1950-04-03

Mr. J. A. Bradelie (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I ask your indulgence for a few moments in order that I may bring to the attention of the house what we called the "Marcel Boivin trip."
On Thursday afternoon of last week a party consisting of forty-two members of this house, twenty-one of whom were accompanied by their wives, left Ottawa for a three-day trip to Granby, Quebec, the princess city of the eastern townships. In this group every province of Canada was represented, as well as every political party in the federal field. On arriving at our destination we received a civic reception from the nationally known and dynamic mayor of Granby, Mr. P. H. Boivin, who was accompanied by his charming wife and the members of the municipal council. His Worship remained with us throughout the whole of our stay, and his exuberance, his personality, his wide knowledge of affairs in general, his faith in the future of his city, of his province and of Canada, impressed us very much. He also made us familiar with the great progress already made in that area, as well as its hopes and aspirations for the future, with the inevitable problems that have to be faced and solved.
Numerous and extensive visiting tours were well organized, allowing us to visit several industries, such as the Granby Elastic Web, the Verney corporation, the Miner Rubber Company, the Imperial Tobacco Company, the Granby Co-operative, the Racine Manufacturing Company-just to name a few. Everywhere we were received with courtesy, and we were given the opportunity to make a thorough inspection of these plants in full operation. In the course of conversation it was easy to realize the spirit of co-operation and understanding that exists between labour and management, and at every function both were well represented.
The fine hospitality which is always to the fore in the province of Quebec was manifested by our hosts and by everyone else
with whom we came in contact. I am convinced that all those who made this trip feel that they know more about their country than they did before.
We were inspired by seeing in practice the real unity of the two parent races, and this was at once made evident by the fact that the population of Granby is made up of twenty per cent of English-speaking descent and eighty per cent of French-speaking descent. Its citizens speak the two official languages of our country.
I also wish to express appreciation to the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National for the fine service they gave us, which made our trip a most pleasant and comfortable one.
Before resuming my seat there is another pleasant duty that I wish to perform. I know that in doing so I am voicing the sentiments of my colleagues. It is to present to the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin), and to Mrs. Boivin, our most heartfelt thanks and appreciation for the very efficient manner in which this tour was organized. The full success of the visit was undoubtedly due to the great care the hon. member took in its preparation, and to his constant presence with his guests. His activities, which made this journey possible, enabled us to see the extraordinary strides that have been made in commerce and industry in his home city. There we met a number of able businessmen, who have contributed their talents and courage in the building up of a prosperous business centre. We also readily perceived that the progress they have made is not attributable only to the efforts of a relatively small group; a large part of the credit must go to the persevering work of the whole population, which is proud of its municipality and anxious to see it progressing in every department.
It will always be with pleasure and gratitude that we shall remember those most agreeable and instructive days.



REVISION OF CLASSIFICATION OF HOUSE OFFICIALS


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: As announced on Friday, Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell):
That the report from the civil service commission respecting the revisions in classification of officials of the House of Commons, tabled on 31st March, 1950, be concurred in.

House of Commons


Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I say just a word, Mr. Speaker? I feel sure that all members of the House of Commons will welcome the opportunity to vote for this motion to give effect to the increases and other changes that are set out in the report made by the civil service commission. They are increases that are well deserved, and in many cases long overdue. I shall not make the mistake of referring specifically to any of these that might merit particular attention, because comparisons are unwise to make. I want to express the hope, however, that it will not be long before there will be before the house another report of this kind dealing with employees not covered by this one or by the last one we had, which was laid on the table of the house on April 29, 1948; it is sessional paper 139a of that date.
I could mention one or two of the offices or branches around the building that do not seem to have been considered by way of increases in either of these last two reports. From the study I have made of the various documents in the case, it seems to me that there are still quite a number of subordinate employees who have not had increases that I feel are coming to them. In other words, most of the increases provided for in the report now before us deal with chiefs or assistant chiefs of various branches, although there are included a few subordinate employees who have had a slight upward adjustment.
I want to express the hope-and I am sure that other members will agree with me-that it will not be long before there will be another report of this kind taking care of the needs of some of the other employees. As these changes are made from time to time the employees who are overlooked get the word that their cases will be covered in the next report; then when the next report comes down and they find that they are still not covered, they wonder how long they are going to have to wait.
I fully recognize, Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are dealing in this instance with employees who are permanent and who come under the civil service commission. I fully recognize the fact that this whole business, so far as we have it before us at this time, is beyond the jurisdiction of the officials of the house. It is a civil service matter. When I express the hope that further work will be done on this matter, what I want is that my words and sentiments will be taken note of by the civil service commission, and that they will carry on with the job.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So far as I am concerned, what they have done thus far is all to the

good. These increases are obviously made with the approval of all members in all sections of the house. But let us not forget those who thus far have been forgotten.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Having just returned, Mr. Speaker, from the meetings of the various committees under the North Atlantic treaty which were held at The Hague and were concluded on Saturday night, I thought the house would like to have presented to it the communique issued by the defence committee after it had been approved by the committee at its meeting Saturday evening. It is as follows:
The defence committee of the North Atlantic treaty organization held its third meeting on April 1, 1950, at Juliana barracks, The Hague, The Netherlands, at 10 a.m.
The purpose of the meeting was to consider the work that has been accomplished by the military committee and the military production and supply board since the second meeting of the defence ministers in Paris on December 1, 1949.
The delegates attending the meeting were as follows:
Belgium, Mr. Albert Deveze, Minister of Defence; Canada, Hon. Brooke Claxton, Minister of Defence; Denmark, Mr. Rasmus Hansen, Minister of Defence; France, Mr. Rene Pleven, Minister of Defence; Italy, Mr. Randolfo Pacciardi, Minister of Defence; Luxembourg, Mr. Pierre Dupong, Minister of State; The Netherlands, Mr. W. F. Schokking, Minister of Navy and War; Norway, Mr. Jens Christian Hauge, Minister of Defence; Portugal, Captain Americo Deus Rodrigues Thcmaz, Minister of Marine; United Kingdom, Right Hon. E. Shin well, Minister of Defence; United States, Hon. Louis Johnson, Secretary of Defence.
At the Paris meeting in December the defence committee approved a broad strategic concept which was later adopted by the Atlantic council in January and directed the preparation of plans for the defence of the North Atlantic treaty area.
At its meeting the defence ministers unanimously approved the plan for collective self-defence that was recommended by the chiefs of staff in the military committee earlier in the week.
Within a short space of six months the military planning organization has determined the general strategy of defence of the North Atlantic treaty area, has prepared an estimate of the military situation if any attack be launched against the treaty nations, and has prepared plans for defence against such an aggression should it occur. These plans call for an integrated defence of the entire north Atlantic area as distinguished from individual national defence. Each nation, in accordance with article III of the treaty, will help itself and the others in accordance with its available resources. Thus, for the first time, twelve independent and sovereign nations have achieved, through the democratic process of co-operation, a system for defending themselves and each other.
The defence ministers acknowledged the speed with which the regional planning groups, the standing group and the military committee, achieved the

first basis for their plans. At the same time they directed that the plans be kept under continuous review.
They concerned themselves in particular with the role to be played by the military production and supply board which would insure the most efficient employment of the funds which are appropriated in each nation for military production, and they gave specific directives to this board to implement standardization of equipment and to insure a co-ordinated production.
The defence ministers recognized the great importance of adequate financing to carry out the plan and the need for careful balancing of the respective national economies in the light of the present world situation. For this purpose they requested the defence finance and economic committee to survey the financial and economic potentialities available for defence purposes.
Although considerable progress has been made since their last meeting in the attainment of collective security, which is the common goal of the Atlantic treaty nations, the ministers recognize that further sustained effort will be required. They adjourned with the strengthened conviction that the organization being set up would allow the countries to insure their defence both economically and efficiently.
Mr. Louis Johnson, United States Secretary of Defence, served as chairman of the meeting, and he expressed the gratitude of the committee to The Netherlands government for the kind invitation to meet in The Hague and the hospitality provided.
The time and place for the next meeting will be determined as events require.
That concludes the communique that was approved. I should like to add that in warmth of welcome, hospitality, and the excellence of the arrangements, the government and people of The Netherlands did everything possible for the success of the meeting. Their attitude also showed that the name of Canada still continues to stand high in the hearts and minds of the people and government of that friendly nation.
I should like to say also, Mr. Speaker, that in this connection there is a report appearing in the press of today under a Canadian Press dateline, referring to an Associated Press story, which reads:
The AP story added:
"The Canadians felt they were not getting enough information on technical advances because of a road-block between the Pentagon in Washington and London."
I want to make it perfectly clear that nothing like this was said by any member of the Canadian delegation at The Hague, and that nothing like this was felt. Our arrangements for securing information, either from the United States or from the United Kingdom, in our minds leave nothing whatever to be desired. We are completely satisfied with them. Any suggestion to the contrary is based on a misunderstanding of the situation.
Finally, I should like to say that these meetings at The Hague presented us with an opportunity to discuss with the representatives of the countries there the offer that we had made to their representatives here on the
.	North Atlantic Treaty
16th of March, under which we would train a hundred aircrew and a hundred and fifty army personnel. At The Hague we put before their chiefs of staff memoranda giving details of these proposals, which enabled us to discuss them there; and I have the greatest possible pleasure in telling the house that the reception given to those proposals was very enthusiastic indeed. There is no doubt that with courses that we are giving from June and July on, but mostly starting with the air force toward the end of August and for the army in September, we shall expect to have sufficient applicants, from the various countries desirous of sending officers to train with us, to fill up all the vacancies. It was indicated in the course of our discussion that the plans did give rise to the discussion of rather similar arrangements being developed in other directions; therefore in this we may have started something which may prove to be much larger than the plan itself.


Mr. Pearkes:: Will the minister permit one question? First of all, may I congratulate him upon his safe return after a speedy trip across the ocean. My question is: Can the minister say whether Canada has accepted any commitments other than merely the training of the aircrew and army personnel to which he referred?


Brooke Claxton: I thank the hon. member for Nanaimo for his very kind welcome. The situation regarding commitments is as described in the statement I gave on March 17. We have our obligations under the treaty. The only additional obligation is the offer I have made, which is in course of being accepted, for the training of army personnel and aircrew. There are no other specific commitments.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the minister whether there were any discussions, formal or informal, as to the possibility of a defence pact for the Pacific?


Brooke Claxton: No; none whatever.



INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICIES


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Perhaps at this point I might be permitted to ask a question, notice of which I sent to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because it bears on the matter which was the subject of the minister's statement. In the joint communique which the minister has just read, it was indicated that a plan of integrated action had been adopted. The question I should like to ask of the government is this: To what extent, if any, have similar definite steps been taken under article

Apples
II of the treaty to eliminate conflict in international economic policies and to encourage economic collaboration among the members of the alliance as set forth in the treaty?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I had not seen the question before, but in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to whom it should be directed, I may answer as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. I can tell the hon. member and the house that, as he and the house know, Canada has taken a very keen interest in this particular article and contributed a good deal to its acceptance in its present form. Our hope and expectation is that at the next meeting of the North Atlantic council-that is, the council of foreign ministers-this matter will receive consideration. But at the meetings of the defence ministers, as the communique I mentioned indicates, economic and financial considerations were taken into account as well as purely military considerations.


Major James William Coldwell: I understand that the financial arrangements referred to military commitments.


Brooke Claxton: So far, yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Nothing has been done under article II?


Brooke Claxton: We hope that will be a further development.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Howe be substituted for that of Mr. Picard on the special committee on railways and shipping.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, numerous inquiries came to the government from the province of British Columbia, from hon. members from British Columbia and also from Nova Scotia, in respect of the apple growers of these two provinces. I should like to make an announcement, and this is the way I shall do it. I shall read two letters sent out by the Minister of Agriculture to the presidents of the associations concerned in British Columbia and Nova Scotia.


Mr. Drew:: Does it give the date of the by-election?


Robert McCubbin: The first letter is as follows:
Mr. A. K. Loyd,
President, British Columbia
Tree Fruits, Ltd.,
Kelowna, B.C.
Dear Mr. Loyd,
I have placed before my colleagues in the cabinet your request for assistance for the apple growers of British Columbia to supplement returns received for their 1949 apple crop. I am pleased to inform you that the government, after a full and thorough investigation into the marketing of the current Canadian apple crop, has approved a contribution of $2 million for the benefit of the growers represented by the British Columbia Tree Fruits Limited.
The very large special grants that have been paid by the government during the war and postwar years to the apple industry of British Columbia and Nova Scotia have been in recognition of the difficulties which the war produced for the apple export trade.
The government has decided, therefore, that, after this grant of $2 million, no further assistance can be provided on account of the special difficulties of the industry in the United Kingdom market.
Your sincerely,
James G. Gardiner
I shall now read the letter to Mr. R. D. Sutton, chairman of the Nova Scotia apple marketing board1.


Mr. Graydon:: This is where it comes in.


Robert McCubbin: The letter is as follows:
R. D. Sutton, Esq.,
Chairman,
Nova Scotia Apple Marketing Board.
Kentville, N.S.
Dear Mr. Sutton:	'
I have placed before my colleagues in the cabinet your request of February 3, 1950, for assistance for the apple growers of Nova Scotia to supplement returns received for their 1949 apple crop. I am pleased to inform you that the government, after a full and thorough investigation into the marketing of the current Canadian apple crop, has approved a contribution of $500,000 for the benefit of the growers represented by the Nova Scotia apple marketing board.
The very large special grants that have been paid by the government during the war and postwar years have been in recognition of the difficulties which the war produced for the apple industry of Nova Scotia with its historical relationship to external markets, particularly that in the United Kingdom. The tree-pulling program has been a parallel measure of government assistance to aid in the adjustment from pre-war to post-war conditions. Both programs have been part of the special measures that have been undertaken to facilitate an orderly adjustment to post-war conditions. The controls on transportation, production, . supplies, prices and other things have gradually been brought to an end in accordance with the declared policy of the government. Wartime price and income subsidies have been progressively eliminated. The special assistance that has been provided to the Nova Scotia apple industry has been generous, because the government has been aware of the extent of the adjustment that had to be made to meet the new conditions since the war.

The government has decided, therefore, that, after this grant of $500,000, no further assistance can be provided on account of the special difficulties of the industry in the United Kingdom market.
Yours sincerely,
James G. Gardiner


Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: It was difficult to hear all that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture said. I did understand him to say, however, there would be no further special assistance to the industry in Nova Scotia. Do I understand that the apple growers of Nova Scotia will still be entitled to assistance under the acts which are already on the statute book, such as the Agricultural Prices Support Act?


Robert McCubbin: The answer is yes.


