1950-05-15

Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it is my wish to give voice to the appreciation of some fifty members of parliament and their wives who returned this morning from enjoying a magnificent trip to the great industrial city of Windsor, Ontario. This trip was arranged by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown), and while there we were the guests of the Windsor chamber of commerce. I think it is good for members of parliament, if they are to legislate on a national basis, to take every opportunity of seeing, as widely as they can, the opportunities, industries and advantages of this country.
I cannot speak too highly of the courtesies that were extended us while we were there. Windsor calls itself the gateway to Canada's industrial progress, and I think those of us who were there are inclined to agree with that statement. That great city was a fortress for us in time of war, and we hope it will be of a source of expanding amenities in time of peace.
I find it difficult indeed to single out for specific mention any particular persons in connection with the great reception given us at Windsor, but in addition to the hon. member for Essex West, I should like to mention the other members of this parliament resident in the general area. I should like to mention the officers of the Windsor chamber of commerce. I should like to mention Mr. R. M. Sale, president of the Ford Motor Company, all his officers, and the other 14,000 men who combine to make it a great industrial team. I should like to mention Mrs. W. F. Herman, widow of the founder of the Windsor Daily Star. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word for the Tigers and the Browns, who gave us two extra innings of superb baseball.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to move any amendment, but rather to join the hon. member, and others who were privileged to be present on this referred to occasion, in expressing appreciation of the opportunity and privilege
which was ours, and of the courtesy and hospitality extended to us by the city of Windsor, the chamber of commerce of that city, the Border Cities Star, and the corporations to which the hon. member made reference. It was one of the most enjoyable and educational trips it has even been my privile^u to take.
I join with the hon. member also in thanking the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Biown), who arranged the trip, and also the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who spared no effort to make the visit a most enjoyable one.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, it is a very happy privilege to voice the gratitude of those of us of the Social Credit party who were included in the group who journeyed to Windsor and enjoyed that most interesting tour. Indeed, we concur in all that has been said by the two previous speakers. The 'courtesies extended to this parliamentary body by the Ford Motor Company of Canada, the Windsor chamber of commerce- and we must not omit the reception of Mrs. Herman-all these courtesies we shall never forget.
We wish to extend our appreciation to the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) for their untiring efforts to make the visit so happy and so successful.
There are two things about such tours which strike me as most valuable. They bring members from all parts of Canada into closer focus with the practical business world. They broaden our views. Then, such tours are of value from another standpoint which, I think, is not too insignificant to mention here. They bring members of parliament closer together in a social friendship which is not always experienced as we sit in the House of Commons or roam the halls of this building. That, to me, in a democracy, is of inestimable value.
May I repeat, on behalf of all those associated with me in this part of the chamber, to all those who were responsible for and so thoughtful in arranging this tour: thanks a million!


Mr. E. A. McCusker (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should not like it to be thought that members of the House of Commons were such narrow-minded guests that they would be afraid to mention that while in Windsor

Parliamentarians' Visit to Windsor they visited the Hiram Walker distilleries. May I say that we had an opportunity of seeing how their product was made, and that we met in the canteen for tea and enjoyed their hospitality. May I offer them our thanks.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be left out of this. May I assure the house that the most enjoyable part of our reception in Windsor was when we were honoured as guests at the wedding reception of the most beautiful girl in the city of Detroit.


Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Before proceeding, however, with the point of privilege I propose to raise, may I be permitted to express on behalf of the city of Windsor and the county of Essex our appreciation, of the honour conferred upon us by the visit of over fifty members of parliament and their wives.
I know I express the hope of the Ford Motor Company of Canada that other industries across the Dominion of Canada will make it possible, in as efficient a manner as it was done by the Ford Company over the past week end, for members of parliament to see the country and the people for whom we are legislating.
My point of privilege is that in the Ottawa Citizen of May 12, 1950, and repeated in the London Free Press of May 13, 1950-and I understand it also appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail on or about the same date- in making reference to the largest single exodus of members of parliament in memory on a trip to the sun parlour of Canada, it was stated that I was host to a group of automotive officials two weeks ago when they came to Ottawa to seek imposition of dumping duties on British cars.
Mr. Speaker, I was not host to any such delegation. I had no knowledge of any such delegation, and if any such delegation existed they did not communicate with me. This visit of last week end was conceived by the Windsor chamber of commerce and myself considerably over a year ago.
Further, the question I put on the order paper, and to which reference was made by the Citizen, was not at the request of the automotive industry, or any other industry or individual. It was placed thereon without the knowledge or consent of that industry.
I am interested in providing markets for our products and work for the people of Canada.
The London Free Press stated that the trip was an "expense paid affair". This statement is not correct. The members of parliament were, I believe, pleased to travel at their own 
expense to our city and to enjoy our hospitality almost as much as we enjoyed having them.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members would like me to express the appreciation we feel of the keen and constructive interest shown by His Excellency the Governor General during his visit to Winnipeg yesterday, in the truly magnificent effort being put forth both by the armed forces and the citizens themselves to combat the ravages of the Red river flood.
This morning I received a cable from a former governor general, the Earl of Bess-borough. I should like to read into our records the text of Lord Bessborough's message and of my reply, and in that way convey the message from Lord and Lady Bessborough to the people of Winnipeg and Manitoba. The cable is from Rowlands Castle, Hants, England, under date of May 13, addressed to me at Ottawa, and it reads:
Much distressed at flood disaster in Manitoba. Through you would like to express our profound sympathy for the people of Winnipeg and province in this great misfortune.
Bessborough
To this I replied:
People of Winnipeg and Manitoba will, I know, appreciate expression of distress and sympathy from yourself and Lady Bessborough, which I propose to mention in parliament today.
Then, just before coming to the house today a message was received from the Prime Minister of Italy, of which this is a translation:
Through my intermediary the government and people of Italy wish to express their sincere sympathy to the government and Canadian people, to which we are tied by bonds of friendship, on the occasion of the disaster caused by the Winnipeg flood.
I shall make answer similar to my answer to Lord Bessborough. I think these communications are a sign of the growing community of feeling that is spreading among the free peoples of the world, and one of the encouraging things which have followed upon this terrible disaster to our fellow citizens in Winnipeg and the adjoining area.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and I spent the week end in Winnipeg conferring with provincial, civic and Red Cross authorities, and with military forces, with regard to the Manitoba flood.
I thought that hon. members might like to

have a brief statement from me as to the present conditions that exist, and also as to the flood fighting activities that,are being carried on.
South of Winnipeg is a lake, in some places over twenty miles wide, and averaging twelve miles wide, extending to Emerson near the international border and for very many miles beyond that point. The Wildwood area in Fort Garry, the Kingston Crescent area, and nearly the whole of the remainder of St. Vital and the large Riverview area, are almost completely evacuated. Much of East Kildonan is largely evacuated. Most of the hospitals have been completely evacuated, and the Deer Lodge and general hospitals partly so. The city of St. Boniface is threatened on two sides, from the Red and from the Seine river, and is being protected by dikes which are in constant course of repair and which in some places are as high as twenty feet. Because of the danger which that height of dike creates, a considerable measure of evacuation of women and children from that city has been recommended and carried out.
I am glad to report that the power situation is considerably better. The power stations and gas plant have been well diked; and there is at the present time considerable optimism with regard to the ability to maintain power and light and gas services unless the river should rise substantially beyond its present level. Even should the Rover street and the Mill street substations go out, they serve only certain areas in the city and there are other substations on higher ground which could continue to serve not only their own areas by connecting power lines but other areas as well whose own substation might be put out of action.
There is no trouble expected in connection with railway access to the city.
The equipment supply has reached a peak point except with regard to pumps.
I think it will be of some relief to those who are anxious to know to be told that a well worked-out and integrated plan for complete evacuation has been prepared. The personnel of the various committees which would be required to implement this plan is already established. Zone commanders have been appointed for each evacuation zone, who would take charge immediately if the necessity arose. Emergency caches of food on both sides of the two rivers have been established to take care of the situation in the event of food warehouses being flooded. Stores of such essential materials as gasoline and motor oil sufficient to last for a considerable time in the future have been established on railway sidings in high and dry places. Emergency loading platforms have been
Manitoba Flood
established at high places for use in the event of mass evacuation, and lights have been prepared so that the evacuation may continue twenty-four hours a day if necessary.
As an indication of the thoroughness with which arrangements have been made, it is interesting to note that arrangements have been made that bread, which is a perishable product, can be brought in on a day's notice from cities outside of Winnipeg. In order to bridge that one day gap, a one day's supply of bread has been baked and frozen and is being held in cold storage. Not even that one day gap will be uncared for.
All of this is the product of what I as a Manitoban can say without immodesty is a most amazing piece of co-ordination between _ the military and civil authorities. The military authorities are acting under provincial instructions and are co-operating to the greatest possible degree with the provincial authorities, the municipal authorities, the Red Cross and the various volunteer civilian flood relief committees which have been set up.
One of the most inspiring spectacles we saw there was the Red Cross headquarters in Winnipeg, where they have three shifts of workers of between 400 and 500 each, who were operating flood lighting auxiliary services, when less than two weeks ago this service did not exist. Within that time workers in these three shifts have been brought together and placed in different branches to discharge different functions; chiefs and assistants and other ratings have been established in each branch, with the whole of this activity brought under central over-all control. All of this has been established within this short period of time; and in these three shifts there are only ten paid workers in all.
Citizens and workers of every kind, businessmen, stenographers, teletype operators, chartered accountants, lawyers, doctors in the Red Cross medical units-all these citizens are taking part in this community effort and are giving almost the entire amount of their time and effort over long hours each day to fighting this flood.
Upon the dikes themselves the work is being maintained and has been maintained from the beginning by literally thousands of volunteer workers. The figure has been given as 60,000, and while I would not want to say that it is that high, it is certainly well over 50,000. Men and women, boys and girls -some as young as twelve who work in carrying up coffee and food to the dikes-are making their contribution. I think this can best be explained in the terms of a statement made to me by a widow in East Kildonan. She told me that she was greatly relieved to be evacuated from that place because her

Manitoba Flood
young twelve year old son had been working daily from morning until late at night taking coffee and sandwiches to the workers, and he felt he had not done enough if he did not continue to carry on that effort. She could not keep him away from the dike which, as hon. members know, burst a few days ago. Luckily through good management there was no loss of life, but nearly all the pumping equipment behind the dike was lost.
All the people of Winnipeg, from the humblest schoolgirl and schoolboy to the most eminent city father, are in this fight during long days and long nights. There are numerous citizens who over a period of weeks have not averaged more than four or five hours of sleep per night. About midnight on Saturday I stood and watched as a matter of curiosity the type of traffic that was going by. There was hardly any motor traffic except trucks and cars which were loaded to capacity with dike workers, either going to or coming from their work.
I think it is proper, and I am sure that the citizens of Winnipeg and Manitoba generally would wish me to do so, to pay tribute to the fine job which the Red Cross and the armed services have been performing. Right from May 6, the day on which Premier Campbell as head of the provincial authorities instructed Brigadier General Morton to take over, he and his staff have been performing a simply magnificent feat of organization and direction. Every afternoon at 4.30 Brigadier General Morton holds a briefing session, and I was privileged to attend one of them. Each of the flood fighting heads reports briefly, succinctly, comprehensively and clearly what has happened in his area since the day before. Through the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) I should like to convey to the army the deep appreciation of the citizens of Winnipeg, of the work which the Department of National Defence has done.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has said, I also visited Winnipeg over the week end. With me was Lieutenant General Foulkes, chief of the army general staff. Vice Admiral Grant, chief of naval services was there earlier in the week, and Air Marshal Curtis, chief of the air staff, was also in Winnipeg yesterday. Our purpose in making the visit at this time was to see what, if anything, the armed services could do in addition to what they are already doing to help to relieve the situation.
I deeply appreciate the remarks of the Minister of Justice, and also those of the premier of Manitoba, concerning the work 
of the armed forces. I shall be very glad indeed to communicate them to the services concerned.
At the present time there are actually engaged in this work in Winnipeg over 4,000 officers and men of the navy, army and air force, active and reserve. From the point of view of service participation it is a much larger operation than took place at the time of the Fraser valley floods of 1948. The services involved include some 700 of the navy, many of whom have been flown to Winnipeg from points as far distant as Esquimalt and Halifax; then there are over 2,000 army personnel, and 600 of the Royal Canadian Air Force, in addition to members of the air force engaged on the airlift. The airlift is probably the largest that has ever been carried out in Canada, with a total load already of over a million pounds, and thousands of personnel. Over thirty North Star and Dakota aircraft have been continuously engaged, with an amazing record of performance.
At the present time the aircraft are engaged in removing bed cases from the city hospitals consequent upon evacuation. By Wednesday it is expected that all Winnipeg hospitals will be evacuated, with the exception of Deer Lodge and the general hospital. These aircraft have also been carrying in large quantities of equipment of all kinds, particularly sandbags. The rate of consumption of sandbags at the present time is 300,000 a day. We have a sufficient supply available to feel that the situation is well in hand.
I should like to express to the citizens of Winnipeg the sympathy that I am sure everyone must feel for what they have gone through, and also the tremendous admiration that anyone would have who saw what we saw of the magnificent work of the civilians of Winnipeg and the adjacent communities. After all, the service personnel are doing their duty, which they are trained to do, and doing it very well indeed; but civilians are working long hours voluntarily because it is their community and their fight for their city. Leading that fight are the authorities of the provincial government, the municipalities-and there are more than ten involved-the Canadian Red Cross and dozens of agencies of various kinds, all forming a splendid working team.
I should like to conclude by reading a message I sent to Brigadier General Morton this morning on my return:
As I told the meeting of the Winnipeg flood control committee yesterday, the work being done under your direction by all personnel of the navy.

army and air force, active and reserve, working with the closest possible co-operation with civilian authorities, is a credit to the services and to our country. Our visit brought home to us the tremendous efforts that had been made and still are needed to cope with the disaster. What was most striking was the warm and friendly relationship between service and civilians at every working level. Winnipeg stands today because you stood together. Will you be good enough to convey to all ranks my appreciation and thanks for the job they are doing, and accept my hearty congratulations on your fine personal leadership. Obviously there is a long, hard fight ahead but the way you are working is the best guarantee that you will win through.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk has laid on the table the twenty-second report of the examiner of petitions for private bills.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been customary, when I have informed the house that the Clerk has laid on the table a report of the examiner of petitions for private bills, for the Clerk Assistant to begin to read it to the house. He reads a few words, some hon. members say "dispense", and he does not proceed. Today, before the Clerk Assistant had an opportunity to rise, an hon. member rose on another matter. In future may I take it that, unless a member asks that such reports be read, it is the unanimous wish of the house that the Clerk Assistant should not read them?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATION OF NEW CONTRACT WITH UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: In
view of recent press reports that a renewed Anglo-Canadian wheat contract is being considered, and also in view of the fact that the farmers across Canada are vitally interested in such a contract, would the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house whether negotiations are under way, and if so, what are the possibilities of such an agreement being concluded?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I could give a very short answer-that no agreement is contemplated that will prejudicially affect the wheat growers of the province of Newfoundland.


An hon. Member:: He is from Ontario.
Private Bills


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh? Well, I believe the same thing might apply to Ontario. Trade discussions will take place covering a number of subjects, including wheat, but there has been no suggestion of an agreement concerning wheat other than the international agreement to which Canada is a party. I can assure my hon. friend that no agreement will be signed without full consultation with my colleagues in the government.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Will the Minister of Public Works make a further statement as to the progress being made in the matter of the construction of the dominion building at Charlottetown?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: The only statement I can make is that we are trying to acquire the site. If I remember correctly, there are thirty-two different properties involved, and the officials of the department are negotiating with the owners. The moment the site becomes the property of the government we shall proceed with all haste to put up the building.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 205, to incorporate United Security Insurance Company.-Mr. Dickey.
Bill No. 206, to incorporate the Apostolic Trustees of the Friars Minor or Franciscans. -Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle).
Bill No. 207, to incorporate The Canadian Commerce Insurance Company.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill No. 208, to incorporate Saskatchewan Mutual Insurance Company-Mr. McCusker.

Mr. R. E. Anderson (for Mr. Winkler) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Jack Elmhirst Webster.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Annie Kwiat Maislirl.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Douglas Charles Blair.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Therese Simonne St. Onge Laurier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Carmen Emily Adelle McCoy Jackson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Helen Alma Lambert Anderson.-Mr. Winkler.

Private Bills
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Bertha Marks Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 189, for the relief of Stella Margaret Rollo McKee.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Helena Matyla Martyniak.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Marie Rosanna Emelda (Imelda) Lecomte Bolduc.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Rose Slosar-czyk Bydlinski.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Helen Meadows MacNaughton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Walter Kerr Dow.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Thora Yvonne Easy Weaver.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Robert Cohen. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Ruby Gladys Burns Thornhill.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Joseph Francois Xavier Beland.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Joseph Neist. 

