothing in it about an all-Canadian route.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There was a guarantee.


Alan Carl Stewart: No.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


Alan Carl Stewart: The bill then in connection with the West coast Transmission Company Is in exactly the same wording as this bill.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They guaranteed that an all-Canadian route would be built.


Alan Carl Stewart: There was no guarantee whatever of anything.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, there was.


Alan Carl Stewart: There was nothing in that bill mentioning an all-Canadian route; and no guarantee of any sort was given.


George Alexander Cruickshank: A guarantee was given.


Alan Carl Stewart: Now the hon. member comes to this house and says: "I want you to take my word for it that this company ten days ago told me that they would withdraw their application, or have done so, to build in the United States; and they withdrew it." There is nothing in the world, legally or otherwise, to prevent that company from re-applying for that route. There is nothing to prevent any one of the five companies you did incorporate- from transferring to any American company that they want to transfer to, taking their money and selling out the public even as these two pipe lines are doing. That is correct.
In addition, you also have on the statute books of Canada an act known as the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act. In connection with that, no person can export oil or gas without the permission of an order in council which is put through by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That was on the statute books long before this pipe line bill. It is still on the statute books. What I am pointing out is that we have responsible government in Canada. If at any time there is danger of that field being used to excess, or the gas going to the wrong places, there is that power with the government of Canada. Also under the Pipe Lines Act, the board cf transport commissioners have the power to refuse a licence. If they refuse, the company cannot do business.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said that in his opinion the board of transport commissioners was a fine board and would do a good job. He appreciated the

fact that the government had set up a board with power to pass on these things. He said that in the debate a year ago.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, you have a further safeguard in the persons of the government of the province of Alberta. I as a western member would call upon that government to make sure that there is no exploitation of this field, and that we do use as much of that gas and oil in Canada as can possibly be used here before the people of the United States get any of it.
In a previous debate the hon. member for Calgary West had a great deal to say about the conservation board of Alberta. He said that that board was amply seized of the whole situation. He said they were smart people who knew all about it. He praised them to the skies and said he was quite satisfied with the Alberta conservation board. This was said by an hon. member who has been opposing these bills. When the bill went through last year he praised the board and said he was satisfied with it.
Now let us see what the government of the province of Alberta has to say about it. Let us see what safeguards they give us. Just bear in mind that the law is quite clear, as laid down by the Prime Minister in the same debate. In effect he said that the government of the province of Alberta alone can export oil out of Alberta, and they have full control over it. He said:
I cannot change the constitution. In my view the resources of a province are controlled by the legislation of that province. If there is legislation in the province of Alberta saying that the owners of fields where there is gas must comply with regulations made by a board set up under the authority of that legislation, I think as a lawyer they would have to do so, because that is control of property and civil rights within the province. The federal government has the right to control export but it cannot force export. It cannot say that property belonging to the hon. member shall be taken from him and exported.
The laws relating to the hon. member's property are under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature, but if it is something that is free to be dealt with the federal government can say, notwithstanding that it is free to be dealt with, "We will not give you a permit to export it unless you comply with such and such regulation."
If there is any doubt as to what these companies are going to do the government of Canada could pass regulations, either under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act or under the present act, and enforce them, but the first duty is the province's. The hon. member for Calgary West says that the conservation board in Alberta is an intelligent one. So, there are your protections, and a lot of the talk that has been going on in this holise I submit is far away from the point. We are not deciding a route. If we had to decide a route, as the Prime Minister has so
Alberta Natural Gas Company ably stated, we would have to go into all the details. We do not want to build a pipe line around every valley in British Columbia in order to give service. We want to build it in an economical way so that the consumers will not have to pay too much for the pipe line and too high a price for their gas and oil. That is the situation. It can only be gone into and carefully examined by the board of transport commissioners. I had their names available a while ago, but I have mislaid them. One of the members is a former premier of my province, Mr. Patterson. I believe they have a representative from British Columbia, and there are three other other members. Judge Archibald of Nova Scotia is the chairman. Under the act constituting the board they have, the power to examine the applications before any permission is given to export. There is the maximum of protection under the electricity and fluid act to which I referred a moment ago. Therefore there are these two protections as far as the federal government is concerned.
All this talk about Canada first should be directed first to the province of Alberta arid then to the governments of the other prairie provinces, and then to those other two bodies to which I have referred. As far as this house is concerned, to keep on arguing in this debate as to whether this company or that company is going to build a pipe line here or there is to my mind, Mr. Chairman, absolute nonsense, because we could never agree on a route any more than some provinces have agreed up to date on a trans-Canada highway route. We would have the same troubles that have cropped up there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You still have ten
minutes.


Alan Carl Stewart: I am glad to know that the hon. member for Fraser Valley is enjoying my remarks. I appreciate a good audience, and I know of his intelligence.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to know which United States route you favour.


Alan Carl Stewart: May I say to the
hon. member that the only United States route I know of is the one mentioned in the bill he introduced. That is the only one we have seen in the house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Your company advertised it.


Alan Carl Stewart: So far as Saskatchewan is concerned, I have a letter from the commissioner of the board of trade of Saskatoon. We want protection in that province. We do not want it all to go to British Columbia. Sometimes you get some hon.

Alberta Natural Gas Company members from that province who take an allCanadian view, and at other times, when they get west of those mountains, they take a very narrow view. They are isolated on the west coast-


An hon. Member:: That is the Liberal-


Alan Carl Stewart: There is another narrow view. I have even seen a broadminded Conservative at times. In any event the commissioner at Saskatoon said this:
The question was raised as to whether Saskatchewan's interests in getting supplies of gas for this province should not be protected. The thought was that, in any such bill authorizing the exportation of gas to centres in British Columbia, Saskatchewan's probable needs of natural gas should be provided for before any gas was exported to British Columbia.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Who has the narrow view now?


Alan Carl Stewart: That is the view of the Saskatoon board of trade.


George Alexander Cruickshank: A narrow view.


Alan Carl Stewart: But you want to hog everything for British Columbia. We could build a gas route much cheaper into Regina and Saskatoon than you can around the Rocky mountains.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What about Yorkton?


Alan Carl Stewart: Yorkton will be reached ultimately, because all good things emanate around that city; even the Minister of Agriculture comes from near there. I continue with the letter:
Fear was expressed that, if the private bill passed the House of Commons providing for the construction of a pipe line to bring gas to British Columbia, a future bill requesting the construction of a pipe line to bring gas into Saskatchewan might be refused on the ground that there was not sufficient gas in Alberta to supply the needs of both pipe lines.
I was instructed to bring this matter to your attention with the request that your department consider fully the consequences which may flow from the passage of the private bill in question.
That is the position of the Saskatoon board of trade. You cannot blame them for taking that attitude, when you take the attitude of a sponsor of that bill in this house-and I am now referring to the hon. member for Fraser Valley.

which ignores the province of Saskatchewan, that beautiful province, and the province of Manitoba-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Most people from Saskatchewan have moved to British Columbia.


Alan Carl Stewart: I know, and at one
time there was objection to that from some of your narrow-minded people. You did not want immigration from Saskatchewan, at one time, and you had to apologize.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Who said that?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You just want selective
immigration.


Alan Carl Stewart: You remember the controversy which took place in the Vancouver papers about that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We did not want too many from Yorkton.


Alan Carl Stewart: Since the westerners got out there with their western breezes you have wakened up quite a bit. That is all I wish to say on this bill at this time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yorkton has given us quite a scolding. After hearing what the Prime Minister said on Friday night I somehow thought that scolding was off, but we are back at it again because the hon. member has told us that this is all a tempest in a teapot, it is a filibuster. But then, as I understood him, he tried to indicate that he was really of one mind with those who wished to see the construction done in the Dominion of Canada. I could not help feeling at the end of the hon. member's speech that he was somewhat in the position of a man who was described to me some time ago, as a man who was ready to give all aid short of help. It seems to me that that is where we are.
When I made a few opening remarks the other night I said that I rose to my feet because I had a feeling, which I believe was widely shared in this house, that this bill was not what it seemed to be, that under the guise of being a private bill it was not so very private. I felt that the government, or at any rate some members of the government, or at least one member of the government, had a lot more to do with it than we were really allowed to know. I think this has become a matter of considerable public interest and I should like to read a sentence or two from Saturday Night which is not regarded as being partisan of the party I am associated with. Speaking of this matter Saturday Night says:
Here Is a question of deep-rooted principles. In spite of all the opposition's attempts the government has so far refused to debate it in the House of Commons.
Since that time the Prime Minister has spoken. Saturday Night continues:
It looks like being settled in the secret conclaves of the board of transport commissioners and the cabinet. We think it would be a pity if the house let that happen: the Canadian public have some concern in the matter.
I think that expresses very well the feelings of a great number of people as well as members of this house. I think we are entitled and have been entitled to carry on this debate. On Friday night the Prime

Minister took quite a different tone from what has been taken by those associated with him, and I shall have occasion to refer in some detail to what he said.
I have always hoped, and I think others of my mind have as well, that these charters might be granted. We believe that the Alberta government is quite right in saying that it wants to have more than one applicant available. That has always been said by the hon. member for Calgary West and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, but they contended that the charters should be granted on proper terms. That is also what was said the other night by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano.
Before I forget, I must say that the attitude which characterized the proceedings in the committee was not what it should have been. Hon. members will recall that we were urged to let this bill go to the committee when, as was represented, we could get all the information which was desirable and necessary and where the matter could be discussed. I shall have occasion later to describe what actually happened in that committee which certainly was a travesty of what we were invited to expect.
I should like now to put on record just what the Prime Minister actually did say, and I do this in the light of all the talk there has been about filibustering, which the hon. member for Yorkton has reiterated. The hon. member and the Prime Minister ought to have a caucus on this. I quote from page 2229 of Hansard of May 5, 1950-


Alan Carl Stewart: The hon. member is out of order in referring to another debate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will wait until the chairman calls me to order.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member cannot refer to a previous debate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am referring to what the Prime Minister said last Friday night.


Alphonse Fournier: On another bill.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: As the two bills are now before the committee I think the hon. member should be permitted to proceed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That ruling seems to me to be one which is eminently filled with common sense, but whether it will coincide with the hon. member's views as to technicalities, I do not know. This is what the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 2229 of Hansard:
I am not going to suggest that the protracted debates in this parliament about the desirability of an all-Canadian pipe line for the gas and oil of 55946-144
Alberta Natural Gas Company
Alberta have been a waste of time. It has aroused public opinion as to the desirability of doing that if it is possible. I would expect that that would not be lost from the point of view of the members of the board of transport commissioners and that they would not lightly disregard the unanimous desire of Canadians that their own territory be used to the greatest possible advantage.
I stress those words "unanimous desire of Canadians". I would think the board of transport commissioners might pay considerable attention to what the Prime Minister said. Whether he should have said it is another matter. At any rate it makes it more likely that what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and others have been fighting for will in the end come about, but my concern is that it should not only come about but come about in the right way.
In order to give this committee an idea of the proper atmosphere of this debate it is desirable for us to recall that after all hon. members of this house have certain rights and privileges. One privilege is for the minority to debate. It is not for any member of this house to decide when the point is reached when the minority is to stop debating, except under the rules of the house. There have been plenty of cases where minorities have ended up by being majorities, and I refer now to particular enactments where public opinion had had time to catch up. It looks to me as if public opinion was catching up here, judging from some of the things that have happened in this house already.
I should like to go back to what was said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on November 15, 1949, and I quote from page 1807 of Hansard of that date:
I should like also to say a word about what seems obviously to be a filibuster in connection with these bills. The government will not permit any small number of members to prevent this house as a whole from voting on a private bill.
I think we should ponder that. What was really meant was that the government was not going to allow private members to exercise the right which they have. That is what was intended to be said. I continue:
If these bills continue to be talked out in the limited time permitted for private bills, the government will ask the house to suspend the rules and provide whatever time is required to finish the discussion and to obtain a vote on such bills.
One would think that a crime was being committed, yet I think it is within the experience of us all that the talking out of private bills has been indulged in by the government or by government representatives. We have seen what happened here in the case of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Resources and Development, who is really a man of distinction in that respect. He acted as a kind of shock trooper, and I suppose it
2268	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company might not be irrelevant to suggest that that brought him some political preferment. I am not objecting particularly to that being done; I am only saying that it works both ways.
When the Minister of Trade and Commerce said what he did to the house he said something which was quite improper, and something which in fact produced a result quite different from what was expected. I very much doubt, if he had not said what he did say, whether there would have been nearly as much debate as has occurred since. But he was not the only one. The Prime Minister had something to say about that, though it is quite true the Prime Minister did not put it quite as crudely as the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Prime Minister is a man of more-what shall I say?-delicacy of expression than the Minister of Trade and Commerce, although at times he can be delicate if he wants to. Here is what the Prime Minister said, and I quote from page 1999 of Hansard of November 21, 1949:
The bills In question have been before the house on four occasions-
A terrible thing. I wonder if there are not members of this house who can recall certain bills which they wanted to get through and which were talked out more often than four times. I continue:
-during the hour reserved for private bills, and on each of those occasions the time allotted proved to be too short-
What a pity.
-to permit of an expression of opinion by the house.
Then here is what is really a model of understatement:
It would perhaps be the feeling of hon. members that there should be an opportunity to permit of a decision being made by the house.
That is just another way of saying what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said. The Prime Minister did provide extra time, so there you have them working together hand in hand toward the same end and seeking to disregard the rights of the minority in this house. Since then we have had the Prime Minister's speech, from which I read you the sentence a moment or two ago in which he said, speaking of this debate, "it has aroused public opinion". I should like to ask if there is any more useful purpose which a debate in this house can serve than to arouse public opinion on a matter in which the public is interested.
I am glad that the Prime Minister has come to that view. After all, this house does not exist merely so that those who are not members of the government-and I speak now of all private members, not merely of
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1

those who ordinarily vote against the government-shall just be rubber stamps. Yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce came very near reaching that point. I think there was genuine surprise when there was a really firm attempt to stop this legislation going through. I think we have drifted along to that point in this house. The government does not want to do away with the opposition because that would give the whole show away if the opposition were not there. The public would then begin to prick up their ears if they saw that they were getting a one-party state. The government want to have the opposition but they want it to be tame. The opposition can make speeches and oppose but it must never do anything very much.
When a determined stand was taken on these measures I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister obviously were scandalized. They had not seen it happen often before and they did not like it. Indeed, I suppose this is probably one of the most successful efforts that have been made to let public opinion catch up, as it were. Public opinion is often difficult to arouse. The ordinary citizen has not got as much time as we have to study and familiarize himself with these questions, but this was a case where he was given some time and where he seems to have made quite a job. It almost, seems as if public opinion had invaded the Liberal caucus, if we are to believe the newspaper article that the Prime Minister read to us the other day, although he finally had to tell us of course that it was all wrong. No-he did not actually say it was wrong. He merely said that it was not a thing that one talked about. In a moment I propose to read just what he said.
From what the Prime Minister said it is clear that it is quite respectable now to take part in this debate. I am sorry that the hon. member for Yorkton seemed to think that it was not but the Prime Minister has really made it respectable. I think we should be rather grateful to him for that because, as I say, it looks as though public opinion had even got as far as the Liberal caucus.
I should now like to say a word about what the Prime Minister said in the house on Friday night. He explained that he had not been intending to take part in the debate but his mind had been changed by reason of a news story in the Montreal Gazette. He went on to say at page 2227 of Hansard:
This newspaper story is at page 11 of today's issue, and bears the title, "Gardiner Said To Be Demanding All-Canadian Pipe Lines Route."
It is very interesting to us to hear that. We all take a great interest in the views of the Minister of Agriculture, and of course we all

hope this is true. I imagine this is one occasion when the Minister of Agriculture may not interrupt me, although he nearly always does.