Mr. Fulton:: May I ask the parliamentary assistant if it is intended that this payment of $2 million to the British Columbia apple growers will be handled by making payment to British Columbia Tree Fruits Limited and then allowing them to disburse it to their growers in the ordinary way?


Robert McCubbin: That is the intention. The money will go to the growers themselves, through their organization.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Through British Columbia Tree Fruits Limited.


Robert McCubbin: Yes.


Mr. Ferguson:: I should like to ask a question in this connection. Since the finest apples in the world are grown in Ontario, and there are two by-elections coming in that province, could you make Ontario a small offer?


Stanley Howard Knowles: They will hand out plenty of applesauce during the by-elections.


Robert McCubbin: If I thought the Ontario apple producers needed it, they would certainly get it.


George Alexander Drew: They certainly would if there were any apple orchards in those two constituencies.


Mr. Herridge:: Does the $2 million mentioned as being assistance to the fruit industry of British Columbia also include assistance contemplated in respect to the million boxes of apples donated to Great Britain?


Robert McCubbin: No, I do not think so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask a supplementary question? Will the minister say-


Mr. Howe:: This is not the question period.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister say whether he has taken note of the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that apples are not a food?


Some hon. Members:: Answer.
Apples


Mr. Isnor:: Like the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth (Mr. Kirk), I was unable to follow as clearly as I would have liked the statement made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture in respect to assistance for the apple industry. As I recall it, the figure quoted was $500,000 as assistance to the apple growers of the Annapolis valley. Is the parliamentary assistant in a position to indicate the tbtal amount by way of assistance that has been given to the apple growers of that district?


Robert McCubbin: I speak subject to correction, but during the last number of years the amount paid out has been in the neighbourhood of $18 million.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 84, respecting United Grain Growers Limited.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 85, to incorporate Ukrainian National Federation of Canada.-Mr. Maybank.


Clarence Decatur Howe: the first reading of Bill No. 89 (from the Senate), to provide for the publication of statutory regulations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


[Stage Direction]
1947-48 TO YUKON TERRITORY
Clarence Decatur Howe: the first reading of Bill No. 90 (from the Senate), to amend the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRICE FOR SALE BY GOVERNMENT IN DOMESTIC MARKET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the government prepared to sell butter to Canadian citizens at the lowest price at which it is prepared to sell butter abroad?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert McCubbin: thank the hon. member for giving notice of his question. The answer is no.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. On Saturday I was in the temporary branch office of the income tax division in Peterborough. I know the minister would like to help in this connection.
I found there over fifty people standing in line, waiting to have their income tax returns checked. There were six in the office, but only one man available to check. That one man was doing his best.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is not a question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: My question is this: Will the minister see if he cannot get sufficient staff in that office on Saturdays, when farmers and others come in from the countryside? The office serves an area of eighty or ninety miles around. I would ask the minister to see that these people are properly served.


Mr. Sinnoit:: Tell them to come on Friday.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minisier of National Revenue):: I am glad to hear that there is such a rush to pay income tax in the vicinity of Peterborough. I shall bring the matter to the attention of the officials of the department, with a view to giving the most satisfactory service we can with the staff we have available there.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I wish to thank the minister.
I believe it is partly because of the advertising that they are coming in early like this; and of course Peterborough is always on time.



THE SENATE

[Stage Direction]
questions' as to plans for reform
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the acting leader of the government. Are the remarks made by the leader of the government in the other place on Friday to be taken to mean that the government is embarking upon a plan for Senate reform to be submitted to the dominion-provincial conference in the fall?
Righl Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I do not follow the debates in the other place, and I am not aware of what my hon. friend is talking about.

reference to report as to compulsory retirement at seventy-five
On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Justice can clarify the matter I shall bring to his attention. It is reported that the government leader in the other place said that from now on members of the superior courts in the provinces may be subject to compulsory retirement at seventy-five.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest that this is out of order. It is not within the rules to refer to the debates in the other place.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member for Lake Centre not to refer further to the debate in the Senate. He bases his question upon a statement there. He should ask his question.


John George Diefenbaker: I will just ask it in this way: From now on are judges to be retired at seventy-five, and are future appointments to be subject to retirement at that age?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I should not be surprised at this question being asked by a lay member of the House of Commons, but I am surprised that a lawyer should ask it.


An hon. Member:: Answer.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sure my hon. friend must know that the reason why judges of provincial courts cannot be called upon to retire at the age of seventy-five is that there is a provision in the British North America Act which prevents it.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may be allowed-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -to speak on a question of privilege, since the minister went outside the ambit of my question, may I ask whether the British North America Act is to be amended by parliament to make such a provision?



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benidick-son for the second reading of Bill No. 9, to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited, and the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Edmonton East): "That this question be now put".
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was last before the house I was congratulating the government of

Alberta upon its good fortune in having had such valuable discoveries of oil and natural gas within the boundaries of that province and I was pointing out the increasing use to which these commodities are being put in modern life. Both oil and gas are becoming very popular for household use. There is not a house on the street on which I live in St. John's that does not use oil, and no doubt other hon. members can say the same of their own communities. Within a short time it is likely that oil will completely displace coal as household fuel.
Where there is a large supply of natural gas, as there is in Alberta and Saskatchewan and in many portions of the United States, it seems to be more popular than oil, not only for household but for industrial purposes. Gas has supplanted coal for a number of uses. For a while in Alberta it was used to manufacture gasoline and alcohols and many other by-products. In the field of transportation, from the motorboat of the fisherman to the motorcar of the ordinary citizen, to the great locomotives and even the large steamships, oil is now almost generally supplanting coal.
The importance to Canada of these valuable discoveries can hardly be overestimated. Remarkable developments have taken place within such a short time and are bound to bring with them industrial developments of a scope never contemplated by the government of that province a few years ago.
This is a private bill which seeks certain concessions. It looks innocent enough, but the fact is that it has to do with the transmission of both oil and gas to various places outside Alberta. One wonders why this bill has aroused so much opposition. As I see it, the opposition is due to the fact that there is no provision in the bill which would prevent the promoters or the directors of the company from exporting gas or oil to the United States when the needs of provinces of Canada other than Alberta are not satisfied.
I am aware that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has said that he has the assurance of the sponsors that they will undertake to have this line built through Canada. If that is so, why should there not be a provision in the bill to that effect? If that provision had been in the bill there would not have been the opposition there has been to this measure.
It has been asked what this bill will mean to the people of eastern Canada. They want to know if it will mean cheaper gas. People are naturally interested in getting cheaper gasoline for their motorcars, cheaper oil for their homes, cheaper gasoline and kerosene for their fishing schooners and motorboats. If the price is to be determined by the supply,
Prairie Transmission Lines and a lot of oil is brought to the surface in Alberta, it will mean reduced importations from the United States, with the result-this has already happened in the prairie provinces -that the price of gas and oil will be reduced for other users.
Transportation by pipe line is much cheaper than by tank car. Anyone requiring gas or oil for domestic or industrial purposes along the route of the pipe line through which gas or oil is being transported will be able to benefit through the decreased cost of transportation. I understand that it will cost 55 cents a barrel to bring oil from the neighbourhood of Calgary to the head of the lakes by pipe line, whereas it costs $1.68 per barrel to transport it by tank car.
Since the last time we discussed this measure I have been reading Industrial Canada to see what the latest news was on the developments in Alberta. I found that the president of the Canadian Manufacturers Association had been holding meetings in different cities in Alberta and had made some important statements about the future of that province and the cities he was visiting. I should like to quote from this magazine, the issue of March, 1950, at page 57, where reference is made to Alberta's oil production. The president of the Canadian Manufacturers Association said:
In this part of the country, however, we have been abundantly blessed in many different ways. Our manufacturing production is increasing. Medicine Hat, rural and urban, has a gross value in excess of $16 million. The Alberta oil and gas industry has already uncovered natural resources worth at least two and one-half billion dollars, despite the fact that it has so far completed only a minute fraction of the ultimate thorough exploration job. This is quickly resulting in the elimination of the greatest single drain on Canada's United States dollar supply and the achievement by Canada of a long term favourable "balance of trade". This augurs well for the future of our well-endowed province.
Speaking at Edmonton, Mr. Carry, chairman of the Edmonton branch of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, said:
... a new wave of prosperity will flood Edmonton district and the west as a result of industrial stimulation provided by oil discoveries.
Mr. East, the national president, said:
... I will not dwell at length on the Alberta oil situation, other than, to say that by and through Alberta's oil production programming, coupled with Alberta's outstanding diversified economy, the future is indeed one of the brightest for any province in the entire dominion.
It is, however, stimulating to all Canadians to pause for a moment to consider the progress made during the last year alone in some of the major enterprises in Edmonton and district. Oil brought more than one hundred new businesses to the city of Edmonton last year, as compared with fifty in 1948. Nine major industrial concerns committed themselves to multi-million dollar construction programs for the year 1950. Four of these projects alone
1478	HOUSE OF
Prairie Transmission Lines
will require Investments In capital construction amounting to about $35 million. Furthermore, about three-quarters of the oil wells in Alberta are in the general Edmonton area. In addition, Edmonton is only forty-five miles from the Redwater field, considered to be the greatest oil field discovered anywhere in the world in recent years.
I have quoted these statements by the president of the Canadian Manufacturers Association to show how important these discoveries are, and how important it is that at the very beginning this development should be conducted along the right lines. According to recent figures, we know that they have discovered in Alberta enough oil and gas to give them a reserve for ninety years. They have seven trillion cubic feet of gas. I should like to point out that that amount of gas is only equal to the annual consumption in the United States. Of course we know that it is only at the beginning so far as Alberta is concerned, but production in Canada is still far behind that of the United States.
I wonder whether anyone has estimated whether it would be better for Canada to export directly from the area around Calgary and Edmonton to the western section of the United States and then carry the gas to Vancouver, and import gas and oil in other areas, or to retain the gas and oil within Canada first and export it from Vancouver to the cities of the western United States. As I understand it, there are four principal steps in getting oil and gas to the consumer. They are-after prospecting -production, refining, transportation and distribution. The other evening I quoted from a book entitled "A National Policy for the Oil Industry." I quote now from page 58:
The struggle over pipe line policy has been going on for several generations. Control of transportation facilities was John D. Rockefeller's key weapon, and the strategic importance of transportation has not declined in the oil industry.
The author goes on to deal with the trouble and confusion into which the oil industry managed to get in the United States because it did not have proper legislation when it began. I believe that the government of the province of Alberta is going to profit by the mistakes made in the United States; but just to show how serious the mistakes might be I should like to point out that it was decided by the Hepburn act of 1906 that pipe lines were common carriers. There was a test of what they could do and what their powers were. The case went to the court and was
[Mr. Browne (St. John's West).!

buried in consideration by the interstate commerce commission. At page 59 the author of the book I have cited said:
After a generation or more of prodding, the interstate commerce commission began its investigation of the petroleum pipe line situation in 1934, and presented its first report in 1940.
That was six years afterwards. The report was not a final order; they reported again in 1944, and that is the last that has been heard of it. It seems to me that it would be a wise course for the country to take the utmost precautions at the beginning of the development to see that legislation governing the transportation of gas and oil is on a sound basis. I believe a Liberal member on this side of the house stated that he was in favour of the bill because the opposition seemed to be in favour of a monopoly. As I understand it, the opposition is not in favour of a monopoly, but favours a policy of safeguarding the interests of the western provinces before gas is exported to the United States. That is a position which everyone can understand, and to which I believe no one in the United States can raise any objection.
The United States have very much larger gas reserves than Canada, and they have oil. The Standard Oil Company of California is one of their largest companies, much larger than all the companies in Canada put together. It is in a position to export oil to the New England states. Therefore the disadvantages which the northwestern states would suffer by reason of not being served first with this pipe line would not be as serious as the disadvantages of the provinces in the western part of Canada if the line does not pass through them.
I agree that gas and oil are commodities which, like water, could be the subject of a monopoly. Not everyone can have a pipe line, although in the United States there are twenty or thirty trunk lines, as well as numerous branch lines. It seems to me that this is the time to insist that the right legislation and the right conditions should be laid down for the transportation of both oil and gas. In connection with another measure of the same sort, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stated that two sessions ago when it was introduced into the house the promise was made that the company would not export oil to the United States before the needs of Canada were satisfied. He stated the other night that it was because of that promise not being kept, because the line is to be built through the United States, that he is opposed to this bill.
In the last session, in moving the second reading of the bill to incorporate the Alberta Natural Gas Company, the hon. member for

Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) said he noticed for the first time that the powers sought by the company included the right to export gas outside of Canada. It seems to me that no member, not even a minister of the crown, can give assurances as to what a private company may or may not do. That is laid down by law, and I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to what the law is in this respect.
In the first place I should like to say that there is the Pipe Lines Act of 1949, with which most hon. members are familiar. In my reading of that act, it seems to me there is no power to prevent a company from transporting gas or oil across the border to the United States. In fact, it seems to me that act gives it the power to do so.
According to sections 9, 11 and 12, a company wishing to build a transmission line must make application to the board of transport commissioners, bring in its various plans to show where the line is to be constructed, and if other conditions are satisfactory, it is then entitled' to a permit to construct the line. That, of course, is not the only procedure through which it has to go. Whilst dealing with this act, I should like to draw attention to the difference in treatment between oil lines and gas lines as found in parts II and III of this act. Those who have oil transmission lines may be declared common carriers under section 39, but there is no such provision covering gas lines.
I am aware that, in addition to those provisions governing the matter, there is also the petroleum and natural gas board of Alberta. If a company makes application to that board and receives favourable consideration, the board will report to the government of the province of Alberta, which government would have the last word. The premier of that province has stated a policy, which I think has been read here before, and which briefly consists in prohibiting any export until the needs of the province of Alberta are satisfied, not only its present needs but its long-term needs. After that, if it is satisfied that a surplus exists over and above those requirements sufficient to justify export under sound conservation practices, the government will approve the export of such surplus, with each application being considered on its own merits and in the light of all the prevailing factors. It will be a condition of each export permit that the Canadian requirements must be given priority. The member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has dealt with that situation, and has pointed out that it may not be considered within the powers of the government of Alberta to say whether or not gas can be exported.
Prairie Transmission Lines
There is on the statute books another act which was brought to our attention by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act. According to that act the governor in council may make regulations or may grant a licence for export, but I understand the Minister of Trade and Commerce is the one who passes upon that.
I believe I have said sufficient for hon. members to realize that this is a most important subject. The value of this pipe line, not only to the province but to Canada in earning and saving United States dollars, as well as the industries it is going to establish, justifies giving serious consideration to it. I suggest that United States interests will not be jeopardized, and in addition that an examination of the map published in the pamphlet entitled "Natural Gas in Alberta and British Columbia" at pages 10 and 11, would seem to indicate that the chief discoveries in Alberta now centre around Edmonton. The distance a transmission line would have to traverse from there to Vancouver would be shorter than the route through the United States to the cities of Seattle and Portland on the Pacific Coast.
There may be, of course, some reason why it may be more expensive to construct such a line, but I am informed and believe that that route, which has been advocated by so many members on this side of the house, would be preferable to the other route. Other hon. members have argued that the Canadian route will be of special benefit to the cities and towns along its course, and afford those towns opportunities which might otherwise never be given to them. I know that some hon. members are weary of hearing that statement repeated, but is there anything unsound or anything that is not sensible in it? The member for Kamloops has said that if the route does not go through the Kamloops district it is unlikely that gas would be brought up there at any time. Since the advantage of having a gas line to serve these towns is a tremendous one, I believe all hon. members should give serious consideration to the necessity of inserting a provision in this bill to make sure the pipe line does serve that part of the country.
The hon. member for Kamloops also told us of a resolution passed by the British Columbia legislature, to the effect that it would like to see this pipe line go through the province of British Columbia before it goes to the United States. I feel sure the government of the province of Alberta will find it difficult to turn a deaf ear to such a plea. Tf unity in Canada is to have the meaning
1478	HOUSE OF
Prairie Transmission Lines it should have, then a request by the government of one province for such a reasonable measure should meet with a favourable response. If the pipe line is built as requested, it will mean a great deal to the unity and solidarity of the nation. I trust, therefore, that other hon. members will feel, as we do, that this line should go through British Columbia first and may afterwards be conti, nued to the United States. Perhaps the quantity of oil and gas in the province of Alberta will prove so extensive when further discoveries are made that it will be feasible to have another line go south to the United States.
Other features in connection with the construction of the transmission line have not been neglected by previous speakers. The employment provided by the construction of the line, and the furnishing of the pipes, will mean a lot to the people of Canada at a time when unemployment is greater than it has been in any year since before the war. The money will go back into the steel mills and to the iron ore mines. Since the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) represents a constituency in which iron ore is found, we trust that industry will receive some benefit.
The other day I noticed an article which spoke of the benefit that would come from the development of the iron ore mines in Quebec. It stated that storage tanks had been built at Seven Islands to contain a million gallons of gasoline. It will be seen, therefore, that all parts of the country benefit from these developments. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I trust that the Canadian route, which should prove to be popular with all Canadians, and which has been endorsed by the people in the western provinces, will receive the endorsement of hon. members of this house.


Mr. Ralph Maybank (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken upon this bill, but I should like to make a few remarks with reference to the question at issue. As the house knows, I am the sponsor of another bill which is similar in nature to this one. More members have spoken upon it than upon this one. There is some possibility of its getting second reading before Easter. While I should desire to make some more extended remarks upon the bill before the house at the present time, it is not convenient at this moment to do so. If the house will agree, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford), that the debate be adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Maybank moves, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford), that this debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Howard Charles Green: No. Will you call for the yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of adopting the motion will please say "yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Harris (Danforth):: This looks like a private government measure. Had I voted, I would have voted against it, and spoken against it. Inasmuch as I am paired with the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Breithaupt)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The next order of business.



ALBERTA NATURAL GAS COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. May-bank for the second reading of Bill No. 7, respecting Alberta Natural Gas Company, and the motion of Mr. MacDougall: "That this question be now put."
John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members for having passed the motion, thereby giving me an opportunity to speak on this bill. As hon.
Alberta Natural Gas Company members will recall, at four minutes to nine on Friday night I rose in my place to take part in this pipe lines debate. This will be the fourteenth hour of debate on these pipeline bills during this session.
I said on Friday night that I was in favour of an all-Canadian route. I also said that I thought Canadians were capable of manufacturing the materials for such a pipe line. I think all hon. members would like to see an all-Canadian route. At the same time I believe we are interested, in the debate, in looking at both sides of the picture. I believe Canadians as a whole would like to see their own country helped as much as possible, and I am sure those people residing in British Columbia would like to have this all-important pipe line run through their province, so that industrial and heating facilities may be more readily obtainable.
On Friday last I held in my hand a pamphlet distributed by the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited, mapping a route from Edmonton through to Jasper, through the Yellowhead Pass to Kamloops, with feeder lines to Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton and the great smelter plant at Trail. Then the main line continued on to Hope, Abbotsford and the great city of Vancouver, thence on down the west coast to Bellingham, Everett, Seattle and Portland.
This pamphlet, distributed by the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited, indicates that this is the only company which claims it has constantly sponsored an all-Canadian route to take gas to the Pacific coast. The pamphlet stresses the shortage of United States dollars -a condition which does exist-and that every effort should be made to obtain that route.
The construction of an all-Canadian pipe line will require a large expenditure, and it necessarily follows that the more of the line built in Canada, the more will be spent in this country for its construction. When the gas is sold at the United States border, south of Vancouver, it will command more United States dollars for gas delivered than if the line were built directly south, out of Canada, through a shorter Canadian pipe line.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) stated that this pipe line company have said they have already had Ford, Bacon and Davis, engineers, complete a preliminary survey and design, at this point, for an oil pipe line from Edmonton to Vancouver. Then they propose to follow exactly the same route; and that detailed data and information are now being completed.
1480	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company
It is the hope of all of us that we may see the completion of an all-Canadian route. I believe that at the present time the Steel Company of Canada located at Hamilton, Ontario, is capable of rolling sixteen-inch and eighteen-inch pipe, which is not sufficient in diameter to take care of natural gas. I am informed that, for a line of this type to be successful, at least a thirty-inch pipe is required. There is no doubt that the engineering facilities available here in Canada are sufficient to design such a plant capable of rolling steel here in our own country. I am also informed however that the cost of installing this type of machinery would be about $5 million.
The Westcoast Transmission Company Limited had a bill sponsored in the house some considerable time ago. It was during the dying days of parliament prior to the election of June 27, 1949. An act was passed by parliament on April 30 of that year approving this company's application.
As the pamphlet distributed by the West-coast Transmission Company outlined a Canadian route, it made everything look rosy to anyone reading it. One may look through this pamphlet from cover to cover but one will not find the signature of the president or of any of the directors. I suggest therefore that a pamphlet of this type is nothing but a pure propaganda scheme. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is a capable lawyer. I ask him, if he received a pamphlet of this kind, which bore no signature, whether he would accept it as bona fide.
Reference to the statutes of 1949, chapter 36, page 61, shows that a charter was issued to the Trans-Northern Pipe Line Company. Section 6 states:
The company, subject to the provisions of any general legislation relating to pipe lines for the transportation of oil or any liquid product or byproduct thereof which is enacted by parliament, may
(a) within or outside Canada construct, purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire, and hold, develop, operate, maintain, control, lease, mortgage, create liens upon, sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of and turn to account any and all pipe lines, for the transportation of oil including pumping stations, terminals, storage tanks or reservoirs and all works relative thereto for use in connection with the said pipe lines; and own, lease, sell, operate and maintain aircraft and aerodromes for the purpose of its undertaking, together with the facilities required for the operation of such aircraft and aerodromes; and own, lease, operate and maintain interstation telephone, teletype and telegraph communication systems and, subject to The Radio Act, 1938, and any other statute relating to radio, own, lease, operate andi maintain interstation radio communication facilities.
The only company which has applied to construct pipe lines all within Canada is Western Pipe Lines. If hon. members will turn to the 1949 statutes, chapter 38, they will find that under section 6 this company has a charter to build only within Canada.


Then, if we turn to chapter 37 of the 1949 statutes, we find that section 6 deals with the charter given to the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited. This section deals with power to construct and to operate pipe lines, paragraph (a) giving permission to build, as follows:
(a) within the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia or outside Canada-
And I suggest the words "or outside Canada" should be plain enough for anyone-
-construct, purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire, and hold, develop, operate, maintain,-
And so on. May I state clearly again that this company's charter is to build a pipe line either within or outside Canada.
So much time has been taken in debate to show that this company will build in Canada, and that it is the only one that wishes to do so, that I would like the house to know just who these people are. I am taking the words of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) who, when he spoke about the Westcoast Transmission Company on November 15, 1949, as reported at page 1811 of Hansard, attempted to show that this company has an all-Canadian charter and is serving Canada's interests first.
This is what the hon. member said, in part:
It has been estimated that It will probably cost $170 million to build the pipe line no matter which company builds it. The money will be raised in Canada and the United States. . . Someone has said something about forty minutes, and I hope it was not a member from British Columbia. I will take my stand right now and vote on the matter as a British Columbia member. Just to show who these people are who are in the Westcoast Transmission Company, may I give you the names of some of the companies in the group. There is the Pacific Petroleums Limited, Calgary, which is a subsidiary. The Peace River Natural Gas Company Limited; Sunray Oil Corporation of Tulsa and Los Angeles- I wish some of my friends would check on these companies. There is the Pacific Western Oil Corporation of Los Angeles and the Tidewater Associated Oil Company of San Francisco. All of these companies have several hundred million dollars behind them. They are the companies through which the Westcoast Transmission Company will finance the undertaking.
As I said before, after their charter was granted, this company made application to build a pipe-line route through the United States. Their application was filed on May 10, 1949. So all the talk of this company wanting to build an all-Canadian route is utter nonsense when section 6 of chapter 37, page 68, of the statutes of 1949, gives this company the right to build within or without Canada. That should be very clear to all hon. members of the house.
There are several routes which this company has applied for through Canada but

which have all been withdrawn. At the moment it seems to me that they are in favour of commencing at Edmonton, going south along the Canadian Pacific railroad to Calgary, then on to Macleod, then west to Pincher Creek and Coleman and through the Crows-nest Pass to Fernie, B.C., leaving Canada at Kingsgate to a terminus at Sandpoint, Idaho, with a branch to Trail, B.C. This application was filed on May 11, 1949, but no action whatsoever has been taken and it has remained dormant since that date. However, it is still on file with the board of transport commissioners and no steps have been taken by the Westcoast Transmission Company to withdraw their application.
The Yellowhead pass route would commence at Edmonton, continue west along the Canadian National main line through Yellow-head pass to Tete Jaune Cache, then southward to Kamloops, Princeton and Vancouver, with a branch line from Tete Jaune Cache to Dawson Creek and a short branch line from Abbotsford near Vancouver to Huntingdon on the United States border. This application was filed on October 13, 1949, and was set down for hearing on November 23, 1949. It was then adjourned at the request of the applicant to February 21, 1950, and again adjourned at the request of the applicant to a date to be set later by the Alberta conservation board to grant a permit to export.
All that parliament is being asked to do is to give these companies now applying for a charter the same opportunity and the same privilege as was given to the Westcoast Transmission Company. We on this side of the house do not believe in monopolies and, therefor, would like to see some competition. In view of the facts that I have stated, will any one suggest that the Sunray Oil Corporation of Tulsa and Los Angeles or the Pacific Western Oil Corporation of Los Angeles or the Tidewater Associated Oil Company of San Francisco are interested in developing Canada first? The answer is, "Certainly not". If the Westcoast Transmission Company are sincere they will make application immediately to withdraw their application to build outside Canada and state clearly that they will follow an all-Canadian route.
I am bringing down a bill entitled, "An act to amend an act to incorporate Westcoast Transmission Company Limited," which reads:
His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1. Paragraph (a) of section six of an act to amend an act to incorporate Westcoast Transmission Company Limited, chapter thirty-seven of the statutes of 1949 (first session) is amended by striking out the words, "or outside Canada," in the second line of the paragraph.
3, 1950	1481
Alberta Natural Gas Company
Tomorrow I am bringing down another bill dealing with all companies that might apply for charters and providing that they shall state specifically that an all-Canadian route shall be followed.


Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, just in order to set the record straight and to satisfy my hon. friends to my left, I want to say that I am not speaking on behalf, or under threat, of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Neither am I speaking on behalf of any of the pipe line companies involved in these particular bills. I think we all realize that the time has come to make some decision on this issue. I think it is a fact well recognized that we have wasted considerable time of this house, and I say "wasted" because I mean just that. I know many hon. members will take exception to that word.
Certain hon. gentlemen have led this filibuster. My good friend, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), has taken a very prominent part and I must say he has done an able job. When I see examples of his urbane manner and persuasive ways in presenting his viewpoint I begin to feel very sorry for the many jurymen who must have been led up and down various garden paths during his long and distinguished career at the bar.
My good friend, the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), has also co-operated. While the hon. member probably lacks the great subtlety in the law possessed by the hon. member for Calgary West, he certainly has made up for that lack in the power of his invective. He has done a wonderful job.
Then my good friend, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), has been quite prominent in this. I know he has been doing his job in this regard with his customary sincerity. At the same time it struck me that he felt he was leading a second crusade to rescue the Holy Sepulchre from the Saracens. The other night I heard him calling on the shades of senators of the past and present to come and speak in defence of the great people of British Columbia. He also mentioned the gentleman whom I have had the honour to succeed, Mr. A. W. Neill. There is a gentleman who would have made a great contribution to the Senate, but it seems to me that Independents do not often reach that chamber. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra suggested that if Mr. Neill had been here he would have undertaken to defend British Columbia.
You, Mr. Speaker, were here when my great predecessor was a member of this house and I am sure you will recall that among his many qualities was a great native sagacity and shrewdness. He was a hard .man to whom

Alberta Natural Gas Company to sell a bill of goods and I never heard of him buying any part of the Brooklyn bridge. I am sure that before he would have accepted this gold brick he would have taken a few borings and would have had an assay made so that he would have a pretty good idea whether he should or should not support the bill.
I do not think any of us take second place to anyone else in favouring or desiring an all-Canadian route, but I do not think this house or the committee of the whole is the place to discuss that matter. I am certain some of the hon. members who have spoken do not realize what a highly technical matter this is. There are 60 members of the committee on railways, telegraph lines and shipping and I am sure that many of them are competent to deal with this matter. I am convinced that all those 60 members of that committee will take a close interest in this bill.
I am amazed that the opponents of this bill have appeared so anxious to keep it out of that committee. They seem to me to want to enjoy their own ignorance because I am certain that most of those who have spoken know probably just a little less about pipe lines than I do.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Impossible.


John Lambert Gibson: I am sure the hon. member for Calgary West would make a great contribution to that committee. He is not a member of the committee but I imagine when the time comes he will have the Whip have his name replace that of some other member of his party as a member of that committee.
I wonder what has been accomplished by this discussion. It has not all been bad and I would not be unfair enough to say that it has. I think the government has been made conscious of the magnitude of this problem and how interested the people of Canada are in it. I think we have assured ourselves that when the bill goes to the committee it will receive thorough study. It is quite conceivable that as a result of this discussion we have delayed the provision of cheap gas to the Pacific coast by quite a number of months and we may have given the impression to the people of Canada that parliament is being used more or less as a tool to maintain a monopoly for the one company that already has received, a charter from this house.
I feel that any further discussion of this matter is a sheer waste of time. Drawing on my biblical training, and by way of paraphrase, may I say that this house probably will not hold him guiltless who taketh our time in vain. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) will probably subscribe to that.