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Harry Gold-bloom.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Winnifred Julia Lester Stockless.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of George Eustorgio Lanzon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Laurette Amyot McGroarty.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Hilda Marie Adeline Bouvier Cardy.-Mr. Winkler.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bills read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: These bills are referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



ALBERTA NATURAL GAS COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 9, 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. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, in the discussion on this and the other private bill to incorporate a gas pipe line, the question at issue between those holding different views has remained unchanged. That question is whether or not the time has now -come, and whether or not the opportunity should be taken in connection with these bills, to insist upon writing into this legislation, or into the

legislation out of which these bills have arisen, the provision that in the construction of any such pipe lines Canada shall be served first. Those who believe that that should be done say that Canada's interests can be protected only by writing that principle into these bills. Those who take the other point of view say it is not necessary to write into the bills themselves any provision that these pipe lines shall serve this country before being built into the United States.
It is perhaps unfortunate, but certainly it is a fact, that we have been unable to reconcile those points of view. Therefore it is not my intention to dwell at any length upon the merits of one point of view or the other, because I take it that if after several weeks, to put it mildly, we have been unable to reconcile those differences of opinion, anything I may say -can hardly hope to bring about that result. I do think it important, however, to emphasize that a very significant development has taken place in the course of the discussion. The Prime Minister has now considered it appropriate, as he did on May 5, to indicate that he personally is in favour of the all-Canadian, route for these pipe lines, though he qualified his remarks to the extent of saying "if it should be found feasible to follow that route." In addition, two other hon. members who previously had either actively opposed those of us who felt that provision for the all-Canadian route should be written into the bills, or had deliberately avoided making any statement in that connection, have now clearly indicated where they stand. I refer to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano and the hon. member for Comox-Albemi.
As a member from British Columbia, a province which is most vitally concerned with these bills-though I submit I am no more concerned than any other member of this house is or should be about the principle of Canada first-I -could certainly wish that other members from my province had seen the matter as these two hon. members have seen it, and had come out in favour of the all-Canadian route, taking the position that has been taken by these two hon. members, that they will support in this house the proposition to write such a provision into these bills. There are members from the province of British Columbia who hold different views. I do not think they should be criticized. It is not the right of anyone here to criticize other members because they hold certain views. We may regret that their views are different from our own; sometimes we may become somewhat heated in our efforts to persuade them to change their views. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that in any effort

of that sort I have made in connection with this bill or any other measure, any heat that has entered into the matter is merely a measure of my own desire to persuade those members to change their views, and is no indication that I feel they are not entitled to have views which differ from my own.
Having said that I still most earnestly ask other members from our province to reconsider their position, in the light of the fact that the Prime Minister said on May 5 that he personally favours an all-Canadian route for this pipe line, if it is feasible to build it. That is an important statement, and I suggest to those other members from British Columbia who have not yet taken a stand in favour, some of whom in fact have taken a stand against the principle which we are trying to write into this bill, that if they revise their opinion there is a good chance that we can succeed in having inserted in the bill a provision that the pipe line from Alberta to the Pacific coast shall be built first through British Columbia to Vancouver before it leaves Canada. If the other members from British Columbia would take a strong stand in favour of having that provision written into the act, enormous benefits would accrue not only to British Columbia but to the country as a whole, because it would be a victory for the principle of Canada first.
An important new aspect of this matter and of discussion of this bill is a statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce during the course of his visit to the west coast. I am not referring to the perhaps involuntary statement which he made when he referred reporters and others to an unusual source of information. I am referring to a much more deliberate statement reported in the Vancouver Sun for Wednesday, May 10, and which appears in an article bearing this headline, "Oil pipe line may follow gas to B.C." I wonder if I might be permitted to say, Mr. Chairman, that the headline of the article appears immediately below a newspaper photograph of the minister, who strangely enough, appears to be smoking.
I do not know whether it was as a result of his familiarity with that hot place to which he referred the newspaper reporters, or whether it was a matter of fulfilling his own pleasure. In any event there is the photograph, and underneath it, as I say, the headline "Oil pipe line may follow gas to B.C." The detail of the article reads in part as follows:
An oil pipe line may follow the construction of the contentious natural gas line from Alberta to the Pacific coast.
Alberta Natural Gas Company
Then a subsequent paragraph states:
In an interview in his suite in the Hotel Vancouver today,-
This paper is under date of Wednesday, May 10.
-Canada's trade minister, Hon. C. D. Howe, said there is talk in the east now of building on oil pipe line from Alberta fields to the coast.
"In fact, I have heard two or three oil companies say they are interested in this project," he added.
Like the route of a natural gas pipe line, location of a pipe carrying oil would have to be decided by the board of transport commissioners, and Mr. Howe didn't know where it would go.
Now, that is the main portion of the article referring to the statement that an oil pipe line will probably follow the construction of the gas pipe line. Immediately it comes to one's mind that we in this house have been asking repeatedly and at length for the fullest possible information in the possession of the government as to all the aspects involved in the construction of this gas pipe line. This, Mr. Chairman, is the first intimation we have had that there is any definite intention to construct an oil pipe line along the route of the gas pipe line.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, did I say anything about a proposal to construct an oil pipe line along the route of the gas pipe line? I certainly said just the opposite. I said the two projects would not be related.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not wish to misquote the minister. I intended to say a moment ago that this is the first intimation we have had that the construction of an oil pipe line, following the construction of the gas pipe line, is being seriously considered; that is what I intended to say, and that is what I believe I said. In any event I do not find anywhere in the article any statement from the minister that the two routes will be entirely separate. I did not intend to impute to him any statement as to the route. What I am saying is that he has informed us an oil pipe line will be constructed, following closely upon the time of the construction of a gas pipe line. If it is so, then-at any rate it was assumed by myself and by others who have taken part in this debate, and I can see no reason for assuming the opposite-that the route of the oil pipe line will follow the route of the gas pipe line, it becomes more important than ever for us to insist that the gas pipe line be built in Canada, so that the route of any pipe line serving the Pacific coast will be built through British Columbia to Vancouver first, before that line enters the United States.
In my opinion the proper place for that information to have been given as to the construction of an oil pipe line, information which appears to be peculiarly in the possession of the Minister of Trade and Commerce,

Alberta Natural Gas Company was in this house, and as soon as it came to the attention of the minister, so that it might be before the members of the house during the discussion of this most important matter.
The statement as to the possible construction of an oil pipe line and the possibility of having oil refineries in Canada, which gives a new implication to this whole question, should, if nothing else does, cause us to insist that this pipe line be located in Canada. More particularly, we should refuse to pass any bill for the incorporation of companies to construct pipe lines until either the sponsors or the government have given assurance that the lines will be built over an all-Canadian route.
While I was home recently, Mr. Chairman -and I mention this because the minister has recently been in British Columbia, and I am sure he could not fail to be impressed by the attitude of the people there toward these pipe lines-I found that the people ih both the coastal and the interior area of British Columbia were solid in their support of the principle of an all-Canadian route for this pipe line. They were unanimous, too, in their belief that such assurance should be obtained before we allow these bills to pass. Time and time again people said they could not understand why the government seems to favour the line going through the United States; why does the government not say out and out:	We will insist in this line being
built through Canada? I must confess that I cannot understand it either.
That being so, I was able to offer them no explanation of the matter except possibly this, that so far as the government is concerned it is being looked at from cold, and I submit, unrealistic so-called business points of view: How can we get the quickest return, the most dollars, for the least expenditure; if that involves sending the pipe line down through the United States, let us send it down through the United States. National policy, they say; what is that to us? Don't talk about national policy to us; we are businessmen. We want to get these natural resources down to the United States and get paid for them in the quickest possible way. This attitude on the part of the government I submit is directly contrary to the best tradition of national development, of national policy, on which this country is being built. That is the only explanation that I could offer to the people at home as to why the government seems to favour building this line straight down into the United States, instead of through Canada first.
While I was there I told my constituents that the Minister of Trade and Commerce would shortly be out in Vancouver to receive,

among other things, an honorary degree from the university, and that I felt they should let him know their views. I received word Saturday and today that no fewer than 115 separate telegrams had been sent to the minister from the Kamloops and north Thompson area while he was in Vancouver. I hope the minister got them. If he did, I am sure that those telegrams, as well as the other communications he received on the subject from British Columbia and here, have left him in no doubt about the way our people feel in this matter.
Particularly since an oil pipe line is now no longer a possibility but a probability, it becomes, as I say, doubly important to get the assurance that the route will be an allCanadian route. Therefore I want to return to what I said at the outset. I do hope that other hon. members from British Columbia will reconsider their stand. I hope that the member for Vancouver South, the member for Vancouver Centre, the member for Cariboo, and the member for Skeena-


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: On that score, may I say-


Edmund Davie Fulton: -'and all other hon. members from British Columbia on the government side will reconsider their attitude and see the importance of insisting that such a provision be written into this legislation. I refer particularly to the hon. member for Cariboo, because his riding is the one riding, if any riding in British Columbia stands to be benefited, which will stand to benefit most from the-


George Matheson Murray: We are not supporting the Yellowhead route as the hon. member is.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -will stand to benefit most from the construction of an oil pipe line through British Columbia and Canada first. All the indications at the moment are that the main oil resources in Alberta are in the northern half of the province, in the Edmonton vicinity and north of there; and the main oil resources in British Columbia, on which exploration is now proceeding, are in the Peace river district in the northern half of the province in the hon. gentleman's constituency.
Since, as I say, it is virtually certain that the route of the oil pipe line will follow that of the gas pipe line, I submit it will be a tragedy both to the hon. gentleman's riding of Cariboo and to the province as a whole if this gas pipe line, which is now under consideration, is built down through Alberta just across the southeast corner of the province of British Columbia and then straight into the United States. It would be-


George Matheson Murray: It will likely be built through Cariboo.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It would be a detriment to the future development of our province as a whole. As I say, while the hon. member is entitled to his own opinion and his own attitude, I do hope that these factors will cause him to reconsider his attitude and to join us in the fight for an all-Canadian route for this pipe line, for a route through British Columbia first to Vancouver before the line leaves Canadian soil and goes into the United States.
On the question where we should get the assurance that an all-Canadian route will be followed, there are two considerations which have emerged from the past discussion. Perhaps I might repeat briefly the general position which is taken-that is, when we are considering the request for the assurance which we have not yet received, namely, that this line will be built through Canada first.
The company whose bill is now before the committee, the Alberta Natural Gas Company, has not said it will build it on an all-Canadian route, and apparently will not commit itself to building it on an all-Canadian route. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, how we were asked in the earlier debate on second reading in this house to let the bill go to committee. We were told that that was the proper place to get the assurance. We were told: Let it go to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines; there you will be given an opportunity to call all the experts before you, to call the officials of the company and to get the assurance, if assurance there will be, *that the route will be built through Canada. What happened? It went to the committee. After three meetings, in fact during the course of the third meeting of that committee, a motion was made that no further evidence be heard; that at a subsequent meeting, the meeting immediately following that one, no further evidence be taken, and particularly no further evidence be taken as to the route of the line, but that the committee proceed to a clause by clause consideration of the bill.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: In that committee did we not hear what a great man Mr. Dixon was, the promoter?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Unfortunately I was not a
member of that committee. I have read the proceedings.


George Alexander Cruickshank: All we heard for two days was what a great man Mr. Dixon was.
Alberta Natural Gas Company


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have read the evidence fairly closely, and it may well have been that the committee was told what a great man Mr. Dixon was, although I submit-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Forty minutes of the
debate was taken up here in telling what a great man he was.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -I submit that not much concrete evidence on that particular point was submitted. Be that as it may, the committee was denied the very opportunity which the sponsor of the bill said it should have, of getting evidence on the question of the route. The motion to which I have referred, denying the committee the right to that evidence, was moved by the sponsor of the bill, who, as I read the minutes and proceedings of the committee, adopted an attitude which was completely contemptuous of the whole committee and of the question whether or not the route was a matter with which the committee should concern itself. This being so, there having been no assurance given to the committee, and the committee having been denied by the motion of the sponsor of the bill the opportunity to obtain information-there was a vote taken on the resolution which was supported unanimously by the Liberal members of the committee-we are left again in the position that the only place in which that assurance can be obtained is in this house, either, as I have said, in committee of the whole, or subsequently on third reading of the bill. And it does to my mind, at any rate, cast great doubt upon the sincerity of those who say that they too are in favour of the principle of Canada first in connection with this bill, but who so far have refrained, in their votes and in their speeches on the bill, from taking any position which would further the cause of Canada first.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that to my mind, in view of the completely equivocal position which has now been taken on this bill, there is only one way in which any hon. member can now show whether he is in favour of Canada first or not, and that is by standing up and being counted when the vote is taken on the principle of Canada first. I think it will be found that that opportunity will be given to all members of the House of Commons. I do say again that I hope particularly those members from British Columbia on the government side of the house will bear in mind these facts in subsequent discussion.
The second feature in connection with the question of the assurance as to where the pipe line will go lies in the fact that the Prime Minister said the other day, and it has been stated frequently in the house, that the board of transport commissioners is the body to
2484	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company decide where the pipe line shall go, and that he as Prime Minister, and the government itself, cannot and should not give any assurance or indicate any policy with respect to the location of the route.
In that connection I need only remind the committee of the magnificent speech made on Friday night by the leader of the opposition when he dealt with this question, and showed conclusively that the government does decide the route of the pipe line. He showed, by a review of the procedure in connection with the application of Interprovincial Pipe Line Company, an exactly parallel case, that before the board of transport commissioners would make their decision as to the route they required and had an assurance from an official of the Department of Trade and Commerce that that department had considered it and that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had indicated that he would give his licence for the export of oil over that particular route.
So that, as I say, in that magnificent exposition of the principle which applies in this whole question, the leader of the opposition has proven conclusively that in effect the government does have the final say as to where the route of a pipe line shall go. The leader of the opposition went on further to sum up in a manner which places on record squarely the principles this party is following, the principles of Canada first, the necessity of preserving Canada's resources for the development of Canadian industry and the development of the Canadian economy, and the necessity of following conscious policies in this and in every other connection to build up the Canadian economy on the basis of the resources we have.
There was certainly no suggestion that we should deny the export of our surplus; but it was a statement, clear and unequivocal, of the principle which we say should be followed, that before we export our raw materials in toto we must take the steps necessary to build up Canadian industry and the Canadian economy, and to preserve those resources for the ultimate, foreseeable requirements of the Canadian people.
The Prime Minister went on to say that the board could decide on the route of this pipe line, that the board was the only body which could decide on the route, and that in fact the board could refuse to grant its permission or approval if the national interest were not preserved and if the line were going to be built through the United States.
I shall read that passage of the Prime Minister's speech, because it is important


not only because of the principle he laid down but as indicating that he personally is in favour of the all-Canadian route.
This is what the Prime Minister said as reported at page 2229 of Hansard:
It has aroused public opinion-
And he was referring to the debate which had taken place in connection with these bills:
-as to the desirability of doing that if it is possible.
That is, building through Canada first.
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 would expect that when they got an application and before they approved anything, they would want to be shown that there is or there is not a practicable way of doing it without going out of Canada.
And then at page 2230:
I suggest that unless and until we come to the conclusion that the board of transport commissioners cannot be entrusted with that kind of responsibility, because we do not feel that they are either competent enough to do it properly or sufficiently imbued with the spirit of the Canadian people to want to do it properly, the thing for us to do is to amend the Pipe Lines Act in a manner that will apply to every company that secures a charter for a pipe line and not in a manner that will discriminate in favour of one against another.
I can say with the utmost sincerity that I certainly will not question the Prime Minister's opinion as a lawyer. But I would ask him and other members of the government to consider another suggestion which I shall put forward. I have given a great deal of thought to the matter, I believe my suggestion has merit, and I would ask the government to consider it from that point of view.
The Prime Minister said that the board of transport commissioners is the only body which can decide the route, and he implied -he almost said it directly, but certainly implied and I believe meant to imply-that the board of transport commissioners could and probably should reject any application for a route, if that route did not go through Canada for a maximum total length possible before going to the United States.
I believe a reading of the Pipe Lines Act will suggest that for the board of transport commissioners to reject an application for the approval of a route solely on the ground that that route crosses the border and goes into the United States before it needs to would be an improper exercise of the authority of the board, and in fact the board in so acting would be exceeding its power, and

such action would be ultra vires of the powers of the board as laid down in the Pipe Lines Act.
A reading of the provisions of that act will disclose that a consideration of the question as to whether a pipe line crosses into the United States or not is not made a factor the board must consider when either approving or rejecting an application. The Prime Minister read the section which sets out the matters the board shall have before them when considering an application. That is not one of the matters they are empowered to consider.
However, in section 9 of the Pipe Lines Act it is clearly contemplated that a pipe line route may in fact cross the border and go into the United States. That section reads in part as follows:
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.
So that by this section it is shown that the Pipe Lines Act clearly contemplates the possibility of, and thus empowers the board of transport commissioners to authorize, the construction of a pipe line from Canada into the United States. If the main Pipe Lines Act does that, and it therefore could be taken that that was done with the consent of parliament, and that parliament envisaged the construction of gas and oil pipe lines into the United States when the main act was passed, then as I have said it would be ultra vires of the board of transport commissioners to refuse to authorize any route merely on the ground that that route crosses into the United States earlier than it needs to. This would be an entirely improper exercise of their powers, because it is not made one of the factors which they shall take into consideration in approving or rejecting an application.
Following up that argument I put it forward that the board of transport commissioners has not the power to reject an application on those grounds alone. The only body with authority to say that a pipe line must be built in Canada before it crosses the boundary is, first, this parliament and, second, the government. We are asking this parliament to say that the bills now before us shall not pass until they are amended to provide that the pipe line shall be built through Canada for the maximum length before it enters the United States. If that is not done, we are content to let them pass if the government will give us assurance that they will authorize nothing but an allCanadian route.
Alberta Natural Gas Company
There are two ways in which that principle can be maintained. As I have said, the first is by the government giving us assurance here and now that they will not approve any route except an all-Canadian route. That
is,	the line must be built in Canada for the maximum length to serve Canadians before it enters the United States. As the leader of the opposition pointed out last Friday, the government has that authority because it must approve the route before the board of transport commissioners in turn can approve
it.	The government must approve the route eventually, so why not now? Why not tell us now that they will require this line to follow an all-Canadian route? Why not give us that assurance following the remarks of the Prime Minister that he personally favours an all-Canadian route? Why not tell us that the government will see to it that that policy is carried out?
Following the statement made by the Prime Minister, if that simple assurance were given to this committee the debate would end immediately. I ask the government while this bill is in committee to give us that assurance. It would simply be in keeping with the personal views expressed by the Prime Minister on the 5th of May. But there is another way of arriving at the same result, an amendment to the main Pipe Lines Act to provide that any company seeking a charter must agree to build the line through Canada before the necessary permit is granted. Such an amendment would provide authority to the board of transport commissioners to reject an application on those grounds. It would expressly empower the board of transport commissioners to say, "We believe that the pipe line should follow an all-Canadian route and because you do not follow that national policy we reject your application."
Speaking for myself, and I am confident that I speak for all other members, if the government will give us assurance that they will amend the Pipe Lines Act to that effect this debate will end immediately. Here again I refer to the remarks of the Prime Minister when he indicated that that might be the proper course to follow. The Prime Minister said that the thing to do if we are not confident that the board of transport commissioners can or will do it is to amend the Pipe Lines Act which would apply to every company asking for a charter.
I should like to refer to one other statement made by the Prime Minister on May 5. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was speaking and he pointed out that when he and other hon. members who had adopted the
2486	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company policy of Canada first sought in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to amend these bills so that a provision might be inserted in the charters that the lines must be built through Canada, the government supporters voted against the amendment. I quote the remarks of the Prime Minister as reported on page 2231 of Hansard of May 5, 1950:


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think they did right.


Mr. Green:: It was a straight party vote and they voted us down.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If I had been there I would have voted with them because I think the way to do it is not to amend private charters but to amend the Pipe Lines Act in a manner that will apply to all companies.
I think the Prime Minister was stating something which would be acceptable to every hon. member. If the government is not willing to have amendments made to private bills asking for charters, then by all means let us amend the Pipe Lines Act so that that parent legislation will provide for the preservation to the people of Canada of these oil resources, and will provide that any company wishing to build a pipe line to tap Canadian resources of gas and oil must build it through Canada.