James Garfield Gardiner: I never discuss caucus out of caucus.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand that nobody is supposed to do that but it would appear as though people often do. Then the Prime Minister went on with rather extraordinarily well chosen words because as I read his words you will see that he did not say that anything reported in the article had not happened. He really just said to talk about it out of caucus was not the kind of thing that was done; at any rate it was not talked about in public. Here is what he said:
Now, all hon. members know that the deliberations of party caucuses are confidential, just as are the deliberations of council.
I must say I think \he deliberations of council are more confidential than those of party caucuses, but I think it is perhaps a strong statement in either case. The Prime Minister continued:
I am quite sure that no one who attended that caucus ever informed anyone outside of party members of anything that transpired within the walls of the hall where it was held.
I should like to think that was true, Mr. Chairman, but I find very great difficulty in believing it is, and perhaps you do also. The Prime Minister went on to say:
So the whole story about what goes on in our caucus, just as any story about what goes on in the caucuses of any other of the parties, must be the writer's guesswork in that respect.
Then he said something with which we will all agree. He said:
He would not expect me, I am sure, and no one else would expect me to say anything here about what went on in that caucus, either by way of confirmation or by way of denial.
I think that is a very fair statement. I do not think we would expect the Prime Minister to say that, but there you have it. We have this indication, as I say, that public opinion has got into the caucus. We may never know if public opinion has had this extraordinary effect on the Minister of Agriculture except in so far as we can judge by his actions. It would certainly appear as if public opinion had had an effect upon the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. It would appear as if he, like Joan of Arc, had heard voices and as if those voices had had considerable effect on him.
I think that is all to the good. That is public opinion at work; that is what this debate has brought about in spite of the deliberate attempt of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to silence the minority. He does not 55946-144J
Alberta Natural Gas Company think much of debates. I am sorry he is not here. I always like to have him here. I do not know where he is. Perhaps he is off making another trade treaty, and we may have another statement in the morning telling us that everything is O.K. At any rate I wish he were here because I always like his interruptions.
I should like to say a word about the proceedings before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I want to read what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said in that regard because his point was that if we would only send these things to the committee all would be well. The minister said that we were most unreasonable in trying to keep these measures away from the committee. At page 1806 of Hansard for November 15, 1949, he said:
However, I do think that these acts should be studied and studied very carefully. I should like to know much more about the incorporation asked for in the bill about which I am speaking than I know at the present time. But the place to obtain that information is in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to which this bill will be referred, and before which the sponsors of the bill will appear to make their case for incorporation.
At the moment, that sounded quite persuasive to me, and I had great difficulty in not accepting that view. Indeed we have had a similar view expressed to us this afternoon rather persuasively by the hon. member for Yorkton when he described to us all these other boards-and they do exist

whose permission must be obtained. As I thought further about the matter however it seemed to me that none of that was an excuse for parliament giving a blank cheque and disregarding our own responsibility. If you remember what happens in the case of the railways, my information is that the board of transport commissioners is limited in its powers, that it has no wide-open power to give permission for the construction of long stretches of railway. I believe their power is limited to six miles, and that the power to do anything beyond that has always been vested in and exercised by this house.
Dealing with the question of the committee, there are one or two features which are rather interesting. Of course the star member of the committee was the parliamentary assistant who took a very definite line in the committee from the outset. He did not think much of the idea of information being given in the committee. In the early stages of the proceedings on the bill he told us that he did not know anything about it, and he evidently felt that nobody else needed to know anything about it either.


An hon. Member:: What parliamentary
assistant?

Alberta Natural Gas Company


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I should like to read a few excerpts from the proceedings of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines of April 27 because other members apparently were quite ready to have the information given although the parliamentary assistant felt differently about it. At the very beginning of the meeting Mr. Prudham said:
I would then like to move that the chairman he empowered to call additional witnesses to give evidence as to route.
Apparently that indicated a change of heart on the part of Mr. Prudham because during the proceedings of April 26 Mr. Prudham said:
I think it is entirely out of order for us to discuss routes in this committee. But if we are going to discuss routes, then all routes should be discussed, including other routes which are not covered by the survey of this company.
While I do not agree with the first proposition I think his second one perhaps is right. So on Thursday morning the hon. member for Edmonton West said:
I would then like to move that the chairman be empowered to call additional witnesses to give evidence as to route.
A little later the hon. member for Tnvemess-Richmond said:
... I am sure there would be only one question that X would be interested in and that is the question of route. . . .
That seems reasonable enough so far, but here is what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had to say:
Mr. Chairman, I think that if we bring in any more witnesses in reference to routes we will only waste more time and I do not think that the route question is germane to this bill.
Then certain other questions were asked; the hon. member for Yancouver-Quadra did not entirely agree, and indicated his disagreement, suggesting that the statement as to wasting time should be withdrawn. The chairman, evidently wishing to pour oil on the troubled waters, said:
I see no objection to the withdrawal of it.
But the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre replied:
There is no objection to its being withdrawn excepting that I shall not withdraw it.
That was very clear. A little later, however, he changed his mind; he does change his mind at times. He said:
I think X have a right to say it. However, we will get along with this matter this way: merely to advance the action, I will withdraw it. It is on the record, though.
Apparently the chairman did not altogether like that. He said:
I do not think we will get further along like this.

Then the hon. member for Winnipeg Soutn Centre said:
I do not know just how one does manage to make statements and have them withdrawn. It is on the record and the people who have heard it will, no doubt, continue to be influenced by it, some one way, and some another.
Hon. members can take that and make what they like of it. What I make of it is that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was seeking in every way to have the committee prevented from doing what we in this house were assured it was set up to do. However, that committee was very useful in one way, because it did enable a check-up to be made of a step that had been taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who had tried to help matters along by writing a letter to the Vancouver city council on April 4, in which he said:
While it is alleged that the Alberta Natural Gas Company, if incorporated, proposes to build a pipe line through the United States, this is not the information that the company has given me. My information is that the new company is proposing to build its lines through all-Canadian territory and to serve all Vancouver points before taking the line into the United States.
In examining Mr. Dixon, the chief witness for the company, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked about this very point:
Q. Will you give any pledge to this committee that your company, if it is incorporated, will build the Canada-first line, build a main line through Canada to the west coast?
A. No.
Q. Mr. Dixon, that is clear-cut and we are glad to have that statement, but I ask you if in your talks with the Right Honourable Mr. Howe, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that is the stand you have taken?
A. Just exactly. I have not said anything to Mr. Howe that I have not said to you.
Q. Mr. Howe wrote a letter to the Vancouver city council on April 4 of this year, in which he said-
That is the part I read.
Now, you dispute that, the terms of that'letter by Mr. Howe?
A. I told him just what I told you, that we had the five routes, that we would build any line we would be permitted to build, that the board of transport commissioners told us that we would be permitted to build. If the board of transport commissioners tells us to build the all-Canadian route that will be the line that will be built.
Q. Did you assure Mr. Howe that you were going to build an all-Canadian route?
A. I wish we could have assured him that we were going to build any line.
Q. So you did not assure him you were going to build an all-Canadian route?
A. Well, we said we would build an all-Canadian route if the board of transport commissioners selected it. He was perfectly correct in his statement.
Q. If you were ordered?
A. If we were ordered.

So we have this curious action on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I think it is very simple to explain. I think when the minister feels something has to be done, as far as he is concerned it is done; and, if it is done, why not say so? Sometimes I think that involves him in slight inaccuracies and optimistic statements. I think anyone looking at this record will realize that far from having given the minister any assurance that they would do what he said, all the applicants for the charter said was that they would do what they were ordered.
I could go further in speaking about the proceedings before this committee, but I do not think I need take time for that. There was constant unwillingness to give time, and at the last the committee was shut off by a resolution. I had never reflected upon it adequately before, but one of the things that struck me was that when you go from this committee of the whole to a committee of the house the minority loses all its rights. It is then subject only to the will of the majority, however high-handed; and I think anyone who reads those reports, as I have read them, will agree that when the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said the minority in this committee had been dealt with in a highhanded manner, he was making what the other evening I termed a conservative statement.
I do not intend to devote any time to the matter of route; I think that has been dealt with by people better qualified than I. But there is one thing I believe should be said. A very considerable number of hon. members have expressed their views as to routes, including the hon. member for York-ton. A good deal has been said about the advantages of the Yellowhead route; but, to put it mildly, I think it was rather astonishing when the chief witness for this company, Mr. Dixon, admitted quite candidly that his only knowledge of the Yellowhead route was gained on a trip through it by train, though he had studied the other routes carefully. As the hon. member for Kootenay West pointed out the other evening, a very significant statement was made by Mr. Dixon when he said they had ordered some 400 miles of pipe. On studying the map the hoh. member discovered that this was exactly the quantity required to take the pipe line to the United States border. That was interesting in two ways. It showed that while Mr. Dixon professed to be perfectly ready to build over whatever route they were ordered to build, nevertheless they were so sure in their own minds, and apparently so convinced
Alberta Natural Gas Company that they were going to get their own way, that according to him they had ordered these 400 miles of pipe.
At the outset I said my reason for taking part in this debate is that I consider the House of Commons has been very shabbily treated in this matter. I believe there is a widespread feeling here that far from being a private bill this is in effect a public measure. I should like to refer to the words used the other evening by the Prime Minister, because they were rather interesting. A writer in the Gazette had said, as appears at page 2227 of Hansard:
The high degree of interest in these reports out of caucus stems from the fact that, up to the present, the government had made it plain that it felt that parliament should give the two companies a free hand in selecting the route along which they would build the huge pipe line.
The Prime Minister dealt with that on page 2228 in these words:
I do not know what the companies have made plain. I did not attend the meetings of the committees, I have not seen any of the promoters of these companies. I have not read the testimony taken in committee, nor the report of the committee.
It is rather a pity the Prime Minister did not read those proceedings; he might have had his eyes opened.
I do know that if anyone in the press gallery had come to the conclusion that the government had made it plain that it felt that parliament should give the two companies a free hand to select the route along which they would build the huge pipe line, others may have reached the same conclusion, and I feel I am called upon to point out that there was no such thing made plain by the government, nor ever intended to be made plain by the government.
It will be observed that those are very carefully chosen words. I would have to agree that it had not been made plain, and my whole complaint about this business is that nothing has been made plain. We are left to inferences, which we would much rather not have to make in certain cases. But even there the Prime Minister, in these carefully chosen words, does not go the length of saying that there is no interest in the matter. The external aspects of the situation suggested that it was a government measure. I do not know whether the Prime Minister intended to give that inference, but when the bill was voted upon the other night you will remember that the Prime Minister stood up and voted first, just as he would for a government measure. I have made inquiry, and I am informed that is not usual in a private measure. I am informed that the former prime minister had an entirely different practice, but it may be that I am attaching undue significance to it. To support that same suggestion the government whip, on the occasion of that vote, came in in his usual way, which I have always understood

Alberta Natural Gas Company to mean, "We are ready; the government ranks are lined up and are ready to do their bit." I assume that is the meaning of the bow which the government whip makes to the chair when he enters. As I say, it has all the appearance of a government measure.
I have practically finished my remarks, Mr. Chairman. What I allege, and what I stress, is that there was a deliberate attempt to disregard public opinion. We have this resolution from the British Columbia legislature, which I hold in my hand, unanimously passed, and going on the record in favour of what the member for Vancouver-Quadra and the member for Calgary East have been requesting. All that would have been disregarded long ago if there had not been a determined effort to stop it. I feel that this is of great importance, an importance beyond the issues of today, because to me it is a shining example of the duty of those who have minority rights to stand up for those rights to give the time, which may often be required, for public opinion to assert itself, as it is doing in this case in no uncertain way.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: 
George Alexander Cruickshank: But the hon. member supported the route through the United States, and voted for it.


George Matheson Murray: Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows he is talking through his hat.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, check Hansard.


George Matheson Murray: I never supported any route through the United States. I did support the idea of incorporating this company, because I think in Canada there should be free competition. These people promoted a company and they have come to parliament to ask for incorporation. Who am I to deny them that right? It is not proper to make a monopoly in this industry, and I do not propose to subscribe to it.
There is another important angle to the proposal that the line should be carried down through the Cariboo. The Canadian National Railways line runs from Jasper to the riding of my friend the member for Skeena, and that part of the line is not very profitable, although it services that part of the country. I believe the Canadian National is in the red possibly about $35 million a year. Would it not be in the public interest to promote trade and development along the Canadian National railway line in that area? The development of these natural resources would mean that more tonnage could be carried by the Canadian National railway to Prince Rupert on the west or eastward to Edmonton. It is of interest to the people of Canada, not merely the people of British Columbia, to make the Canadian National Railways prosperous. The building of a pipe line through that area, stimulating the activity of those industries,. would be of direct benefit to the Canadian National Railways.
There is a much more important local angle to it than that in British Columbia. We have the Pacific Great Eastern Railway running up through that country that I have mentioned. At the last session we made to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway a subvention of approximately $2 million, to assist them in building from Quesnel to Prince George. The plans in British Columbia are to extend that railroad into the Peace river country. What better arrangement could you have than to have it running along or near the main pipe line conveying the oil and gas from the interior of northern Alberta and British Columbia to the Pacific coast? That is a project that will figure prominently in discussions in the future. I know that members of the legislature of British Columbia submitted a resolution on it, and I know that in drawing up that resolution they had in
Alberta Natural Gas Company mind the salvaging of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway and the great investment of British Columbia in Cariboo, in Peace river and in that northern part of British Columbia. I would not be surprised to see this subject, which is now before this committee and is taking up so much time, become a prominent question in the next provincial election in British Columbia; and I hope that I shall be spared to be there to have an important part in the discussions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You had better talk differently than you have been talking so far.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He has a new speech now.


George Matheson Murray: Because I was broadminded enough to agree to the incorporation of this second company and this third company, you suggest that I want to build a pipe line through the United States.


An hon. Member:: Sure you would.


George Matheson Murray: You do not know British Columbia. You do not know the mountains of British Columbia as I do. You do not know those mountain passes. Do you know why those fantastic routes have been placed before you? It is a political idea, to featherstitch that pipe line to as many ridings as possible for political reasons. There are certain places where it will be cheap to build a pipe line. Those passes in the north are much more accessible than the passes to the south. That is known to everybody who knows the mountains of British Columbia. The Peace river pass is broad and low and it would be easy to build a pipe line through there; and of course it would be a simple matter to do the same north of Prince George to the Peace river. Peace river is very accessible, and it would be a simple matter to lay a pipe line in there. The same is true of the Yellowhead pass. As you go north, I can tell you that these passes are lower and more accessible, and any sensible engineer would tell you that.
There is just one weakness in that whole set-up and that is that they have not surveyed the various routes that we have been talking about. We know they have not surveyed the Yellowhead. Everybody admits it. Since it was brought up by the hon. member for Fraser Valley and others, there has been snow in the Yellowhead. You could not have sent engineers up there since last October anyway, to do any good in the Yellowhead. I doubt if they spent much money in these other explorations.
Of course, you have the engineering data of the railways. You know the altitudes and so on and so forth. But this is a big project. There are many millions of dollars at stake
2274	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company with regard to the oil in western Canada. I am sorry that at the committee, when I suggested bringing in Mr. T. Link, an authority on this subject, objection was made. When I wanted to bring in Mr. Stanley Slipper, who is a great geologist and who knows all about the work which has already been accomplished there, objection was made to that. I hope that these men and others will be brought before the board of transport commissioners, and I hope the board of transport commissioners will not only accept some route which is suggested to them but that they will lay down and decide which route will be taken in conveying this great resource from central Canada to the Pacific coast.
I have said what I wished to say on this matter. I hope that this bill will pass. I hope that we in the House of Commons shall not do anything to discourage the investment of American capital in this country. I would point out to the committee that the development of the oil and natural gas in Alberta and northern British Columbia has been done largely by American capital. We have had some examples of Canadian financiers who have vision and enterprise like my good friend Major James Lowery of Home Oil; but our Canadians are much in the minority in the development of that great resource in Alberta. It is time we woke up and took a little keener interest in the industry. There is no reason why we should call on any American company to build any route. We have here the money, the material, the men and the ability to carry this thing out for ourselves.
I will just close my speech with this remark. It has been said that Joan of Arc heard voices. I would say that some of our members here heard voices since they first voted on these things and the voices caused them to vote in a direction opposite to that which was indicated. I am prepared to make a little prophecy and it is that the final route for the construction of the pipe line will be through Cariboo, through central British Columbia to the city of Vancouver, and from that point on to two and a half million people in the state of Washington; and to the great industry at Trail and to the other industries which will provide some market for the surplus oil and gas of this country.
Before I close I want to point with regret to the fact that so much gas and oil are being wasted today in those western fields. Not long ago I was in Leduc, and at every producing gas well, flames were flaring high in the air burning off what was said to be waste material. All I can say is that it was waste material that certainly would


not have been wasted in an American oil field. It was gas going to waste. I was up at Peace River crossing in the riding of the hon. member for Athabaska, or is it of the hon. member for Peace River? There is there an eight-inch gas pipe which has been burning, to my personal knowledge, for twenty-five years, the flame going high into the heavens, burning this gas.
Rome burned while Nero fiddled; and gas enough to light and heat Montreal and Ottawa together is going to waste while hon. members of this House of Commons are fiddling here, filibustering, discussing and debating over what they are going to do about it.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I do not think anybody in the committee can accuse me of filibustering, Mr. Chairman. This is only the second time I have spoken on any of these bills; and I would not have been long if I had not been interrupted a great deal when I last spoke. I hope 1 will not get quite so much interference this time.
Following the hon. member for Cariboo, may I say that I can quite understand that he really knows the area out in that country, as he has. described it quite fully. But I am surprised at his speaking now, as I would say, in favour of an all-Canadian route; because in the committee, he was one of the members who had quite a lot to say, and many questions to ask, but when the vote came, he voted for an American route.