The Westcoast Transmission Company has a charter now. Sometimes I have been annoyed by the tactics they have used. It seems to me that they have played the old shell game on us and have probably taken us for suckers. That is a good Canadian expression and I think it fits. They made a rather feeble and nebulous promise of an all-Canadian route when they came here in the first instance. We saw fit to pass their bill in good faith. In compliance with their promise they applied for an all-Canadian route before the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada on May 10. They are a pretty shrewd and sharp bunch, and it seems to me that they have had some good legal advice. On May 11 they applied for an alternative route for export to the United States. I admire their political skill and vast experience.
I realize that most newspaper reporters do not bother running down to the board of transport commissioners to see what's cooking. They heard that an all-Canadian route had been applied for on May 10, and the Westcoast Transmission Company thought that by shoving the other application through on May 11 nobody would notice it. As a matter of fact, they succeeded very well. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) has followed this matter with great interest, but when the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) mentioned to the house some four months later than the company had filed an alternative application the hon. member for Calgary West had never even heard of it. He denied it, and I am sure he did so in good faith, because he was not aware of it.
It seems to me it was a shrewd move. It certainly appears to me that the Westcoast Transmission people were not acting in good faith. As to their application for a pipe line permit down through Kingsgate, the Westcoast Transmission people have been wise enough not to embarrass their supporters in the house by asking for a hearing. They are just letting it lie dormant. On the other hand, they withdrew their application for their original plan to build a line from the Athabasca down through Tete Jaune Cache into Vancouver, and they have now replaced it with an application to build a pipe line through the Yellowhead pass about which we have had so much discussion here. On checking with the board of transport commissioners I find they have applied to have that application. adjourned sine die. I am not a lawyer, but the expression "sine die" always strikes me as one of those terms of legal gobbledy-gook that could mean some enchanted evening, when it is springtime in the rockies, or something like that.

A good many of the people connected with the Westcoast Transmission Company are personal friends of mine, but I resented very much the fact that at the beginning of this session they sent us a brochure which had the words on it, "revised, January, 1950". In it they showed a beautiful pipe line route marked all in red through the Yellowhead pass and down to Vancouver. They made sure they did not show that they had made application to go through Kingsgate into the United States. I do not think that people who are asking for these things should try to take advantage of simple-minded members of the House of Commons to that extent.
I have been sorry to hear some of the things that have been said during the course of this debate. In one instance two very prominent and highly regarded people of the province of British Columbia were quoted as being parties to a vicious steal. I think that was a rather unfortunate remark, and I would not like to think that it was made in any derogatory sense. Probably the member was carried away by the enthusiasm of the moment. One of the opponents of this bill has said it, but I certainly would not like to think that the remarks concerning those two gentlemen- and I will not compound the libel by naming them-were supported by other opponents of the bill such as the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) because I think it would be unfair to suggest that was so.
Some mention has been made in the house of the fact that the legislature of British Columbia passed a resolution supporting an all-Canadian pipe line. It was very good of the legislature of that province to give us gratuitous advice. I think they are expressing the views of most people in the province and certainly of the British Columbia members of parliament. For them to pass a resolution supporting an all-Canadian route is something like my presenting a motion to the house that we are opposed to sin. I think every hon. member would be willing to support me on such a resolution, even some of those who might be interested in trying it.
An editorial in the Vancouver Sun has been quoted extensively. That newspaper has been undertaking to chide some of the Liberal members who have supported the passage of this particular pipe line bill. It seems to me that the editorial department and the news department sometimes get a little mixed up about the direction in which they are going. There is in the press gallery a very able correspondent of the Vancouver Sun, Mr. Dillon O'Leary, and his views do not seem to coincide
Alberta Natural Gas Company entirely with those of the editorial department of the Vancouver Sun. I was particularly interested in one article written on the filibustering debate we had in the house and which appeared in that paper on November 5. Mr. O'Leary starts out by saying:
Mock piety, tear-jerking pleas and lewd humour were part of the weird act in the Commons Friday night during the filibuster in the now famous gas pipe line battle.
Mr. O'Leary is a competent observer, and that appears to be the impression which he, as the man on the job here, gained from some of the debates we have had on this issue. He goes on to say in the article:
Only company holding incorporation for piping Alberta gas to the Pacific coast is Westcoast Transmission Company. Parliamentary sponsors of its incorporation last session, Senator J. W. de B. Farris (Lib., Vancouver) and Mr. Cruickshank have backed moves this session to block incorporation of any other gas pipe line.
To me it is almost humorous to observe the line-up of speakers in this debate. An honourable and distinguished senator is allied with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). Then there is the leader of the opposition, the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell), the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). If I have overlooked anybody, all he has to do is to call out his name. It is very interesting. Then we have the resolution of the British Columbia legislature and the comments of the Vancouver Sun, and I understand there are also representations from a number of Liberal organizations in Vancouver Centre. They are all in there together. Pipe-line bills certainly make very strange bedfellows. I know that you will appreciate why I am a little hesitant about getting into bed with that particular crew.
I wonder what we can do with the bill if we give it second reading today. I should like to plead with my hon. friends on this side of the house that we can proceed from here. I do not think any particular harm has been done so far. It seems to me that if the bill is given second reading and is sent to a committee we could very well ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) -and I am sure he would be glad to grant our request-to give us some information on the policy of the Canadian government as to pipe lines. To be fair to him, it seems to me that he has tried several times to provide us with information of that kind, but in almost every instance there has been an attempt to distort his words or to draw from them conclusions that were not fair. I certainly do not have to apologize for anything the Minister of Trade and Commerce
1484	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company has done. But when it is suggested that he is a party to some nefarious scheme to sell out British Columbia for the benefit of Ontario, I hardly think that is fair. The minister's record since he has been in public life is not one that would indicate it is possible for him to stoop so low; I believe everyone in the house recognizes that.
The building of a pipe line to the Pacific coast is a difficult problem. I know the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) was stranded on the coast for eight days when, at my invitation, he came there last January. The engineering difficulties connected with the problem of running the pipe line carrying 750 pounds of gas through the Fraser valley must scare him a little. As I have said, I am not an engineer, but I do appreciate the difficulties that are involved. I should like to see these pipe-line experts appear before a committee of the house, and tell us how they can build that pipe line down the Fraser valley to make sure it works every day. We do not want it to be like our railroads that are sometimes out of operation for ten, twenty or thirty days.
As hon. members will probably recall, when this pipe-line proposition was first mooted in Canada I was of the opinion that the Canadian National Railways were passing up a tremendous opportunity that might prove profitable. When I hear Mr. Gordon, the president of the railroad, suggesting that it have a new capital structure, I wish he would present some new ideas about the transportation of gas or oil. I would hope that the government has not entirely abandoned the idea that it might be possible for the Canadian National Railways to get into this business.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would plead wih my friends of the Conservative party, and the C.C.F. party, to allow this bill to go to committee in order that we can get some information on it. So far as I am concerned, I can assure you that if I am satisfied a Canadian route is feasible, both economically and from an engineering standpoint, when this bill comes back for third reading if there is any way I can assist in ensuring the pipe line will be built in Canada, I shall support those hon. members requesting that route, and not the pipe-line company that wishes to go through the United States.
(Translation):


Mr. Henri Courlemanche (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, since a very important principle is involved, it should surprise no one to see Quebec members rise and speak, after many others, against the bill respecting the Alberta Natural Gas Company.


Mr. Speaker, may I say at once that I am amazed, even shocked, at the attitude shown by certain Liberal members since we began discussing this private bill concerning the Alberta Natural Gas Company. Of course, some may ascribe my surprise to inexperience. This, indeed, is only my second session and I still have a lot to learn. One thing, however, that is very well known to me, even if I lack the long experience of most of my colleagues, is the feeling of my constituents and, may I add without boasting, the feeling of most of the people in my province.
The people of Labelle county and of the surrounding constituencies find it strange that members of parliament are always tempted to surrender to commissions and bureaucratic bodies their authority and prerogatives, as well as the rights and duties of their office. The bill concerning the Alberta Natural Gas Company is a good1, or rather a deplorable example, of a state of affairs about which the people are complaining bitterly.
It. is our duty as members to examine this bill. This means we should have some knowledge, some information about this matter. It is not sufficient to vote for or against the bill, once the title has been read. We must know what is involved. Liberal members are willing to approve the measure immediately, without even taking into account its implications. When we censure this attitude, they say: "If anything goes wrong, the board of transport commissioners will deal with it". Indeed, the board will look after it. Having become nothing but rubber stamps, the members vote blindly. When it is time to decide, to judge, to take a definite line of action, the move is made by bureaucrats, commissioners, or someone else. The board of transport commissioners is not to blame in any way. But the principle involved is very important.
The Alberta Natural Gas Company has applied for a charter to build pipe lines. According to the law, members of the house can grant or, if they see fit, deny the charter. We, the Conservative members of the opposition, naturally ask, and it is nothing more than our duty to inquire, what route these pipe lines will follow. No answer has been given. Can we, the representatives of the people, grant the charter notwithstanding, saying, with the Liberals, that if anything goes wrong, the board of transport commissioners will see to it? No, there are cases where, under the law, it is up to the board of transport commissioners to assume its responsibilities. In this instance, however, the members of this house

!$. v -	i'.f.
must acquit themselves of their obligations. We find it strange, I repeat, that they fail to do so.
If ten or fifteen years hence we should find out that these pipe lines follow such a route that they do not favour Canadian interests, or that they even are contrary to them, who will be held responsible? The board of transport commissioners? What use would that be since the members of this board are not elected by the people? The members of parliament themselves would be held to blame, and rightly so, since we would have neglected, when the moment came, to carry out our duties as representatives of the people.
Even government supporters are sometimes heard to complain that the members of this house are too often ignored when the time comes to make an important decision or to acquaint the people with an order in council or other such orders.
In October, 1949, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was the first to be surprised on reading in certain newspapers about the statement he intended to make in the House of Commons. That statement dealt with the setting-up of controls on imports of certain goods such as pig iron, iron ingots, billets, bars, rod, et cetera. Members of the house were not informed of this order yet the news was already published in the press and known to the general public. Busy with their parliamentary duties, the members were the last to be informed. I have a great deal of admiration for newspapermen and I was highly amused to see that they had scooped the members of the House of Commons. Besides, in this particular case, the incident was not of major importance. However, it enabled us to realize once more that a very dangerous tendency exists. No longer do members of parliament, the elected representatives of the people, administer public affairs; bureaucrats, high officials and some not so high, who, nevertheless have been given impressive powers, now crack the whip.
We know that a good many Liberals do not like that procedure; they do not want to be informed of tax increases or reductions through the medium of the radio or the press. Here is a wonderful opportunity for them to prove that they are sincere by refusing to entrust their responsibilities to the board of transport commissioners or to the government 55946-95i
Alberta Natural Gas Company of Alberta. By acting otherwise, they let most dangerous precedents pile up, and some day we may awake to find out that a board of some kind has simply decided to abolish parliament. That may seem fantastic, but the representatives of the people are surrendering their authority to civil servants at such a rate that we can very well expect the worst.
I was also rather surprised to see the Liberal members attach only minor importance to the conservation of our natural resources. In opposing the bill concerning the Alberta Natural Gas Company, we seek only to protect our natural resources. Given a free hand, the company would be in a position to deal with the oil and gas resources of Alberta in its own interest, which may be detrimental to the interests of the country as a whole, and according to its own whims which may be prejudicial to the whole population.
We have no right to authorize a company to use our natural resources as it sees fit. We should first know exactly about the company's intentions, its plans and projects, and then prescribe conditions based on the most elementary caution. Because we ask questions, because we want to know, for instance, what route the Alberta Natural Gas Company's pipe lines will follow, we are taxed with shameful intentions.
We should do everything in our power to favour the development of our natural resources in the interest of our people at large. Such development should be carried out systematically. Oil resources, as has been shown elsewhere, are not inexhaustible. Should we, therefore, let this company export, large quantities of oil to the United States and then find, in a few years, that Canada's reserves of that precious fuel are exhausted? Hon. members know that the province of Quebec has abundant natural resources. We realize, however, that they cannot last forever and that unrestricted development could well entail serious disasters, economic and otherwise.
Take, for instance, the case of the paper' industry. In our province, we have vast forests. Some people would doubtless be-tempted to process all this timber into newsprint as fast as possible so as to make all the-money they can! To do so would be illogical. We must think of the future. A forest can be denuded in a few weeks, but it takes years
1486	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company and years to reforest land. That is why in our province we make sure that forest development is carried out systematically and carefully; we also see to it that reforestation goes hand in hand with deforestation. That is but elementary foresight. No generation has the right to strip land of all its natural resources in a manner that would leave future generations in want.
What goes for forests also applies to oil. Previous speakers have told us how valuable, how useful petroleum and natural gas are to us Canadians; they have mentioned all the benefits we can derive from these assets. "Black gold" it is sometimes called, and rightly so.
Besides, the oil industry is a relatively recent one, not only in Canada but throughout the world. It might be pointed out that it began less than a hundred years ago. On August 27, 1859, Edwin Drake was digging an artesian well in his garden-a rather commonplace occupation-when suddenly oil spurted out from the bowels of the earth. This incident occurred at Titusville, Pennsylvania, in the United States. Good old Drake, a common bartender, died a colonel and, what is more important, a multimillionaire. The rest is history: there was a rush of oil prospectors. Men had found the black gold Eldorado".
Oil has revolutionized industrial processes. One need not be a prophet to state that still further changes and industrial revolutions will be caused by oil. In December, 1938, the late President Roosevelt stated:
Oil has become the sinews of war.
Nineteen years earlier Clemenceau had cabled Wilson the following message:
Each drop of oil is worth a drop of blood. We have been carried to victory by a flood of oil.
Beyond any doubt, oil has played a vital role in the last two world wars. Supremacy in this field meant supremacy on land, on sea and in the air. In Napoleon's time, an army marched on its stomach. While this remains true, it also marches on oil.
We have here the annual report submitted by Imperial Oil Limited for 1944; it was published in Sarnia, Ontario, on April 14, 1945.