The Chairman:: I must inform the hon. member that he has been speaking for more than fifty minutes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry I mistimed myself;
I thought I had spoken for only forty minutes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of speaking this afternoon but since my name has been brought into the discussion, perhaps I might give a report on my trip to British Columbia. I think I can supply a few facts that those who have spoken for British Columbia in this debate have perhaps omitted to give to this house.
As my hon. friend has said, I made a few statements out there. I made as few as I could. As soon as I got off the plane I was met by a reporter who demanded a statement.
I explained to him that I had made statements in the House of Commons, that the matter had been debated in the house and I did not wish to discuss it again. He got rather insistent, and I believe the leader of the opposition took the matter up in the house. It is one of my proudest possessions that I have the right to tell any man just what 1 told that reporter when he steps over the line.
However, I did a good deal of listening and I heard from a good many people. My hon. friend has referred to telegrams. Yes, I got telegrams. I got 476 telegrams.


An hon. Member:: You are not going to read them all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can read 350 of them in fifteen seconds, because they are identical. They read:
I endorse pipe line resolution unanimously passed by the British Columbia legislature.
That one was signed by H. Best. Another was signed by C. W. Mackenzie. Another by Tom Palmer. I have 96 more where the "I" is changed to "we". They are identical except for that. Then I have 24 where the individuals used their own wording. What happened was just as clear as could be. A man working out of Vancouver would stop at such and such a place, and I would get wires from there. He would stop at the next place, and I got 37 from there. He would stop at Kamloops and how many would my hon. friend say that I got from there?- 115.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But it was not the result of anyone coming up from Vancouver, I can assure you.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, it was. If he did not visit a locality I did not receive any wires from that locality. What happened was this. Someone would arrive in a town and would open a credit with the telegraph company and then tell the people to go and send me a wire. I got a wire from Mrs. H. Best and one from Mr. H. Best. Perhaps my hon. friend can assure me that the people in Kamloops have so much money that a man and his wife would pay for identical wires just to make sure that I knew how they felt.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Those were not all from
Kamloops.


Clarence Decatur Howe: One hundred and fifteen of
them were. You could follow the man as he went along. You could almost forecast where the wires would come from next day.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad the minister got them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was glad I got them too. The flood of wires induced me to ask one or two questions. I listened a good deal in Vancouver and I asked one or two questions. This is not a Canadian stunt. No Canadian would believe that I would be impressed by 476 duplicate wires. I may say that this filibuster is not a Canadian stunt. A filibuster running through two sessions is unique in the history of this Canadian parliament. Where does the technique come from? It comes from the United States.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Where is the pipe line going?


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, I immediately demand a retraction of any statement that I have acted, or that any other member of this

house has acted, under instructions from the United States. We represent Canadian citizens, and I demand an immediate retraction.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I made no such statement. I made a suggestion as to where the technique of filibuster came from. If my hon. friend says there was no suggestion of a filibuster he could not have been- in the house. The question I asked was this. "What American pipe line company is interested in the West-coast Transmission Company?" I got the answer and I checked it. I got it from people who know and I checked it with people who know. The answer is it is the Sunray Oil Company of Delaware. Then I looked up Standard' and Poore to see how the Sunray Oil Company of Delaware is constituted. I found that Sunray is a -company which builds and operates pipe lines. The company has working capital amounting to $26 million. The Standard and Poore report shows that in 1948 Sunray made a heavy investment in Canada, including purchase of something over 20 per cent of Pacific Petroleum Company. I had always understood that Pacific Petroleum Company owned the pipe line, and I believe this company still has a substantial interest in West-coast Transmission- Company. I looked up Pacific Petroleum Company and I found that control of that -company has moved to the United States, and that within the next month the stock will be listed on- the New York curb exchange. That is interesting information. I do not think anyone has ever told this house that the battle being fought here is the battle on behalf of a United States pipe line company.
I may say that the report indicates that Sunray Oil Company is a very reliable company. They are good operators, but I did not read anywhere in the report that Sunray follows the principle of Canada first. I looked for it but it was not there. There is nothing in their charter that says they are going to build along any particular route. As a matter of fact it is not a charter; it is simply an incorporation. The matter of routes has been brought in as a red herring to cover up the effort to shut off competition for this United States pipe line company.


Howard Charles Green: That is rubbish.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Statements have been made in this house-


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Totally untrue and you know it better than anyone.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -that this company is going to build through the Yellowhead pass. I have asked one or two speakers what their
Alberta Natural Gas Company authority was for that statement and they have never given it. They all deny any association with the company. They are not solicitors for the company. They do not say on what authority they speak for the company. They simply say this company is going to build through the Yellowhead pass. No proper survey has been made of the Yellowhead pass.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, there has. They have
made an application to go through the Yellowhead pass and there has been a great deal of evidence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They -made applications at the same time for two other routes.


Howard Charles Green: They have been withdrawn.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is true, but suppose they decide later after a detailed survey that it is not feasible to build through the Yellowhead pass. What are they going to do then? Are they going to quit and fold up?


Howard Charles Green: You can stop them by not giving them a permit.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly I can stop them. I can stop them all.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, you cannot. You are not running Canada yet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know, but I am running the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, and that is a pretty effective piece of legislation. Anyway, I suggest that this house might have a -little more accurate information about the Westcoast Transmission Company and the battle that is being fought on their behalf.


Howard Charles Green: It is not. That is a falsehood.


Mr. Graydon:: It is a slander on Jimmy Sinclair.


Howard Charles Green: This battle is being waged because we are trying to look after the interests of Canada and you are not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who put up the $500 to sponsor these telegrams?


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point of order


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Even the minister cannot overrule me on a point of order. I and my people belonged to the Liberal party long before the minister ever saw Canada, and I am not going to have anybody tell me that I am being dictated to by the Westcoast Transmission Company. To the best of my ability I am working in the interests of my province.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister permit me to ask a question? He asked if we could tell him where the telegrams came from. So far

Alberta Natural Gas Company as my district is concerned, I can tell him where they came from. They came in large part as a result of my suggestion, when I was out there before the minister arrived, that every individual and every organization send a telegram to the minister. Boards of trade and junior chambers of commerce accepted my suggestion and they have been working on it for a week or ten days. That is the main reason for the 115 telegrams.


Mr. Goode:: On the point of order, the hon. member for Kamloops will remember saying in the house that he discussed this whole problem with certain executives of this gas line company.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Howard Charles Green: What are you trying to insinuate now?


George Alexander Cruickshank: If the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond can sit in the front row I am coming down there too.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am trying to expose this Canada first proposition.


Howard Charles Green: You should tell why you are America first.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. I think that is unfair-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Sit down. I am talking. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is an extraordinary citizen. He goes around the parliament buildings with a smirk on his face, a bible in his hand and a stiletto up his sleeve. He is ready to pat a man on the head or stab him in the back as it suits his political purpose at the moment.


Howard Charles Green: Are you going to challenge me to a duel too?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He referred to the fact that I was an American.


Howard Charles Green: I did not. I said why are you
for America first.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I have not demonstrated my Canadianism over the past forty years that I have been a Canadian then perhaps I am not for Canada first. I think some people know what they are doing about this filibuster, and I am afraid that some others do not.


George Alexander Drew: We know what you are doing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was disturbed by what the hon. member for Vancouver East had to say.
I have known him for fifteen years, and I have never heard him advocate a policy that he did not believe in thoroughly. I believe that he thinks the question of Canada first is a great issue, but I will give you an exact parallel of what it is. Suppose that the parliament of Canada passed a law that no


contractor could build a public building in the city of Ottawa unless he had a dominion incorporation. The bill is passed and a company comes forward and secures its dominion incorporation. Then another contractor comes forward, and by this time of course the first man is in a wonderful position. He has a monopoly on the work in the city of Ottawa, and he gets a few friends in parliament to block the bill. They would not block it by saying that they thought the first man should have the sole rights to construct public buildings in the city of Ottawa. If they consulted the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra I think they would probably use the Canada first issue.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege, there is an innuendo there that I am acting because of representations of the Westcoast Transmission Company. That is an absolute lie, and I ask the minister to withdraw his statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I have said anything unparliamentary I will be very glad to withdraw it if you will quote the statement, Mr. Chairman.


Howard Charles Green: I ask for a withdrawal. No hon. member can make statements-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I do not think the minister intended to reflect upon the hon. member.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I say, the issue would probably appear in this house as a representation that the first contractor would use Quebec granite whereas the other contractors would be likely to use Indiana limestone. Therefore the other contractors should not be given permission to construct public buildings in Ottawa. That is an exact parallel to saying that one man is likely to build his pipe line through Canada while the other two are likely to build theirs through the United States. One statement has just as much to do with the issue before us as the other. The incorporation of these pipe line companies settles no route. Parliament gave that exclusive privilege to the board of transport commissioners.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, no, it didn't.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, it did. The board of transport commissioners can refuse any pipe line application. It has already refused to hear an application from Westcoast Transmission Company.


Howard Charles Green: Will you refuse permits to these two companies to build through the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: When I have to make that decision I will have before me the proceed-

ings at a public hearing before the board of transport commissioners dealing with the route in question..


Howard Charles Green: That was not the case with the Interprovincial company.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes, it was. A public hearing was held and all the evidence was put in. After the evidence was in the Department of Trade and Commerce were asked if they were prepared to issue a permit under that act. The matter was considered and presented to council, and the board of transport commissioners were advised that a permit would issue if the decision of the board was as they then proposed.
My hon. friends are asking me to prejudge the issue on the evidence they have given. We have been told that the Yellowhead route is a wonderful route, the best route, the all-Canadian route. Certain facts were brought out in committee, at least so it has been reported to me. No detailed survey of any route has been made. All speakers rely on ex parte statements, and not on the sort of evidence on which a decision should be based. I ask hon. members to suppose this, though I do not say there is any possibility of its coming to pass. Suppose I made a commitment to the house that a pipe line would not be built unless it went through Canada exclusively, and then it was found that it could not be so built without tunnelling through the Rocky mountains. Should I be bound by a statement of that kind? I will advise the government at the proper time, after the evidence has been brought out before the board of transport commissioners at public hearings, and after that board has given its opinion as to the proper route. That is the situation.
I could perhaps give a good deal more of the information that I gathered in Vancouver, which might be new to hon. members, but I hope I have cleared the minds of some on the point at issue. This dispute is over the question of whether two pipe line companies shall be incorporated by act of parliament in order that there may be competition for building the service. I read in the Vancouver newspapers that a company had been incorporated in the state of Washington for the purpose of building branch lines from the pipe line coming from Canada. I do not suppose those branch lines would be built in the Yellowhead pass; I would assume they would be built somewhere down in the state of Washington, or further south. I was also interested in the statement that Canadians had better understand now that the people in the state of Washington were not going to pay any more for their gas than is paid by those who are getting gas from
Alberta Natural Gas Company Texas. I thought it very interesting that already they are trading in Canadian gas down in the state of Washington.
There is another interest that has not been mentioned in this house; that is the interest of the consumer. He is the man who will pay for the pipe line this House of Commons is building in conversation here. He is going to pay what it costs to build the pipe line and what it costs to operate it. The man at the other end of the line is going to get what the consumer can afford to pay, less what it costs to build and operate the pipe line. In other words there is both a producer interest and a consumer interest, and both interests are greatly affected by the cost of the pipe line.
I can tell hon. members right now that I would not like to function as Minister of Trade and Commerce and make a recommendation to the government as to the export of gas on the strength of only one proposal. If there are not going to be any competitive proposals we may have to consider that position. If that is the situation, however, and it continues, I am afraid it will be a long time before the consumers in Vancouver get their natural gas from Alberta.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I say a word on this? I have not taken up much time in this connection.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I just moved down to the front row because my opposition moved down, and I see no reason why he should have a front seat and I should not have one as well. I do not see why we should get into a heated argument on this subject. I believe those who advocate the United States route are sincere in their belief, while those of us, particularly from the province of British Columbia, who believe in the allCanadian route are equally sincere. I give them credit for their sincerity, and I do not see why they should not give us the same credit. An hon. member from Manitoba, whose district is flooded today, keeps advising me from the rear. When my district was flooded I was home in my riding.


Tom Goode: To bad you didn't stay there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond says it is too bad I did not stay there. After his attitude toward these pipe lines I can assure him that as far as the people of British Columbia are concerned he will not be back in this house for another parliament. I just came from Windsor, where I had a very enjoyable visit.


Tom Goode: After you walked over the Yellowhead pass route?

Alberta Natural Gas Company


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, there is one thing about it, Mr. Chairman, the more unintelligent interruptions there are the more time will be taken up. I was hoping for a vote on this question this afternoon, and as far as I am concerned we can have that vote. While I was in Windsor I had the privilege of meeting some very prominent businessmen who belong to the chamber of commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Go home and fill a sandbag. That is all you are good for.


Mr. Sinnoti:: Tell us something intelligent about the pipe line.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If I were to tell you anything intelligent you would not understand it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: We have listened to you talking in circles for a month.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am going in squares now. As I say, while I was in Windsor I spoke to several members of the chamber of commerce. They did not know who I was, but I asked them about their gas pipe line under the Detroit river. I heard of an old widow who was seriously ill, and who had a crippled daughter. They had a gas furnace in their house, but they could not get gas; it had been shut off in Texas. All those people I spoke to, who did not know I had any connection with gas pipe lines in this house at all, told me, "Whatever you do, make very sure you have a big valve on the line where it enters the United States, so you can turn it off if you have to." Perhaps the minister did not know that gas going to Windsor was cut off in Texas. Those members of the chamber of commerce told me that certain people from the United States, and I am only taking their word for it, were in the Dominion of Canada, even in the city of Ottawa, endeavouring to make a deal by which gas would come from the Texas Panhandle through to Ontario, in return for gas through Spokane from western Alberta. I do not know whether or not that is correct, but these prominent businessmen from Windsor made that statement, and I believe it is true. I do know the name of two American businessmen from the city of New York who have been in the city of Ottawa, but I do not know whom they saw. I am here to protect the interests of my own riding to the best of my ability, and I frankly admit it; next, the interests of my own province, and then the interests of Canada.
The member for Skeena made a very reasoned speech, as he always does, and one which was well delivered. I do not agree with his arguments, but I agree with the


logical way in which he presented them. The member for Cariboo made a speech which I did not understand, and I do not think anyone else in the house did. I am sure the hon. member did not understand it himself. Then, the member for Yorkton made a speech, and all I can say about that is that he believes-that would not be parliamentary, so I shall say merely that I do not agree with him.


An hon. Member:: You are afraid of having your ears pinned back.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not afraid of having my ears pinned back, because as the leader of the opposition said we are trying to build a gas line to the province of British Columbia by an all-Canadian route, and not a high pressure grease route.
I want to point this out, Mr. Chairman, that not one telegram, not one letter, has come from the province of British Columbia opposing our stand in this house. If we wanted to take up the time, Mr. Chairman, we could produce articles favouring our stand. I hope the vote is taken tonight or this afternoon. As I say, there has not been a solitary letter, a solitary telegram, or a solitary organization that has endorsed the route through the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If you want some telegrams, here are hundreds of them.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The minister has given me four hundred and seventy-six letters and telegrams endorsing my stand. To the best of my knowledge, there have been only three members in the house who have spoken about pipe lines who know anything about them. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is a well known engineer, and he knows something about building a pipe line. The member for Coast-Capilano is, I understand, a mining engineer, and knows something about the terrain. The member for Calgary West knows the financial end of the oil business, and has acted as solicitor for various companies, as well as a speculator in the oil business of Alberta, for many years.


An hon. Member:: What do you know about it?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I know nothing about it, but I can tell you this, that I am the only member of the House of Commons who has a practical knowledge of pipe lines. I happen to be the only member of the House of Commons who owns one. It was presented to me by the most representative body in the Dominion of Canada, the parliamentary press gallery, at their annual dinner. I happen to have a pipe line of my own.

The member for Cariboo told us about Christopher Columbus, Sir Alexander Mackenzie, and the building of a route through Lillooet.


George Matheson Murray: What about the associated boards of trade, and their resolution?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I happened to be at the
meeting-


George Matheson Murray: It was a resolution of the associated boards of trade of the Fraser valley.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If the hon. member has not the courage to make a speech on this issue, I have. The associated boards of trade brought in a resolution favouring the allCanadian route. I happened to be at the meeting.


George Matheson Murray: But by way of Prince George. The resolution came from Mission City in the hon. gentleman's own riding.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I did not understand the speech the hon. member delivered the other day, nor did anyone else. If he keeps on interrupting, I may get a little enlightenment on it. Many members have stated that the pipe line must go down through the Fraser valley. It has been stated that the Yellow-head route is the one route which has been surveyed by the most competent engineers on the North American continent, Ford, Bacon and Davis. A man from Vancouver by the name of "Jerry" Wood went over every foot of that territory. In the committee I listened with a great deal of interest to the member for Skeena tell me what a great man Mr. Dixon is. I have no doubt Mr. Dixon is a great man, and I am not disputing that fact at all. We heard all about this man, who admitted in the committee that he is a promoter.
Then there is another company, and I may as well mention that company, because I do not want to speak on pipe lines again. One representative of that company said he did not know what route the pipe line would follow; he did not know where the company was going to get the money; he did not know where they would get the gas, but he hoped they would secure a charter and hold up the other two companies. I am willing to admit that the Alberta Natural Gas Company is a legitimate company. I think it is backed by sound financial people. As for the other company, I might as. well pick up two people from amongst the funny money group, and along with myself form a company and attempt to get a charter.


Mr. Fair:: You should see how funny you look.
Alberta Natural Gas Company


George Alexander Cruickshank: That may be true. While I may disagree with my minister, and while I may disagree with some of the members of my own party, some of my colleagues from my own province, no Liberal has been told he has to keep quiet, as your little group were told.


Robert Fair: That is absolutely false.


Mr. Low:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the member for Fraser Valley has just made a statement which I can imagine was made out of great emotion. It certainly was not made on the basis of any knowledge. If he will just carry on with his argument, I shall show him soon enough that no one has told us to keep our mouths shut. We have done so out of common decency, in the hope that someone would come to his senses and we would get this bill through.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, if my language was unparliamentary when I said they were instructed to keep quiet, I shall withdraw it. I shall put it this way: Two of their most brilliant members made excellent forty-minute speeches-


Mr. Herridge:: In favour of it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: -in favour of the Canadian route, and all of a sudden there was not another peep out of them. Do not tell me that no instructions were given.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I must say once again that I am telling the hon. member there were no instructions given. I am telling him before the house that any of the members in this group can speak as he wants to speak on this subject. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I shall assure the member for Fraser Valley, before my members, that they may vote as they desire to vote; no one is going to tell them how to vote.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am sorry that I have been interrupted again, because it is taking up my time. I presume I shall be given a little extra time.