Howard Charles Green: Every time.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Yes, every time.


George Matheson Murray: That is not so.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That is a fact, and you cannot deny it.


George Matheson Murray: I voted against petty motions that were brought in with the idea of endlessly delaying the discussion and keeping this bill from a vote in the House of Commons. I voted against filibustering in the committee.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: No such thing. You voted for an American route every time, as the record will show.
In my last speech, on April 3, before Easter, I moved the adjournment of the debate. At page 1501 of Hansard I said in effect that I thought it would be well to adjourn the debate and leave it over until after the Easter recess so that hon. members could go home and talk to their constituents, which would give them a little more time to decide just what they were debating.


An hon. Member:: It was a good idea.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I believe it had some effect, because since that time we have had hon. members who were in favour of the bill at that time now taking the same attitude as I am. No matter how smart we think we are as members of parliament, there are times when we can go to some fellow in the back concession and get a lot of information from him which would be valuable to us.
Other hon. members have come around to our way of thinking. One of these is the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, one of my keen interrupters on the day I made my speech. However, he has had a change of mind and of heart.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He has seen the light.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: When he read his speech the other night he read it so fast that I could not keep up with him. I had the chance neither to applaud nor to interrupt at that time. On looking up Hansard the next day I saw that he had a change of heart. I was very pleased that he had seen the light. Whether he had been home or on a trip to Europe, he certainly obtained some information which did him a lot of good. There were a couple of other hon. members, one from Edmonton East, and the other from Edmonton West, who seem to have had a change of heart in this matter. The hon. member for Edmonton West is in favour of the Yellowhead pass route. I was pleased with his speech until he made his last remark. He said he was in favour of it except that he was willing to leave it to the board of transport commissioners. The hon. member for Vancouver South made practically the same remark. We are not sent here as members of parliament to pass the buck when we get into difficulties. We are sent here as members of parliament to pass judgment on matters which affect our constituents back home. If anybody says he is willing to leave it to the board of transport commissioners he is certainly passing the buck, and is not facing up to the situation as he should in the House of Commons.


Alan Carl Stewart: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked for that.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: No; that is what the hon. member says he asked for. Like an evangelist minister who just picks out certain portions of the scripture and preaches from them to his own liking, the hon. member for Yorkton picked out certain extracts from the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and said that is what he said. The hon. member for Yorkton may be a good lawyer, but he would make a good evangelist as well.
Alberta Natural Gas Company
There was another hon. member who was also a member of the committee and who took a little part in the proceedings in the committee. He is a friend and colleague of mine.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Don't discredit your witness.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: He left an inference, but I do not think it was intentional. He left the inference that it was the opposition to this bill as it stands that held up the committee to such an extent that they had to force the bill through the committee. The promoter of this bill, or the pilot I might call him, is an old railroad man. He has not forgotten a lot of his railroad tactics. Whether he worked on the tail end or the front end of the train, he was certainly the pilot of the railroad business in the committee. The hon. member for Fraser Valley, who opposed this bill from the start, was not a member of that committee. Another member of that committee was the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, who is also the lawyer acting for the company.


Howard Charles Green: He was not a member of the committee.	[DOT]


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: He was active there, anyway.


Alan Carl Stewart: Wrong again.


An hon. Member:: Just doing a little lobbying.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: There was quite a lot of lobbying done. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Kamloops, left the inference that I spoke of a few moments ago. At page 30 of the proceedings of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, he said-


Mr. Fulton:: What inference did I leave?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I mean hon. member for Kootenay East. He said, at page 30 of the report:
Mr. Chairman, I cannot see any purpose in asking questions unless the person asking them wants an answer and wants to get some information, except it be a child asking questions of its mother merely to keep her busy. We have been sitting in the House of Commons listening to these pipe-line debates, yet I have been unable to get any information. I am here now and I want to get some information, and I would like to put some questions myself. Why would it not be permissible for the witnesses who are here and available to answer those questions?
He left the inference that we were holding up the committee by calling one witness at a time. It is not very often that you can get two witnesses in the box in a case before a jury or in any other case that I ever attended, and the hearing before the committee was
2276

Alberta Natural Gas Company similar to that of a case in court. The chairman ruled at that time that one witness would be called at that time. These are the chairman's remarks:	*
There are two angles, the legal angle which Mr. Connolly is taking care of, and the practical angle. And with all due deference to your remarks, I do not think we are wasting time on it. I think we could dispose of the legal set-up of the company and then have Mr. Dixon. I think we would make more time that way in the long run. That is my personal opinion as chairman. So I think it would be quite in order to go on unless the questions become too involved for Mr. Connolly.
The Witness:	I shall simply have to pass on to
Mr. Dixon any question which involves engineering.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Let us clear up your end of it
first.
And the hon. member for Calgary West proceeded with his examination.


Mr. Byrne:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock I was endeavouring to complete my remarks on this pipe line bill. I was being interrupted by an hon. member who is not present at the moment. Perhaps that is just as well as I can finish a little more quickly. Since these pipe line bills have been before us there has been no evidence at all offered that a line directly through Canada would be built. It is only the one company that has already received a charter that has said definitely it would build over a Canadian route through the Yellowhead pass.
I think it was the hon. member for Edmonton West who said that the Yellowhead pass was accessible. I assume that he knows more about that than I. The Canadian National Railways runs through that pass and we would probably use our own government system in building a pipe line over this route. Some one has said that it will be necessary to build a highway alongside the pipe line. So much the better. Another road would be built through British Columbia which would probably attract tourist business to that area. I happen to live in a place that has been built up largely through the tourist business and I know something about it. If this road will create tourist business it will probably prove to be one of the best paying roads in Canada. Such a road would build up the cities and towns of that province industrially and commercially and more business would be created for our Canadian railroads as well as for the highway itself.

If this road is built and people decide to go into the tourist business you will have thousands of tourists coming up from the United States to view our scenery. These tourists can look at the same scenery as often as they like and it is never depleted. Scenery is not like a mine or a timber limit or anything like that which is gradually depleted; our scenery will be there for all time provided we protect it properly. You can use it as much as you like and there is no wearing out.
If this pipe line goes through British Columbia the towns and cities will be built up. British Columbia has the ore, the timber and all the natural resources to build up many industries. If cheap power and heat are available the development there will be an asset to the whole country. I know that if there were any chance of having this pipe line go through my riding I would be saying a lot more than I have. I would be working as hard as possible to get that pipe line run through my own riding or even close to it.
There must be a lot of money in the operation of pipe lines. One bill has gone through the house, another is in process of being put through, and another is to follow. The chances are there will be two or three more companies applying for charters. It is stated that the difference in cost between one route and the other is somewhere between $15 million and $17 million. That is a lot of money and it may involve considerable pressure on the board of transport commissioners. I submit that this matter should be settled in the House of Commons by the elected representatives of the people.
The Canadian National Railways is an organization already in existence and for the life of me I cannot see why this pipe line could not be built by that organization. At the present time the Canadian National Railways has a deficit of $42 million. Apparently everyone wants to build a pipe line. One of the engineers said it was like a horse race, it was a matter of who got there first. Why could not this pipe line be built by the Canadian National Railways and thus give a chance to balance that $42 million deficit in the years to come, from the profits from the pipe lines? The Canadian Pacific shows more profits from the operations of its other projects than it does from the operations of the railroad.


Mr. Decore:: Is the hon. member talking about nationalization?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You can go a certain extent in nationalizing things as long as it is not socialization. We have a number of examples in our own country. In Ontario there is the

hydro and we have the Canadian National Railways. There are many other projects, such as Polymer, which I mentioned the other evening. I think there is a lot of money to be made out of a pipe line.
Before this bill is passed the government engineers should survey the Yellowhead route and make a report on what it would cost to build the pipe line. It would not hurt to hold up this bill for another couple of months because it is not a killing matter. One hon. member said that they had been burning gas out there for twenty-five years but surely in another month there would not be much more wasted. If this route could be examined by government engineers probably an argument could be put forth that the pipe line should be built by the Canadian National Railways.
I do not think there was any doubt in the minds of all hon. members of the committee from the evidence given by Mr. Dixon that there was only one route they intended to follow, the one through the United States. Any hon. member of that committee who listened to the whole proceedings could come to no other conclusion. The engineers could offer no figures in connection with the Yellow-head pass, but they said they could get them. If they can get them, so can the government. I think that should be done before we go any further.
We have been selling our natural resources to the United States for a long time and it is time to call a halt. We should start to use these natural resources in Canada for the benefit of Canada as a whole. It does not matter whether an industry is built up in the east or the west, it is of benefit to Canada. I do not think I have anything more to say and as far as I am concerned the vote can be taken any time. But I would like to see this held over so that the government engineers could go out and look over that area.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Chairman, this is the second time I have spoken on these pipe line bills in the two sessions they have been before the house. I want to speak tonight for a few moments as a member of the committee to which these measures were sent. First of all I want to register, along with other members, my protest against the way in which, in my opinion, the bills were railroaded through the committee. As you know, the Monday of the week on which the bills came before the committee was taken away from us as a private member's day, and the first full private member's day was the Monday following the week on which these bills reached the standing committee.
55946-145i
Alberta Natural Gas Company
It soon became quite apparent to members of the committee that there was a well organized group of Liberal members on it with the full intention of getting the bills back into the house on the following Monday. We have in the trade union movement a name for people who do the kind of work that I felt Liberal members of the committee were doing. In trade union language we call them hatchet men. In the very early stages of the sittings of the committee there was a determined effort to prevent the committee from considering routes at all. An attempt was made to point out that that was not the purpose of the committee although we had been told on numerous occasions in the house that the whole purpose of sending the bills to the committee was to secure all relevant information concerning the matter.
Then of course there was the attempt to protect the witness whenever any question was raised that proved embarrassing either to the witness or to the supporters of the bill. An onlooker would have thought that many members of the committee were there for the express purpose of protecting the interests of the company whose witness was before the committee. A deliberate effort was made and closure applied to prevent the committee from calling witnesses. A number of members asked for witnesses but if the bills were to be before the house again on the following Monday there was not time to call witnesses who could have given us much relevant information.
I have been a member of a number of committees of the house, and I think I can say quite frankly that this committee was the most political of any in whose proceedings I have taken part.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You were not on the redistribution committee.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I want to compliment the witness, Mr. Dixon, who appeared for the company. He gave us every evidence of being quite familiar with his field and he was quite frank. He told us frankly that he had given the Minister of Trade and Commerce no assurance that his company would build an all-Canadian line notwithstanding a letter to that effect which was put on the record of the committee. He stated quite clearly to us that his company was not prepared to have a clause inserted in the bill calling for an all-Canadian route. When asked bluntly if his company would consent to the inclusion of such a clause in the bill he frankly told us "No". I think he clearly showed his personal preference, and his company's preference, for an all-American route. He did that by pointing out to us the many disadvantages of an all-Canadian route. He frankly showed

Alberta Natural Gas Company us that an all-Canadian route would take one year longer to build than an all-American route. He told us quite frankly that the allCanadian route would cost $17,000 a mile more to build, or a total of $17 million on a route of approximately 1,000 miles.
He told us quite frankly that the Canadian route would be more costly to maintain, and that people on the Canadian west coast would pay more for their gas if it were piped by an all-Canadian route than by an all-American route. He said quite frankly that his company had given consideration to only one Canadian route while they had studied four wholly or partially United States routes. Of the five routes submitted, only one was allCanadian. One was practically all-American and the other three to a large extent were United States routes. No evidence was given before the committee to show that his company had been concerned with finding the most economical Canadian route. Some statements were made by other members of the committee indicating that Canadian routes other than the one outlined by Mr. Dixon would possibly be more economical or would serve Canada better. The witness frankly admitted that his company had only been interested in the one Canadian route. Rightly or wrongly I gained the impression that the company was so interested in the United States route that it was not at all concerned about finding the best or cheapest Canadian route. It was quite evident that the company's interests lay in an all-American route.
A promise was given that a route through the Yellowhead pass would be considered. We were told that the company would require to spend at least two months in studying it before they could give us an approximate idea of what the cost of such a route would be. We were informed that the company had spent well over a quarter of a million dollars in surveying the routes outlined and that it had been three years in doing so. There was no evidence that they were likely to spend the time necessary to make a thorough study of any other Canadian route than the one presented to the committee. If this particular company is to get its charter from the house and secure permission to build a line in the very near future, they will not be able to give due consideration to other Canadian routes. I see very little prospect of this company studying or surveying alternate Canadian routes unless their charter is delayed for a year or two in order to give them time to do so.
This company appears to be a very capable, well-managed subsidiary of a United States company. Some seventy-five or eighty per cent of the capital necessary for this pipe line, we were told, is to be raised in the United