The following significant passages deal with the accomplishments for which oil has been responsible:
The year under review has been yet another period during which the resourcefulness, courage and wealth of the United Nations have been put to the test in preserving individual liberty and a democratic way of life. While peace-loving nations accumulated material and took the offensive on the main theatres of operations, oil has been called upon to play an increasingly important part in every phase of the war effort, on the battle front as well as on the production front. Briefly, there has been an enormous demand for crude petroleum and its products, vast movements of oil and allied products over long distances, adaptation of these products to new uses and a development of new products with a view to fulfilling special requirements of navies, air forces or land armies, war industries and other essential uses.
In spite of difficulties, it can be said that in Canada once again, in 1944, no convoy was delayed, no movement of troops was hindered, no flying field was closed and no production of munitions, food or other essential products was curtailed on account of a shortage of oil supplies.
These few sentences show us the importance of oil in wartime. I am not one of those who believe that Canada should engage in gigantic preparations in case we should have a third world war. I am not one of those who believe that the major part of the revenue of the federal government should go towards the purchase of munitions. I do think however that if we really treasure our security and our independence, we must not let the development of our oil resources take place in a haphazard way. In peacetime as in wartime oil plays a vital part, but in wartime it can be essential to victory.
We are therefore clearly against the irrational use of our natural resources, and the irrational export of the products of our resources. We use the word "irrational" since this bill gives no guarantee that the use and export of our resources will be on a rational basis. It is our duty, as members of this house, to oppose the passing of a bill which provides no such guarantee. For reasons already mentioned, we cannot devolve upon the board of transport commissioners or the Alberta government responsibilities incumbent upon us.
Should we grant its application, the Alberta Natural Gas Company would have wide powers, extraordinary powers. The

Pipe Lines Act of April 30, 1949, clearly defines such powers. We would allow the company, among other things, to-
-enter into and upon any crown land without previous licence therefor, or into or upon the land of any person, lying in the intended route of its line, and make surveys, examinations or other necessary arrangements on such land for fixing the site of the line, and set out and ascertain such parts of the land as are necessary and proper for the line;
But we members of this house who are going to allow this company to construct pipe lines, do not even know what route is going to be used or what crown lands those lines will enter upon without previous licence. Nor do we know upon what lands belonging to individuals, to taxpayers, will the same liberty be taken.
Under the terms of the act the company may also; . . . purchase, take and hold of and from any person any land or other property necessary . . .
... or dispose of any of its land or property that for any reason has become unnecessary for the purpose of the line.
Here again we cannot, as the people's representatives, give them a free hand without knowing beforehand at least the route of the pipe lines.
The act passed on April 30, 1949, provides many other extensive powers including the following:
. . . construct, lay, carry or place its line across, upon or under the land of any person on the located line of the company pipe line.
They will not tell us where the line will go, but still they want us to agree to everything they ask for.
The act continues:
Join its line with the pipe line of any other person at any point on its route.
Always a route about which we know nothing at all.
Construct, erect and maintain all necessary and convenient roads, buildings, stations, depots, wharves, docks and other structures, and construct, purchase and acquire machinery and other apparatus necessary for the construction, maintenance and operations of its line.
Construct, maintain and operate branch lines, and for that purpose exercise all the powers, privileges and authority necessary therefor, in as full and ample a manner as for a company pipe line.
Those are rather sweeping powers which we are being asked to grant without being able to get beforehand the information we ask for.
Let us read the act further, especially the different paragraphs of the important section 7:
. . . from time to time alter, repair or discontinue the works or any of them, mentioned in this section, and substitute others in their stead;
Alberta Natural Gas Company
Transport oil or gas by company pipe-line and regulate the time and manner in which oil or gas shall be transported, and the tolls to be charged therefor; and
Do all other acts necessary for the construction, maintenance and operation of its line.
Indeed, we should not grant all of these powers and privileges before knowing the truth about this venture, the route to be followed by the proposed pipe line or pipe lines, whether the oil and gas to be carried in this or these pipe lines will remain ini Canada or enter the United States and what percentage will remain in this country and what percentage, if any, will be exported to the United States.
Charity begins at home. We need oil and gas here in Canada, especially in the western provinces. Our people should be the first to benefit from our oil and gas resources. If there is a surplus, let us export it; it would be to our mutual advantage. On the other hand, it would be perfectly ridiculous to hinder the development, progress and prosperity of a section of our country by depriving it of oil and gas in order to export those products to the United States.
The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) said something like this:
Some people fear our southern neighbours as if they were ready to jump on us.
Let us be serious please! We admire our southern neighbours; we have great friendship ties that unite us and we are proud of the undefended border between our two countries. We do a great deal of trade with the United States. The friendly relations between our two nations are an inspiring example for the rest of the world. Washington, however, has never asked Ottawa to deny itself completely, to forget its immediate or remote interests and to sacrifice itself in any way on behalf of the United States. Neither has Canada ever demanded that Washington set aside its own interests to think only of Canada's.
The Hyde Park agreement of 1941 does hot state that Canada must deny herself completely to consider only the United States. Let us see, for instance, how, in 1942, the United States Secretary of State outlined what we should aim at in taking steps to ensure economic co-operation; he said something to this effect:
. . . co-operate in working out a common program in which all other countries sharing the same ideas would be invited to take part in order to increase,

Alberta Natural Gas Company
toy means of the international and internal steps deemed necessary, production, employment as well as the exchange and consumption of goods, those being the material bases of the freedom and welfare of all peoples.
Nothing more. It is not contemplated that we should do without essential products in order to export them to the United States, nor, for that matter, is it inferred that the United States will make every necessary sacrifice in order to send to Canada goods that are in short supply. Complete and frank co-operation between Ottawa and Washington, by all means, but never, however, to the disadvantage of either Ottawa or Washington. Otherwise, the end to be achieved would no longer exist.
Let us suppose, for instance, that only enough oil was found in Alberta to supply the people of the neighbouring provinces. Now these provinces need oil badly and this product can ensure their prosperity. Under what principle or precedent can we ask the citizens of Alberta, of British Columbia or of any other province to do without oil or gas in order that we may export it to our neighbours to the south? Let me repeat that charity begins at home, as the saying goes. This principle applies both in personal relations and international relations. Besides, the United States have never asked us to deny ourselves oil and gas to provide them [DOT]with these products. Let us not ascribe to them intentions they do not have.
If a similar bill were to be introduced in Washington, there is no doubt that, first and foremost, it would be designed to protect United States interests. The representatives of the American people would not allow oil to be exported to Canada unless they were assured that the United States had enough for their own needs. Nobody in Ottawa could be shocked by such an attitude. It would be judged to be quite normal and reasonable. However, Liberal members-not all, but a few-would have us believe that it would be different if representatives of the Canadian people were to do the same.
The member for Skeena (Mr. Apple-whaite) seemed quite put out because we of :the Conservative opposition were not of one mind with him. He waxes indignant-and these are his very words-because, as it were:
The suggestion has been made that we who support these bills . . .
That is, the Liberal members.
. . . are in some way traitors to Canada or to our respective provinces.


The member for Skeena may be annoyed but he knows very well that he is duty bound, as a member of this house, to proceed
with caution and foresight whenever a bill is considered. The member who casts a vote for any bill without due consideration is not being faithful to his mandate; he betrays it. In supporting a measure such as the Alberta Natural Gas Company bill, the implications and consequences of which he is totally unaware, he is apt, voluntarily or not, to betray the interests of his province, of his country. One may betray by doing certain tilings; one may also betray by omitting to do certain things. By neglecting to examine thoroughly the purposes of the Alberta Natural Gas Company we would, in effect, betray our mandate, our electors and our country.
If, indeed, there is nothing to fear, if everything is in the best interest of the country, why not then provide the information we request in good faith?
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) moved second reading of the bill. It is of him therefore that we asked: "What route will the pipe line follow?" That surely is a fair question and we would be remiss in our duty as members of this house if we did not ask it. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre replied: I do not know.
How can we grant extraordinary powers to a company, if we do not even know what route its pipe line will follow, to whom the company will sell the oil, whether it will serve Canadian or American customers first or whether it will take no interest in either of them. We are completely in the dark in that connection. The more we progress, the more we discuss the matter, the more we realize that it would be beyond our power to authorize the Alberta Natural Gas Company to go ahead with projects of which we know nothing. Would the company work against the interests of the nation or those of a particular province? We like to think that such are not its intentions. However, for the very reason that we do not know what it plans to do, we can assume all sorts of hypotheses, some good, some bad, and think the best as well as the worst.
The members of the house should be in a position to tell the Alberta Natural Gas Company what route its pipe line must follow

in the nation's interest; however, not only are we prevented from correcting or altering the plans of the company but we do not even know what route it will follow.
We are told that the board of transport commissioners will deal with this. It will probably attend to the matter from the technical standpoint, from a specific angle, but its attitude will not be that of a member of the house, a representative of the people. I am loath to see members of parliament always surrendering their rights, powers, prerogatives and responsibilities to others.
There is also the government of Alberta, we are told. They will see to that. They will take steps to protect the interests of the province of Alberta. That is quite normal and is to be expected. But will they make sure that the interests of British Columbia are also protected? We know, of course, that they will not. We are well aware that it is here, in this house and nowhere else, that the general interest, the interests of the country at large will best be protected.
Finally, the Department of Trade and Commerce has been mentioned. By the Department of Trade and Commerce, do they mean the high officials, the powerful bureaucrats? If these are the people referred to, our answer is no, a thousand and ten thousand times no. At the beginning of my remarks, I voiced the opinion of the party with respect to federal bureaucracy and its activities. That applies to the bureaucrats of the Department of Trade and Commerce as well as to those of all other departments. Even if such were the case, our answer would still be no. We have listened to the speeches and statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and they were hardly reassuring.
For instance the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) has already asked him if we may conclude from a statement which may be found at page 792 of Hansard whether no export permit would be granted for oil if the suggested pipe line were not entirely within Canada. The answer given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was so vague that the member for Fraser Valley had this to say:
I take it that the minister is not going to answer my question?
The Minister of Trade and Commerce had a word for those who oppose the export, or at least the unrestricted export, of Canadian oil to the United States. He called them "petty Canadians". We do want to be those "petty Canadians" who look first to their own country's interests and have no wish to favour foreigners over our own taxpayers. We do
Alberta Natural Gas Company not mind being those "petty Canadians" who are heedful of the unfortunate consequences of a blank cheque-for that is what is being requested of us-given to the company which intends building this pipe line.
We want to be "petty Canadians" who consider, above all, the present and future of their own country and secondly, secondly only, the interests of others, of our neighbours. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, charity begins at home!
Therefore, whatever may be the intention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, we will not let him decide alone, or with his advisers or bureaucrats, what the route of the Alberta Natural Gas Company pipe line should be. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is a busy man. He must have other matters to attend to. The members will want to settle among themselves a problem which concerns them in the first place. Besides, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is sufficiently powerful; he does not need any more privileges or prerogatives. We know he is used to government by order in council. We of the Conservative opposition do not like it at all. We believe in the sovereignty of parliament and we shall express our belief on all occasions, in this matter of the Alberta Natural Gas Company and in any other.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is a very busy man, which is quite understandable, is sometimes absent-minded. Need I, for example, recall that on December 6 last, the minister clearly denied that Canada had shipped uranium to Soviet Russia? Two days later, on December 8, he admitted in the Commons-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he is out of order.


Mr. Fleming:: Go on, go on.


Henri Courtemanche: I shall not press the point, Mr. Speaker. I resume my remarks on the matter before the house.
We have no right to use those resources rashly. I repeat that we would betray our people should we permit the development of those resources in such a way as to favour and enrich foreigners to the detriment of our fellow citizens.
We often deplore the mass exodus of our young people to the United States. If we give a free hand to this company to build its pipe line wherever it wishes, even in the

Alberta Natural Gas Company
United States, we will encourage the emigration of our young people.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Henri Courtemanche: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am too conscious of my responsibility to approve of such a measure. Therefore, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), I move the adjournment of the debate.
(Text):


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



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jean Lesage (Monimagny-L'Islel) presented the first report of the joint committee on old age security and moved that the report be concurred in.
Gordon Graydon: Since it does not abolish the means test, I am calling "on division".
Motion agreed to on division.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Maybank for the second reading of Bill No. 7, respecting Alberta Natural Gas Company, and the motion of Mr. MacDougall: "That this question be now put."
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In
rising to speak again in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I make no apology because I believe I am representing the views of the majority