Solon Earl Low: That is exactly what the hon.
member would do, take extra time, and that is the reason why I have kept my mouth shut up to now, because he would go right round and round; he is that kind.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is there any question of privilege about that?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member for Fraser Valley has the floor.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If the hon. member
wishes to ask a question I shall be delighted to answer him, because I am sure that anyone coming from Alberta or from the Peace River riding is entitled to enlightenment.
2492

Alberta Natural Gas Company


Mr. Blackmore:: Stick to the facts.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am getting help from Lethbridge now. If the hon. member for Peace River did not issue any instructions I accept that, and I accept his apology.


Solon Earl Low: I must say there is no apology, Mr. Chairman. It was a statement of fact.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If the information given to me as to where the instructions came from was wrong or incorrect I apologize to the hon. member for having associated his name with them, but I do not think I did.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. I think it would be much better to come back to the clause under consideration.


Solon Earl Low: Yes; let us get back to pipe lines.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if I transgressed the rules. I very seldom break the rules of the house. I try to follow strictly in line at all times. If I have broken the rules I am sorry. I withdraw any of the suggestions that I made that the hon. members had orders. I do not think they did. They just fell in line.	.
To get back to the pipe lines, Mr. Chairman, what we from the province of British Columbia are particularly interested in is the development of small industries within our province.
I think I am in order in bringing this up, Mr. Chairman. You will notice that I did not come down to the chamber this afternoon with four or five hundred telegrams or five hundred letters which I have received, nor with a speech all typewritten out for me by someone in the Morgan Stanley Company. I am speaking without notes and without telegrams or letters, although I could produce them from every riding in the province of British Columbia, and from almost every board of trade in that province, favouring an all-Canadian route.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I respect the sincerity of my colleagues from British Columbia who believe in the United States route. I believe they are sincere in their belief that it should go through the United States, but we are asking the same appreciation of our sincerity. I now refer to those of us who believe in an all-Canadian route.
In my own particular district I realize that gas will never go into the individual homes and farms; that is Obvious. But it could bring small industries to our towns, such industries as were mentioned in a letter to one of the most prominent businessmen and a constituent of mine. I will just mention two towns, the town of Kamloops and the town of Chilliwack. It is the cheapest form of power-


Edmund Davie Fulton: One is the best and the other is the second best town in British Columbia.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is the cheapest form of power in the world. It could bring small industries, decentralized industries, to our towns.
The hon. member for Nanaimo mentioned the national defence point of view. I heard a little scoffing at that. But at the same time we hear our minister of external affairs, whose seat I am occupying at the present time while he is occupying one that I should like to occupy in Geneva or London, tell us how serious the international situation is. Is there any better way to prepare than to have power on our great Pacific coast? According to all the experts, we have only one possible enemy, and the most likely avenue of attack will be on the Pacific. Should we not have the power transferred to the province of British Columbia by the quickest, cheapest and the safest possible route?
The Minister of Trade and Commerce mentioned the consumer's angle a short time ago. It is quite true that the consumer should be protected and cared for; but the only 'figure that was given to the committee indicated that the additional cost of an all-Canadian route would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $17 million. That figure was picked out of the air by this great expert, Mr. Dixon. No reason was given for the $17 million. He just picked the $17 million out of the air. Not one iota of evidence was given to that committee, so far as I could hear, to show that the gas would cost one cent more if it went through an all-Canadian route, as opposed to an all-United States route.
We hear some amateur experts in this committee talk about slides and tunnelling. We were accused of supporting one company. So far as I know every hon. member from British Columbia who has spoken in opposition to the United States route has said that he did not care a hoot which company built it so long as it is an all-Canadian route. I know I am accused of being for the West-coast Transmission Company because I happened to sponsor their bill last year. We made a mistake last year in- approving their charter without having written into it an allCanadian route. We made that mistake, but two wrongs do not make a right. I went so far as to say-and I was speaking with authority-that the Westcoast Transmission Company was willing to have it written into its charter, provided it is written into the charters of the two other companies, that it should be an all-Canadian route. Can anything be fairer than that?
I am not a legal expert because I do not know anything about law. You know, Mr. MAY 15, 1950
Chairman, one of the privileges I had at Windsor yesterday was an escort of mounted police down the street. My only experience with policemen on motorcycles before has been chasing them. That is about as much as I know about law. But I heard the leader of the opposition give an explanation of an act that was passed in 1907. I would ask a lawyer, not some amateur lawyer but say one from Lake Centre or one from Kenora-Rainy River-and I am going to be fair about this; I will see if I can find one down in the corner; no, I cannot see one there-to give us his interpretation of the act that was passed in 1907. I should like to know whether or not the leader of the opposition was correct. I had never heard of it before, but if my understanding of the matter is correct the government of Canada and the government of Canada only has the say in the export of gas and oil. That was my understanding of the act as outlined to us the other evening. I would like to be corrected by some legal expert if I am wrong.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in the hope that we will have a vote before six o'clock I am not going to take up any more of the committee's time. I am sorry that the argument has got heated at times. If I have been at all unfair to the hon. member for Cariboo or to anybody else I apologize. I feel very keenly on the matter, as I am sure they do. I think I have every justification for feeling keenly about it because 99 per cent of the people of my riding feel as I do. I understood the minister to say that it will not be a government vote, but a free vote. It is a private bill. I sincerely hope that when the vote is taken each and every one of my colleagues from British Columbia will repent, will see the evil of their ways, and vote with us. Particularly do I hope that many of those from the mari-times and eastern Canada, who will look to us from the west for assistance in the future, will vote with us against these bills.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am going to speak for just a moment or two. I had no intention of doing so until the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke, but he did attack some friends of mine and I intend to reply in kind. He tried to draw the inference that the Westcoast Transmission Company was a blind for the Sunray Oil Company of California, even though he did say, '"Delaware", or wherever it was. The Sunray Oil Company did buy some two years ago -it was in all the newspapers

into the Pacific Petroleum Company. The president of that company was a gentleman named Frank McMahon, a personal friend of mine. They bought into that company and put 55946-1581
Alberta Natural Gas Company a tremendous amount of money into development work, with the result that today they are one of the leading producing oil and gas companies in Alberta. In fact, if you eliminate Imperial, Royalite and Home, I think they will rank just below them. These are the people behind the Westcoast Transmission Company.
For the minister to imply, as he did, that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and other members in this house are stooging for the Sunray Oil Company is just as true as if I were to say that he is stooging here for Morgan, Stanley and Company. I have in my hand the exhibits filed by this same man Dixon before the board in Alberta-and I am referring to the gas and oil conservation board.
But before I go on, the minister told us that no one had indicated to him where they were going to build. Well, his scouting system must have gone to pieces. In Calgary for well over a month-they have now adjourned until the fall-the Westcoast Transmission Company has been applying for a route. This is the Yellowhead route, down the Thompson, into Kamloops, on to Princeton, Princeton to Hope and Hope to Vancouver. The evidence is all sworn to. I heard some of it myself. If the minister is interested, there are twenty volumes of evidence which I have in my office, and he may borrow them at any time he wishes. The survey they conducted is on the basis of one-tenth of a mile. So it is utter rot and nonsense to say that these people have not done a job, and a good job. They had eight engineers in Calgary from Ford, Bacon and Davis, including the senior vice-president, Mr. Whittlesey; I met them there. It was there I also met Mr. Dixon and Mr. Logan. We are a hospitable people out there. This company, Pacific Petroleum Company, must have at least forty producing wells, and their exploration program is one of the biggest we know-not in the United States, but in Alberta.
I asked the minister's friend, Mr. Dixon, this question in committee. He does not own a gallon of oil or a foot of gas; he frankly admitted he was a promoter who hoped to control the policy of the company whose charter we are now considering.
The Alberta Natural Gas Company filed a printed application, and also filed with the application exhibits A to E inclusive. One of these exhibits-and it is the most remarkable thing of its kind I have seen-is a list of the financing done by Morgan, Stanley and Company, and the other two persons they named in the application. It consists of at least sixteen pages, closely typewritten, showing figures such as $40 million, $157

Alberta Natural Gas Company million, $18 million, $156 million, $80 million, $125 million, $85 million-and it goes on for sixteen pages.
This is the sort of thing the promoters of this company filed with the board in an effort to get permission to export this gas from Alberta-and when I say "export" I mean even to another province.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to close with this, that having regard to other debates this one has been conducted on a reasonably high plane. But I think it is no credit to the House of Commons or to the minister that at least for the first time in this session he should project himself into the debate and start riding companies the officials of which are just as honourable men as he now is, ever was, or ever will be. That sort of nonsense I simply will not put up with. I ask your pardon, Mr. Chairman, for speaking again, even for a short time, on this matter.


Mr. Coldwell:: I really did not intend to say anything this afternoon, but when the Minister of Trade and Commerce was speaking he referred to a speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver East, who is attending a committee meeting this afternoon. I was glad the minister said that he knew the hon. member would not advocate anything in the house if he felt there was something shady behind it. Those are not the words he used, but that is the implication of what he said.
I was glad indeed to hear the minister say that. But I wish to add this, that having listened to this debate-and when I say "listened" I mean exactly that, because I have participated in it only briefly on one or two occasions before-I have come to the conclusion that what we really lack in this country is a proper national policy for the development, conservation and use of our resources primarily for the Canadian people.
That can be attained in my opinion only through agreement between the federal and provincial authorities; because, after all, the resources of the provinces are under the control of the provincial governments. It seems to me this debate has illustrated how badly we need to do something comprehensive in the way of planning the use of such resources for the good of the country as a whole. If we are going to do that, then I believe further that that can be undertaken only by means of a publicly-owned plan and opera, tion of resources of this sort. Because, after all, when we allow a pipe line to be built to convey oil or gas from one area to another it is obvious that that must, because of its nature, become a monopoly for the company 
granted that right. That is true of electricity; but certainly in connection with gas and oil it is also true.
No one who has listened to the debate believes for one moment that more than one pipe line will convey the gas from Alberta to the Pacific coast, whether it goes by a Canadian or an American route. Indeed it would be economic waste to have two or three pipe lines or two or three companies competing for the business in gas in a city like Vancouver. Where we have had gas made from coal in days gone by, and where there have been two or three companies in cities, we have found that invariably they have been consolidated into one company usually publicly owned. The experience in this city of Ottawa in regard to electricity confirms that point of view. Where you had various companies, today they are consolidated into one organization. It seems to me that the only way in which you can deal intelligently with the use of a resource of this description is by public ownership.
In the last parliament we moved for public ownership of the lines concerned with this great utility. I regret exceedingly that that amendment was not adopted as I think it might have obviated a great deal of discussion and removed many of the fears that are felt quite naturally by some hon. members from British Columbia, and particularly by their constituents. In the utilization of these great gas and oil resources, not only are the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta interested; the rest of the country as well has an interest. I do not know where and when another gas and oil field will be found, but I believe there are in Alberta huge supplies of gas which should be utilized for the benefit of the prairie provinces as well as of British Columbia. We should not be contemplating supplying gas to the Pacific coast of the United States before the needs of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and British Columbia have been considered.
I go further and say that with the distances that gas and oil are now being piped in North America it might be found economical to pipe this great natural resource to Ontario, or at least to the western part of the province should supplies be found to be adequate. This debate has indicated the need of utilizing this great resource on a national basis rather than on the basis of the needs of British Columbia and Alberta only. The only way we can plan the use of a resource of this description is to determine that it will be utilized through some form of public ownership and public control.
This afternoon the minister made the point diat the consumer should be considered in

connection with the use of this gas. I agree. He also made another statement with which I agree, that the consumer after all will pay for these pipe lines. Of course the consumer will pay for the pipe lines in the charges that will be levied.


Tom Goode: A million dollars a year extra.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not the point I am trying to make. The consumers will pay for it, but the promoters will own it after the consumers have paid for it. I would rather see the people of Canada own it even if we have to pay a few million more for the privilege of utilizing it in our own country.
I was not able to attend the meetings of the committee where this matter was gone into. I spent part of the evening there when it was decided that no further representations would be heard on the question of the route. A motion was carried to go ahead the next morning with the discussion of the bill clause by clause, after one hour of general discussion. Having looked at some of the evidence since I have come to the conclusion that no hon. member should vote for the passage of this bill until it has been returned to the committee.
The committee should sit again and go into the matter more thoroughly. It could hear all the evidence that is available. When that is done the proposal that I have suggested should be considered. In view of the squabble that has occurred between the promoters of these companies, consideration should be given to the utilization of this resource by means of a publicly-owned pipe line. The matter could be discussed by Alberta, British Columbia and the federal authorities and, if we are thinking of a national policy, with other provinces that are likely to be involved in such an undertaking.
As far as the Sunray Company is concerned, I know nothing about it. The suggestion has been made that there has been some lobbying in this regard, but I have been paid the compliment of not having been lobbied by any company. I suppose they know where we stand on this kind of proposal and no one has seen me at any time in regard to this matter, either an agent of Sunray or any other company interested in the building of a pipe line.
Whether this is to be built under public or private ownership, we should have knowledge of the route that will be followed. Before this committee agrees to the passage of this bill we should instruct the executive of this parliament, which is the government. As the leader of the opposition so well said the other evening, in the final analysis it is the government that will decide whether this line will pass through the United States or
Alberta Natural Gas Company whether it will pass through Canada. This parliament has an obligation, not only to the people of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, but to the people of all Canada to see that the executive of this parliament carries out the considered-I use the word "considered" advisedly-opinion of this house. But I submit that that considered opinion cannot be given until more inquiry is made than was made by the committee before it rose and made its report to this house.
I do not propose to continue the debate. I wanted merely to express my point of view. This discussion has gone on now for two sessions and every facility has been granted by the government to get through these pipe line bills. X submit that after this full discussion and consideration the whole matter should be voted down and considered anew. When we consider the matter anew it should be on the basis of a national policy, thinking first of the interests of Canada as a whole. If we do that, I believe we shall come to the conclusion that in co-operation with the provinces concerned we should build this line or any other line-in the very nature of things they must be monopolistic in character- through a publicly owned and controlled organization, just as Ontario has built its great system of hydroelectric lines.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Mr. Chairman, coming from Saskatchewan as I do I feel I should express the views of the people there before this matter comes to a vote. For many months now we have been debating these pipe line bills. I must say that not very much information has been given us upon which to form an intelligent opinion as to whether the line should be built through British Columbia or through the United States. Very little engineering data has been presented to us to support any claim. We have not had conclusive engineering data supplied to us this year to assist us in determining that any route is the correct one. I am not so much interested in the route used to export gas. I favour it going through Canada first if it is at all possible, and if such a route is feasible. What. I am particularly interested in is the reserves of gas. I believe Dr. Hume made his last report on Canadian gas reserves in 1948, and at that time he said there were four trillion cubic feet. I have inquired from various people who are supporting the different pipe lines as to what volume of gas would be exported if a line were to be built. None of them seemed to have a very clear idea.
One thing they all seem to forget is that our reserves of gas are exhaustible. As soon

Alberta Natural Gas Company as you instal a pipe line and start to withdraw gas your reserves are being depleted. That was clearly demonstrated in the Medicine Hat field. Years ago it was the boast in Medicine Hat that they had such a tremendous supply of gas they did not bother to turn off the street lights in the daytime. Nevertheless the day came when the field was depleted, and today they are having to put gas from the Turner valley into the Medicine Hat field. We are carrying on exploration in Saskatchewan but we have not found any gas although we hope to do so. We have found a little oil in the Lloydminster field. Manitoba may not find any gas or oil. I am one of those who feel that the needs of the prairies should be looked after before we allow any gas to be exported from those provinces. I have heard hon. members state here that we have reserves which will last for fifty years. Imagine that! Would any hon. member think it was a wise policy to sell our forests on a basis of depleting them in fifty years? Forests grow again but gas and oil reserves cannot be replenished.
We talk about new pipe lines in western Canada. We have room there for thirty million people. We are constructing irrigation systems. At the present time we have a small population and we cannot use the gas but if we put thirty million more people in the prairie provinces I believe we will have a market for all our gas there. I should like to see hon. members of the house directing their energies as ardently towards bringing industries to western Canada where the gas is, rather than toward the construction of a pipe line to take our resources out of Canada for the benefit of people elsewhere.
Some people wonder why these pipe line companies are so interested in getting a franchise to take gas out of Canada. We are told their interests are purely altruistic, but I have noticed that the stock of the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company has risen to $300 a share whereas it originally sold for $100. Are the consumers going to pay a dividend on the basis of $300 or is it going to be held down to the basis of $100 a share? That is what I should like to know before the matter is settled. I think the board of transport commissioners can do something in that regard. I understand they have the power to fix rates. I for one am going to do my best to see that a return will be paid only on the basis of $100, the money that was really put into the company, and not on the price of $300 that is being paid for the stock today. I am sure the same thing would happen with other pipe lines.
While I am interested in the export of gas and oil if we have sufficient to look after