States. Some seventy-five or eighty per cent of the gas transported by the line will go to the United States. In the light of those facts, and in the light of the quite evident interest of this company in the United States route, I see very little prospect of getting this company to build an all-Canadian line.
The question, of course, is whether the board of transport commissioners will order the company to follow an all-Canadian route. It was made quite clear to us that they would do so only if ordered by the board. In that connection I think we are placing upon the board of transport commissioners a responsibility that rightly belongs to this parliament. As western members have pointed out, the building of a pipe line is a matter of great concern to western Canada. I do not believe this government should leave the choice of that route to any private company. This matter is of such importance to Canada that I believe the government, through its engineers and geologists, should have some part in finding the most economical route for the line through Canada. A private company is interested in exporting as much gas as possible by the shortest feasible route, with the aim of making the greatest possible profit, and I do not think we have a right to expect such a private company to spend money in order to find out which of these routes will be most beneficial to Canada as a whole. That is not their job. Their job is to make money for their shareholders. I believe it is the responsibility of this government, as custodian of our natural resources for the benefit of our people, to take some steps to see that if our natural resources are exported, that export is done in the way that will be most profitable to this country.
We were told that a Canadian pipe line might cost $17 million more than a line through the United States. Well, $17 million may not be an exorbitant price for Canadians to pay in order to have that natural resource delivered through their own country, to promote the development of this country in the years to come. It has been pointed out already that if the fathers of confederation had taken the view now held by this company when it came to building the railway that was to connect Canada east and west, unquestionably they would have gone through the United States. But they did not take the view that the easiest and cheapest route must be followed. They were concerned with the future development of this country; and though the cost was greater, the railroad was built through Canada. It seems to me that this pipe line can be of enormous value to this country's future, and that the cost should

not be the major consideration but rather the interests of Canada as a whole, even though that cost may be $17 million greater.
I am not satisfied that this company has lifted a finger to find the most economical route through Canada. Personally I do not think they are interested in finding such a route. I think their main interest is in finding the shortest and cheapest route by which Canadian gas may be exported to the United States market. As the previous speaker said, I am surprised that the Canadian National Railways, in particular, seem to have taken no interest in this project. Goodness knows we have loaded the Canadian National with enough bankrupt enterprises, and overloaded it with the capital charges of bankrupt enterprises, so it is about time we gave the Canadian National some enterprise that had a prospect of being successful and making a profit. I think it would be in the interests of Canada that the Canadian National as well a-s the privately owned Canadian Pacific Railway should enter into a project so important as this to the development of our country.
We are charged, of course, with supporting a monopoly. Before the committee Mr. Dixon quite frankly pointed out that there was no prospect now or in the immediate future of more than one company building a pipe line to the Pacific coast, and that the line would be a monopoly, no matter which company got the charter. The only place where there is any competition is in this house, to see which company gets the charter, in order that two of the three may have a chance to fleece the public by selling stocks and bonds. As far as the actual pipe line is concerned it will be a monopoly whether built by this company or another. My own feeling is that parliament made a mistake in passing the pipe line bill without insisting that any company applying for a charter should indicate the route it intended to follow. I think no company should be granted a charter to build a pipe line anywhere it chooses, in order to export our natural resources to a market in the United States to promote the development of cities and industries in the United States at Canadian expense. I think no company, under any circumstances, should be left to designate the route the pipe line should follow. I believe it is the responsibility of this government to see that whatever company builds the pipe line, it is built only after there has been an adequate survey of all the possible Canadian routes.
I am not nearly as hopeful as the Prime Minister. I wish I could have as much confidence as he appears to have in the board of transport commissioners. I think we are
Alberta Natural Gas Company passing on to them a responsibility that thisr parliament should accept. I fail to see how that board could, of itself, determine that any pipe line is being built along the route which will best serve Canada, without some preliminary independent surveys and investigations having been made by government engineers. I greatly fear that the decisions in relation to these pipe lines will follow exactly the decision that was given regarding the oil pipe line which brought oil from Alberta to the east. There are a great many people in Canada, and in western Canada in particular, who believe that this government made a mistake in granting a permit to a United States company to build an oil pipe line terminating in United States territory instead of Canadian. I am afraid I have no more confidence that the board of transport commissioners will determine that these lines should follow a Canadian route any more than they did in the case of the oil pipe line.
One rather interesting feature in connection with this pipe line was brought out in the committee. It was pointed out to us by Mr. Dixon that this gas pipe line could be converted into an oil pipe line without very much difficulty, and in a comparatively short time. It was for this reason the company was asking for the privilege of building either a gas or an oil pipe line. Mr. Dixon pointed out to us that there was not much likelihood of this pipe line being converted into an oil pipe line except in case of war. In case of war, he said there would be a possibility that the conversion would be made. I think that is worth some thought on the part of Canadians. In the event of war in the foreseeable future, do we want a pipe line which conveys the major part of our gas through western Canada converted into an oil pipe line carrying oil down through the United States? I believe it is worthy of thought if one is looking into the future. History has a way of changing circumstances.
I would rather see this country have control of its own pipe line when it came to delivering oil in time of war. I believe that is one feature of this enterprise that should be taken into consideration, along with the other views that have been expressed. I suggest that this bill should be held up, and that the basic Pipe Lines Act should be-amended by the government. The government can bring in an amendment to that bill and' get it through this house oh short notice. A private member could not get that amendment through this session. The government could amend the Pipe Lines Act almost overnight, insisting that no company would get a charter until the line it proposes to follow

Alberta Natural Gas Company is indicated in the bill. Any company which has received the charter could be required to follow that course, and inform this house as to the line it proposes to follow. I believe this parliament has to take hold of this matter. It is slipping away from us, and it is slipping away from Canada. The fact that we let one bill through last year is being used as an excuse to let two or three other bills through granting charters to build pipe lines anywhere a company desires. I believe this government, and this parliament, has more responsibility to the Canadian people than to turn the distribution of these natural resources over to private companies, to do with them as they please, and for the most profit they can accumulate.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, speaking in the heat of the debate on Monday evening, I believe I may have said something that was presumed by the member for Victoria, Ontario, to be somewhat irrational. If so, I want to assure him that I felt what I said was true, and although it came in the heat of debate it was probably more truthful than some carefully considered statements. At that time I said that I felt there were some members of that committee who had an outright desire to forestall any action by the committee. I want to assure the member for York South that I have seen that type of tactic before in the labour movement also, a continuation of the debate in an effort to wear down and discourage the opposition, and it has been sometimes referred to as a communist tactic.
It is not my intention to rise and criticize any of the members who just spoke. What I want to point out particularly is the picture of the eastern portion of British Columbia, that part which includes Kootenay East, Kootenay West and part of Yale, that is the Okanagan valley. I should like to tell you what would happen to that portion of the country if this one company Westcoast Transmission were allowed to build a pipe line, and no other routes were considered. Those who have taken part in the opposition to these companies being granted a charter have based their arguments on the fact that the company that now has a charter is prepared to build the Yellowhead route. This certainly would be an all-Canadian route, and there is no dispute about that. However, in that portion of British Columbia I have outlined, there are approximately 75,000 to 80,000 people.
It has been pointed out that the potential market in British Columbia, particularly Trail, would consume as much natural gas as the city of Vancouver. I believe that is so, because this afternoon I contacted the head office of the Consolidated Mining and

COMMONS	'*'!
Smelting Company, and the man to whom I spoke there was of the opinion that that was quite correct. As a matter of fact, he said he thought it was a conservative estimate. It is not only Trail. As I have said, there are these other places such as Kimberley, Fernie, Cranbrook, Nelson and all of these other towns which would be entirely eliminated by the route commonly known as the Yellow-head route.
To prove my contention that the Yellow-head route would not service the city of Trail or these other towns, I have here an excerpt from the submission of the Westcoast Transmission Company to the petroleum and natural gas conservation board session of April 13, 1950. Mr. Frere, counsel representing, I believe, the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, asked this question:


Mr.   Frere@: I have a question or two, Mr. Chairman. I have not a copy of Exhibit 99, Dr. Hethering-ton, but would you mind telling me this. Do the peak day requirements of the Westcoast Transmission Company indicated in Exhibit 99 take into account the supplying of gas for consumers in the vicinity of Trail, British Columbia and Spokane and Hanford, Washington?
A. Mr. Sample presented that market estimate and he did not include gas for those cities.
Mr. Sample is the man who surveyed markets for the Westcoast Transmission Company.
This is proof that the Westcoast Transmission Company, the company who presently has a charter, did not even survey this potential market, so that it is obvious that they did not intend to service that area. During committee, when Mr. Dixon was on the stand, he was asked this question by myself, as reported at page 122 of the proceedings of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines:
Q. From the information you have available, do you think that the Yellowhead route would economically serve Trail in British Columbia?
A. It could not possibly serve Trail, not in my opinion.
Also, Mr. Gilman, consulting engineer for Prairie Transmission Lines, was asked this question by me, as reported at page 229 of the proceedings of the committee:
Q ... In your opinion, and in the opinion of your technical advisers, following what is commonly known as the Yellowhead route, would it be economically feasible to supply Trail, British Columbia, with natural gas?
And when I say Trail, I mean all these other towns that I have mentioned would be eliminated; and also, I believe, the Okanagan valley. Mr. Gilman's answer was as follows:
A. In my offhand judgment, it would not.
There is one thing I want to point out to those who may feel that-because there is a popular misconception in this house and outside of it-the route will be determined

by the passage of these bills. It is because of that misconception that I wanted to point out this matter. If it is true that the people who are opposing these bills are so greatly concerned about the consumption in British Columbia, then I think they should just consider this fact. A route through the Yellow-head pass apparently will not serve the eastern area which will consume more than the western area which is Vancouver and its environs. They therefore could not be giving a great deal of consideration to the people of British Columbia.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: That is not only wrong; but you are talking about a purely industrial load.


Mr. Applewhaite:: At this time, Mr. Chairman, I should like to explain to this committee of the whole house the reasons why I, as a member of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, came to the conclusions in committee that I did come to. Incidentally, the majority of the committee came to the same conclusions that I reached. Whether or not they followed the same line of reasoning as I did, I am unable to say.
As I understand it, we of the committee were there to hear the evidence adduced; to weigh and consider that evidence; and, on the strength of that evidence and of the arguments presented in the committee discussions, to arrive at a conclusion. I might say that I felt that no small part of the job was to sift out the irrelevancies and to decide what was and what was not applicable to the matter in hand. We, of course, had to try to come to a conclusion-at least, I felt that I did- on the basis of what was in the interests of Canada. The interests of these applicants or of any of their competitiors are of no concern of mine. But the interests not only of the district of Skeena, of the province of British Columbia, and of the province of Alberta but those of Canada as a whole were, and rightly should have been, the interest of all of us concerned.
In this particular case, of course, the interests of British Columbia and Alberta are particularly closely affected, but they are ndt solely affected. When we come to base an opinion upon a proposal, I suppose that all of us do so largely whether we feel that the person telling the story or outlining the proposals is sound, competent and reliable. In other words, is the witness credible? Ought we to believe him? What I want to do this evening is to try to outline the evidence which was presented to the committee and upon which the majority of the committee came to its conclusion.
Alberta Natural Gas Company
At the start of the hearing on this bill, there was presented to the committee and distributed amongst the members of it a memorandum signed on behalf of the applicant company. That was read to the committee by Mr. Connolly, who is one of the incorporators, one of these persons mentioned in section I of the bill; and he acted as parliamentary counsel for the applicants in this connection. In this memorandum there are several sentences which I think should be drawn to the attention of the committee. In the section which outlines the whole project generally, after dealing with supplying the consumers of Alberta, the memorandum goes on as follows:
... to transport such surplus gas as may then remain available to the Pacific coast to serve first the maximum number of consumers in British Columbia who can be reached economically, and, secondly, with such gas as remains available to serve consumers in the United States Pacific northwest. It is necessary to include United States market because the limited market available in Canada would not in itself support the cost of a pipe line from any of the known Canadian natural gas fields to Vancouver.
Those two statements are absolutely clear and unequivocal. We in the committee had to come to a conclusion as to whether or not those incorporators mentioned in section 1 of the bill are not fit persons to become incorporated as a body corporate in Canada. Are they financially responsible and sound businessmen or are they a fly-by-night concern purely for promotion? The statement and Mr. Connolly's evidence showed that they were adequately and soundly financed; that Morgan, Stanley and Company had undertaken to underwrite the full construction costs of the project concerned, and that four outstanding Canadian investment banking concerns were associated with them in that, and Mr. Connolly had letters from all of those associations of those businessmen backing up that statement.
Then there was the question as to where the actual pipe is to be made. Are we going to build a line with pipe manufactured in Canada or with pipe imported? The statement shows, and Mr. Connolly's evidence confirms, that arrangements had been completed with the Dominion Bridge Company for the supply of the large diameter pipe and with Page-Hersey Tube of Welland, Ontario, for the small diameter pipe, both of which would be produced in Canada from plate produced in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Only for the line in Canada.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Mr. Chairman, I have sat here with the most marvellous simulation of patience and listened to the flights of fancy of my hon. friends for a long time. I would suggest that they accord the same courtesy
2282	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company to my statement of facts and reasoned argument. I want to say a word in connection with that pipe because I believe the hon. member for Greenwood quite unintentionally left an unfair impression this afternoon when he said that arrangements had been made for the supply of 400 miles of pipe; but he pointed out, and quite correctly, that that 400 miles of pipe would be required, irrespective of whether an all-Canadian or an all-American route was used. Of course he did not go on to state that in the first place the company had not ordered the pipe; that they had negotiated to make certain that it was available and at what price; and in the second place they have negotiated upon the minimum line they could be sure of, depending on the decision which is to be rendered by the board cf transport commissioners.
The evidence of Mr. Connolly and the memorandum showed that these incorporators have already expended the sum of $350,000 in geological, transportation and market surveys, which, to me at least, looks like some indication of a sound concern which meant business. They have obtained cost estimates as closely as it is possible to do so until such time as the board of transport commissioners' final decision is rendered.
Now we come to the question of routes, which does not really belong to this bill at all, because as has been so clearly stated, the general over-all Pipe Lines Act has definitely left, and deliberately left, the question of route to the board of transport commissioners. However, I think I am justified in mentioning the question of routes here for two reasons. First, it is, or is supposed to be, one of the main reasons for the opposition to this and , a similar bill; and secondly, it has certainly occupied a great deal of the time of the committee. On the question of routes Mr. Connolly said that his company, after some two years of preliminary survey and work, had data on five possible routes, one of which was an all-Canadian route. That is, an allCanadian route as far as Vancouver. From there it must go down into the United States. Three of them were alternatives of the first route, whereby the line would dip back and forth across the international boundary and take advantage of topography, and one can fairly be described as an all-American route. In that connection the memorandum says as follows-and this is certainly a matter of importance to anyone trying to arrive at a decision on this bill:
Matters touching engineering, terrain, cost of construction and maintenance of the line, the possibility of maintaining a continuous supply to consumers, markets, the price of gas to industrial, commercial and household users, are all matters which the board of transport commissioners must consider before any order is made approving a route.
[Mr. Applewhaite.l