of the people of the province from which I come and, without question, the views of the majority of the people in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I think that is evidenced by the fact that the legislature of British Columbia has unanimously adopted a resolution in support of an allCanadian route for a pipe line through British Columbia. In addition to that, I have received, as have many other members from British Columbia, a large number of resolutions from boards of trade and other service organizations, and also resolutions from trade union organizations, representatives of the various trade union congresses in British Columbia, and other public service organizations. Without any doubt whatever, I think that what we who are speaking in opposition to this bill as now presented to the house have to say are the words that thousands of people in British Columbia would have to say if they had the opportunity to be here to give voice to their opinions.
Before proceeding with my somewhat brief remarks this evening I want to say again that I make no apology for speaking in this debate. Like other hon. members who have spoken, we know nothing of the personnel behind these companies. We know nothing about the companies as such; that is, their personnel, their structure and so on. Personally, I know nothing of the eminent counsel who are supposed to be interested in these bills, according to the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) this afternoon. All we are doing here is giving voice to a principle. That principle is that we believe that whoever receives a charter, or whatever companies receive charters to build pipe lines, should first give this house their assurance that Canadian requirements and Canadian communities will be served before any such pipe line enters the United States.
The members from British Columbia, representing all parties from British Columbia, who have spoken in this debate against these bills as presented at the present time, appreciate the assistance they have received from members of other provinces. We appreciate the assistance we have received from the Ontario members who have been big enough to take an all-Canadian .approach to this, to us, important question. We appreciate the attitude of the French-speaking members who have spoken in this debate. I think that was an excellent gesture on their part. We appreciate the support of members from Alberta; not only do we appreciate the support of the members of the Progressive Conservative party but we also last 55946-96
Alberta Natural Gas Company session appreciated the support received from one member of the Social Credit party, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie), who definitely expressed the opinion that he was not willing to support these bills until he was informed1 where the pipe lines would go.
This afternoon I listened with considerable interest to the somewhat constitutional and technical speech made by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott). In fact, while I was listening with great interest I was wondering who the hon. gentleman's research director is, because I should like to know. He no doubt had gone to a great deal of trouble in securing the material and he presented it well.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: He is yours truly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to compliment the hon. member on his knowledge of constitutional procedure and of the technical aspects of the question that have baffled other longtime members of this house. In addition to that, I was greatly interested in the bills containing amendments that he proposes to introduce into this house tomorrow, I understand. We shall all be interested in his contribution to this important question at that time.
Before proceeding with my remarks with respect to our main argument in this connection, I want to deal briefly with a few comments made by members who have spoken in support of these bills. This afternoon the hon. member for Comox-Alberni made a well-reasoned and understanding speech. Before proceeding I want to say that I fully appreciate the point of view of hon. members who oppose, shall I say, the action of some of the members on this side of the house in continuing this debate, and who suggest that we should allow the bills to pass second reading and go to committee. I understand their stand. I give them credit for their sincerity. But I should like them to understand also that their action is an evidence of political immaturity, because members who have served in this house or in other legislatures realize that once a bill passes second reading, is adopted in principle and goes to committee, you are quickly on the skids so far as rendering any effective opposition is concerned. Hence we are continuing this debate in the hope that the sponsors of the bill will pledge to this house that any pipe line built as a result of a charter from this house will pass through British Columbia first.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni mentioned the fact that this was a highly technical question for members in a house such as this to discuss. When he advances that argument, I ask him how then were members of this
1492	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company house in days gone by qualified to pass upon the highly technical question as to the location of the railroads. That is exactly what members of this house did. All we ask is the incorporation, in this bill and in the general pipe lines bill, of some provision that will make it possible for this house to do exactly what is done with respect to railroad charters; that is, for the general route of the pipe line to be designated in the bill. We would be satisfied if that designation was simply that it would serve Canadian interests first.
The hon. member asked: "What has this debate accomplished?" I would say that this debate on the part of a relatively small number of members of this house has aroused public opinion in British Columbia to the importance of this question, and has caused the public to be informed of the seriousness of this question. The debate in this house has caused the legislature of British Columbia to pass, by unanimous vote, a resolution endorsing the principle of an all-Canadian route. That is the principle on which we base our argument. I want to see my constituency served, as do other hon. members from British Columbia. That is the main thesis that we expound in this debate.
Then again, the trade unions and all the organizations in British Columbia that are now interested have had this matter brought to their attention as a result of this debate. The hon. gentleman said that if it were proved to him that the route was physically possible through British Columbia he would readily agree. I am going to have something to say about that a little later in my remarks in reply to a statement made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite), who I notice is listening with some interest. But briefly I would say that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni knows that the same physical conditions that face the construction of a line through British Columbia face the construction of a line through Washington, Idaho and Oregon. The conditions with respect to construction are exactly the same, namely, mountainous country, with a possibility of slides and other dangers.
Before proceeding further I want to say that I was amazed the last evening that the debate was continued to hear the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) suggest he thought the government had a perfect right to bring in closure in this debate. At the time he made his remarks I said, "The reason we are continuing the debate is the experience in the Fort William area." But apparently that remark did not reach Hansard. The hon. member for Fort William knows that his constituents have been too late; that they could not have the pipe line continued to Fort William and Port Arthur to meet their needs. The


city councils of Fort William and Port Arthur, supported by the members of the legislature for that area, supported by organizations in that area, made strong protests against the deviation of the pipe line into the United States before reaching Fort William or Port Arthur; and they came to Ottawa. The mayors of those cities and the members of the legislature for that area came to Ottawa and presented the people's wishes to the cabinet, but without effect. It was too late for anything to be done. Would the hon. member for Fort William, in suggesting that this government would be justified in applying closure, not say that his suggestion would result in the people of British Columbia experiencing the same result? We are not having any of it.


Mr. Mclvor:: May I be permitted to make a correction?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: When I came down here I found that if the pipe line had to go to Fort William it would cost $11 million more, and the upkeep of the line to Fort William would be $500,000 a year extra. We had the guarantee that the oil would go to Sarnia, and Canada would be served first, the thing that we stand for.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's explanation I would say that he has considered first United States profits, dividends and interest before the people of Fort William and Port Arthur.
On a previous occasion when this bill was under discussion we listened to one of the most interesting speeches that have been made.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Just another correction.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: There is not a man on that side of the house who is more alert to look after Canadian interests than the member for Fort William, and I include Port Arthur as well.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to a most interesting speech that was made on this question by the hon. member for Skeena. I give him credit for making a very well reasoned and interesting speech. The only regret I have is that such talent, such ability and such agility, so far as argument is concerned, were not used on this side of the house.
I want to bring to the attention of the house one other fact that hon. members from other provinces will notice, namely, that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni opposed this so-called filibuster, and was able to do so because in the splendid isolation of Vancouver island his constituents know there is

no possibility of receiving gas from Alberta wells under present conditions. Therefore his constituents are not directly affected. I may say that the hon. member for Skeena, who represents that great haddock-kipper economy, is also isolated from the main stream of British Columbia development, and his constituents at this time are not directly affected. Therefore he can justifiably express some opposition to this filibuster. But I want to deal briefly with some of his comments. On page 898 of Hansard I find that the hon. member for Skeena made this comment:
I think all hon. members will admit that these speeches have been more notable for their vague generalities and their hysterics than they have been for their facts or logical arguments.
There is evidence now that this hysterical, illogical and incorrect thinking is spreading beyond this chamber to other parts of the country. I refer particularly to parts of British Columbia.
There is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker. The interest in this subject is widespread in British Columbia. That is quite correct. The people of British Columbia are becoming increasingly concerned; but would he say that that is illogical, hysterical or incorrect? Would he say that the legislature of British Columbia was illogical, was hysterical, was incorrect in continuing to protect the interests of the people of British Columbia? Would he say that the various Liberal associations in Vancouver that have sent resolutions to their members here urging them to support and fight for an all-Canadian route are illogical, are hysterical, are incorrect? Would he say that the provincial members of British Columbia, in adopting the same attitude and supporting the point of view of members on this side of the house who have spoken in this debate, are illogical, are hysterical, are incorrect? Does he charge the great mass of the people of British Columbia with being illogical, hysterical and incorrect? I think not.
This, Mr. Speaker, is not an organized filibuster; it is not an organized debate. It is a spontaneous, democratic expression against the possibility of Canadians not benefiting from Canadian natural resources.
The hon. member goes on to say at page 899 of Hansard:
Those who object to the granting of the charter, that is, to the birth of this company, have only one real argument. It amounts to this:	Do not bring
this company into the world; it might not do what we think is right. It would be just as logical to pass a law against having children, because they might not be amenable to the line of reasoning of my hon. friend.
First of all I must congratulate the hon. member on the lesson he has given the house in political obstetrics, but I must assure him of this, that his procedure would result in 55946-961
Alberta Natural Gas Company the birth of a deaf, dumb and blind political child. We on this side of the house believe in some form of prenatal care when it comes to births of this type.
At page 900 the hon. member goes on to say:
Every hon. member and every individual in this country favours an all-Canadian route if such a route is economically feasible and possible. Of that fact, of course, there can be no question. These resolutions which have been passed- and I would include the resolution of the British Columbia legislature-would have been far more effective if they had included those words "provided the same is economically feasible and possible." We all favour an all-Canadian route under those circumstances.
I am surprised the hon. member has not read the literature on this subject, and that he would suggest that the legislature of British Columbia would adopt unanimously a resolution urging an all-Canadian route, if that legislature were not convinced of the fact that it is physically possible.


Mr. Goode:: Did I understand the hon. member to say that the British Columbia legislature passed this unanimously?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Tom Goode: Are you quite sure you are right?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am quite sure I am right. And to prove I am right I will read a letter I received from a member of the British Columbia legislature.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member should read in this house a letter he received from a member of a legislature. I do not think it is good practice.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling; but I am sure hon. members will accept my word that this letter informs me that the Speaker declared the resolution adopted unanimously.


Howard Charles Green: So do Votes and Proceedings.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very glad the hon. member for Burnaby-Riohmond (Mr. Goode) asked me that, because when he does it would seem that he is interested in what I have to say.


Tom Goode: For this one time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to go on now to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite). As a matter of fact I am giving the hon. member for Skeena undue advertising. This is what the hon. member said, as quoted at page 902 of Hansard:
I wonder if it is fair to mention little places like Keremeos in a debate of this kind. Nothing could be crueler than to dangle before small communities the hope of cheap gas and cheap fuel and then find out that the population is not sufficiently large to justify the expense of the construction of the distribution works involved.
1494	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company
In reply to that I would say simply this, that the hon. member who mentioned it did mention that Keremeos would directly benefit. The contention was that whether gas served that community directly or not, Keremeos would benefit from the over-all industrial development of the interior of British Columbia. But I would say this, that nothing could be crueler than to dangle before the eyes of the Canadian people large placards promising a new social order. Could anything be crueler than to placard this country with promises for markets for farm products, and then have the farmers find that they are unable to sell their agricultural products? Could anything be crueler than to placard this country with -the slogan "Full Employment for All", and then find that we have nearly 400,000 Canadians out of work during this last winter? Could anything be crueler than to advertise the abolition of the means test for the old age pension and then, when it is suggested that it be abolished, have it abolished as the result of building up a system whereby the pensioner pays practically every cent of the pension?
The slight interruption I received from the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has caused me to fail to mention a publication that deals with feasibility of the route. This publication is issued by the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited, and it gives some of the facts about the building of a pipe line through British Columbia. This is in answer to the argument of the hon. member for Skeena that all would be in favour of a route through British Columbia, if it was physically practical and possible. In that connection let me read from this booklet:
The entire length of the line has been inspected most minutely by the firm of Ford, Bacon and Davis, Inc., of New York, one of the largest oil and gas pipe line engineering firms in the world. Their report, which will be filed with the conservation board, shows the route of the line to be completely practical and economical in all respects.
I see my time is slipping away, so I shall now turn to the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray), whom I respect very much, and who appears to me to be, shall I say, a Jeffersonian liberal. He seemed to be very much concerned about the development of monopolies, and things of that kind, in Canada. At pages 910 and 911 of Hansard he deals at length with his first objection to monopolies, and, in part, says this:
I think of another monopoly which found its origin in Calgary many years ago, a monopoly in connection with a basic commodity which is vital and necessary to every home owner or other person who has a stake in the country, particularly farmers and industrialists. I refer to the manufacture of Portland cement.
[Mr. Herridge.l

Then he goes on to deal with the monopoly in cement, and concludes by saying this:
We are still paying the penalty for that. If you will look over the figures you will find that last year we imported four million sacks of cement from foreign countries. The local organization which has such complete control from coast to coast was not able to supply the cement.
That is because of the monopoly that existed. Well, I can assure the hon. member in the first place that he is entirely under a misconception if he thinks the oil industry, as it is developed in the United States, is not a monopoly. If he wishes to pay considerable attention to monopolies in this country, then I recommend that he deal with the question of the flour combine report, the matches combine and the glass combine, which have grown up and which have developed in this country under the auspices of a Liberal government.
In that connection I should like to read briefly from the congressional report of March 20, 1950, page 3673. At this point the record deals with a debate being carried on in connection with the natural gas bill in the United States. Various senators are dealing with the monopolistic characteristics of the oil and gas industry in that country. In that connection this is what Senator Gillette has
to say:
After all, we are dealing here with an industry that is characterized both by its inner structure and by its very nature as a monopoly. Let me cite here a statement made by the senator from Nebraska (Mr. Wherry), the able minority leader, which I found in an excellent report. No. 25, Eighty-first Congress, first session, entitled ''Oil Supply and Distribution Problems".
This was published as a final report of the Special Committee to Study Problems of American Small Business, under the capable chairmanship of the senator from Nebraska. On page 13, we find this clear and forthright declaration:
"Monopoly as generally understood means control of a product both as to quantity allowed to reach the market and price. If you control the quantity you automatically control the price. Hence, the
^ninnlniuv< inductrv	1

a monopoly."
There is no need to cite chapter and verse on the character of this industry. It is enough to note that it is increasingly dominated by a few giant corporations which own and control one of the most vital natural resources modern man has ever discovered.
For example, 33 of the largest oil companies hold in lease or in fee 62-5 per cent of all acreage containing natural-gas reserves. Over half of these reserves are owned by the largest 14 companies.
There is definite proof that this industry is largely monopolistic. Then, the hon. member for Cariboo is reported at page 911 of Hansard as follows:
Future shipments of lumber to that country depend upon the existence of good will.
Well, we are all for the existence of good will. But we must remember this, that hardheaded businessmen buy their lumber on the

basis of value and price. If we have the commodity and if we give the value, and if we can sell it at a price they want, they will buy it.
I have several other illustrations, but my time is passing and I must now come to my concluding argument. My people are very much interested in this question because our section of the country, the interior of British Columbia, has been very much overlooked by this government. We have had some experience in this, as other members from British Columbia know. We recall the Oregon treaty, which gave permanent navigation rights from the headwaters of the Columbia to the sea, in return for giving to the United States that section of the states which now lies between the Columbia and the Pacific ocean- a great treaty right which was considered of great value. Possibly conditions have changed. But this government allowed the United States government to build a huge dam at Grand Coulee, and there is no record of this government having made any protest whatever. If this government had been protecting the rights of the people of the interior of British Columbia some protest would have been made and without question compensation would have been granted, either to maintain steamer services in that area or to provide the necessary roads to the international boundary.
This government has failed to bring under the transport board the inland lake services in British Columbia and as a result the residents along those lakes have for many years suffered a declining and inferior service. In addition to that certain branches of this government have failed completely to advertise the interior of British Columbia. They advertise the centres where the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National hotels are located, but I challenge anyone to find any reference to the interior of British Columbia in the literature put out by the dominion tourist bureau. This Switzerland of Canada is completely overlooked. Therefore are not our people justified in expressing indignation over these bills?
In comparison I would refer the house to the action taken by the state governments in the United States at a time when we in this house are fighting so that British Columbia interests may have the opportunity of using Canadian natural resources. The governments of Oregon, Washington and Idaho are keeping their people informed of the possibilities disclosed by surveys that have been made to indicate the requirements of gas for industrial and domestic uses. Committees are being organized and everybody is being
3, 1950
Alberta Natural Gas Company aroused to the industrial possibilities of gas to be brought in from Canada. I should like to read a press dispatch from Olympia, Washington, as follows:
Governor Langlie today predicted importation of a large and steady supply of natural gas into Washington from Canada within the next two or three years.
He made his prediction as he met with executive committee members of his new state-wide industrial development committee.
The governor disclosed the state public service commission has been in touch for several months with proposals for bringing in the gas. This week, he said, the commission adopted rules covering the importation to assure consumers fair and reasonable rates.
Commission chairman Owen Clarke said he is sending personnel into Alberta for on-the-spot investigation into plans for piping gas into this state.
While our federal and provincial governments have taken little action in the matter the different governments in the United States have appointed committees to interest the people in the distribution of gas and petroleum. The people I represent realize the importance of this gas and its use for power and domestic purposes. I could quote a number of important arguments to support my contention and that advanced by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones) and the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) who also represent constituencies in the interior of British Columbia, a vast empire of undeveloped natural resources.
We are going to continue to fight for the right of those people to be given an opportunity to use this Canadian natural resource. I suggest that the sponsor of this bill, whom I see smiling over there, should change the bill so that it will provide for an all-Canadian route. Then we will be ready to support it. This debate has indicated the urgent necessity of a dominion statute to cover public utilities such as pipe lines. This is becoming such a gigantic development that the present federal and provincial legislation is not sufficient to protect the interests of the Canadian people.
We in this group believe that the final solution to the pipe-line problem is public ownership. I give credit to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) for mentioning this afternoon that the Canadian government is losing a great opportunity by not taking over the operation of these pipe lines; in order to balance the losses in other divisions of transportation. I think there are-many hon. members who, regardless of party affiliation, agree that that is a legitimate-proposal.