ourselves for hundreds of years, I do not believe in exporting it before we have an opportunity to find out what we really have at home and if we can use it. I was undecided how to vote on this matter until I heard the leader of the opposition make an eloquent speech the other night. In it he stated that the government has power to say where a line will go. He also said that under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act the government has power to say whether it will allow anything to be exported, and that the province of Alberta has power to say whether or not they will export any of their gas. The government was elected by an overwhelming majority of the people. They judged it on its conduct of the war and on its record in the re-establishment of industries after the war. I think the people have faith that the government will make the proper decision when the time comes. Therefore I think the only thing to do is to pass these measures and thereby give Alberta what it wants, more competition should she decide to export any gas. Nevertheless I am certainly against exporting any until we ascertain whether or not we can use it at home.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Powers of company.
Howard Charles Green: There is one thing I should like to point out about section 6. The powers given under this section can be exercised within or without Canada. Statements have been made by several members that the company which received a charter last year has an advantage. I simply point out that this provision is wider than in the West-coast Transmission Company bill or in the Prairie Transmission Lines Limited measure. In both of those cases there is a restriction to Alberta and British Columbia or outside Canada whereas under the present measure incorporating the Alberta Natural Gas Company power is given covering any part of Canada. Therefore the company has power to pipe gas not only to the west coast but also to the east. The main point I wish to make is that a special favour is being given to this particular company.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Benidickson moved: the third reading of the bill.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks on third reading of the bill I express regret that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is not in his seat because I propose to say a few words about the stand he has taken. The fact that he is not here, however, is not my fault. This afternoon we saw him come into the chamber and, when he rose to speak, lose his temper and make quite a few rather violent remarks which I think clearly showed his attitude on the whole question. It is a very touchy subject not only for the Minister of Trade and Commerce but also for the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who has lost his temper twice during the debate on these measures.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce made certain remarks as to what he would do and how he would deal with this question at the proper time.
Hon. members should remember that less than a year ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who sits for the riding of Port Arthur, brushed aside the representations of the people of that riding and allowed the main oil pipe line to by-pass the Canadian lakehead cities of Port Arthur and Fort William and go instead across the United States boundary to Superior, Wisconsin, where tankage and docks are to be installed, so that Americans will get the jobs that should have been available to Canadians. Having done that last year, I do not expect him to give any special consideration to the wishes of the people of British Columbia in connection with this natural gas pipe line to the west coast.
The issue is now abundantly clear; it is whether or not there is to be an all-Canadian route for this natural gas to the west coast. In other words, are the requirements of the Canadian people to be met before the requirements of those Americans living in the northwest United States? All the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or the Minister of Trade and Commerce had to do at any time during this debate was announce that this main pipe line would be routed to the west coast in Canadian soil. Had that been done there would have been no further debate. However, they have been very careful not to give any such assurance.
This afternoon, by way of summing up, I propose to set out some of the reasons why this question of an all-Canadian route is of importance to the people of British Columbia, and I hope to conclude my remarks with a tew reasons as to why the issue is also of great importance to all Canadians, no matter in which province they happen to live. In the first place this proposed development is
Alberta Natural Gas Company not of a minor nature. I have here a dispatch which appeared in the Vancouver Province of April 22 summing up very clearly just what this development means to the west coast. This is the report of a meeting of purchasing agents of public utility companies in British Columbia and also the states of Washington and Oregon, and the first paragraph reads:
Purchasing agents from three of the largest public utility corporations on the west coast agreed today that the proposed natural gas pipe line from Alberta would be the major economic development of the decade for the Pacific northwest.
One speaker, who came from the United States, said:
With the introduction of natural gas, the amount of potential energy that will come through this pipe line will be the practical equivalent of the power energy now coming from Coulee and Bonneville.
Those are two immense power dams in the states of Washington and Oregon. Then the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in Vancouver five days ago clearly showed the great importance of the development. He said it looked as though an oil pipe line would follow the gas line to Vancouver. That may very well be of greater importance than the gas pipe line itself. The Vancouver Sun, which has the largest circulation of any newspaper west of Toronto and which has been a staunch supporter of this government ever since I can remember, had an editorial dealing with that statement by the minister, headed "It must be all-Canadian." It is dated May 12, and the first paragraph says:
Mr. Howe's revelation that an oil pipe line from the Alberta oil fields to the Pacific coast may follow the gas pipe line makes it all the more necessary that the gas pipe line should follow an all-Canadian route.
Then it goes on:
Think what it would mean If the suggested oil pipe line followed an American route.
The oil from Alberta would be pumped to tidewater at Seattle or Tacoma and there refined for shipment or shipped crude. There would be jobs for Americans-but what of Canadians?
Canadians should demand that a policy of "Canada first" be adopted. If refineries are to be built and shipping development to take place as a result of the exploitation of Canada's resources, the ports and workers of Canada must have preference.
That is real-ly the essence of our argument, that Canadians must have first call on Canadian resources. That was the main ground on which a few weeks ago the legislature of British Columbia unanimously adopted a resolution advocating a route through the Yellowhead pass. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce seem to have paid no attention at all to that resolution; yet there it is, setting out the reasons and supported by all parties in that legislature. I think perhaps that
2498	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company is the most significant development to come out of this whole discussion. The British Columbia legislature were particularly concerned' with the development of northern British Columbia. They felt that if the route went through the Yellowhead there would be an outlet for gas and oil from the Peace river district, where the British Columbia reserves are located. And just two or three weeks ago, when the bills were in committee and there was publicity in the Vancouver newspapers, the attorney general of that province again confirmed the stand of the legislature. Here is what he said, on April 27:
The government of British Columbia supports the northern route because it will provide an outlet for gas in the British Columbia section of the Peace river block. We also believe it is the logical route to ensure maximum development and benefit to both provinces.
Then look what it means by way of jobs. Mr. Dixon, who appeared before the committee on behalf of the applicants for incorporation, spoke only of routes through the Crowsnest pass in southern British Columbia. He knew nothing about the Yellowhead route and had not even bothered to have it checked. But on his figures for his own all-Canadian route through the Crowsnest pass we find that there would be spent in Canada practically $66 million; that is on the route from Pincher Creek to the coast. On the other hand if his second route were followed, going mainly through the United States, only $22 million would be spent in British Columbia. So there is a difference of $44 million in the amount to be spent in British Columbia, depending on whether this line goes through Canada or through the United States. That could mean an. additional $44 million to provide jobs for Canadians, and to buy materials manufactured in Canadian plants all over the country. The difference in mileage in these two routes was, by an allCanadian route, 626 miles in Canada from Pincher Creek, Alberta, to the coast, and 385 miles in the United States, made up of course of the branch lines in the United States; by the route through the United States, there would be only 210 miles in Canada and 720 miles in the United States, which included practically all the main pipe line.
Something has been said in the debate about the price of gas at the coast. The Westcoast Transmission Company, which is proposing to pipe this gas through the Yellowhead pass, gave figures before the Alberta conservation board showing that the price of gas in Vancouver would be 29-2 cents per thousand cubic feet. Mr. Dixon was unable to meet those figures, even by the route which


went through the United States. The inference has been left here that it would be cheaper to pipe this gas through the United States, but there has been no contradiction of those figures given by the Westcoast Transmission Company.
One other reason why this question is of such importance to the people of British Columbia is this. If the main line goes through Canada, then control remains with Canada until our requirements have been met. Whatever gas is surplus can go to the United States; we are not concerned about how that will be controlled. If this main line is kept in Canada, there can never be any question about the gas being shut off to Canadian users. If the main line were through the United States, we would always face that possibility. I think it was the member for Fraser Valley who mentioned the fact that the people of western Ontario have already had that experience. They had their supply cut off a year or so ago because there was not enough gas to serve the requirements of the United States, so Canada was cut off.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it would be intolerable to have British Columbia placed in a position where the gas supply could be cut off because extra gas was needed in the northwest states of the union. It would be an intolerable situation. The government of Canada, at the instigation of the Department of Trade and Commerce, co-operating with other departments, actually had the minister at Washington appear before the United States power commission on April 18 to make representations on behalf of the Canadian government to have that commission grant the Panhandle Eastern Company authority to export gas to western Ontario. The minister, in making his representations, was quoted as saying he was sure it would be without detriment to United States customers. If the government show that concern for the users of gas in western Ontario, then they certainly should show an equal concern for the potential users in British Columbia, and make sure this main line is built in Canada.
The Alberta Natural Gas Company does not, unfortunately, meet the requirements. Their representatives showed only too clearly in the committee that the company is determined to build by the United States route. I asked Mr. Dixon whether he would give any pledge about building in Canada. This evidence is found at page 114 of the proceedings:
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 Hon. 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 I have not said to you.
There, Mr. Speaker, was the difference between the attitude of the applicants for incorporation of the Alberta Natural Gas Company and the Westcoast Transmission Company. Last year the Westcoast Transmission Company did give a pledge in committee that they would build by the allCanadian route. The application that company has made to the Alberta board is on that basis, and so far they have shown good faith in carrying out that pledge.
Mr. Dixon himself brought out a fact which showed clearly that his company intends to build through the United States. He produced a letter from the Dominion Bridge Company, stating he had been negotiating with them for steel pipe. The letter was signed by the sales development manager, and it ended with this paragraph, after setting out what that company could do in the way of supplying pipe:
It is further based on our understanding that the Canadian portion of the Alberta Natural Gas Company line would require approximately four hundred miles of pipe of twenty-inch diameter or over.
In other words, Mr. Dixon only asked the company for sufficient pipe to meet the requirements of a line, the main route of which lay through the United States.
There is no question but that the Alberta Natural Gas Company is to be controlled by people in the-United States. We asked about where the stock control would be, and Mr. Dixon refused to contradict the statement that it would be in the United States. One of the partners of the firm of Morgan Stanley is an applicant for incorporation, and Mr. Dixon showed in his evidence that Morgan Stanley were taking charge of the financing of this whole project. He also admitted that the Alberta Natural Gas Company would be either a subsidiary of the Northwest Natural Gas Company or that the latter would be a subsidiary of the Canadian company. All of the evidence indicated that the company preferred to build by the route through the United States. They want the route through the United States because it will be more profitable for them. The line gets into the large market quicker by that route, and the promoters think it is in their interest to have the line go to the south at the first convenient point.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
Alberta Natural Gas Company AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: When the house rose for the supper recess I was pointing out that the Alberta Natural Gas people are obviously determined to build via the United States route. In that connection a very significant event happened in Vancouver on the first day of the month during a meeting of what is called the Pacific northwest trade association. That is an association made up of businessmen from British Columbia, Washington and Oregon. In reporting what happened at that meeting the Vancouver papers say:
But the northwestern U.S. states prefer the line that runs south out of Alberta through their territory first. This point was made almost rudely clear at recent meetings of the Pacific northwest trade association here. In meetings at hotel Vancouver delegates from Washington and Oregon hardly gave a thought to the British Columbia line, and even cheered lustily when it was mistakenly announced that Northwest Natural Gas Company-
Which of course is the parent of the Alberta Natural Gas Company.
-had received its charter and "would be able to build through our states."
That gives you the attitude of the people in Washington and also the aims of these Alberta Natural Gas promoters.
In addition to that, they ignore the north country completely. I need to quote only one question and answer from the proceedings of the committee to be found at page 99: I asked Mr. Dixon:
Your pips line comes across southern British Columbia and is absolutely of no use to the Peace river or northern Alberta and north British Columbia.
A. Our line would be of no use to the Peace river.
As a matter of fact, these people are not interested in developing Canada at all. If they are allowed to build their pipe line by this United States first route it will not only mean British Columbia losing a chance for great development, but it will also mean that British Columbia will be in bondage for all time to the Northwest Natural Gas Company and to the United States federal power commission.
Unfortunately for British Columbia, the Alberta Natural Gas Company seems to have the support of the present Canadian government. The way the procedure of this house has been directed by the government to give this company the priority, right from the start of the present session, is a very clear indication that the government stands behind this company.
Then, a parliamentary assistant sponsored the bill. It should be pointed out that not only is he a parliamentary assistant but he is
2500

Alberta Natural Gas Company actually in charge of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys at the present time, and that is the department which would have to do with all these oil and gas developments.
When the vote was called the other day the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) jumped up to vote first, although this is supposed to be a private bill. Then we had him reprimanding the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) the other night by referring to him as "one of my erstwhile supporters on other issues." The Prime Minister's whole speech was in effect an appeal to his supporters to do as he-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, may I correct the hon. member. Much as I agree with his speech, I should like to keep my record clear. The Prime Minister said he was not referring to me. I want to keep as much in clear water as I possibly can.


Howard Charles Green: The point I am making is that the Prime Minister appealed to the Liberals in the house. That was the purport of his speech.
It will be noticed that one of the applicants for incorporation is Austin Cottrell Taylor of Vancouver, who is a director of the Bank of Canada, and another applicant is Cortelyou Ladd Simonson of the city of New York, who is a partner in the firm of Morgan Stanley, and the firm of Morgan Stanley have been in charge of the government's financing in the United States.
Then we have the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) writing a phony letter, may I say, to the city council of Vancouver, the terms of which he himself has since contradicted. In this letter he referred to his talks with the Alberta Natural Gas Company, but not a word about a talk with the Prairie Transmission Lines Limited. It is quite clear that these people are the friends of the government and that bodes ill for the people of British Columbia because, as I say, an attempt is to be made by them to build this line through the United States.
In any event, we find evasion by the government on this question of an all-Canadian route. Oh, lip service is given by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the policy of serving Canada first. Here is a headline from a Vancouver paper dated May 10: "Canada 'First' on Gas Pipe Line" in reporting a statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce; but -and there is a very big "but" in their Canada first attitude-they say: "Oh, the board of transport commissioners must decide." In his speech the Prime Minister said not one word about the government's responsibility under the Electricity and Fluid

Exportation Act. Yet we find in section 5 of that act that in the first place the governor in council, which means the cabinet, must issue a permit before gas can be exported; but we find further this provision:
No person shall, without a licence, construct or place in position any line or wire or other conductor for the exportation of power, or any pipe line or any other like contrivance for the exportation of fluid.
That is a provision that the cabinet must give a permit before a pipe line can be built for the exportation of gas or oil; yet we have had no offer from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce to restrict these permits to an all-Canadian route; and each of the three companies has an all-Canadian route. The Westcoast Transmission Company has the Yellowhead route. The Alberta Natural Gas and the Prairie Transmission Lines Limited have, through the Crowsnest, an all-Canadian route, and these latter two say that in addition they will now investigate the Yellowhead route; so it is not as though there were no all-Canadian routes available in each of the three cases.
Both the Prime Minister of this country and his senior minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, are now hiding behind the board of transport commissioners. They both know that last year before the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company could get any order from the board of transport commissioners a permit had to be issued by the authority of the government. That was proved the other night by the leader of the opposition and I have a copy of the order in council and the permit here tonight. During the debate last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself said, as reported at page 1560 of Hansard:
The board of transport commissioners will, I assume, as they have in the past, require that the company produce a licence under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act which is administered by the Department of Trade and Commerce.
No matter how they twist and turn, the responsibility for giving a permit for building a pipe line outside Canada rests with the cabinet. I thought it was neatly put on May 6 by Elmore Philpott, a columnist writing in the Vancouver Sun. He said this:
It is a downright insult to the intelligence of the people of Canada for M.P.'s, and even cabinet ministers, to wriggle and quibble when it comes tO' answering a straight question like this:
And here is the question Mr. Philpott put forward:
Are you for an all-Canadian pipe line to the Pacific coast, or are you for mainline-via-U.S.A.?
H you are for Canada, why the hesitation about writing into the law of the land a clause saying that the pipe shall go via Canada, and serve Canada first and foremost?

This evening I had meant to say something about tolls and rates. There is no provision in the present Pipe Lines Act for the regulation of the rates that may be charged for transmitting this gas, although there is provision for regulating rates on oil. I have not, however, the necessary time tonight to go into that point further.
I promised when I opened my remarks this afternoon that I would try to point out why this issue is of importance not only to the people of British Columbia but to all Canadians; I refer to the question as to whether this route shall be an all-Canadian route and shall first serve the requirements of the Canadian people. We have exactly the same situation arising in Quebec and in Labrador with respect to the iron ore. Is that iron ore to be smelted in Canada to the greatest possible extent or is it to go to the United States? We have not one word from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that would lead us to believe that there is to be any increase in the smelting of iron ore in Canada or that any new smelters are to be established. We have a lead given by the premier of Quebec, Hon. Mr. Duplessis. I have here a press dispatch of May 2, under the heading "Quebec May Manufacture Own Steel", which reads in part as follows:
Montreal. May 2.-A development which might have a big effect on Quebec's economy was made public when Premier Duplessis told of a plan for making steel from Ungava iron ore and graphitic shale.
What are the Americans doing? Within the last month three of the American secretaries-the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Chapman-have appeared before the public works committee df the House of Representatives, urging upon that body that they recommend the construction of the St. Lawrence waterway; and in each case when the secretary pleaded for such action by that committee, one of the main grounds given was that American iron ores were becoming depleted, that the Mesabi range was being dug out, and that it was essential to get the Canadian iron ores down to the American steel plants. Mr. Chapman appeared just last week or a few days ago, May 4, and he actually is reported to have said this:
Chapman said the United States would not have reached economic pre-eminence had it not been able to produce steel at a rate equivalent to its industrial growth . . .
Moreover, movement of the Labrador ores would conserve the remaining high-grade, open-pit ores of the Mesabi range for emergency use.
55946-159i
Alberta Natural Gas Company
The Americans are taking the right stand. They want to use these Canadian iron ores to manufacture their steel. If a policy such as this government is following at the present time is continued for long, there is a grave danger that Canada will be nothing more or less than a satellite of the United States.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Howard Charles Green: It is all right for the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs to sneer at the satellite nations in Europe; that is, the satellites of the Soviet. But Canada does not want to be a satellite on the North American continent, and the Americans do not want us to be one. They want us to be a great strong nation in our own right; and that is what we could be if we used our resources such as these finds of iron, oil and gas primarily for the development of our own country.
It is perfectly obvious, Mr. Speaker, from the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon, that he does not intend to make any commitment in favour of an all-Canadian route; but I am going to try to put the members of the house on record on this question. This is a private bill. Private members have a right to vote as they see fit. It will not look well if they all flock behind the government as they have done up to the present time on this issue, with the exception of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair).


An hon. Member:: And the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson).


Howard Charles Green: I would not call the hon. member for Comox-Alberni a supporter of the government. There is some doubt about it, but he is supposed to be independent.


Mr. Gibson:: That is right.


Mr. Fraser:: In spots.