Now listen to this from the same memorandum:
The applicants for incorporation are prepared, if authorized by the board of transport commissioners, to build the first described route, which runs through Canada in its entirety to Vancouver. They are also prepared to build along any route which, after full consideration of all the facts, may be deemed to be in the best interests of Canada as declared by the board.
So far I have not mentioned the Yellowknife route-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yellowhead.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The company stated quite frankly that they had given some consideration to the Yellowhead route-my mistake-and had not any detailed information on it. They said, through the president of the proposed company, that it would cost approximately $25,000 to make a detailed survey of the Yellowhead route, and they undertook to make such a survey before they appeared before the board of transport commissioners. So what do we get from Mr. Connolly's evidence? Mr. Connolly, as I have mentioned, is not only a parliamentary counsel, but one of the provisional directors of the company. He satisfied me, and I think he satisfied the majority of the committee, that he was sound and honest in his answers, and that he was definitely, and so were his associates, interested in prosecuting this proposition to a successful conclusion to the best interests of Canada as a whole. He satisfied me, and I think the majority of the committee, that the United States market is essential to this proposition; that if we do not sell to the United States we cannot sell on the coast because there is not enough market in British Columbia to justify the building of a pipe line.
He satisfied me, and I think the majority of the committee, that this concern was financially responsible, able and competent to carry out the work which they would undertake if they were given the power to do it. He satisfied me, and I think the majority of the committee, that the pipe which they would use would be made in Canada, in Canadian factories from Canadian materials. Ue must have satisfied practically everyone in the committee of the thoroughness with which the concern had investigated scientifically all the angles involved in this concern before they applied for a charter. He satisfied us that his concern would go before the board of transport commissioners with five, since extended to six, alternative routes, and that they would build upon such of those routes as the transportation board approved. He satisfied us that arrangements had been completed for the satisfactory collection of the gas in Alberta, and for the distribution

of that part of it which must be sold in the United States on the United States side of the line, and that companies had been organized to carry out both of these necessary details.
Now we come to Mr. Dixon. I suppose if there was one thing on which every member of the committee was agreed, it was that Mr. Dixon knew what he was talking about; that he was competent and capable. I have not the time to give this committee the full life history of Mr. Dixon, but I propose to give to this committee a short summary of it, and lest there may be any suggestion at a later stage, may I say now, that this summary of Mr. Dixon's career, together with all the rest of my speech, was prepared neither in Wall street, nor in Calgary, but is the result solely of my own efforts. This is Mr. Dixon: graduate of Harvard school of applied science, member of the firm of Brakow, Dixon and McKee, a firm in existence since 1919 as engineers in petroleum and natural gas and geologists. He has been a geologist since 1911. He has a very wide experience in construction and operation of pipe lines. He was geologist and engineer for the Houston gulf line from Corpus Christi, Texas, to Houston, the first such pipe line in the United States built by public financing. He started in 1924 his first work done for the American government during the first war. He has worked on many small enterprises, one of which grew into the United Gas Company, one of the largest in the United States. He was engineer and inspector on the pipe line from Houston to northern Louisiana in 1929.
There he was geologist for Southern Natural Gas Company, a pipe line about 800 miles long. For several years he was with the Missouri-Kansas pipe line which finally had some 3,000 miles of pipe line, counting double lines. He was one of the promoters of the Tennessee line from near Mexico to Buffalo. He was engineer for the El Paso line from Lea county, Mexico, to El Paso, and is still their consultant. He has personally investigated Alberta. He has been over the Kicking Horse, around the Big Bend, through Kamloops and down the Fraser; also from Radium Hot Springs to Cranbrook and Trail. He put in two summers of work in various possibilities between Alberta and Vancouver and hired other firms also to carry out some of this work.
Mr. Dixon's history and his personality and his bearing before the committee demonstrated most clearly that he was no fly-bynight promoter but a sound geologist and engineer who meant business. Now, as to routes. It must be remembered that Mr. Alberta Natural Gas Company Dixon is the president of the proposed company. He appeared before the committee and outlined the five routes to which I have referred. He told the committee the Kicking Horse pass route was utterly impossible at both ends. He admitted quite frankly that he had nothing but a superficial knowledge of the Yellowhead route. He undertook to have a survey made of that route to cost some $25,000, before any application was made to the board of transport commissioners.
He had detailed information of the Canadian route across southern British Columbia through the Crowsnest pass, and on the three alternatives thereof which, as I said, dip back and forth across the line to take advantage of good topography and avoid bad topography. In that connection here is an example of the evidence given by Mr. Dixon:
They have a route that has been constructed there through Allison pass and they estimated the cost of $4 million but it cost $12 million because, as they cut into the side hills, the hill moved across. That makes for very difficult pipe line construction. That is what makes the line more costly in going through the Canadian routes. It is just the difference in terrain.
I suggest that no one wants to be utterly obstinate in this connection. If it were considered advisable to route the line partially through the United States to get away from a condition of that sort, I wonder who would raise an objection, even on principle. It was just such detailed knowledge as that that impressed upon us the fact that Dixon had a sound scientific and practical knowledge, not only of the business as a whole but of this proposition in particular.
Mr. Dixon had fairly complete figures on the cost of construction, as complete as they could be when subject to approval as to any particular route. Mr. Dixon gave us some figures which were interesting and others which were far from pleasant. It might be interesting to note that their estimate of the cost of the all-Canadian route through the Crowsnest pass, including compressors and everything, was $92 million to be spent in Canada and $18,500,000 to be spent in the United States, or a total of over $110 million. But the figures which will be of more concern were the comparative figures of the actual cost of construction of a line from the Alberta gathering point to the Pacific coast. The figures for the all-Canadian and allAmerican routes were $78 million odd and $61 million odd, respectively. Whether those figures are pleasant or not, they are unfortunately authentic and we have to take them into consideration when we consider this particular proposition.
Mr. Dixon brought out evidence as to the additional cost which it might be expected

Alberta Natural Gas Company would have to be borne by consumers in the Vancouver district should it be necessary to build the more expensive line. He stated quite frankly that it was impossible to estimate exactly but that the figure would be somewhere between $700,000 and $1,200,000 which the consumers in the Vancouver area would have to pay year by year as a result of the more expensive construction. He was brought back later to this same question by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, but Mr. Dixon refused to change his estimate. As I said, Mr. Dixon did not have at that time up-to-date and detailed data on the Yellowhead route. However, on the second day of. his evidence when he was pressed for full details about routes he gave the following answer to this question which was asked:
Notwithstanding the fact that the Alberta Natural Gas Company have made a preliminary survey of five routes to the Pacific coast, if the board of transport commissioners determines that one or more routes covering different areas would be to the best advantage of the Canadian people having arrived at the decision that the gas will be economically saleable on the west coast, would they be prepared to build a pipe line on some such route as the board of transport commissioners may determine?


Mr.   Dixon@: We would.
That is both clear and unequivocal, and so is this question:
With regard to the Yellowhead route, which has been mentioned on several occasions as being one possible route, would Mr. Dixon say that his company would be prepared to build a pipe line on the Yellowhead route if the board of transport commissioners instructed him to do so?


Mr.   Dixon@: I have already answered that and
my answer is yes.
A little later another member directed Mr. Dixon's attention to the paragraphs in the memorandum dealing with routes and Mr. Dixon expressed his opinion in these words:
We would be willing to build on any route the board of transport commissioners would direct.
In case any hon. member may wish to raise the question that they cannot go to the board of transport commissioners and say, "You tell us which route we are to build on", I would remind the committee that they can make five or six applications. Those applications can be filed all at once-other companies have done the same thing-and they could build on the one approved. The question of routes is not quite as simple as it might appear. It does not do very much good for any of us to get up and wave our hands and say, "That route should be followed in such and such an area". We found from Mr. Dixon's evidence, and he knew, that there is a lot more involved in a route than just the building of the pipe line. There is the matter of maintenance to be considered, a matter of prime importance because gas must flow continuously through the pipe line from the time it starts to operate.

In general terms, there is no equivalent in the gas business to the emergency or reserve storage facilities available in the oil business. If a gas pipe line breaks, the service is disrupted. Not only is there no gas at the point of consumption until such time as the pipe line is repaired; it is necessary to take considerable precautions against a possible catastrophe by making certain it is safe to turn the gas on again. There is not only the cost of construction; that also is one of the reasons why the terrain through which the line must go is a matter of such real importance.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the hon. member permit a question? Are you stating that Mr. Dixon said that if there is a break away back in the line it immediately cuts off the gas to the consumer? He did not say that. The answer is that the gas piped at 1,000 pounds pressure would continue to maintain the supply for a long time and give him, time to repair the break.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member who has taken this, perhaps his first opportunity, to address the committee on this subject might give his ideas, which perhaps may be better than Mr. Dixon's, when I have finished giving mine.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I asked you if you were quoting Mr. Dixon to that effect.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If it is necessary for the hon. member for Calgary West to get information from me to complete his knowledge on this subject would he mind if I requested him to ask me when I have finished with the line of argument which I am pursuing at the moment, whether it suits him or not. There is another factor of this subject which up to the present has not been discussed very much. It was brought up by questions in the committee by the hon. member for New Westminster. I refer to the fact that there is a real possibility of United States gas supplying the market at Seattle and Portland. There is a very real threat that wells may come in in Wyoming which will make it practical for the United States to supply its own market. In that case it would be impossible for anybody to finance a line from Alberta to the Pacific coast of British Columbia. In that case the Americans might or might not supply the city of Vancouver and other British Columbia markets, but whether they did or did not the province of Alberta would have lost its market for the gas which at the present time it has for sale.


Mr. Blackmore:: Hear, hear.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: There is another unfortunate feature of this subject but one which we must consider if we are going to

try to consider the matter rationally at all. If it were possible it would be a very nice thing to say: We will put a pipe line through some undeveloped or partially developed country and because that pipe line is there we will develop a country which is not developed. Unfortunately that is not possible. You have to have your market there before you can build a pipe line to serve it. On that question I should like to refer to what Mr. Dixon had to say. I have no apology to offer for quoting him because it is Mr. Dixon's company we are considering. Mr. Dixon said at page 87 of the proceedings of the committee of April 27:
You cannot build a line relying on what might happen. You have to have your market there before you can build a line, otherwise no one will finance it. The returns are small and you cannot take the risk and have the line there eating its head off in interest and in depreciation without a market.
Either that is true or it is not. Whether we like it or whether we do not makes no difference as to whether or not it is true. Personally, with my small knowledge of Mr. Dixon's reputation, and from the apparent common sense of his remarks, I am inclined to believe that it is true. Later on with reference to Trail Mr. Dixon had this to say:
This projected line will go through Trail, where there is already a wonderful market for gas. The figures given to us by officials from the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company are to the effect that there will be 3 billion a year as a minimum and 5-3 billion a year that they say is possible depending, as I said yesterday, on some developments that are going on there now, whether they can use the gas satisfactorily.
Mr. Dixon's evidence showed that their proposal was to serve what might be generally termed as the Vancouver, New Westminster area. Here may I say, to avoid later misunderstanding, that he made it clear that they did not intend to build a pipe line into the Fraser valley, but that the British Columbia Electric Company desired to build a pipe line into the valley and to take the gas from the Alberta Natural Gas Company. I do not know why that should be a cause for levity. That was Mr. Dixon's evidence before the committee. They would serve the Vancouver, New Westminster area together with approximately 32,000 people in the Nelson, Trail, Rossland, Kimberley, Cranbrook area.
As to the proportion of the gas to be sold in British Columbia and to be sold in the United States, apparently that does not depend at the .moment on the amount of gas available, which is almost unlimited. It depends upon what the market is. Figures on the Canadian market were presented to
Alberta Natural Gas Company this company by the British Columbia Electric Railway Company which I understand will do the retailing, and by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company. They are as follows: The Canadian market can absorb 11 h billion cubic feet per year plus 2-3 billion if Consolidated use their larger estimate. The United States market can absorb 63J billion cubic feet per year. It should therefore be obvious that if Alberta gas is going to be sold on the Pacific coast arrangements must be made so that it can be sold in the United States as well as in Canada.
Then there was Mr. Dixon's evidence in connection with the pipe. He supported Mr. Connolly that arrangements had been completed with both the Dominion Bridge Company and the Page-Hersey Tube Company, Canadian concerns, for the purchase of pipe in Canada, and that they had correspondence -in fact he produced it-confirming that that was possible and would and could be done. On all phases of his evidence Mr. Dixon stood up to what I think it is fair to say was a very severe cross-examination by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and others. It was impossible to shake him in his knowledge, because it was knowledge, of the facts. He impressed me on the occasions where he had not any personal knowledge and refused to hazard a guess but quite frankly stated that that was a subject beyond his immediate knowledge and therefore he was unable to give a firm answer. That is the sort of thing that creates a much better impression with me than if he had held himself out as one of those people who know the answers to every question under the sun.
There is an aspect of this matter which has been bothering many Canadians, and I think quite legitimately. It is a matter that I believe should be taken into consideration. They have been worried, and perhaps with some cause, whether enough consideration was being given to the future requirements of Canada, not only the market today but what it may be ten, twelve, or some other number of years in the future. That question was put to Mr. Dixon and he had this to say at page 121 of the proceedings of the committee on April 27:
Future needs. We have discussed and will discuss with the vital companies and authorities to try to get as nearly as possible what the consumption oi gas say for the next fifteen or twenty years will be, and that amount of space will be reserved for Canada.
There is another most legitimate cause of worry to Canadians and that is the idea that possibly somehow or other it might happen that United States consumers might get their gas and Canadians might be left without gas. It has nothing to do with the order in which

Alberta Natural Gas Company various places on the line are served. There is the fear that if the line is in the United States and these outlets are in the United States it may be possible that we may sell our gas to the United States and And that we have not got enough for ourselves. That matter was brought up and at page 122 Mr. Dixon was asked this question:
Is it a correct interpretation of that statement to say that it would give priority to the Canadian markets over the markets in the United States?
A. I would like to answer your question this way: there will be a priority on the Canadian market for their potential needs, and the rest of the pipe line capacity will be reserved for the American needs.
Q. It does not follow from this statement that you intend to serve markets in the order given in the statement, Alberta first, British Columbia second and the United States third?
A. When you have a pipe line and there is enough gas in the pipe line, it is not a question of who gets it first. Everybody gets it. But when gas is scarce due to some calamity or break or something of that order, nearly always there is a cut-off of the industries for the moment. I think no one would object to that. There is a cut-off so that the domestic consumers can be kept going. But as far as we expect, the Canadian market, up to a certain limit which would be as large as was needed, will have the priority. We have to have it in that way because otherwise we would never get by the federal power commission. There would be two markets, one called the Canadian market and one called the American market.
So what did we of the committee get from Mr. Dixon's evidence? First, I think he established to the satisfaction of all that he is a practical geologist with experience in and knowledge of all phases of the industry. I believe he established that so completely that should any hon. member attempt to belittle the standing of Mr. Dixon now he would find that he was actually belittling himself. He established to our satisfaction that he had detailed information on five alternative routes, one of which was all-Canadian, three of which were predominantly Canadian, and one of which was all-American, and that he had no authentic information on the Yellow-head route. He undertook to our satisfaction to get that authentic information on the Yel-lowhead route before proceeding with the application. He demonstrated to us a full knowledge of the costs of construction, and explained to us what I for one did not realize before, the important bearing of maintenance costs on the final cost of the gas. He undertook-and it was an undertaking-that all six routes would be submitted to the board of transport commissioners, and that the route approved by the board would be followed if his company were given the right to build it. He impressed upon us the importance of terrain in connection with maintenance cost and in connection with maintaining a steady flow.

Then he did not volunteer this, but as a result of his answers he impressed upon us the imminent danger of United States competition. In other words we might wake up some morning and find that Portland and Seattle are to be supplied by United States gas producers, while we have been sitting here talking about it. He established that an existing market was a prerequisite to the construction of a line. He satisfied us that his company was prepared and intended to serve the Vancouver and Kootenay areas with pipes made in Canada; that the future requirements of Canada were being allowed for and protected, and that at the moment the Canadian market has priority.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that as a result of the evidence given by these two witnesses before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, that committee was fully justified in reporting this bill, which is the same as saying that in its opinion these incorporators were a fit body of men to be formed into a company with power to apply to the board of transport commissioners for the right to build an international pipe line.
Now may I add just one or two thoughts of my own. I suggest to the committee that this matter is of a seriousness which perhaps some have not fully realized. We are dealing with a long-term proposal which embraces the whole future, as far as fuel is concerned, of a large section of British Columbia; and the whole future, as far as markets are concerned, of an important product of Alberta. This subject is too important to be debated here with vague generalities. Certainly it is too important to be discussed on the basis of ill-founded rumours or partial and distorted truths. I suggest with great respect to hon. members that we are in danger of not being able to see the forest for the trees, that we are overlooking the main object of this whole thing. The purpose of this legislation is not to build a pipe line. The building of a pipe line is not the be-all and end-all of what we are discussing today at all. We are discussing means of getting natural gas to the Pacific coast market, and the construction of a pipe line is merely incidental to that.