Alberta Natural Gas Company
In conclusion I wish to say that this group stands for public ownership. Not finding that possible under the policies adopted by this government, we certainly stand for Canadian interests. I beg leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce):
That the debate be now adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that according to the rules it is not in order to move the adjournment of the debate after a previous motion to adjourn the debate and before there have been some intermediate proceedings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before you rule I should like to draw your attention to-


An hon. Member:: He has ruled.


An hon. Member:: Out of order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Learn something about parliamentary rules yourself. You have sat there since the session opened and said nothing. You do not know a thing about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We have heard enough from you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I intend to hear what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is quite correct that in addition to standing order 48, which provides for the motion to adjourn the debate, there is also standing order 30, to which Your Honour has alluded, which provides that between one motion to adjourn and another there must'be an intermediate proceeding.


Mr. Speaker:: I will not ask the hon. member to continue because I recall that the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) moved this afternoon that the report of a committee should be concurred in by the house and in my opinion that was an intermediate proceeding and I declare the motion moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) to be in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I can save my argument for a later time.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening intently to the

debate on this pipe-line bill for several days. As the debate has continued, I have become more interested, but I promise you I shall not detain the house too long.
As I understand it, this pipe-line bill would grant a charter to a company to transmit both gas and oil. I look upon this bill in the same way as if it were a bill dealing with a charter for a railway right of way. This company will be a carrier of goods and service.


John Lambert Gibson: From what is the member quoting?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I am quoting from the same thing as the hon. member quoted from when he spoke about an hour ago.
The debate has revolved around the route to be taken by this pipe line. I believe that either the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) or the sponsor of the bill should make a statement about the route of the line. Surely someone must know where it is going. Up to date, this is the greatest natural resource that has ever been discovered, and it means a great deal to Canada's industrial development.
I shall now read from the "Imperial Oil Review":
Alberta's Leduc field has made oil history in Canada. In less than three years it has grown from a single discovery well located in a district noted for wheat farming to more than 320 wells with a daily production of 26,000 barrels of crude.


John Lambert Gibson: Try the telephone directory.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It covers 22,000 acres containing estimated proven reserves of 242 million barrels of oil.
Now, in a motion picture, the story of the transformation of the Leduc district has been recorded on film. It is a story of success after years of costly searching and heart-breaking disappointment.
"A mile below the wheat" is a 16 millimetre colour film with music and voice describing how the discovery of oil affected the community and small Alberta town after which the now famous oil field was named.


Mr. Warren:: From what is the member reading?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The hon. member never said or read anything in his life, so he should keep quiet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: This is only a short paragraph I am reading. If you will let me have a moment, we will get over it that much quicker and then probably have another vote.


Ralph Melville Warren: This is supposed to be a speech.
Alberta Natural Gas Company


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Yes. The paragraph reads as follows:
As oilmen today continue their work of probing the depths for new wells, farming goes on much the same as if there were no other crop being harvested. But there are profound changes because of the Leduc oil-changes that affect all of Canada. There is a new prosperity in the Leduc area; there are increased revenues for Alberta; Canada is saving precious U.S. dollars that formerly had to be spent on imported oil.
In the war years-and after-we were dependent on foreign oil for roughly 90 per cent of our supplies. Now since the advent of Leduc, which set off a chain of other important discoveries, prairie production exceeds western refining capacity. With continued effort and reasonable success, it is not too much to hope the men who search for oil will make Canada self-sufficient in petroleum in years to come.


Ralph Melville Warren: Do some more reading.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It seems feasible to me, Mr. Speaker-


Ralph Melville Warren: Make a speech, without
reading.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: -that it should be an allCanadian route rather than through the United States. We, as members of a Canadian parliament, should be thinking in terms of what is best for Canada over a long period rather than just about selling one of our greatest natural resources for a few paltry dollars.


An hon. Member:: United States dollars.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It is my firm conviction that in the transmission and export of gas from this Canada of ours the Canadian consumers should be the first to be served. By building through Canada to Vancouver, that objective will be achieved. An all-Canadian line means that many additional communities in Alberta and in British Columbia will be served with natural gas. It means that the major section of the transmission system would be under Canadian control. It means that this Canada of ours would reap the benefit of the expenditure of large amounts of United States capital in the construction of the major portion of the pipe line within our own borders. It means that all questions of pipe line rates, safety regulations and in fact all other controls would be under the supervision of Canadian authorities.


An hon. Member:: Take this glass of water.


An hon. Member:: What a stall!


Stanley Howard Knowles: What was in it?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It is hard to say. I took a chance. He is an hon. member and a colleague of mine, and I do not think he would give me anything bad.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

Alberta Natural Gas Company


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I will take a chance on it for once. [DOT]
It has been said that other charters have been granted. That is true. They have probably been granted without a route being incorporated in the bill. I think that was a mistake. Because this parliament once made a mistake is no reason why we should make a mistake twice; two wrongs never made a right.


Ralph Melville Warren: Make a speech.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), in speaking the other day, left the impression, in my humble opinion, that this house should be willing to pass this bill or any other bill so long as it was left in the hands of the minister, the transport committee, board or other commission, so long as he was a Liberal or they were Liberals. Seeing that he is such a fine gentleman and was willing to entrust the pipe line charter to the hands of any committee that smacked of Liberalism, I would refer him to the nineteenth verse of the third chapter of Genesis which reads as follows:
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground.
That scene was in the garden of Eden and that was a long time ago.


Mr. Gauthier (Sudbury):: That was not in
Fort William.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: There was no electricity at that time, and no gas or oil; and the chances are that there were no matches either. I want to tell every hon. member in this house that if we do not develop our country and develop these natural resources that have been handed down to us, we shall still be hewers of wood and drawers of water. We are here to do as good a job as we can for the benefit of Canada. If we do not do that, we are lax in our duty as members of parliament.
Somebody else in this debate said that if this pipe line bill did not pass, there would be no competition; and if it did pass, it would give competition so far as pipe lines are concerned. As a result of learning what I can about the matter, I understand that only one pipe line will be built anyway and that one pipe line will carry the whole production of that area at the present time. As a free enterpriser I believe that the life of trade is in competition and not in monopoly. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite), speaking on monopoly, as reported at page 900 of Hansard, had this to say. I will read what he said at that time.


Ralph Melville Warren: Read it.


An hon. Member:: Was it a good drink?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: He said:
I do not think it has even been denied that the refusal to incorporate any more pipe-line companies in the west would have the effect of establishing a monopoly for the one company which already has its charter. That is not a monopoly compelling that company to build through British Columbia. As the bill has been passed and as the bill stands today, there is no restriction whatever, legally, upon the company, forbidding it to build anywhere in the world it likes, provided that it can get the necessary permits.
We are asked to defeat this bill. On- what ground? On somebody's vague suggestion as to the intentions of this company and the intentions of the existing company, as to whose intentions there is and can be no definite proof until each company restricts its applications before the board of transport commissioners to one route and one route only. I have said this would result in the establishment of a monopoly. I repeat that this is not a monopoly which compels the existing company to build an all-Canadian route. It is not a monopoly which compels the existing company to build any route. It is a monopoly upon which, if they choose, they can just sit on their exclusive charter and do nothing, and Alberta can whistle for markets and British Columbia whistle for gas indefinitely.
It has been suggested that we must eventually land up with a monopoly for practical reasons; that only one pipe line is feasible. That may or may not be true, but in any event it is only partly true.


Ralph Melville Warren: We cannot hear you when you are reading. Make a speech.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I continue:
In the first place, why establish the monopoly in the negotiation stage? Why should we guarantee any chosen instrument freedom from all fair competition by any other at any time? We are told that we are going to find ourselves with a monopoly as the result of a sort of accident.
I do not think it is any accident, Mr. Speaker, because there has been a great deal of debate on this question and surely they cannot all be wrong.	,


An hon. Member:: Most of them are.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Two routes have been mentioned. Of course they have to get over the mountains, and the Yellowhead pass is one route that has been mentioned. Some of the previous speakers would have you believe that they were just going to go around the borderline or around the hill or around the fence or something of the sort and back into Canada.


An hon. Member:: Follow the government.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Follow the government; just go over the borderline and back again. I do not know whether many hon. members have seen a map of this proposed route, but I happen to have one.


An hon. Member:: Table it.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I do not know that it would do you any good if I did table it; you are

too ignorant to look at it. You would not believe it if you did look at it.


John Lambert Gibson: You would not know where you were going if you saw it.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: This Canadian route has to go through the Yellowhead pass-


An hon. Member:: One thousand miles.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: -down through British Columbia, and it will serve the communities in that province on its way south.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Where is the Yellowhead pass?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You would not know.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I have a map of that, too.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What part of British Columbia?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The southern route goes
through the Crowsnest pass and down into the United States.


Mr. Cote (Malapedia-Maiane):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is reading his speech.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, there are none so blind as those who will not see.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand at the present time the hon. member is not reading his speech; he is reading a map. I have never been asked to rule on that question before, but I must rule on another question, namely, that there must not be so many interruptions. I must insist that the hon. member who has the floor be allowed to proceed without interruptions.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: As I said before, this proposed route does not go over the border a mile; it goes over the border 130 miles and down to Spokane. Then it goes west somewhere between 300 and 400 miles, and before it comes to where it crosses that state there is a branch that goes south again to Pendleton another 120 miles. When it goes south and west and then south again it goes down to Portland, Oregon, a distance of over 350 miles from the Canadian border. This pipe line is going to develop the whole northwest corner of the United States. It goes clean across the state of Washington before it ever starts north toward Vancouver. After it goes west, when it turns north it has to go another 140 miles to get to Vancouver. Therefore this proposed route will develop at -least 350 square miles of the United States before any gas gets back into Canadian territory.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: It is a thousand miles long in Canada, though.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Well, I would like to see it
3,000	miles long in Canada.
Alberta Natural Gas Company


George Matheson Murray: It goes along the 49th parallel.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: A thousand miles in Canada is the limit of your ambition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again I must remind hon. members that they must not interrupt the hon. member who has the floor.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I have very little idea of the amount of gas that may be produced in Alberta, but I do know that if some hon. members would only stop to think they would get some information into their heads. I was talking to a couple of local members and they had not even read the bill. Yet they thump their desks and make a lot of noise in here.
This pipe line will develop the United States. What I am fearful of is that this part of the United States will develop so fast when they find out that they are going to get gas that it will be to the detriment of British Columbia and Alberta. When the pipe line is under construction houses will convert their heating systems to use gas, industries will be developed all along this pipe line with the use of gas. I am fearful that very little gas will ever get back into Canada to be used in Vancouver or in any part of British Columbia. You will get only what is left after the other fellow is through with it.
I do not want to deprive the United States people of anything, but I do want to see Canadians get the benefit of this utility first. I have many friends in the United States; I have business associates there. Hardly a month goes by that I do not do business with some United States firm or some individual in that country. But every time a citizen of the United States gets a concession he never relinquishes it. I know that in my own business back in 1922 United States lumber wholesalers said to us: "We are going to buy your lumber at 2 per cent, 30 days." Previous to that time they used to pay cash and never more than 30 days. They said:	"We are
going to buy your lumber at 2 per cent, 30 days." We accepted, yes. We accepted it like the fellow on the street who walks up to another man and puts a gun to his ribs and says:	"Give me your watch." The United
States was the only market we had at that time, other than the Canadian market. It was the only place to which we were exporting. These people still hang on to that concession. They have hung on to it through good times and bad. They have never relinquished their hold on that set-up in the lumber business. Even during the war they still hung on to it. The hon. member for Comox-Albemi, who is a lumberman, knows that what I am saying is true.


John Lambert Gibson: We like that business.

Alberta Natural Gas Company


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It is a good business, but we would rather have it cash, 30 days, and not 2 per cent, 30 days. When you consider that 2 per cent, it amounts to 12 per cent per annum, which is not a bad profit in itself. It is no fault of the people of the United States. That is their way of doing business. They would not think any the less of us if we protected ourselves first. It is possible for us to protect ourselves in any business, and they will not think any the less of us. They will still do business with us, I am sure, if Canada takes care of developing her own natural resources for the benefit of Canadians first. No citizen of the United States will think any worse of us if we do that. They would still have a friendly feeling toward us. They will be glad to take what is left over after our needs have been supplied rather than have Canadians take what is left over.
Just recently the Canadian National Railways sold their mineral rights in a lot of property in the western provinces. I think they should have held on to them for this very same reason. There is going to be natural gas and oil produced or found in that area, and a pipe line will be needed to transport it. It will certainly be transported by pipe line when it is discovered in large enough quantities to warrant such a line.
I think it was a mistake. 1 am not so enamoured of private enterprise that I cannot see the need for national undertakings at times. Probably that may sound a little bit socialistic, but it would be to the benefit of Canada. The Canadian National Railways are operated in that way. The Ontario hydro is handled in that way. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) spoke about Polymer. He said that was his enterprise, and that he was proud of it. He should be proud of it. He is proud of it, and rightly so. If we have to grant charters, if we have to give away natural resources, to get somebody to put up a few dollars to build a pipe line, then I think the government of Canada should build a pipe line itself. It is a national enterprise. It is something that is ot going to just one province. Eventually it will go through the United States. I would be satisfied if the government had gone so far as to say that it would build this pipe line and have it owned by Canadians, for Canadians, and for our future generations.
Anyone who looks through the list of bills which have been passed in earlier sessions of parliament, particularly in the one last spring, will see bill after bill introduced by private members in which they have asked for things which would be all-Canadian. They have wanted this thing or that thing to be Canadian, and their wishes have taken different