Howard Charles Green: If this amendment is defeated, I can only warn the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada that in this fight we have done our best to protect them. The responsibility for any failure to make this pipe line an all-Canadian line, and to have it serve Canadians first, from now on rests squarely on the shoulders of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the members of this government.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith):
That Bill No. 7 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for the purpose of reconsidering the amending of the bill so as to provide that any pipe line built by the proposed company from Alberta to the Pacific coast must be by an all-Canadian route.
2502	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to support this amendment. I have not spoken a great deal in this debate; but in its concluding stages I just wish to make a brief review of the situation from our point of view. The amendment is:
That Bill No. 7 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for the purpose of reconsidering the amending of the bill so as to provide that any pipe line built by the proposed company from Alberta to the Pacific coast must be by an all-Canadian route.
That contains the germ and meat of this whole debate. I trust that when the amendment is voted on we will find a good number of hon. members who have learned sufficient from the debate and who think enough of Canadian rights to support it.
In the early stages of this debate, when I think only one member of the group to which I belong had spoken, and that briefly, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) accused us of filibustering. That indicated that the minister was annoyed with even a few members of the house making speeches in opposition to these bills. Although we have been accused repeatedly of filibustering, there is no question about it that the debate has since become thoroughly respectable. Why has it become thoroughly respectable? It has become thoroughly respectable because this government and a good number of the members who support the government realize that we are saying what the people of British Columbia want us to say.
A very interesting aspect of the debate has been that it is on a non-partisan basis. Members of all parties have expressed opposition to the bills. A good number of members of the party to which I belong, a large number of members of the Progressive Conservative party, as well as members of the Liberal party, including the well known hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson), who as it were represents a position between the opposition and the government, and also the * hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie), who represents the Social Credit party and who said that he and his group would refuse to vote for the bills until they knew where the pipe lines were going, have all indicated opposition to these bills.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has termed this a protracted debate, but I am sure that the debate has been of value. What has this debate accomplished? In the first place, a large number of members of this house from provinces other than British Columbia have been informed of the real situation and the facts surrounding the incorporation of these companies, the routes proposed and so on. Secondly, without doubt it


has informed the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada that if there had not been a minority in this house willing to continue the debate, against the opposition of ministers and other supporters of this government, the people of this country would not be as alert as they are at the present time to the seriousness of this situation. That is indicated by the support we have received and which has increased as the debate has continued. Neither the right hon. minister nor any member on the government side of the house has disputed the statement that the great majority of the people of British Columbia support the views we have been placing before this house.
There is another thing this debate has done. It has indicated to all members of the house, whether on the government or opposition side, that we require an entirely new approach when we come to deal in the future with disposal of our great natural resources. The present federal and provincial legislation has proved to be totally inadequate and obsolete and unable to deal with the proper distribution of these valuable natural resources. This debate has proved also to the people of Canada that there are men elected to the House of Commons who are willing to express an unpopular point of view, unpopular in the house but not unpopular in the country, when they believe it to be in the interests of the Canadian people.
Protracted as this debate has been, it has caused the people of British Columbia to express their opinion in no uncertain terms. I think this debate has proved the value of our parliamentary system and institutions. It has proved the right of a minority to talk as well as the right of a majority to vote them down. In having done that, I think a valuable public service has been performed.
When the motion for second reading of this bill was under discussion we were told repeatedly by members on the government side that we should discontinue the debate and let the bill go before a committee, that once it got into committee we could ask all the questions we wished and obtain all the facts. I was one member of this house who did not swallow that argument because I have seen bills go to committees before. I realized that when you get into a committee you are not quite as able to defend yourself as when you are in the house. That is exactly what happened when this bill went to the committee.
I think any fair-minded person reading the evidence, even though he was not present at the committee meetings, will realize that in effect a closure was placed upon the proceedings. We were allowed to examine only

two or three witnesses from one company and there were several members of the committee who had a number of questions to ask of those witnesses but who were not allowed to do so because of the closure placed upon them by way of a motion by the sponsor of the bill that the questioning should be discontinued at a certain time. All hon. members of the house know what happened and I think a good number of government supporters realize that the minority in that committee were treated most unfairly by the majority. The result is that we will have to vote on the third reading of this bill without all the facts. In my opinion If we had been spending the time in the committee that we have been spending in this house since the committee made its report the members of the house would be in a much better position to judge the merits of the case.
I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I shall not attempt to repeat the arguments so ably presented by the hon. member. This amendment is designed to protect Canadian interests, to protect Canadian natural resources, to protect the Canadian people by making certain that Canadian needs are taken - care of first before these natural resources are exported from Canada. That is done in the amendment by insisting on the building of an all-Canadian route.
While I am in favour of an all-Canadian route I am one of those who think that the most suitable route is through the Crowsnest pass. However, I am not going to attempt to deal with this or that route at this time. What we are concerned with now and what we have been fighting for for some months is whether this pipe line should be built along an all-Canadian route.
This amendment would not be necessary if the Prime Minister would assure the house that he would guarantee the building of an all-Canadian route. The other day he mentioned if it were practical and feasible. I am sure that the members opposing these bills would be satisfied if the Prime Minister were to say that if it was at all possible and reasonable to build an all-Canadian route, it would be done. This amendment would not be necessary if the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce would propose an amendment to the Pipe Lines Act to provide for the building of gas and oil pipe lines on all-Canadian routes before leaving Canada.
If the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) could give us an assurance on one or both of these proposals this debate would terminate immediately. I have expressed my
Alberta Natural Gas Company views briefly as to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green).
I want to deal with another aspect of the situation which has not been touched upon this evening. I refer to the question of tolls and tariffs to be paid by consumers for gas or oil. During the meetings of the standing committee Mr. Dixon of the Alberta Natural Gas Company presented certain evidence which indicated that it would cost Canadian consumers more if an all-Canadian route were built. I was not convinced by his evidence. We had no opportunity to secure evidence from other companies or even from experts in the employ of the government who I understand are very well informed and would have been of great assistance to the committee.
On that point I should like to say that fundamentally I support the views presented to the house this afternoon by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). This debate and the circumstances surrounding the incorporation of these pipe line companies have convinced me more than ever that the only final solution to the building of gas and oil lines, and the distribution of natural resources of that type in Canada at this time, is public ownership. I am quite sure that under such a system we would not run into the difficulties we have encountered in this debate. We would not run into a variety of conflicting interests. The pipe lines would be built, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar suggested, as a result of co-operation between federal and provincial governments, and would be built primarily to serve the interests of Canadian consumers. If we had public ownership of pipe lines, and there was a slightly higher cost for some time to Canadian consumers in Vancouver or elsewhere on the Pacific coast as a result of following an all-Canadian route, I am quite sure that cost would be readily borne by such consumers because the Canadian people would know that any profits derived from the pipe line would go towards the social services of the country or to the exchequers of the federal and provincial governments.
This government, however, does not see fit to support public ownership of the transportation of oil and gas at this time. Therefore I think it is necessary for us to consider the interests of the consumers. That point was raised by Mr. Dixon, and how quickly it was seized upon by members supporting the bill. Strangely enough not one of them had thought of it up to that time. Then because Mr. Dixon said that it might cost a few cents more some of my good friends opposite clasped it to their bosoms and have expounded it ever since. It is the only argument they have had since the

Alberta Natural Gas Company debate started. We know that these pipe lines, whether they be gas or oil, will be under the control of companies with dominion charters, and therefore will not come under the control of the public utilities commission of the province of British Columbia so far as tolls and tariffs are concerned. The debate has also brought to the attention of members of the house and the people of the country generally the necessity for some legislation in that respect to protect consumers. While we are first of all anxious for a Canadian route, members on this side of the house, and I am sure some hon. members on the other side, are anxious to see the Canadian consumer protected. In view of the rather loose evidence presented by Mr. Dixon on behalf of the Alberta Natural Gas Company, we consider that we must, while insisting on an all-Canadian route, protect the Canadian consumer. Therefore I am going to propose an amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I move:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the last word thereof, the following words:
"and also so as to provide for the regulation of the tolls and tariffs of the proposed company for the protection of Canadian consumers."
In conclusion I trust, Mr. Speaker, that when the vote is taken on the amendment to the amendment, and on the amendment, members of the house will accept their responsibility and protect the interests of the Canadian people so far as route and tolls and tariffs are concerned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment and the amendment to the amendment, but also for another purpose, to answer the contemptible and entirely unwarranted suggestions advanced this afternoon by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) with respect to certain of the matters that have been brought to his attention. I refer particularly to his suggestions with regard to some of the telegrams which reached him from the ordinary consumer, the ordinary man in the communities of British Columbia which are so vitally concerned in this matter.
It will have been noted that in his remarks this afternoon the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not refer to our suggestion that the main Pipe Lines Act be amended to make the same provision for all companies, namely, that any company incorporated should be required to build its route to the Pacific coast through Canadian territory. He obviously and deliberately avoided referring to that contention but he did deliberately, and from the outset, suggest that the efforts to provide a Canadian route were made as a result of approaches to members
[Mr. Herridge.l
of the house and to the individuals from whom he received telegrams by agents of one company in particular. I can only conclude from the totally unwarranted suggestions put forward by the minister this afternoon, and the malevolence of the motives he imputed to members of the house as well as to the individuals who had sent him telegrams, that he is so steeped in the methods of big business that he cannot conceive of any small man acting independently. It seems to me that the conclusion to be drawn from his remarks is that he is so accustomed to the power plays of power politics that he cannot credit that the small man would rise up and act, although independently nevertheless in unison, to protect the interests that he conceives to be vital to himself and his community.
Because I had some part-and I am proud of it-in the suggestion that these telegrams be forwarded to the minister I believe that I must rise in defence and explanation of the motives of those who sent him at least some of the telegrams to which he has referred. I have no hesitation in saying again what I said to the minister this afternoon, that during the week immediately preceding last week I was home in my constituency, and I suggested to as many as I could reach personally and over the radio that they should wire individually and collectively to the Minister of Trade and Commerce while he was in Vancouver. I have here a letter from the president of the Blue River board of trade of my constituency which indicates the spirit in which these telegrams were sent. It is a complete answer to the suggestion of the minister that they were sent as a result of approaches, and in fact as a result of some sort of payment by an official of one or other of the companies concerned in this matter. The letter is dated at Blue River, British Columbia, on May 8, 1950, and is addressed to myself. It reads:
I have been going to write you for some time to thank you and some of the other members, who have been putting up such a valiant fight for our all-Canadian pipe line route.
The next paragraph has a complimentary word for me and one or two other hon. members, and then the letter goes on:
As you may know, the Kamloops board of trade and junior chamber of commerce have called a joint meeting for tonight in Clearwater, with another meeting in Kamloops tomorrow night.
The object of these meetings is to stir up interest and to have the individuals and organizations flood Hon. C. D. Howe with hundreds of telegrams, while he is in Vancouver. Our committee handling this canvass have met with great success, and have handed me fifty-five telegrams already, with still more to come. These will be dispatched to Mr. Howe, spread over the three days, namely 9th and 10th and 11th of this week. While they may not have

the result we expect, it will at least show him where we stand, and with the issue seeming to swing our way, it may do a lot of good.
By the same token, I feel that our success here in gaining so much support will have a bearing on the meeting tonight, in that it may encourage the members of the other three boards to also get right behind the idea, and get their own telegrams going.
X have also wired the McBride board of trade, chamber of commerce, Jasper, board of trade, Edson, and the chamber of commerce, Edmonton, advising them of our action, and asking for their active support. Have just received a reply from McBride, saying they were right behind us.
I should point out that McBride is in the constituency of Cariboo.


Tom Goode: Would the hon. member answer a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I may just conclude these letters, I shall be glad to answer any question later. The other letter is dated May 10, 1950, and is from the same source. It encloses a copy of the resolution sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and this postscript is added:
This copy sent to you for your information, in case there should be a chance to bring the matter up during debate.
Our meeting in Clearwater Monday was most successful, over 150 people there, from which fifty telegrams were dispatched to Hon. C. D. Howe at Vancouver. May say we did even better here-
That is, at Blue River.
-some sixty-five individual telegrams being dispatched to the hon. gentleman. I haven't yet received a report of the Kamloops meeting, but it will be in the newspaper tomorrow morning.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my hon. friend who paid for the telegrams?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will tell my right hon. friend who paid for the telegrams. The people who sent them paid for them. If the right hon. gentleman thinks the president of the Blue River board of trade, who is what I might call one of the small men of a small community in British Columbia, who is vitally affected by this whole issue, is the paid agent of one of these pipe line companies, as he deliberately suggested this afternoon, I say the suggestion is entirely unwarranted and utterly contemptible.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I made no such suggestion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was the suggestion the right hon. gentleman deliberately made this afternoon.


Tom Goode: Would the hon. gentleman answer my question now, as a matter of information? How many people live in Blue River, and how many in Clearwater?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a very interesting question, Mr. Speaker. It is typical of the attitude we are fighting here. This is big interests against little interests. There are only some five hundred people living in
Alberta Natural Gas Company Blue River, and only some 180 or so in Clearwater. There are only some twelve or fifteen thousand people in Kamloops and North Kamloops. There are far fewer people living in Canada than in the United States, but by the argument the hon. member has just suggested we should sell out our interests because not as many people are concerned here as in the United States.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the hon. member permit a question? Has he any idea how many employees Kelly-Douglas have in the province of British Columbia?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, I have not.


Tom Goode: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is a personal matter which I do not think the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) should bring up in this house. I think it was a contemptible question. He is referring to a firm with which I am associated, and he has no right to do that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There is no point of order about it. I had a perfect right to ask that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There can be only one point of order at a time, and I do not know which point the hon. member for Fraser Valley is referring to. Perhaps we had better hear the hon. member for Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I regret that I have no information as to the number of people employed by the company to which reference has been made. Without in any way trying to minimize the importance of the point I must simply say I do not have the information. If I may I should like to conclude my remarks, and in doing so I repeat what I said a moment ago, that we are fighting the battle of the smaller communities; in fact we are fighting the battle of the less populated provinces. British Columbia has a smaller population than the aggregate of the population of the areas of the United States which the bill before us is primarily designed to serve. But we say steps must be taken by this House of Commons and this government to see to it that the resources of Canada, the power resources and the material resources, are preserved for this country so that our economy may be built up to a point of equality with that of the United States. But if we are to be continually condemned and betrayed by the principle that because they are bigger than we are, that because they have a bigger market than we have, therefore that market must be served first, we will never build up the Canadian economy; we will never build

Alberta Natural Gas Company this nation into what you, Mr. Speaker, and I and most members of this house want to see it become, a great nation in our own time.
In conclusion I can only say that the attitude revealed this afternoon by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in keeping with his attitude throughout when this question of Canada first is brought up in connection with oil and gas pipe lines. We heard a reference the other day to what the minister said in Vancouver when reporters asked what his attitude was toward the route of this pipe line; he told them to go to hell. That is just a carry-over from what he told the people of Port Arthur and Fort William last year when the oil pipe line was being considered. When a delegation waited upon the minister he told them this talk of Canada first and the national interest was all nonsense. He went further. I am reading now from a report which appeared in the Fort William Times-Journal of October 13, 1949, which reads in part:
Verbal battle in P.A. council over pipe line.
The oil pipe line issue erupted in sudden and violent explosion at last night's finance meeting of Port Arthur city council.
Then it details pros and cons of that dispute, and continues:
The outburst was touched off by a report given by Alderman R. A. Robinson of last Saturday'*- meeting of the joint industrial committee with Mr. Howe. Alderman Robinson, who unsuccessfully contested the last federal election against Mr. Howe .cr the Progressive Conservative party, gave the report "since I was the subject of most of the abuse when we interviewed Mr. Howe."
I should say this was a joint delegation from the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William to try and persuade the minister to route the oil pipe line to the Canadian lakehead ports instead of to Superior in the United States. The report continues:
Alderman Robinson continued, "We both used barroom language-which Mr. Howe seems most familiar with."
"I think he (Mr. Howe) neglected the interests of Canada and especially of the lakehead people."


Clarence Decatur Howe: The lakehead people neglected Mr. Robinson.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They will not do it again, I am sure. I notice he is still an alderman. Admittedly he does not move in such exalted circles as the minister, but he is still an alderman of his city.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member should read from a dispatch stating that an hon. member of this house is accustomed to using barroom language. He would not be allowed to use that language if the hon. member were speaking in the house, and he therefore should not read a document containing that expression.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, Mr. Speaker, I shall not read those remarks describing the type of

language which the minister is supposed to have used. I shall read a portion quoting directly what the minister said:
Alderman Humby (a member of the Progressive Conservative executive) co-chairman of the joint industrial committee, who was also at the conference with Mr. Howe, followed. He said he was "disappointed" at the reception they received "and he (Mr. Howe) asked us if we were a bunch of damn fools . .
I read that, Mr. Speaker, because it is a report of an interview dealing with the same sort of subject we are dealing with tonight, when a delegation waited upon the minister and asked him if he would preserve the policy of Canada first. Those are the words which the minister used to that delegation to describe his opinion of the efforts they were making. I conclude by saying that, in view of the minister's attitude expressed this afternoon, and his reaction to the telegrams which were addressed to him by the ordinary people of the interior of British Columbia seeking to preserve their interests and to promote the interests of the province and the country -when he uses here the same type of description to us as to what he thinks of their approach as he used in Port Arthur, I can only conclude that if we in this house do not write into the bills a provision to protect the Canadian route, we cannot expect Canada's national interests to have any more protection at the hands of the government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is the minister most vitally concerned, than the national and local interests received in the case of the oil pipe line which the Port Arthur delegation discussed with him.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I shall not keep the house long; I intend to confine my remarks to one aspect of this matter. From the beginning I have taken the position that the only thing that lies between us is a statement from someone that this line should be built on Canadian soil. This afternoon the Minister of Trade and Commerce went far afield with respect to that argument. I have in my hand an exhibit filed by this Dixon outfit in connection with an application before the Alberta gas conservation board. The application is dated in August, and it was presented last October.
Among the exhibits which were filed at that time, there was a map showing their grid system, which is a gathering system. The grid system, of course, runs from Pincher Creek north, and then in black is shown the projected transmission line of the Alberta Natural Gas Company. We find it runs from Pincher Creek to-where? To Kingsgate on the international boundary; and it goes no further in the Dominion of Canada. Let us

have an end of this nonsense about some transport board being given five or even six lines, and then saying, "Pappy, where do we build the line?" Things are not done in that way. They never have been done that way by the transport board, or any other responsible board.
Then, it was implied by the minister this afternoon that he had discovered some kind of racket in -connection with the Sunray Oil Company. Mr. Dixon, who frankly admits that he does not own a barrel of oil or a foot of gas, filed this document which I have as an exhibit to his application, which is in printed form. I shall not bother about it, but in his exhibit at least half or three-quarters of it is taken up by a recitation of issues handled by these companies. I shall read it:
A list of issues managed by either Morgan Stanley and Company, Moore, Leonard and Lynch, W. C. Langley and Company or Dominick and Dominick, since the end of world war II (V-J day, August 14, 1945).
Then, the minister had the effrontery to tell this House of Commons this afternoon that this was a racket being engineered by the Sunray Oil Company. These people, his friends, go to the Alberta board and what do they say? They financed the Celanese Corporation, $40 million and $7,800,000; the Boston and Maine Railroad; Alexander Smith and Sons-I am glad I am in that-$5 million; Peninsular Telephone Company; Shell Union Corporation; Standard Oil, $85 million; Socony-Vacuum Oil Company, $100 million; Commonwealth of Australia, $20 million; Columbia Gas and Electric Corporation, $77 million; the Heinz people were in for $10 million and $8,200,000; Commonwealth of Australia, $25 million; Northwestern Utilities Company, $4 million-I am just skipping along -the Commonwealth of Australia; Union Bag and Paper Corporation; Tidewater Power Company, that is only $580,000; the Dayton Power and Light Company; Philadelphia Electric Company; Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, $150 million; Canadian Pacific Railway Company, $19,500,000; Indianapolis Water Company; Johnson and Johnson; Peninsular Telephone Company; Standard Oil of Indiana, another $50 million; Onondaga Pottery Company, a half million; Government of Canada, $150 million; Shell Caribbean Petroleum Company, $250 million; Standard Oil, another $75 million; the Heinz Company, that is where you get your ketchup, $15 million; Western Fruit Express Company, and so on. There are twelve more pages headed:
List of issues managed by others in which either Morgan Stanley and Company, W. C. Langley and Company, Moore, Leonard and Lynch or Dominick and Dominick participated since the end of world war II (V-J day, August 14. 1945).
Alberta Natural Gas Company
Those are the people named by Dixon as the people who are going to finance it; yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce accuses the Sunray Oil Company of California of putting up a lot of money to Pacific Petroleum, a Calgary and Vancouver crowd, who own at least fifty oil and gas wells and who are spending large sums of money in Alberta- he has the nerve to say that these people, friends of mine, are being operated by one small American oil company, the Sunray company, when that same outfit which he is backing-I use the word deliberately-in their application take over half of it to show that Morgan, Stanley and Company have got more money than anybody else in the world. For shame; of all things to find a minister of this government trying to pull off a "sandy" like that on people who are even half intelligent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member had better get his friends to tell him the story about that situation.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You can tell it now, and I will match you. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. There is a man by the name of Kilbourne, who is now retired, but who for a great many years was the chief engineer of the board of transport commissioners, to whose engineering staff everybody tells us we will just leave the matter. He gave evidence in Calgary and I heard him. He, sir, knows, more about the mountain country in western Canada than any other engineer. He says a pipe line by the northern route can be built, and that there would be no trouble with it at all. I am not going to any United States crowd; I am using the name of the man I mentioned, namely, Kilbourne. I have talked to him myself. He says on oath that this is not only feasible but quite practicable from its beginning in Edmonton west to-I do not know how to pronounce the name-