Mr. Maclnnis:: A pretty important incidental.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I grant you that it is an important incidental, since you cannot get it without a pipe line. But it might be delightful to build a pipe line anywhere. The point is that we must build a pipe line to attain this great objective of delivering gas to the Pacific coast market. Therefore we must not only consider the pipe line. We could build a beautiful pipe line anywhere and just walk away and leave it, and it would not be

worth anything. We have been so busy talking about a pipe line that many of us have forgotten that to some extent we should be interested in getting Alberta gas a market on the British Columbia coast; and I for one am impressed, and not pleasantly, by that threat of United States competition. I should hate to think we in this parliament had been in any way responsible

and I might be just as responsible as anyone else, since I am talking about the issue and not about personalities-for delaying this development so long that the Americans may decide to serve their own markets. The staunchest opponent of this bill-and there are honest opponents of it-I am sure will admit that we have to get into the United States market or we cannot build the pipe line at all.
The question of routes has come up, and I am going to make a statement that it would be much better policy for me not to make at all. That is, I am very much afraid that the Yellowhead route cannot serve the district around Trail. I wish to heaven that were not true, because the Yellowhead will come a good deal closer to my district than any route through the Crowsnest pass, but as yet no one has been able to satisfy me that they can reasonably connect the proposed Yellowhead route with the Trail district.
So for my part I am asking just this, that we allow these matters to be settled on the basis of their engineering, factual and cost data. I hope to heaven this line can and will be built in Canada, and I am very strongly of the opinion that it can and will be. But I for one am not willing to stand here and say that my pride as a Canadian will not permit them to take a dip of twenty or forty or sixty miles in the United States should it be necessary to get around Anarchist mountain or some other topographical hold-up which would add millions of dollars to the cost of construction.
Now I want to say just a word in connection with the claim that has been made that refusing to pass these bills would result in the creation of monopoly as far as Westcoast Transmission Company is concerned. That is the situation. If these bills are not passed the law as it stands today gives Westcoast Transmission Company the power-I do not say they are going to do so-to build just what the opponents of this bill do not want; that is, a line through United States territory. There has been a lot of talk and a great deal of criticism of the Westcoast Transmission Company. No one will believe me, I suppose, if I say I believe in a little honesty in debate once in a while. I am willing to admit that some months ago I was of the opinion that the Westcoast Transmission Company were, to some extent, opposing this and similar
Alberta Natural Gas Company bills. To be frank, I thought that opposition might be based either on their inability to meet competition, or their fear that their plans might not, in the long run, really be in the best interests of Canada. I want to categorically absolve the Westcoast Transmission Company, or in so far as I am concerned, from any such accusation. It is not, and could not, be better stated than it was by that company's solicitor in the Senate committee on Wednesday, October 19, 1949. I would remind the house that up to that time the Westcoast Transmission Company had been opposed to this bill. On that occasion Mr. D. P. McDonald said as follows:
Hon. Senators, the petition in opposition to the bill presented by the Westcoast Transmission Limited was prepared and based upon the fact that the proponents of the Alberta Natural Gas Company intended to build their pipe line through the United States. In the evidence which they have adduced before the committee they have indicated that they have planned a pipe line entirely in Canada and are prepared, if it is in the interest of Canada, to proceed with the pipe line in Canada. In view of this statement, the basis for the petition by my clients, which was that the interests of Canada required a pipe line to be constructed wholly in Canada before entering the United States, is not now applicable. Under the circumstances, therefore, I am instructed, with leave of the committee, to withdraw the petition as presented.
I think it would be equally fair, Mr. Chairman, at this time to meet another unfair criticism which has been directed at this Alberta Natural Gas concern. I have not the quotation but I do not think anyone will doubt that it has been suggested that this company has restated its views on this question as a result of the debate which occurred in this house during the last session, and which has been taking place during part of this session, to the effect that they were "all-American" until such time as this debate indicated it was poor business to be "allAmerican". That statement is also untrue because before this or the preceding debate ever commenced, on October 19, 1949, Mr. Dixon said to the Senate committee:
One of the routes Is entirely in Canada; all of the routes have a common starting point, near Fincher Creek, at a point near Yahk, British Columbia. One route follows an almost straight line from Yahk to the town of Osoyoos, hence to Princeton, then south to the border of the United States, hence to Holden, hence to Apple Grove, hence to New Westminster and Vancouver. That is the Canadian route, and it has a branch to Spokane.
Then he went on to outline the other routes just as they are at this time. It is not fair, therefore, not honest or just, to suggest that these people have changed their tune to suit some supposed political wind. I hope it is equally unfair to suggest that the opponents of this bill are opposing it because it might be found, in the long run, that some of their

Alberta Natural Gas Company pet theories are also not wholly in the interests of Canada. In so far as the West-coast Transmission Company is concerned, I wish once more to state that I absolve them from any such idea.
It has been suggested, Mr. Chairman, that in so far as British Columbia is concerned it is becoming increasingly popular to consider turning down these bills. On more than one occasion that has been suggested to me. Presumably the inference which I should draw is that if I hope to have success in another election it would be a good plan to do that which is popular. I do not want to indulge in any heroics about this, but so far as I am concerned I am far more interested in what is right, what is good and economically sound in the long run for the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, than I am in anything that might happen to be popular at the moment.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I do not live in British Columbia, but I have a number of friends and acquaintances whose judgment I respect. I find that the thing which concerns them now is not where the pipe line is to be built, but how soon they can get oil, and how cheaply they can get it. As one put it in a letter, he does not give a blank where the line is built, as long as he can get gas and oil as soon as possible at the lowest possible cost. I think the general public should know that the dominion government is not paying for this pipe line, but I believe the people who are paying for it should have some say as to where it should go. Of course I should say that this government is paying something for the pipe line, because it has to pay for this discussion and filibuster.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something about the way in which this bill, and the other pipe line bill, were dealt with in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. In the past five years I have been a member of quite a number of committees, but I have never seen one run in the way in which this committee was run. After we had partially, and only partially, heard the evidence of two witnesses for the one company, what amounted to a closure procedure was adopted. We were prevented from hearing the complete evidence these witnesses could have given, let alone calling any other witnesses.
The member for Coast-Capilano said a few days ago that he was surprised that Dr. Hume, the outstanding authority on natural gas reserves in Canada, had not been called. As I have said, we did not even have the opportunity of completing the questioning of Mr. Connolly and Mr. Dixon, to say nothing
[Mr. ApplewhaiteJ

of calling Dr. Hume or any other expert. During the comparatively long debate which has ensued on this pipe line measure, speaker after speaker on the government side of the house has said that we should give these bills second reading and let them go to the committee. There could then be a full discussion in the committee, and members could obtain all the details. Actually, that is exactly what we did not get. It seems to me that the committee system, as I have known it during the past five years, was made a complete mockery by the way in which those two particular bills were pushed through without any reasonable amount of evidence being heard.
I have always understood that democracy is government by free discussion. The action of this committee was the complete negation of that principle. We were not allowed free discussion. We were not allowed what most of us have looked upon as our democratic right as members of parliament, the right to question witnesses who come before a committee, and secure the information we wish to have. As has been indicated before, that action was taken largely at the instigation of the member for Winnipeg South Centre. It was one which I hope he is now ashamed of, and which I hope will never be repeated in any committee of this house. The fascist and communist idea is that government by means of discussion is too slow and too inefficient. They do not allow government of that kind. We have had a taste of that sort of thing in this committee.
I was very glad to hear the speech of the member for Coast-Capilano the other night. He summarized in a complete fashion the arguments which those of us who have been opposed to these two bills have been putting forward for many months. In view of that excellent summary he gave, I do not think it is necessary for me or for anyone else to summarize again the reasons for our opposition to these two bills, and the reasons why an all-Canadian route is incontestably in the best interests of Canada and is one which we should ensure is followed by exercising the powers which we have as a parliament of altering the charters as they are presented here, to make sure that an all-Canadian route is followed.
I should now like to say something about some of the arguments that have been advanced and some of the statements which have been made by a number of the speakers during the past week. The hon. member for Edmonton West made quite a good speech. As a matter of fact, in many respects it was quite the reverse of the speech that he made previously, and I was glad to see that. Like the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, the only

thing that I disagreed with was the ending. He said he was going to vote for these bills, although he made an excellent speech which would persuade most people to vote against them.


George Matheson Murray: That should be corrected, should it not, Mr. Chairman?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I copied it down at the time the hon. member for Edmonton West was making his speech he said, "We heard evidence from experts". I should like to know who those experts were. We heard the evidence of one expert-an expert-and that is all. In addition to that, we heard the evidence of another man, that of Mr. Gilman, who is an engineer. But he admitted that he had never built a pipe line. I therefore do not think that he can be classed as an expert.
The only expert we heard was Mr. Dixon. I think it is quite apparent that if you hear the evidence of one expert only you do not get a good picture. In connection with this evidence that Mr. Dixon gave, as I say, we did not have any other experts there to contest the figures he gave us or the other statements he made. Certainly the costs that he gave were unduly slanted so as to indicate that it would be considerably cheaper to build this pipe line down through the United States than to build it by an all-Canadian route, although he had never made any survey of a Canadian route except one which runs straight along the border and which goes through some extraordinarily difficult country, as anyone who has been down in that part of the world knows.
As a result, the figures given by Mr. Dixon were not, I think, ones that should be swallowed holus-bolus. Certainly they should not have been swallowed until the committee had heard evidence from some other experts either corroborating those figures and costs given by Mr. Dixon or refuting them, particularly in view of the fact that these figures and costs and so forth were quite evidently given with the idea of showing that the American route was the best route as far as that company was concerned; and it was the one they wanted to follow.
The hon. member for Kootenay East on May 1 stated that we should have confidence in our civil servants-by that, in this particular case, I think he meant the board of transport commissioners-that they will determine the best route and that we should leave it to them and trust in them to do that. That is an argument that has been given time after time here by many people. What it amounts to is that we should abdicate our responsibilities and our duties as members of parliament and turn them over to this
Alberta Natural Gas Company board of transport commissioners. In my opinion, if there is any responsibility and duty that members of the House of Commons have, it is in the matter of deciding on what you might call questions of policy which are going to have an important effect on the population of this country for fifty to one hundred years in the future, at least; and this is one of those matters. It is not a matter in which we should abdicate our duties and functions and turn them over to the board of transport commissioners. It is our job to decide here whether this route should or should not be an all-Canadian route, whether in the general interests of Canada we should insist that any pipe line should be built on Canadian soil or whether we are going to decide that we will let it go any place that the people who wish to build it want to send it, get it out of Canada as fast as possible, and at the minimum amount of good for the population of Canada.
On May 1 the hon. member for Vancouver South also stated, "We must get the first use out of our primary resources, including gas." I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if we grant charters to this company or the other one to let them go ahead and build the route where it is quite clear they want to build it, namely, down through the United States, the first use of our gas is just what we will not get. We will be at the end of the tap. At any rate, the people in Vancouver will be in that position; and in my opinion, the amount of gas they will get will depend, to a considerable extent, on how much gas is needed in the United States. Certainly, on the figures which were presented to us, if this route is built down through the United States, the best that could be expected is twenty-five per cent of the gas which goes through that line coming back into Canada and seventy-five per cent of it remaining down there for use in the United States, no matter what the development along the Canadian Pacific coast might be.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre on May 2 rose in his place and said that he took no part in getting this bill put through in the house or in the committee. If he did not take any part in it, I do not know what he was doing around the committee, all the time that we sat there, coming in and speaking to the members, giving them notes, and evidently instructing them and so on and so forth. In my opinion, he certainly was taking some part in trying to get the bill through; and he was extremely busy trying to accomplish that purpose during the time the committee was meeting.
This afternoon the hon. member for York-ton managed to use a great many words but,

Alberta Natural Gas Company as usual, without saying a great deal. He made a statement to the effect that all of us who were here in the last parliament were in favour of the general pipe lines bill under which this charter is asked. That statement is not correct. I was here at that time. I interrupted the hon. member and stated that I moved an amendment to that general pipe line bill for the purpose of protecting the interests of the present consumers of gas in Calgary and throughout southern Alberta; and in fact throughout all Alberta, but those people in particular. But the government refused to accept that amendment. After quite a bit of discussion, they maintained that it was out of order, and it was finally so ruled; and I was not allowed to re-introduce it in another form.
I think that is sufficient to indicate that certainly all of us were not in favour of this pipe lines bill; I mean, the general pipe lines bill in the form in which it went through. As a matter of fact, looking back on it now as we who have been opposing these bills had freely admitted on many occasions, we made a serious error when that bill was put through in that there was not a clause written into it laying down that the route to be followed by any pipe line company must be indicated in their application for a charter. That was a serious deficiency. There has never been any disposition on the part of any of us to deny that it is a deficiency. Shouting at us over here, the hon. member for York-ton says, "You agreed with the principle of this bill. You all agreed with the principle of it." Certainly, we agreed with the general principle that the pipe lines bill should be put through under which it would be possible to control pipe line companies. But that is a different thing altogether from agreeing that the particular bill which was put in front of us was a perfect bill. It was not a perfect bill. As I said, I tried to amend it. One of the most important things which could have been in it, this matter of routes, was left out. It was far from being a perfect bill. But certainly we were in agreement with the general principle that a bill to control the building of pipe lines should be passed; and the passing of a bill was particularly urgent at that time because the rapidly-expanding production of oil in Alberta at that time demanded the construction of an oil pipe line to the east. This bill had to be got through before this company could be authorized to build. It was under that urgent necessity, and because it was the end of the session-and as a matter of fact, the end of parliament was only a few days away-that the general pipe lines bill and charters for the five companies which got them at that time were all pushed through.
[Mr. Harkness.l

The hon. member for Yorkton also said: "It is no use talking about routes here in the House of Commons." He said: "We could never agree on a route." Nobody has said that we could agree on a route. We have never tried to agree on a route. Nobody opposing these two particular bills has ever tried to say that here we should lay down definitely what the route should be for these particular pipe line companies. What we have maintained, and still maintain, is that it should be an all-Canadian route. That is all we asked in the beginning. That is all we are asking now. All we are asking is that it be an all-Canadian route. All this quibbling about our not being able to decide on a route here, as to where the pipe line should go because we have not the information, is just so mueh nonsense. We have never maintained that that should be done. All we say is that it should be an all-Canadian route, and that would satisfy us.
I should now like to refer to the hon. member for Cariboo. I find it somewhat difficult to say anything about him. He seems to be going around like a top these days. Perhaps it would be more proper to say that he resembles a whirling dervish. He made a speech this afternoon which seemed to indicate that he is now the strongest proponent of an all-Canadian route in the House of Commons. In the past he has been making speeches pooh-poohing any ideas we had along that line.


George Matheson Murray: That is absolutely false.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He has been one of the strongest opponents we have had in trying to put over the idea that it must be an allCanadian route. In addition to that, on every opportunity that he has had he voted against an all-Canadian route. Therefore, as I say, he seems to be going round and round in circles, and I cannot tell just where he is.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He can't tell either.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for
Skeena, as usual, made a very good speech. However, I am sorry to say that much of his premises and information was inaccurate.


An hon. Member:: Correct.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He started out by saying that Mr. Connolly and Mr. Dixon must have satisfied everyone in the committee that the most careful consideration had been given by them to all matters affecting the construction of the pipe line, or words to that effect. Well, what Mr. Connolly and Mr. Dixon had to say apparently completely satisfied the hon. member for Skeena, without his ever hearing evidence from any other

expert witnesses. He just took what these people said holus bolus and said: "This is what these people say; it must be right". He kept reiterating that time after time. He kept saying: "Mr. Dixon said this, and it was manifestly right. He told us this, and it is an incontrovertible fact." I do not think there is any question that we could have got two or three other witnesses as eminent as Mr. Dixon, possibly some of them more eminent, who I think would probably have flatly contradicted the assertions made by Mr. Dixon. This is another fact which shows that the hearing of only one expert witness in this committee was a very poor procedure to follow.
If the hon. member for Skeena would care to get a summary of the proceedings which have gone on for many months past this year and last year before the Alberta natural gas conservation board he would find in that a terrific mass of evidence by men who are conceded to be the greatest experts on the natural gas and oil business on this continent and perhaps in the world. If he went over that evidence he would find that a good many of the statements made by Mr. Dixon, and opinions that he has, are not shared by these other experts. I am not trying to say anything against Mr. Dixon specifically. We all know that experts are inclined to differ very frequently; particularly is that so in a legal trial where the question of insanity is involved, and the opposing sides bring in psychiatrists who state whether the individual concerned is sane or not. They always seem to be diametrically opposed in their opinions. I do not think it would be as bad as that with the experts in this natural gas business, but nevertheless there is a wide divergence of opinion on some points, and in that committee we certainly should have heard evidence from experts other than Mr. Dixon. In fact we should have had the evidence of Dr. Hume, and we should have had the evidence of at least one other outstanding geologist. But no; we were not permitted even to continue questioning Mr. Dixon.


George Matheson Murray: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question Did I not ask that Dr. Hume be called as a witness, and Mr. Theodore Link, and Mr. Stanley Slipper and Mr. Staver of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, and also a representative of the atomic energy commission of Washington?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would say yes to the hon. member's question, and I would ask him in return, who was it that objected to their being called?
Alberta Natural Gas Company


George Matheson Murray: The hon. member for Calgary West did not want Mr. Slipper and the other gentlemen whose names I have mentioned called. I say they will be called before the board of transport commissioners, if I have any power to call them before a route is determined.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Calgary West did not oppose anybody being called. I think the hon. member for Cariboo himself will admit that the reason none of these people was called, and that nobody was called, is that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre proposed a motion of closure that no further witnesses be heard, and the hon. member for Cariboo voted for it. The motion will be found at page 70 of the proceedings and evidence of the committee. I will not bother reading it. A list of the names of the people who voted in favour of not calling any further witnesses appears there.


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Here are the people who voted in favour of the motion:
Messrs. Applewhaite, Bertrand, Bonnier, Bourget, Byrne, Cannon, Carroll, Carter, Darroch, Decore, Dewar, Douglas, Gauthier (Portneuf), Goode, Gourd (Chapleau), James, Jutras, Lafontaine, Maybank, McCulloch, Mclvor, Mott, Murray (Cariboo), Nixon, Prudham, Riley, Robinson, Rooney, Ward, Whiteside, Wylie-31.


An hon. Member:: Who proposed the
motion?	[DOT]


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will read the motion:
Mr. Maybank, of the committee, moved:
That the committee adjourn until 11 o'clock, tomorrow, Friday, 28th April; that the one hour between eleven o'clock a.m. and twelve o'clock noon be used for continued taking of evidence and thereafter the committee proceed to a clause by clause consideration of the said Bill No. 7.
Then they put the closure motion and the hon. member voted for it. As I say, he is going around like a top. He tries to give the impression that he wanted to call more witnesses, and then we find him on the record as voting against even continuing to hear the witnesses we heard, let alone calling any more.
To come back to the hon. member for Skeena. He was satisfied, and he said that everybody must have been satisfied, that the most careful consideration was given to all matters. I say that is far from the truth. I was not satisfied, and many other members were not satisfied. I was not satisfied first of all as to where this gas was to come from. Mr. Dixon kept talking about getting all the gas they needed from the southern part of the province. There are only two gas fields that amount to anything in the southern part

Alberta Natural Gas Company of the province that are not being used. There is one at Pincher Creek and another at Jumping Pound.


John Decore: What is the definition of the southern part of the province?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will come to that. The gas from the Jumping Pound field will be needed for Calgary itself during the next 30 years. I must say in fairness to Mr. Dixon that later on he said he considered the southern part of the province to be the area from Edmonton south.


Arthur Leroy Smith: From 50 miles north of Edmonton.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Nobody else in Alberta [DOT]considers it along that line and I doubt whether Mr. Dixon did until this question came up. The hon. member for Skeena said that there were inexhaustible supplies of gas out there. He seemed to think that the question of how much gas there was was all settled, that there was nothing else to do but to just run your pipe into the ground and the gas would flow. That happens to be far from the truth. The Alberta natural gas conservation board has not yet decided that there is sufficient gas to look after Alberta's requirements for the next fifty years and permit export. These companies are trying to persuade that board to decide that question in the affirmative, but as yet they have not. I do not think that anyone who was not interested in getting gas from these two southern fields to the United States as rapidly as possible would ever contend there was enough gas to warrant the construction of a pipe line.
Most of the gas will have to come from what we in Alberta regard as the northern part of the province, from the area around Edmonton and to the north. I have no doubt that that is where most of it will come from.
I mention this matter because the hon. member for Skeena does not seem to know what the situation is in Alberta. He heard the [DOT]evidence of Mr. Dixon and then considered that everything was fine. He comes into the committee of the whole and makes a great defence of Mr. Dixon. I think the hon. member is a student and I recommend that he put some study on this matter.
We heard evidence from Mr. Dixon with regard to costs, but I was far from satisfied that the cost figures he gave were correct. For one thing he stated that the cost of the gas-gathering system in Alberta, which is really an integral part of the whole set-up, would be $26 million, and he said that he based that figure on steel costing $185 per ton. When he appeared before the Alberta natural gas conservation board he gave the same figure of $26 million as the cost of the


gas-gathering system but said it was based on steel costing only $150 per ton. I tried to find out from him why the figures were the same when the cost of steel was so much greater in the one case than in the other, but never got a satisfactory answer. I think that is an indication of how accurate his costing was. I think a great many of the cost figures that he gave were no more than what the succeeding witness, Mr. Gilman, called educated guesses.
Neither the Alberta Natural Gas Company or the other company would say what route they wished to follow. The hon. member for Skeena said that it was not necessary that they should state what route they wished to follow, that they could make five separate applications. That is a different story from what we got in the committee. The Prime Minister stated on Friday night that any company which put in five applications to the transport board and asked for a ruling as to which one they should follow would be laughed out of the board. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary West in the committee, anyone making application to the transport board would have to state a definite route. It is just nonsense what Mr. Dixon and Mr. Gilman told us when they said they were going to apply for several routes and let the transport board decide. They refused to state what route they fancied. When we tried to pin them down as to what route they would rather follow, they would not admit any one particular route.
As the Prime Minister pointed out, they could not put in five applications to the transport board for five different routes. Naturally their application would stipulate the route that they fancy. They are going to have to declare themselves, but we could not get them to declare themselves. I submit that the witnesses were not entirely frank with the committee, as some people would have us believe they were.
According to Mr. Dixon, Vancouver will require only 8 million cubic feet of gas per day. The city of Calgary uses some 20 million cubic feet of gas per day. Vancouver, with a population two or three times that of Calgary with the towns to the south including Lethbridge, is to get less than half the amount of gas. That is just ridiculous. Figures like that indicate that this particular company either is going to give Vancouver and the surrounding area the absolute minimum amount of gas and use the rest for the United States cities, or their figures are not just right. I think everyone will agree that Vancouver with its large population is bound to use more than forty per cent of the amount

consumed by Calgary. That was another
point raised in Mr. Dixon's evidence which I was not able to swallow.
This debate has been going on for some considerable time, but I think it has served its purpose to a large extent because it has provoked a large amount of public interest in this question of whether these pipe lines are going to go through Canada. I am convinced that the people who want to build these pipe lines through the United States will by the force of public opinion never be permitted to do it. Therefore this so-called filibuster has served an extremely useful purpose in that it has kept this question before the Canadian people for about a year and has mustered so much public opinion behind it that our future supplies of gas will be conserved for the use of Canada first, with the surplus going to the United States.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Kootenay East who made reference to the proceedings of the committee and apparently they were satisfied with whar occurred there. I was far from satisfied myself because I felt that for a committee of that nature to call just one witness, ihe president of the company, an interested party, was not dealing fairly with the members of the committee. We could not get at the facts. We could not possibly get the truth from an interested party. We needed corroborative evidence, and we did not get it. We were blocked from calling such evidence.
I look at it this way. While the bill before us deals with a pipe line for gas, I look upon it as dealing with the lives of people. I look upon it as dealing with the lives of the people of British Columbia, their future welfare and the future development of that province. In my mind it has resolved itself into a question of whether we are to develop the state of Washington to the south of us or our own province of British Columbia. On it depends not only the material prosperity of our province but the future welfare of our youth as well. I know full well, as does everyone in this committee, that if these industries are developed in the state of Washington and not in British Columbia our youth will follow these developments, cross the border and become United States citizens. The only way we can keep them in Canada and make them good citizens is to see that their future is protected by having this vast energy, now about to be released for the use of man, made available first for the use of the people of British Columbia now and in future generations.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Coast-Capilano express his thoughts regarding the proceedings in the standing committee.
Alberta Natural Gas Company I had the same reaction. I realized quickly that British Columbia was being sold down the river in the light of the evidence of so-called experts of both companies. I am not questioning their integrity but I do question some of the evidence we are asked to accept as to their work in surveying a route in British Columbia. I should like to quote from the evidence of one expert. At page 213 of the proceedings of the committee he was asked the following question:
Q. In connection with the Yellowhead route the only observation you made was when you went through by train?-A. That is right.
Q. Now, I just want you to answer this question. How fast was the train going when you were making those observations?-A. Oh, about 20 to 25 miles an hour.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the type of evidence submitted to show that this company had some interest in putting through an all-Canadian route. The expert travelled over the Yellowhead route at 25 miles an hour and made pencilled notes from a train window. I do not know whether it was at night. We did not ask that question. The result is that they are not prepared to go before the board of transport commissioners with a proposition to build a pipe line along that route. Naturally I question such things. It does not appeal to me as common sense.
I realize, having listened to the evidence given by these experts, that the people of British Columbia are being sold down the river. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano pointed out that we already have three railways making the crossing through the Cascades, Selkirks and Rockies between Alberta and British Columbia. I am not sure whether there are two or three completed highways. There are already routes in existence crossing the Rockies and the other ranges, and each of them is capable of accommodating a pipe line route at the side thereof from Alberta to British Columbia. Naturally there are one or two routes suggested. I appeal particularly to members from the eastern provinces to consider seriously how they are going to vote on this measure. Members from British Columbia know their own province far better than members from eastern Canada. We know the terrain, we know the difficulties we are up against, and we are satisfied that the proposal to follow an all-Canadian route is a sound and feasible plan. Because of their lack of knowledge we appeal to them to take our word for it. I am sorry that they cannot get expert evidence on the matter because the work of the committee is now completed. On this basis I am asking them to support our provincial government and the people of the province of British Columbia against the financial

Alberta Natural Gas Company interests who seek to build a pipe line for profit rather than for the assistance of our people.
I should like to commend the Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province for their assistance in trying to get the pipe line constructed through our province. I should like to commend particularly the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Fraser Valley for the attitude they have taken, and especially the Vancouver members for their support of an all-Canadian route. It is quite possible that Vancouver could get cheaper gas by some other route, but Vancouver, one of the most prosperous cities of Canada, has become so because of the fact that the interior of British Columbia has made it so. We supply it with goods that are shipped out of there by rail, boat and aeroplane. We have kept it going for some generations. They know that a prosperous interior means a prosperous Vancouver. Some of the members from that city realize that. The city council realize it and fully endorse what we are trying to do. The provincial government has endorsed our proposition on behalf of the coast cities. Today I have received the endorsation of the council of the associated boards of trade of the whole of British Columbia. I do not propose to read the resolution, but it is endorsed by every board of trade except those on Vancouver island who were not at the meeting. They ask that an all-Canadian route be designated.


George Matheson Murray: Will the hon.
gentleman read the resolutions from the associated boards of trade of British Columbia?


Mr. Argue:: Read them. That will take forty minutes.


Owen Lewis Jones: The first resolution is submitted by the associated boards of trade of the Fraser valley and lower mainland to the council of the associated boards of trade of British Columbia and reads:
Whereas applications are before authorities for the approval of route for natural gas transmission line from Alberta to the British Columbia coast; therefore be it resolved that the associated boards of trade of the Fraser valley and lower mainland request the government of the province of British Columbia to give full consideration to the location of the said transmission line so that it may serve the greatest possible number of communities in the interior of British Columbia, thus stimulating the expansion of industry throughout the province.
The next is a resolution submitted by the associated boards of trade of the southern interior to the council of the associated boards of trade of British Columbia concerning the route of the line. It reads:
Whereas the route chosen by the Westcoast Transmission Company through the Peace river district

and south through Prince George and the Fraser valley to Vancouver would benefit more people in Canada, especially British Columbia; therefore be it resolved that the associated boards of trade of the Fraser valley and lower mainland appeal to the other boards of trade throughout the province of British Columbia to unite in getting the provincial government and our federal members to advocate the route of the gas pipe line through central British Columbia to Vancouver.
Then there is this footnote applying to the two resolutions:
Both of these resolutions, considered as one at the discretion of the chair, were unanimously endorsed by delegates from all portions of the province excepting Vancouver island which was not represented, and are respectfully submitted for your consideration.
I am fighting for an all-Canadian route, not necessarily that particular route, although that will suit me fine.


George Matheson Murray: You are opposing the boards of trade of the Okanagan.


Hazen Robert Argue: You talked this afternoon.


Owen Lewis Jones: I read the resolutions.


Donald MacInnis: Why did you not quote the resolutions?


George Matheson Murray: I submit that this resolution of the boards of trade of the province of British Columbia expresses the opinion of responsible businessmen.


Donald MacInnis: What is wrong with that?


Owen Lewis Jones: He is going contrary to it.


Hazen Robert Argue: He cannot understand English.


Owen Lewis Jones: Again I say that, unlike some members, the route of the pipe line means a great deal to my riding and I intend to fight for it in spite of other ridings that are not so keen about it. During the discussion of this all-Canadian route I was alarmed to find that the so-called expert had no idea that the Okanagan valley existed and that roughly 120,000 people lived there. He had not thought about it, had not surveyed it, did not even know where it was. So I claim that anyone coming before this house talking about an all-Canadian route who does not know of the existence of that potential market has. not given the matter a great deal of thought. In other words I believe the all-Canadian route was an afterthought, when they found the strenuous objection to such a route not being included in their proposals. And, as I pointed out, you cannot survey a route of that kind, through mountainous country, bogs and so on, from a train or car or plane. It has to be done on foot to be done properly, and this has not been done in the case of a single route through the interior of British Columbia by either of the companies whose bills are being considered.