Mr. MacDougall:: Tete Jaune Cache.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am very happy, but I cannot say it even now; but from Tete Jaune Cache down the north Thompson, to Kamloops, then down to Princeton, from Princeton to Hope and into Vancouver. I promised you, sir, that I would be brief, and ? intend to be that. I am trying to make this simple and plain. I seconded the amendment with my full approval because, in spite of what the minister said this afternoon, this line must be approved as government policy before the board of transport commissioners will or can issue any order. That being so, and it being a matter of government policy at that time, why in the name of conscience cannot the House of Commons be taken into
2508	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company the confidence of the government instead of having the board of transport commissioners taken into that confidence?
Many people have asked: Why do we do this? Everybody overlooks one thing. Are we just supposed to sit here and put the stamp of approval on it? The government said-and this is so true-the real reason why we passed the Pipe Lines Act making it necessary for people trying to carry gas to be incorporated by the House of Commons is this. They have the right to expropriate property. Are we men in this house going to issue to anybody a right carrying with it the power of expropriation without having some idea where that expropriation is going to be done? Kemember, sir, that by incorporating a company with these powers we cast aside, we tear to pieces, the right of any individual where these people wish to cross his property with their pipe line. That is the reason we brought this to the House of Commons. That is the reason why we are not rubber stamps. The reason is that we are giving to any company a most extraordinary power, the right to go up on your land and take it away from you. It is true that things will be settled by boards of arbitration and so on; but the minute we pass these bills here we give the right to these people to expropriate. It is true they have to get over their hurdles, but we give them the basic right of expropriation of property. That is the real reason and we knew it when the pipe lines bill was passed. That is the real reason we required them to come to the House of Commons.
I will say no more than this. Is it reasonable to suppose that we are sitting here unconcerned? Let us credit all of us with the idea that we are seeking to do the best we can for our country. Let us permit the difficulties that we have had with one another to resolve themselves into the great fact that we are here to do good for Canada. That being so I stand firmly behind the amendment which I have seconded, and simply say to this company, build your pipe line where you will, but you will build it in Canada. That is the issue. There is no issue other than that before us at the present time.
Mr. Dixon said that he had five routes, and if the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Prudham) is correct, he is now going to explore a sixth. Let him do so; that is fine; he has lots of time. But let us say to him and to everybody else, including the company which got the charter last fall: Go ahead and compete with one another. Go before the two boards, the one in Alberta and the one here. Prove to these boards that you are able to do it. Prove to these boards that you have the money to


do it. I think I have read a list of names which will convince you about one company. But prove to them in competition that your claim is better than the other fellow's. I will go with that one hundred per cent. I said that when I began. I have said nothing to the contrary. I say it now. But I do say, having been born in that western country, the only place and the only life that I know well, that I have watched it struggle from the days when my grandparents hauled wheat by horse 14 miles into Regina and sold it for 50 cents a bushel, and incidentally retired in some comfort on that basis. I have watched it grow, and here today what are we doing? We are passing a bill. I do not say that the board of transport commissioners will not stop this, and I will not say that they will not stop that; but I do say that unless this line goes by a Canadian route you can kiss the Peace river and the interior of British Columbia good-bye, so far as your life and mine are concerned, sir. So I simply put it on this basis. Even I may be wrong in the things I have said today. I think the minister was wrong. I do not think we should drag-what is the expression?- red herrings across the trail.


John Lorne MacDougall: Dead cats.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Did the hon. member say. "nightcaps?" I don't drag those, I swallow them. I do not think we should be disturbed by little complexities, by devious stories and devious arguments that are introduced. To my mind it amounts to this. Are we now in favour of a Canadian route? Do not let us worry about engineering niceties. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) got a figure from Mr. Dixon which indicated that it was going to cost the people of Vancouver $700,000 more for their gas. Mr. Dixon talked a good, shall I say, pussy. I think he would be good at playing darts or something of that kind. There is no evidence before the house that anything like that will follow. On the other hand, if you want to go to the sworn testimony given in the city of Calgary in the province of Alberta lasting over a matter of a month, given before three experts, the deputy minister of mines, Mr. McKinnon, Professor Gauvreau and an engineer by the name of Goodall, you will find that this other company put all their cards on the table. They were cross-examined by Mr. Dixon's lawyer, a great friend of mine, Mr. H. G. Nolan, K.C., who conducted prosecutions in Tokyo on behalf of this government. These men are not without assistance. They are not without help. In this committee no one was allowed to call evidence. But I pass that over. That was just a bit of steam

rollering done by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch), ably assisted by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney). They worked it; I mean, they got by. Let us forget all that. Let us come back to this point. Irrespective of all the difficulties we have had with one another, this amendment has been so drafted that we can at least in this house stand up and be counted as we vote on this question: Do we say this pipe line must be built on an all-Canadian route or do we not? Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude by saying that I hope that soon we shall be counted.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, after an extended debate a vote is going to be taken on this bill. With the moving of the third reading of the bill, it would have been quite possible to extend the debate for some considerable time by amendment and by subamendment; but the purpose for which this debate has been carried on has been fulfilled. The people of this country, particularly in those areas that are directly affected, have had an opportunity to find out what is actually behind the bills that are before the house and what the real considerations are. To an extent that should be encouraging to everyone in this house, we have seen some evidence of democracy actually working. In what has taken place there may be a suggestion that could be followed in other cases. Because of the very fact that the bills have been before the public, the public have had an opportunity to express their opinion; and that opinion has had some effect, even if not the full effect that we might have wished.
Certain things, however, now emerge clearly. I for one welcome the fact that the vote will be taken soon. The facts are all out in the open and, when third reading came, all that remained to be done, in addition to the actual wording of the amendment and subamendment, was to deal with the completely misleading statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) this afternoon. Because of the statement he has made, it is necessary to point out that neither the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) nor the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has admitted to this house what the actual fact is, namely that the government must decide where the pipe line is going to go in every case where any question of export is involved. That is a responsibility that the government cannot escape. It is a responsibility the government must assume before the board of transport commissioners even have it within their power to deal with this matter.
Alberta Natural Gas Company When the Minister of Trade and Commerce made this suggestion that those who were urging a clearly-stated policy of "Canada first" in the development of these resources were being prompted by some particular interest in the United States, he made a suggestion that was utterly unworthy of any minister of the crown or of any member of this house. But what is more, he went on to give a completely erroneous impression of what the situation actually is. With his usual modesty, he informed the house that he was responsible for the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act. That being so, he should be a little better informed as to what that act means and what it contemplates. I have no intention of repeating what I said to the house a few nights ago, except to read once again sections 5 and 6 of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act of 1907, which is still the law that governs the permission to place pipe lines where exportation is involved. Even if the government at this late hour would give the assurance requested and would follow the course which has been suggested-which would protect Canadian interests-the government know perfectly well that in any event they must assume the decision in relation to a company that intends to export. We all know that. What we have been emphasizing is the fact that while legitimate export should be permitted, the first consideration is to make sure that Canadian interests, not for today but for the years to come indefinitely, will be protected.
The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) this afternoon placed his finger on a point that I believe should be in the mind of every hon. member. He pointed out that there were certain estimates that, with the contemplated use of this gas, the supplies would provide gas for fifty years to come. Fifty years may seem a fairly long time in the years ahead; but fifty years is short in the life of a nation. We want to make sure that these great reserves of power are available for Canadians for fifty years, for a hundred years, for a hundred and fifty years, during the period of growth long past the time that any one of us here will be directly concerned with what happens. Any present estimate of fifty years' supply is probably an overestimate, when one recognizes the fact that, with every type of power that has been used in the past, the use of that power during the years has always increased more rapidly than was anticipated. The main concern here is to make sure what our maximum possible requirements would be and then to make certain that nothing will be done that will limit our own' development in the future.

Alberta Natural Gas Company The hon. member for Regina City made remarks with which I for one could agree completely, until his very last words, when he said that because of his complete confidence in the government, while recognizing this danger, he is prepared to entrust this whole matter to them. One reason why the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) and other hon. members should ask for greater assurances than they have is that they have not been taken into the confidence of the government. The law still stands and the statement of law is to be found in sections 5 and 6 of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act of 1907. I ask those members who have so loudly applauded the statement of the minister that the board of transport commissioners will decide and that they are competent to decide to listen to what the law really is. It is stated in clear and simple terms which demand no legal training for easy understanding. Section 5 reads:
No person shall export any power or fluid without a licence, or any power or fluid in excess of the quantity permitted by his licence, or otherwise than as permitted by such licence.
2. No person shall, without a licence, construct or place in position any line or wire or other conductor for the exportation of power, or any pipe line or other like contrivance for the exportation of fluid.
That section deals with the granting of licences, but that is not a licence issued by the board of transport commissioners. The licence and the way you get it are described in section 6, which 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.
The moment that export is involved the law states that a licence must be obtained from the government. Already there have been two judgments by the board of transport commissioners which have stated definitely that they cannot and will not deal with an application by a pipe line company until a licence has been issued by the government. The first and effective decision as to where a pipe line is to go must be made by the government before the board of transport commissioners can deal with the matter at all.
That being the situation the government is charged with full responsibility. If the government is going to accept that responsibility, as it must, then it is the government which must decide whether a Canada first policy is to be adopted. If it is the intention of the government to adopt such a policy, then that policy becomes automatically binding upon the board of transport commissioners because the government can state

that as a condition of the licence which must be obtained before the board can even deal with it.
When the minister suggests that this is an attempt to give special advantage to the company which obtained a charter last year simply because this house was not fully informed of the circumstances-that was the situation-he is completely ignoring the fact that from the very beginning we have been insisting that this be the over-all policy and that the government has it within its powers to deal with this in a very simple way.
Every hon. member who has listened to the debate knows that we have stated on a number of occasions that this can be dealt with very easily by introducing an amendment to the Pipe Lines Act, the act under which an applicant company must obtain its charter. All that is necessary is for the government to introduce an amendment to the Pipe Lines Act stating definitely in simple terms that every charter granted under the act will be subject to the condition that Canadian interests must be served first before there will be any export of gas or oil from this country.
Surely nothing could be simpler. I hope no member opposite or any hon. member will suggest that this is an impractical proposition because the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had this in his mind when he spoke on this subject on May 5, as reported on page 2230 of Hansard. The Prime Minister said:
I suggest that unless and until we come to the conclusion that the board of transport commissioners cannot be entrusted with that kind of responsibility, because we do not feel that they are either competent enough to do it properly or sufficiently imbued with the spirit of the Canadian, people to want to do it properly, the thing for us to do is to amend the Pipe Lines Act in a manner that will apply to every company that secures a charter for a pipe line and not in a manner that will discriminate in favour of one against another. Perhaps one has to say in words what one wants to have-regarded as plain. I am speaking as one of the members of the government, and I want to make it plain that I have sufficient confidence in the board of transport commissioners to vote for the passage of these bills. I am not asking anyone to follow my example, but I am suggesting that my reason for doing so is not because I am determining where the pipe lines are going to be built but because I feel that the board which parliament selected only a year ago to discharge that responsibility is competent to do so, and will discharge it in a manner that will do justice to all Canadian citizens.
That statement was applauded by those who thought that the Prime Minister was explaining how the procedure actually works. In fact he was not explaining what the procedure is. The Prime Minister said that his reason for doing so was not because he was determining where the pipe lines are going to be built but because he felt that.

the board which parliament had selected only a year ago to discharge that responsibility was competent to do so. There is the law, and the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the government must decide where the pipe line is going to be built before the board of transport commissioners can deal with the matter.
It is not a case of having confidence in that board. Even at this late hour all the bitterness of debate, all the suggestions that one motive or another was guiding any argument, could be completely removed by the government by the simple and effective device of introducing an amendment to the act which would state as a principle applying to every company the proposition that we are going to assure to our own people the use of these resources which Providence has given us before they can be exported to a neighbour which, friendly though it may be, would be the very last to expect us to do something that they themselves have never done when their own primary interests were concerned.
The suggestion has been made that this would create a monopoly. The suggestion has been made that if members vote against these bills there will be a monopoly in favour of the company which has already received a charter. The Minister of Trade and Commerce knows that the Westcoast Transmission Company or any other company cannot get authority to proceed until the government has approved. He knows, as every other minister knows, that they can remove any question of that kind by adopting the simple proposal that I have been making, the one contemplated by the Prime Minister in the statement he made as recently as May 5. There is, however, danger of a very great monopoly. There is danger of a monopoly which would not serve Canadian interests. We want United States funds to be invested here for the development of Canada. We want risk capital to come into this country to advance the legitimate development of Canada in every way. This country, however, now possesses the initiative and the capital to assume the responsibility for some of these developments ourselves. Even now, forgetting what was said this afternoon, I urge the government to do what they can to meet the situation, and I urge those hon. members who have been so ready to applaud statements which were inaccurate to look at the simple law and to understand it.
As I said, we have seen democracy working in the house. We have seen democracy working in another way. Members of the house on the other side have been very comfortably
Alberta Natural Gas Company brushing aside all arguments with the statement, "You saw what the people did on June 27." The government has a substantial majority, but the people are afforded opportunities from time to time to express their opinions and they expressed them today in no uncertain way. In both by-elections today Progressive Conservative candidates were elected with satisfactory majorities. It is certainly a matter of real satisfaction to see a young veteran of the last war succeeding the late Tommy Church, and with a majority increased to close to 5,000. It is also most satisfactory for a number of reasons to see that the majority against our candidate of over 3,000 was overcome in the other election in Hamilton, and that the house is to have a lady member because of the results today. These very substantial gains, approximately 4,000 in one case and 3,500 in the other, are evidence of the fact that the people of this country are not satisfied with the cavalier attitude adopted by the government to their interests since June 27 last. I hope, just as we have seen certain members here whose views on this subject were greatly influenced by what they heard when they went back to their constituencies over the Easter holidays, that others will realize this is the voice of democracy speaking, and that they have been given reasons to examine what has taken place.
The remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) which I shall not repeat, and his assertion today that he proposes to retain the privilege of advising anyone to take a trip in the particular direction which he did a few days ago, do not meet the desires of the people, and should not meet the sense of responsibility of members of this house. We have before the house an amendment and an amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment raises a point which every hon. member should take into consideration. Speaking for myself I propose to support the amendment to the amendment. It touches on a point which has already been mentioned but which it will be well to have dealt with by a vote. That is the fact that obviously, contrary to the opinion of many hon. members, the Pipe Lines Act does not give the board of transport commissioners any authority whatever to control tolls so far as gas pipe lines are concerned. Once the charter is granted and the licence approved a pipe line which is not competitive with any other line is not subject to an order of the board of transport commissioners in regard to tolls, as is the case with an oil pipe line. I think every hon. member, and particularly those on the government side, should ask why there is that omission, why it is that gas pipe line companies are going to be able to charge

Alberta Natural Gas Company whatever the traffic will bear, why it is that there is no authority given to the board of transport commissioners to say that tariffs on gas pipe lines will be dictated by the best interests of the people of Canada.
As to the main amendment it proposes that the whole bill, which obviously has not been understood as is evidenced by some of the remarks that have been made, should go back to the committee for further examination. This debate, Mr. Speaker, has been a long one. It has been regarded by many as an attempt simply to block the granting of charters. That has not been the purpose. There is still an opportunity to deal with this matter in the way that has been suggested, namely, by amending the Pipe Lines Act, and amending it in simple understandable words so that the interests of the Canadian people will come first, and every licence granted by the government upon which the board of transport commissioners can act-and they can only act then-will have that basic consideration as the very first requirement of the permission they obtain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to take part in the debate but simply to ask you to consider whether either the amendment or the amendment to the amendment is in order. I would point out that the purpose of each seems to be to amend the Pipe Lines Act. The bills which now concern the house are simply measures to incorporate companies. I suggest it is quite out of order to tack on to the incorporation of a company terms that should, if they are applicable, be in the Pipe Lines Act itself. I also suggest that the debate, as it has developed this evening, is out of order in that the discussion has been on the Pipe Lines Act, which is not before the house at this time.


Howard Charles Green: On the point of order raised by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), I should like to point out that the amendment refers only to Bill No. 7. The amendment reads:
That Bill No. 7 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for the purpose of reconsidering the amending of the bill-
That is Bill No. 7.
-so as to provide that any pipe line built by the proposed company-
That is of course the Alberta Natural Gas Company.
-from Alberta to the Pacific coast must be by an all-Canadian route.
Obviously the amendment refers only to the bill now under consideration and does not refer to the Pipe Lines Act. I admit that

during the debate there has been some reference to the Pipe Lines Act but the amendment obviously refers only to Bill No. 7, and the subamendment, of course, does exactly the same thing. The subamendment reads:
-and also so as to provide for the regulation of the tolls and tariffs of the proposed company for the protection of Canadian consumers.
Then I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that these amendments are covered by citation 811, to be found at page 306 of Beauchesne's third edition. That citation refers to standing order 113, which has to do with private bills. The standing order itself reads:
No important amendment may be proposed to any private bill, in a committee of the whole house, or at the third reading of the bill, unless one day's notice of the same has been given.
Then the citation says:
It is the correct course, in all cases where it is necessary to make material amendments, to refer the bill back to the select committee, to which it had been previously sent, instead of considering the proposed changes in committee of the whole.
That is exactly what is sought to be done by this amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been giving some consideration to the amendment and subamendment. At first I was under the same impression as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), that it was a general amendment; and if that were so, of course it would not be in order. Citation 710 reads:
The question for the third reading is put immediately after the report from the committee of the whole. All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
If this were a general amendment or referred to the Pipe Lines Act, or to the provisions of that act, I would take the position that was taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Citation 708 reads:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular. The motion for third reading is debatable under standing order 38, Or the bill may then be ordered to be reprinted or committed to a select committee.
The motion in this case is to refer it to a select committee. Then citation 806 is as follows:
Bills may be referred back for reconsideration. The same rule applies for private as for public bills. When the reference for reconsideration is made any instruction which the house deems necessary may be given to the standing or special committee which has reported the bill.
There is also the reference in citation 811, which has been read to the house. As I have said, it occurred to me at first that this was

an amendment in general terms, or that it referred to the Pipe Lines Act. The amendment reads:
That Bill No. 7 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for the purpose of reconsidering the amending of the bill-
That, of course, is the bill now before the house, not the general act. That is the only-interpretation I can place upon it, after reading the amendment the second time and giving it consideration. Then it goes on:
-so as to provide that any pipe line built by the proposed company-
That does not refer to pipe lines built by any other company. As I say, I have been giving this matter some consideration; and while it might be called a borderline case I would hesitate to withdraw it from the house. I think it would be better if the house were permitted to vote on the amendment.
The question is on the subamendment.


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


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. Richard (Gloucester):: I was paired with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie):: I was paired with the hon. member
Fulton	White (Hastings-	for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff). Had I voted I	Gibson	Peterborough)	would have voted against the subamendment.	Graydon	Wright-34.	The house divided on the amendment (Mr.	NAYS	Green) which was	negatived on the follow-Messrs:	ing division:	Abbott	Carter	YEASAnderson	Cauchon	Applewhaite	Cavers	Messrs:Benidickson	Chevrier	Argue	GreenBennett	Cote (Verdun-La Salle)	Balcer	HarknessBertrand	Dewar	Black (Cumberland)	Harris (Danforth)Beyerstein	Dion	Blair	HerridgeBlackmore	Dube	Browne (St. John's West) Jones	Blanchette	Eyre	Casselman	KnightBlue	Fair	Catherwood	LennardBoisvert	Fauteux	Charlton	MaclnnisBoivin	Fournier (Hull)	Coldwell	McLureBonnier	Fulford	Courtemanche	MurphyBradette	Gardiner	Cruickshank	PearkesBradley	Gauthier (Lake St. John)	Diefenbaker	SinclairBreithaupt	Gauthier (Sudbury)	Drew	SinnottBrisson	Gauthier (Lapointe)	Fleming	Smith (Moose Mountain)Brown (Essex West)	George	Fraser	TustinBruneau	Gingues	Fulton	White (Hastings-Byrne	Goode	Gibson	Peterborough)Carroll	Gourd (Chapleau)	Graydon	Wright-35.
Alberta Natural Gas Company
++NAYS
Messrs:
Abbott .	Kirk (Antigonish-
Anderson	Guysborough)
Applewhaite	Lafontaine
Benidickson	Laing
Bennett	Langlois (Berthier-
Bertrand	Maskinonge)
Beyerstein	Langlois (Gaspe)
Blackmore	Lapointe
Blanchette	Leduc
Blue	Lefranjois
Boisvert	Leger
Boivin	Lesage
Bonnier	Little
Bradette	Low
Bradley	MacDougall
Breithaupt	MacLean (Cape Breton
Brisson	North and Victoria)
Brown (Essex West)	MacNaught
Bruneau	McCulloch
Byrne	McCusker
Carroll	McDonald (Parry Sound-
Carter	Muskoka)
Cauchon	Mcllraith
Cavers	Mclvor
Chevrier	McLean (Huron-Perth)
Cote (Verdun-La Salle)	McWilliam
Dewar	Matthews
Dion	Monette
Dube	Mott
Eyre	Murray (Oxford)
Fair	Murray (Cariboo)
Fauteux	Prudham
Fournier (Hull)	Quelch
Fulford	Ratelle
Gauthier (Lake St. John) Richard (St. Maurice-	
Gauthier (Sudbury)
Gauthier (Lapointe)
George Gingues Goode
Gourd (Chapleau)
Gregg Hansell
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Harrison Henderson Howe Huffman Jeffery Johnston Jutras Kent


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on third reading. Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Howard Charles Green: No.


Gordon Graydon: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the third time and passed.



PRAIRIE TRANSMISSION LINES LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 9, to
[Mr. Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) .3
incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited-Mr. Benidickson-Mr. Dion in the chair.
Sections 1 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
William Moore Benidickson: the third reading of the bill.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the remarks which have been made on the Alberta Natural Gas Company bill apply in many respects also to the present bill. In order to be consistent, I propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), the same amendment to this bill:
That Bill No. 9 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for the purpose of reconsidering the amending of the bill so as to provide that any pipe lines built by the proposed company from Alberta to the Pacific coast must be by an all-Canadian route.


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


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As
the remarks I made on the previous bill, Mr. Speaker, apply to this bill also, and as I do not wish to take up the time of the house further, I wish to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones):
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the last word thereof, the following words:
"and also so as to provide for the regulation of the tolls and tariffs of the proposed company for the protection of Canadian consumers."
In conclusion, I might say that once again we offer to members of this House of Commons the opportunity to protect Canadian interests, Canadian rights and Canadian consumers.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Does the amendment to the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say "yea."


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Lafleche)
Riley
Robinson
Shaw
Simmons
Stewart (Yorkton) Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Thatcher
Thomas
Tremblay
Ward
Weaver
Welbourn
Whiteside
Whitman
Winters
Wood1-100.


Donald Elmer Black: I was paired with the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Harry Oliver White: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.


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


Donald Elmer Black: I was paired with the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Harry Oliver White: I was paired with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Before the motion for third reading is carried I wish to say a few words, though not with any desire to prolong what I consider to be a rather discreditable incident in Canadian parliamentary history. I was not in the house this afternoon when the debate was going on, but since coming in I have been informed that my name was brought into the debate by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I want to thank the minister for what he said about me; but I want to make it quite clear to this house that during the five or six months this question has been before parliament, no outside individual representing either of the companies has approached me.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend is answering anything I said I made no such suggestion; quite the reverse. I said I had never known the hon. member to vote in any other way but according to his convictions, and I was convinced that he thought this filibuster was-
[Mr. White (Middlesex East) .1


Angus MacInnis: That is what I am told; I am not finding fault with the right hon. gentleman.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not like a misunderstanding there.


Angus MacInnis: I only want to make it clear that the whole time this question has been before parliament, while I have been told that lobbyists were very busy around this building, no outside interest has approached me in regard to either of the companies concerned. I imagine that if they were advised by representatives or people from British Columbia they would know better. I am not interested in either company. I have been told by the proponents of the bill that the other side were a bunch of crooks. I have been told by those opposing the bill that the two companies were a bunch of crooks. I have no doubt both parties are right.
I do believe, however, that in putting itself behind these private bills in the way it has done, the government has performed a disservice to parliament. If it does not turn out to be worse than that it will be by the grace of God; because today, by passing these bills, we have left the people of British Columbia without any protection whatever except what the governor in council may find it possible in its judgment to give us. I am convinced also that this parliament could and should have given an expression of opinion as to the route these pipe lines should follow. However, parliament has failed to do that. I have done what I could by voting against the bills, and I can only hope that the interests of British Columbia still will be served, though I am not so sure they will.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the third time and passed.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
dillon-bull's house, sask., telephone

Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	What was the amount of the lowest combined total of the tenders as originally submitted for the construction of a telegraph and/or telephone line between Dillon and Bull's House in Saskatchewan?
2.	What are the names of those who placed these tenders, and what were the amounts of their separate tenders?
3.	Did parliament vote $14,000 for the construction of this line?
4.	If so, on what date?
5.	Has the government approved a rate of $270 per mile for this thirty- to thirty-five-mile line?
6.	If so, on what date?
7.	Did the government inform the House of Commons of this approved rate?
8.	If so, when?

9.	Did the government inform the house that this line had been built without authorization?
10.	If so, when?
11.	Has Mr. L. M. Marion been paid for the work done?
12.	If not, has the government decided to withhold payment, and for how long?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	$270 per mile.
2.	This information already given in return to order of the house-see sessional paper No. 119C.
3.	Yes.
4.	Portion provided by interim supply April 3, 1949, and balance on December 13,
1949.
5.	(a) Yes; (b) Length of line by actual measurement is 28 miles.
6.	November 15, 1949.
7.	A return to an order of the house concerning this matter was tabled on March 2,
1950.
8.	9 and 10. Answered by No. 7.
11.	Payment now being effected.
12.	Answered by No. 11.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many former employees or officials of the Canadian National Railways who, upon retirement, did not qualify for any pension under any established plan, are in receipt of retirement allowances?
2.	How many of these retirement allowances are $100 a month or over, how many are less than $100 a month, and what is the lowest amount of any such allowance?
3.	What is the reason or basis for the granting of any such special retirement allowances?
4.	Is it open to any employee, not on pension, to apply for such a retirement allowance?


Mr. Chevrier:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	18.
2.	$100 a month or over, 8; less than $100 a month, 10; lowest amount of any such allowance, $25.
3.	Very exceptional circumstances approved by board of directors, on recommendation of management.
4.	Yes; that is to say, any employee may make such representations as he sees fit, to his employing officer.




Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many employees or officials of the Canadian National Railways, upon retirement, have been given lump sum retirement allowances (a) of $5,000 or less; (b) more than $5,000 but not more than $25,000, since January 1, 1930?
Questions
2.	In what years were such lump sum retirement allowances made?


Lionel Chevrier: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	(a) None; (b) None.
2.	See answer to No. 1.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Has any request been made by the province of Newfoundland for the establishment of one or more national harbours under the national harbours board?
2.	If so, what areas have been designated by the province for this purpose?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.



LETHBRIDGE, ALTA., AIRPORT    EXPROPRIATION OF LANDS FOR EXTENSION

Mr. Blackmore:: 1.	During 1946, how many acres of land were added to the extension of the Lethbridge airport?
2.	What is the name and address of each farmer from whom such lands were purchased, and how many acres from each of them?
3.	On what date was it made known to each of of these farmers that certain acres of his land were to be required' by the federal government?
4.	On what date did the federal government definitely assume possession of each of the parcels of land from such farmers?
5.	Prior to his acceptance of the government's offer, was the farmer in each case given definitely to understand that he must surrender to the Canadian government the parcels of land required?
6.	At what price or prices per acre was possession of the land assumed by Canada in the case of each farmer?
7.	During the period from the time of expropriation down to April 30, 1950, what is the total amount of taxes that have accrued upon the lands expropriated from each of the farmers in question?
8.	Have these taxes been paid? If so, by whom?
9.	What steps have been taken by the federal government to reimburse these farmers for the losses they have sustained through being deprived of crops that could have been raised on the expropriated lands during the years 1947, 1948 and 1949?
10.	What are the reasons for the long delay in settlement with each of these farmers?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Approximately one hundred and seventy (170) acres.
2.	Hugh K. Thompson, Lethbridge, 19-93 acres, Frederick A. Russell, Lethbridge, 89-70 acres, Claud A. Duncan, Lethbridge, 60 acres.
3.	Following negotiations options were obtained dated September 4, 1946.
4.	About the end of September, 1946.
5.	There is no information as to what representations were made during the verbal negotiations which took place with the land agents of the department. However, the

Questions
options obtained state that possession was to be given to the crown upon acceptance of the options.
6.	Hugh K. Thompson, 19-93 acres for $1,170, or $58.20 per acre, Frederick A. Russell, 89-70 acres for $5,400, or $60.20 per acre, Claud A. Duncan, 60 acres for $3,750, or $62.50 per acre.
7.	As the lands were expropriated on February 5, 1949, no taxes have accrued after the year 1949.
8.	Authority has been obtained to pay the taxes from the time possession was taken on behalf of the crown until the end of 1949.
9.	Authority has been obtained to pay interest at 5 per cent per annum on the compensation moneys from the time possession was taken on behalf of the crown until payment.
10.	The difficulty experienced in obtaining a clear title in each case on account of numerous encumbrances and reservations affecting the lands in question. It was finally deemed advisable to expropriate in order to vest title in the crown, free from all encumbrances, and thereby permit the transaction to be completed in so far as the owners mentioned in answer to No. 2 are concerned.



DUMPING DUTIES ON MOTOR VEHICLES FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. Brown (Essex West):: 1.	Are automobiles from the United Kingdom being sold for import into Canada at a lower price than they are being sold in England?
2.	Is dumping duty being applied in Canada?
3.	If not, what are the reasons therefor?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Yes, in some instances.
2.	No.
3.	Exemption from dumping duty was extended to automobiles under authority of subsection 2(ii>
of section 6 of the Customs Tariff.



PRAIRIE FARM MORTGAGES

Mr. Dechene:: 1.	Are records available as to the amount of farm mortgages in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta as at (a) 1939; (b) 1949?
2.	If so, what are these figures for each of the above provinces?


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1.	No records available as to the amount of farm mortgages in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta as at (a) 1939, (b) 1949.
2.	The following table gives data available for Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta for (a) 1936, (b) 1946 census.

Amount of indebtedness covered by mortgages and/or agreement for sale on buildings and land farmed by owner operators, reported in census 1936, 1946 (i).
1936	1946(D
Manitoba	 $ 51,322,800 $28,732,900
Saskatchewan . . .	188,118,300	77,495,400Alberta	
108,402,600	53,445,200
(i) Enumerated as indebtedness on buildings -and land owned by farm operators.



BURRIDGE, ONT., POST OFFICE

Mr. Aylesworih:: 1.	Is there a post office at Burridge, Ontario?
2.	Is this post office on a commission basis?
3.	If so, does this post office cost the Post Office Department anything?
4.	What has been the revenue from this post office for each of the last three years?
5.	Has notice been given that this post office will be closed, and was a request received asking this action?
6.	If so, from whom did the request come?
7.	What method of delivering the mail will now be used?
8.	What will be the cost of this method per year?
9.	In each direction, how far from Burridge are other post offices?
10.	What provision will be made for the tourists and residents in this district to buy stamps?


Mr. Lapointe:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.
1947- 48	;	 $219.30
1948- 49	 239.95
1949- 50	 330.57
5.	(a) No.
(b) No.
6.	7 and 8. Answered by No. 5.
9.	Westport, 9-4 miles to the east; Godfrey, 13-4 miles to the south; Tichborne, 20 miles to the west; Maberly, 20 miles to the north.
10.	Answered by No. 5.



ENEMY PROPERTY


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What is the total value of enemy assets in the hands of the custodian of enemy property as a result of the 1939-1945 war?
2.	Of this_, how much is German or other former European enemy property, and how much is Japanese and other far eastern enemy property?
3.	How many claims have been received from Canadians for compensation for damage suffered in the European and far eastern theatres of war respectively?
4.	What is the total amount of these claims?
5.	How many of these claims in each theatre respectively have been paid?


Mr. Bradley:: 1. Total assets in the hands of the custodian as at March 31, 1950, $51,124,833.25.

The above total includes "belligerent" enemy owned assets as well as "technical" enemy owned assets controlled by the custodian, as reported in the annual report covering the operations of the custodian's office to the end of December 1949, which report was tabled in the house.
2.	German property, $8,906,249.39; other former European enemy property, $4,074,626.63; Japanese and other far eastern enemy property, $3,613,127.12.
3.	European theatres of war, 2,110 claims; far eastern theatres of war, 400 claims.
4.	Approximately, $65,000,000.
5.	None by Canada.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL ACT


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many persons, by provinces, have been convicted under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, since the first of April, 1949, to date?
2.	What were the penalties imposed in each case?
3.	In how many cases, by provinces, were the moneys seized returned (a) in whole; (b) in part, to such persons?



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


Mr. Fullon:: 1.	How many contracts have been entered into in the three years ending December 31, 1949, for the construction of buildings, without formally advertising or calling for tenders?
2.	Hew many buildings have been purchased in the three years ending December 31, 1949?
3.	In the case of each contract for construction of buildings included in the answer to question 1, what is (a) the date of the contract; (b) the location (city or town and street number); (c) the name of the building; (d) the department, departments or crown company, etc., to be accommodated; (e) the name and address of the builder or contractor; (f) the total or agreed cost of construction; (g) the builder's or contractor's fee?
4.	In the case of each building purchased, included in the answer to question 2, what is (a) the date of the purchase; (b) the location (city or town and street number); (c) the name of the building; (d) the department, departments or crown company, etc., to be accommodated; (e) the name and address of the owner or vendor; (f) the agreed purchase price?



CHARTERED BANKS


Mr. Quelch:: 1.	What were the net profits of each of the chartered banks after published provision for dominion and provincial taxes, in each of the years 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949?
2.	What was the amount of dominion and provincial taxes of each bank for these years?
3.	What percentage of paid-up capital are the profits shown in the answer to question 1, in each case?
Orders for Returns
4.	What was the total of the transfers made to contingent reserve fund from the earnings of each of the chartered banks during above years?
5.	What was the total amount that each bank was called upon to pay in additional taxation as a result of excess transfers in each of these years?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Major James William Coldwell: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, documents and other papers passing between any person other than Mr. L. M. Marion, and the government, from January 1, 1947, to date, with respect to the construction of a telegraph and/or telephone line between Dillon and Bull's House in Saskatchewan.



RIVIERE-AU-RENARD, QUE., RIVER IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. Couriemanche:: For a return showing a copy of payrolls and lists of materials used in connection with the work performed at the mouth of the river at Riviere-au-Renard, county of Gaspe, during the summer of 1949.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will move to go into supply and call the Departments of Fisheries and Justice.


Mr. Fleming:: What about the post office?


Alphonse Fournier: I thought we would take up the item of post office and discuss the use of the mail service, but I was told that some member who wishes to take part in that debate would not be present in the house tomorrow. If you wish to have that discussed tomorrow, I am ready to put it down, but I was told that someone who wants to take part in the debate would not be here, so through courtesy I thought I would not put it down. I shall ask the member for Eglin-ton if he wants it put down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am afraid I cannot make any comment, in view of what the minister has said.


Alphonse Fournier: I am afraid I cannot call it, because this is an hon. member of the opposition for whom I have much respect and who would like to take part in the debate. We will take up Bill No. 133, an act respecting national defence; Bill No. 134, an act to amend the Militia Pension Act and change the title thereof; then the resolution concerning the distribution of prize money; then the resolution to set up a special committee to consider the defence bill or bills. If we are fortunate enough to complete those matters, we would like to take up also Bill No. 180, an act to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act, 1946.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Tuesday, May 16, 1950