It is true that figures were given as to costs, but that was merely guesswork. In spite of the statement made by the engineer the shorter mileage involved in an allCanadian route would more than make up for the extra cost. Whether it is built in British Columbia or in the state of Washington, the terrain is just about the same. You still have to overcome the Rockies, the Cascades and the Selkirks. They are practically the same in Washington and British Columbia; and actually the highest pass traversing the mountains to the coast is not in British Columbia but in the state of Washington.
For the past year we have been told that all our questions would be answered in committee. Like many other hon. members I hoped this would be true; but when we reached that committee we found it was not the railroad committee but the railroading committee. Certainly they railroaded it through without proper witnesses being called. Personally I doubt whether a serious survey was ever made of an all-Canadian route, from the evidence submitted. I am sure no survey of the potential market has been carried out, because even Nelson was an afterthought, though Nelson would be convenient to the route whether it went through British Columbia or through the United States.
Apparently this committee of which I was a member had no power to specify any route, or to change the bill in any way. We did not even have power to recommend a route. The only power we had was to listen to the evidence. Why that was so I do not know. I think it was a sheer waste of time for two or three days. And I claim the board of transport commissioners does not have a great deal more power. It has the power to scrutinize carefully and in detail all applications for licences, but that is all. It cannot say, "You must build through the Crows-nest pass" or by any other route. They are not engineers; they do not have a staff of engineers who have on file the details of various routes across Canada. They rely entirely upon the application being made at the moment, and the map accompanying that application. They must take it for granted that the data on the map is accurate, and it is on that basis that approval is given. It is not a matter of whim of the board, saying, "We do not like that route. We prefer the more scenic highway around Big Bend, so you must build in that direction." That is not it at all.
Frankly I am in a quandary as to the body that does control this matter of route. I have a very interesting article here on the same subject in Oil in Canada, a Canadian weekly
Alberta Natural Gas Company which claims to be the most widely read authority on Canadian oil, published in Winnipeg. It says:
In the House of Commons last Thursday, Hon. C. D. Howe, Minister of Trade and Commerce, is reported by the Canadian Press to have said that the government will not allow Alberta natural gas to be exported to the United States before it reaches potential consumers in neighbouring British Columbia.
Then, after conveying the idea that the minister can determine the route, it goes on:
The Pipe Lines Act passed last year gives the board of transport commissioners authority over routing of lines, while parliament has control over incorporation of companies.
Se we have two possible controls over the route. Then at the end the editorial states:
The Alberta government has full control over the export of natural gas by its own legislation. Surely it is in a far better position than any other government or any potential consumer to judge what is the best method of dealing with its own natural resources.
The promoters of natural gas pipe line companies are familiar with the economics of supply and demand and the effect of construction costs on operating results. So far as we can recall, there has never been any suggestion that the Alberta government can't deal properly with the technical problems involved in making a decision whether to grant permission for gas export once a charter has been granted to a company.
So we have the committee, which I thought had power but had none; we have the board of transport commissioners, which I thought had power but apparently has not. Then we have the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who thought he had power, but apparently he has none; and the Alberta government have come out definitely and claimed they do have the power. But I have another statement that confuses the issue still further. This is from the Vancouver Province, headed "Mayhew backs Canadian route". It is quite an article, in which the Minister of Fisheries favours an all-Canadian gas pipe line from Vancouver to Alberta, and thinks an allCanadian route will finally be selected. But he says it will be the people who buy the stock in whichever company builds the line who will determine the route. So now we have five groups claiming to have that power. According to the Minister of Fisheries it is the stockholders, but we also have the Alberta government, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the board of transport commissioners and the standing committee of this house. All the time the logical body to have that power is the parliament of Canada. We are the supreme body, and that power should be re-invested in us if we have turned it over to anyone else.
In the circumstances all I can do is appeal to whoever has the power to see that an allCanadian pipe line is put through. Let me
2296	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company quote still another point of view. I have mentioned five people or groups presumed to have some power over this route, but the hon. member for Vancouver South believes that public opinion will have that power, though just why I do not know. The hon. member said he had a great deal of faith in the petroleum and oil conservation board of Alberta. He intended to vote for these bills, but said he was going to do his best to build up an opinion in British Columbia that would demand that before any gas was exported to the United States the line proceed to British Columbia and end in Vancouver, as far as Canada was concerned. But this is the time to do that, not after the charter is granted. These people will not care a tinker's cuss about British Columbia once they have their charter. They are out for profit; and we must agree at once that the most profitable route is through the United States. But we are building our country for our youth, not for profits, and I claim our proposition is the proper one.
I was rather amused at the retort of one of the parties making application before the committee. He had been making obviously vague statements as to the route, and upon being asked for details, and why he was guessing at the cost price in Vancouver and the cost of the route without a proper survey, he said, "Well, it is like a horse race and I am entering a Canadian horse in this pipe line race." It seems to me he had a lot of donkeys to compete against. I do regret the lack of independent expert testimony before the committee. I am not questioning the integrity of the witnesses who did appear, but I do question the opinions given, because they were expressed by men who want to build a pipe line. If the committee pressed hard on any point they would agree to anything. After getting the charter they would agree that they would start to survey the Yellowhead route. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that such an obliging company as that is attempting to get our support in order to be done with the committee. They realized we were just a nuisance, and had no power.
What evidence have we that the company intends to build a Canadian route? A defence has been made tonight of Mr. Dixon. I am not questioning Mr. Dixon's character, but I do suggest that a closer reading of the evidence submitted by Mr. Dixon will not indicate one iota of evidence that shows this company intends to build a Canadian route. As I pointed out, part of the survey was made by train, part by car, and part by odd trips to here and there. Most of the evidence was based on a superficial knowledge, and in view of that I question it.


On Friday the Prime Minister stated that our protection is in the fact that each applicant has to file with the board of transport commissioners a map of the proposed route. That is quite true, and that is what we are worried about. If any company is granted a charter by this house, it is free to submit any one route. There is no compulsion whatever. It goes to the board of transport commissioners as a business concern with a business proposition. I am satisfied from the evidence submitted by this company that it. will favour the route through the United States. I know when the company comes to sell its shares the subscribers will not be satisfied with the evidence we got. They will want more detailed information and they will get it. In the action of the United States banking company I mentioned, which is prepared to underwrite the whole concern, you have an indication that United States people are interested in the route and the ultimate profits that will be derived from the undertaking.
In parliament we are supposed to protect the subscribing public, and also the consumer. Apparently we cannot assist either one. We cannot protect the subscribing public because-we were limited in the committee as I pointed out, and we cannot protect the consumer because there is no rule that an applicant has to prove to us the price at which the commodity will be delivered at any given point. As I said before, we are wasting time because-we lack powers. I am sorry that the Canadian National Railways did not see fit to enter this field, and render the service on a national basis, just as the railway does. It is the logical thing for a railway company to do, and not to wait for United States capital to-come to our province.
Another statement with which I take issue is the statement made by Mr. Dixon that it. does not necessarily follow that commercial development follows a pipe line. I should like to point out to him that history in the United States has proven that the different towns along the route of a pipe line have immediately been a source of interest to industries, and vast empires have been built, particularly in Texas and southern California.
I should like to draw to the attention of the members a booklet which they found on their desks, entitled "Canada's Oil, Edmonton Centre". On the second last page-I am not going to read them-there are indicated the industries that are available if power and raw materials are available. In Edmonton they have the power, but they lack the raw materials. In British Columbia we have the raw materials, but we lack the power. The-evidence on these two pages will show hon..

members the industries I have in mind that could be established on a prosperous foundation in British Columbia.
We have another vast interior area, the Cariboo. I really believe the Cariboo area has great possibilities. If the pipe line traversed the centre of that part of the country, one would find that these vast plains and undeveloped mines would develop rapidly. I frankly believe that if the member for Cariboo would support us in our contention that the pipe line should go through that area, he would be doing a service to his own constituency. The tendency today throughout the world, owing to the unsettled nature of our economy, seems to be to decentralize industry. I think you will find that condition, even in England, where the area for decentralization is very limited. Efforts are being made to take industries into places like Holyhead and Bangor in Wales. I saw them myself last summer, scattered all over the country, in order to bring an element of safety in case of war. The same thing applies to Canada. Industry should be taken away from the big centres such as Vancouver, Seattle and Tacoma. They should be moved into the interior where the raw materials are. It would be safer from the national point of view; conditions for the workers would be healthier, and it would be a cheaper haul for the raw materials.
By routing this pipe line through British Columbia, we would not only be increasing the earning power of our province, but we would be getting more revenue for the provincial government through income, provincial and corporation taxes. We could increase the population of British Columbia and give the people economic security.
I am going to ask the eastern Canadian members, and particularly the members who have not given this bill a great deal of thought, to consider how they should vote. The Prime Minister has said that the vote is free, and I appeal to you to use your free vote to do something for a province that is appealing to you for assistance. The councils of every town in British Columbia, the provincial government and the Legion in every town have endorsed our stand. The press of the province is behind us. I ask you to heed this and do what your conscience tells you is right. We are fighting for the province of British Columbia. Last year the proposal to build a bridge over the Canso strait was brought before us. The members from British Columbia did not question the need- for the bridge or the cost of it. We felt that the people in that area knew far better than we did what their own needs were, and we were prepared to support the measure. We know
Alberta Natural Gas Company our needs, and we are appealing to you to treat us in the same manner as we treated you on the question of the Canso bridge.
I know the statement has been made that a monopoly is liable to be created if these two companies do not get the line. But again, I should like to quote to you from the Minister of Fisheries, referring to the three companies proposing to build a pipe line from Alberta to the west coast. The minister said:
"I'd give them all their bills. They're all alike to me, and if one fellow comes along and says he'll build an all-Canadian route, that's the fellow I'd give it to."
The minister said: "If one fellow says he can build an all-Canadian route, there's no reason the others couldn't. They'd have to show us why they couldn't build it through B.C."
But the minister says:
Everyone knows there will be only one pipe line . . .
In British Columbia.
When you charge this particular company, which now holds the charter and is prepared to build through British Columbia, with having a monopoly that has no competition, I claim that from the statement of the minister-himself it would appear that it is not a question of monopoly, but of which company is going to get the monopoly. Personally, I do not care which company gets that monopoly. Apparently it is predetermined that it shall be a monopoly; but I am satisfied that whichever company gets the final charter to build through British Columbia, it will have the blessing of a million people in that province.


Mr. Sinnotl:: It is not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to take up many minutes tonight owing to the fact that, from listening to the debates on pipe lines over the last two years, one could almost believe that almost everything about pipe lines could have been said in that time.
I must congratulate the hon. member for Skeena who tonight covered the question of pipe lines, pipe line building, charters and so on from one end to the other. My purpose tonight in saying a few words is to make clear my intention with regard to how I will vote and why. It has been pointed out that one of these charters has been given to the Westcoast Transmission Company, and it seems only logical that these other two companies should be given these same opportunities. Because one company has been given a charter is no reason to believe that it will be the one which will receive the final say from the Alberta government. Believing in competition as I do, I therefore think these three companies should have the same opportunities. After this vote is taken, if the house then desires a Canadian pipe line, I
2298	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company believe they should turn their attention to the amendment which I have brought forward in Bill No. 132, which reads in part: ... a map showing the general location of the proposed line whereof the main line shall be located entirely within Canada.
If we pass these two applications which are before the committee, and then amend the Pipe Lines Act, which is the intention of my bill, I think it will take care of any further discussion.


George Alexander Drew: This debate, Mr. Chairman, has in some ways been one of the most reassuring things that has happened in this country in quite a long time. Two private bills, or what were described as private bills, came before the last session of parliament. When they were presented as private bills it was suggested that it was a waste of time for anyone to point out that they should be dealt with in another way. When members tried to get some definite information as to exactly where these pipe lines were going and some assurance that our own Canadian interests would be served first, those who raised those points were told that they did not have much faith in their own committees or in the board of transport commissioners and that those were mechanisms that would protect the public in regard to these things.
From time to time members of the government have shown some irritation that this debate should continue, both during the last session and in the present session. The debate has been called a filibuster and, on certain occasions, the suggestions have even gone so far as to imply that those who were opposing these two private bills, in their present form, were serving some particular purpose and were seeking to establish a permanent monopoly in the hands of Westcoast Transmission Company which, by mistake- and it was by mistake-got a charter last spring at a time when this house was dealing all too hurriedly with certain public business, under assurances which were not fulfilled. That point I should like to recall, because it has a definite bearing on the discussion that is now taking place. At a time when everyone knew that we were in the closing hours of the last session, the overriding pipe lines bill was introduced, and along with it four bills to incorporate pipe line companies.


Howard Charles Green: Five.


George Alexander Drew: I will correct myself; several bills to incorporate pipe line companies were introduced. In the case of the Interprovincial, assurance was given that this was for the purpose of carrying oil to the refineries in eastern Canada, and that the reason that the pipe line in that case was going to
[Mr. Sinnott.l

Superior in Wisconsin rather than to the lakehead in Ontario was that of the economy and saving that would be effected.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We did not find it out until after the election.


George Alexander Drew: What we did not find out until after the election was that the main purpose behind its going to Superior was so that oil could be exported to the Chicago area in the United States, and that while undoubtedly oil will be shipped to eastern Canada-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the leader of the opposition would permit me to make clear the point of my interruption. My point is that we did not know at that time that the route was going to go outside Canada at all. All we were going to build then was simply a route from Edmonton to Regina and down to Winnipeg. It was only in the summer that we learned that it was to go down to Superior.


Major James William Coldwell: After the election.


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member who has just spoken is correct. No detail was given until later as to the fact that it was going to Superior. But when that information was given, and when that was put before the board of transport commissioners as a reason for getting that route, the assurance was then given that this was an economy in shipping the oil to eastern Canada. At the present time we have two bills before us which we have been discussing all the way through as gas pipe line bills. Let us remember that these are oil pipe lines as well. The bills cover both oil and gas. As to whether gas or oil will be the main commodity carried in these common carriers only those who have the ultimate responsibility of operating the pipe lines can possibly tell. Both commodities are produced in the same area.
One of the reasons I said that this had been a very reassuring debate is this. Hon. members, who a comparatively short time ago were extremely critical of those who asked for any information and for assurances that Canadian interests were going to be served, have with great frankness and after very careful analysis of what took place before the committee stated that they are not now satisfied with the information that came before the committee, and that they are going to oppose these bills because of the way in which the information was withheld in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. That in itself is a demonstration that we have seen right here of democracy working, where the public have an opportunity to understand what is taking place, to express their opinion, and through that expression of

opinion to convey their own desires to the members who represent them in this house. There is much to be said for a procedure which gives the public time to understand exactly what we have before us for consideration here.
Hon. members will recall that when these bills were before us for second reading during the present session the Minister of Trade and Commerce, on more than one occasion, said that he could not understand the reluctance of hon. members to let these bills go before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, where it would be possible to get all the essential information in regard to these proposed operations. Finally the bills did get second reading; they went before the committee, and hon. members who previously were supporting the bills have come into this house and have said that no real information came before the committee upon which they could say where these pipe lines were to go and whether the Canadian interests were being protected. By devices that have already been described in very unflattering terms by those very hon. members who previously supported these bills, the committee completed its work and the bills are now before the house.
On Friday the Prime Minister came back and we have a new appeal to the house. The committee has done its work. This is what the Prime Minister said to us. We should pass these bills so that they could go before the board of transport commissioners, where maps must be submitted and where details must be fully examined. That is the next stage. Hon. members were asked to give up their responsibility in the first instance to let this go before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and they know the results. Now that the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines has done its job and kept information from hon. members and from the public, hon. members are asked to pass these bills and leave it to the board of transport commissioners to do the job that we should do here. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is an affront to parliament. Either we have some judgment to exercise and some responsibility to assume or we have not. If we have no responsibility, these bills should not be before us. If we have no responsibility then, as has been previously stated, this should be dealt with by the Department of the Secretary of State and ordinary company charters should issue, and this should be dealt with without any pretence that members of parliament are passing judgment upon a matter so important as this.
But there is one point that has not been sufficiently discussed, and I do not believe 55946-146
Alberta Natural Gas Company it has been emphasized at all. The government has the final responsibility, and the government is answerable to parliament. There is an act of great importance which was passed in 1907, and it is still on the statute books. It is known as the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act. Section 5 of the act reads as follows:
No person shall export any power or fluid without a licence, or any power or fluid in excess of the quantity permitted by his licence, or otherwise than as permitted by such licence.
2. No person shall, without a licence, construct or place in position any line of wire or other conductor for the exportation of power, or any pipe line or other like contrivance for the exportation of fluid.
That is a positive prohibition. Section 6 reads:
Subject to any regulations of the governor in council In that behalf, the governor in council may grant licences, upon such conditions as he thinks proper, for the exportation of power or fluid where a right to export exists by lawful authority.
2. Such licence shall be revocable upon such notice to the licensee as the governor in council deems reasonable in each case.


An hon. Member:: Eleven o'clock.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt the leader of the opposition, but it is now eleven o'clock. Unless he has unanimous consent he cannot continue.


George Alexander Drew: If I may add one sentence to give meaning to that, it would not take me thirty seconds.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Has the leader of the opposition unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


George Alexander Drew: I think it would give meaning to these sections if I added this. These two sections mean simply this. Under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act of 1907, which is still in force, the government, which is the executive of this House of Commons, has the full responsibility for determining where a pipe line should be laid, whether it shall be laid, and under what conditions it shall be laid, if that pipe line in any way is to be used for the export of oil or gas. That brings the responsibility today, as it was then, right back to the government; and before any hon. member should vote on a pipe line bill the government should state its policy in definite, unqualified terms, and I believe that policy should be a clear statement of Canadian rights first, definitely assured, before any consideration is given to the exporting of these great resources upon which future development will so largely depend.
Section stands.
Progress reported.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will move to go into supply with the hope of voting on the amendment of the leader of the opposition. If we are successful we will call three departments, post office, national health and welfare, and public works. For some time we will discuss the question of the denial of mail service to certain persons, which was brought up before. We would hope to take up certain small bills, the first being Bill No. 12, respecting grants of public lands, in the name of the Minister of Resources and Development. The second would be Bill No. 81, respecting crown lands

in Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. I might interject to point out to the leader of the opposition that this is not the bill he had in mind. He had in mind Bill No. 90, to amend the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act. I have looked at that act and find it has only two sections and perhaps we can take that one up as well. That would be three small bills in the name of the Minister of Resources and Development.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 9, 1950