forms. I have no doubt many of the things for which they have asked would have been beneficial.
However, I would ask those same members, the members who signed those bills, who sponsored them and followed them through the house, to think commercially for Canada for a few moments. Let them make up their minds how they will vote on this question. Let them decide whether they want something that is all-Canadian, or something that is tied to the United States or to some other country.
I believe all hon. members will agree that, from the standpoint of defence, we can appreciate our hook-up with the United States. We appreciate, too, our commercial position in relation to that country. At the same time, as Canadians we must look first to the development of our natural resources, for Canadians.
In his speech the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) said, as reported at page 901 of Hansard:
What about the consumer? Have we no responsibility for the consumer? I assume every hon. member will agree that the final cost to the consumer must depend very largely upon the cost of the capital works involved. And this brings me to a reiteration of a statement that I have made before, that we all favour the principle of an all-Canadian route. Why on earth would we not? But not if such a route is going to have the result of materially adding to the costs of home owners and the costs of production for ever to those who want to use gas as fuel or as power.
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing to be said, and that is this, that there will not be any Canadian consumers in British Columbia if this route goes down to the south. If it goes through the Yellowhead pass and the interior of British Columbia it will serve the Canadian consumer in British Columbia and other parts of western Canada.
Then, so far as price is concerned, I do not think there is any member who can tell what the cost of this route will be. Even if it did cost a few dollars more, taking for granted that the Yellowhead route might be more expensive-and I doubt if it would-but even if it did cost a little more, the Canadian consumer would reap the benefit. Even if it cost one or two cents more per month to heat his home, is it not better for him to have that service and to save perhaps $100 in a season, the difference between heating by coal and by gas? It is much better to pay a few cents a month more than to have to heat his house with wood or coal.
Like many other members, I am the father of a family, and I look to the future of Canada and to the younger generation coming along. I say to hon. members that I am most anxious to do my part to build a better Canada for all young Canadians so that they may find

employment, so that this country may be developed, and so that future Canadians will be able to look back, in the years to come, and realize that those of us who are here today have builded better than we knew.
Many new members have come to the House of Commons in the last election. They seem to have learned fast. Among them are some bright gentlemen, and I have been pleased to meet them and to accept them as my colleagues. But they have developed into the greatest desk thumpers we have ever seen in the House of Commons in the last five years. That trait has developed quickly, and they seem to hang on to it. Hon. members will recall the way they went after me when I began my remarks. Of course, I did not mind, because one must be prepared for that in the House of Commons. If that is what they think they are here for, and if they are pleased about it, then I shall be pleased too. But let me say this one word to them: Do not forget that, no matter what happened in Canada before, you are the heirs of the past; you are the trustees of the future. Think that over before voting on this question.
We are approaching the Easter recess, and the debate on this matter has been lengthy. Perhaps there will be more of it. However, I think it would be well if all hon. members had the opportunity to go back home and talk this over with their constituents before attempting to decide the issue here. It is not going to take much more time to wait until after the Easter recess for the vote.
Therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Catherwood), I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: When a similar motion was made earlier this evening I raised the question as to whether it was in order to move in succession two motions to adjourn the debate, without an intermediate proceeding. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rose to discuss the matter. Then I decided that since there had been an intermediate proceeding the point of order did not arise.
At this time, however, I should be glad to hear any hon. member on the question as to whether a motion to adjourn the debate can follow a similar motion, without an intermediate proceeding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet before, when Your Honour interrupted and suggested that what I was saying was not necessary, for you had decided that the previous motion was in order. 1 indicated, however, that I was prepared to make my remarks later, if necessary.
Alberta Natural Gas Company
As I suggested then, standing order 48 is the one that makes provision for a motion to adjourn the debate. It reads:
When a question is under debate no question is received unless to amend it, to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; or for the adjournment of the house.
It is to be noted, of course, that if there are any other standing orders that limit the application of this standing order, they have to be taken into consideration. Your Honour therefore raised the question as to the meaning of standing order 30, in its relation to standing order 48. Standing order 30 reads:
A motion to adjourn (except when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance), shall always be in order, but no second motion to the same effect shall be made until after some intermediate proceeding has been had.
Two questions arise, the first of which is this: Is a motion to adjourn the debate covered by standing order 30, which specifies a motion to adjourn? And, secondly, what is an intermediate proceeding?
We turn to citation 164 in Beauchesne's third edition, and find this paragraph:
The term "intermediate proceeding" used in standing order 30, means a proceeding that can properly be entered on the Journals. The true test is that if any parliamentary proceeding takes place, the second motion is regular, and the clerk ought to enter the proceedings to show that the motion in question is regular. It is usual to alternate motions for adjournment of house and debate when a question is under consideration.
And then follows the notation "B.322,323" which, of course, indicates that that citation was taken from Bourinot's fourth edition, at pages 322 and 323. As a matter of fact the quotation which Beauchesne gave from Bourinot has been altered slightly, but not to change its meaning, except in so far as part of it has been omitted. I should like to quote the rest of that paragraph from Bourinot where he says:
The true test is that if any parliamentary proceeding takes place, the second motion is regular, and the clerk ought to enter the proceedings to show that the motion in question is regular. It is usual to alternate motions for adjournment of house and debate when a question is under consideration. In case there is a substantive motion of adjournment before, the house, and it is negatived, some proceeding must be had in order to render a second motion to the same effect regular.
I pause to emphasize that the reference there is to a substantive motion of adjournment. I go on:
A message from the governor general followed by other proceedings would be sufficient to render a second motion of adjournment valid.

Alberta Natural Gas Company
I want to emphasize the concluding sentence in this paragraph from Bourinot:
The rule applies literally to the adjournment of the house, and not of the debate-
In other words, Bourinot quite clearly says that when it is a motion to adjourn the house, the rule must be applied literally and some other proceeding must intervene, but that the rule does not apply when it is a motion to adjourn the debate. Let me read the whole sentence:
The rule applies literally to the adjournment of the house, and not of the debate, but it is usual and convenient to make an entry in the Journal between two motions of the latter character.
In other words, between two motions to adjourn the debate there should be an entry in the Journals to show that something has happened in the meantime. That paragraph ends with a reference to a footnote (u) which refers to a number of instances in Hansard of bygone days. I have taken the trouble while this debate has been going on to look up all of those references back in 1891 and I have on my desk both the Hansard and the Journals of that year. The instance that occurred on June 22, 1891, was a case where there had to be some intermediate proceeding of another character because on that occasion the two motions were motions to adjourn the house. It will be found on page 1198 of Hansard of June 22, 1891, that Mr. Laurier, as he was then, moved the adjournment of the house. The yeas and nays were called and the motion to adjourn the house was defeated by a vote of 103 to 83. Then there appears a list of the pairs and so on and before another motion to adjourn the house could be made there had to be an intervening proceeding of some other character exactly along the lines Bourinot sets out when he speaks about a message from the governor general being sufficient. As reported on page 1199 of Hansard of June 22, 1891, the next item of business was as follows:
Sir John Thompson presented a message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. Speaker read the message as follows:
Stanley of Preston.
The governor general transmits to the House of Commons, further papers relating to the extension and development of trade between the United States and the Dominion of Canada, including the colony of Newfoundland.
Government House,
Ottawa, 16th June, 1891.
The next item is the third reading of a certain bill, and then we come to another motion to adjourn by Sir Hector Langevin, and then there is this entry:
Motion agreed to; and house adjourned at 1.50 a.m. (Tuesday).
That is a case where the two motions were motions to adjourn the house. Bourinot refers

to that case as an example where there must be an intervening proceeding of another character, and Votes and Proceedings so records it. However, if you take the first of the references that Bourinot gives on page 323, namely, May 21, 1891, you find that the case referred to there is of the kind now before the house. The matter under discussion on that occasion was quite interesting. It was a resolution calling for prohibition, and it seemed to provoke considerable debate. As recorded on page 362 of Hansard of May 21, 1891, there was a motion to adjourn the debate. This was protested and there was a recorded vote and the motion to adjourn the debate was defeated by 74 to 65. The debate went on and there was no other intermediate proceeding-I have checked it carefully in Hansard and I will substantiate what I say in a moment by reference to the Journals- until we get to page 383 when another member moved the adjournment of the debate. That was voted upon and the recorded vote appears at page 386. That time the motion to adjourn the debate carried by a vote of 98 to 80.
May I say that the whole affair is well covered in the Journals for the session of 1891 at pages 150 and 151. Hon. members will find the whole matter fully recorded there. I quote from page 150 as follows:
And a debate arising thereupon;


Mr.   Sproule@: , seconded by Mr. Taylor, and the question being put, that the debate be adjourned; the house divided: and the names being called for, they were taken down, as follow:
The vote was 65 yeas and 74 nays.


Mr. MacDougall:: Read the names.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then it is recorded:
So it passed in the negative.
Let me go on and read everything that appears between that recorded vote and the next recorded vote so that it will be perfectly clear that all that transpired between the first motion to adjourn the debate and the second motion to adjourn the debate was further debate on the same motion with regard to prohibition that was before the House of Commons at that time. I go on to read:
And the question being again proposed on the amendment to the said proposed amendment.


Mr. Gillies moved: , seconded by Mr. Cameron (Inverness), and the question being put, that the debate be adjourned: the house divided: and the names being called for, they were taken down, as follow:
The vote was 98 yeas and 80 nays and then there is a notation:
So it was resolved in the affirmative.
And then the house adjourned till tomorrow.
I submit that it is quite clear that Bourinot had this record of what happened in 1891

before him when he wrote the citations that appear on pages 322 and 323 of his fourth edition. There he makes it very clear that when the motion to adjourn the house has been made there cannot be another motion to adjourn the house until there has been an intermediate proceeding of another character, but that when a motion is made to adjourn the debate another motion can be made later on to adjourn the debate even though there intervenes in the meantime only further debate on the question before the house.
I submit that the case before us is on all fours with the one in 1891 and that the present motion is in order. After all, it is a different motion from the one we had before. The house may have defeated the motion to adjourn the debate this afternoon, or before supper, or at half-past eight, but the motion now before us is to adjourn the debate now, or in other words at 9.40 p.m.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I always thought that the standing orders and rules of the house were based on common sense and, secondly, that the House of Commons was master of its own procedure and of what takes place in the House of Commons. I have lis-tended to a flood of words and a reference to what took place in 1891. While I was listening with one ear I was trying to understand the meaning of standing order 48 and the citations thereunder. Standing order 48 reads:
When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it . . .
That is the first part. If you turn to citation 403 under that standing order you will see that it reads:
An amendment once negatived by the house cannot be proposed a second time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is distortion.


Alphonse Fournier: Wait a minute. Let us try to give some meaning to this standing order. Suppose I move an amendment to the motion before the chair, it is voted upon and defeated, and then half an hour later another speaker moves the same amendment; it would be out of order. That seems to be common sense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


Alphonse Fournier: Take the standing order and read it. It reads in part:
When a question is under debate no motion is received unless . . . for the adjournment of the house.
About forty minutes ago-


Stanley Howard Knowles: For the adjournment of the debate.


Alphonse Fournier: The adjournment of the debate. About forty minutes ago an
Alberta Natural Gas Company hon. member rose, made a speech and moved the adjournment of the debate. The same motion was moved before six o'clock. In its wisdom the house has decided that the debate should not be adjourned, and we have voted twice on the same motion. What difference do you say there is, in giving a meaning to this standing order, between moving an amendment which is defeated and trying to move it a second time? You are amending the main motion by asking that the debate be adjourned.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The difference is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alphonse Fournier: Here is a good lawyer.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Listen to your crows. The difference is that between fair treatment of members of the house and Liberal bureaucracy. That is the difference. You are trying to railroad these things through.


Alphonse Fournier: Railroad it after all these months?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Liberalism.


Alphonse Fournier: I am sorry one of my best friends in the house takes it that way. I think he is making a mistake. If the majority is not going to rule in the house and in the country then we will have chaos. I always thought that I came here as a result of being elected by a majority. I have respect for the minority and for my opponents. I always thought that the government was formed by the majority of the members of the house. In the last month I have seen that the majority has nothing to say. If you give that interpretation to the standing orders and the rules it becomes ridiculous, and the press of the country is taking a stand against such procedure. How can serious men stand up here and justify it? They know that this motion to adjourn the debate is going to be defeated. Yet they will stand up and move it. They are a minority in this house; they are a minority on this motion-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Who started this? Maybank.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I ask my friend a question in all sincerity? There are times when the majority is wrong. Thank goodness precedent governs and holds in check majorities who believe they are right. The benefits derived from precedents restraining majorities have been a godsend to the world. Do you sincerely believe that because you are elected to parliament by a large majority anything you say is absolutely correct and not debatable? I am surprised at my friend.
1504	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company


Alphonse Fournier: If the hon. member wishes to make a speech on the point of order I will listen to him attentively and will not raise my voice. I think I am discussing something that the hon. member will never understand. I was trying to deal with the point that the house has decided one question twice during the day. The majority may be wrong and the minority may be right, but how are you going to change the rules and the law?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We do not want to; we want to abide by them.


Alphonse Fournier: Do you want to occupy the government benches without having the support of the people of the country?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Alphonse Fournier: We have met the test. We do our best and when you count the ballots we do not seem to be on that side. We are on this side. If you think the minority should be sitting here without having the support of the people, then I think you are all wrong as to the procedure of the house or the standing orders. Their main purpose is to provide for the regulation of debate. I am speaking from the point of view of the respect of people for the House of Commons. You are turning it into a kind of burlesque by having three votes to adjourn a debate when you know-and if you do not know you are quite ignorant-that the house is going to vote you down. We have done it twice today and you are going to lose this time. You are just repeating it because in your minds you think you are right and everybody else is wrong. I do not think that is a good procedure.
I am not particularly interested in these measures. I did not even vote on the last two motions to adjourn the debate, but it has reached a point where I think it is the responsibility of the one leading the house at this time to point out that as serious men representing the people you are carrying these discussions to the extreme. We know what the members who have spoken on the bill have said. I respect those who have spoken and the views that they hold. What do you want to prove? You have tried to prove it by your speeches and you have tried to prove it by votes. How do you think the business of government can be carried on if you are right in your pretension that you can adjourn the debate twenty times a day? No government or parliament could proceed with the business of the country on that basis. I really plead with the house not to lower itself in the opinion of the public.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister permit a question?
[Mr. Ferguson.l


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just one question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In view of the remarks of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) I wonder if the hon. member wants to proceed with his motion?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members had maintained order in the first fifteen minutes when I was speaking I would not have moved the adjournment of the debate, but I am going to stand by my motion now.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members who have spoken have brought to my attention standing order 48 and standing order 30. I do not need to read them again. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has raised the question whether standing order 30 applies equally to motions to adjourn the house and motions to adjourn a debate. He has read a number of citations from Bourinot and Beauchesne. He has referred me to an instance in the house in 1891-I do not think a ruling was made-when there were two motions to adjourn the debate which followed one another without an intervening proceeding. That is the only instance which has been brought to rqy attention. He has, however, read several citations. He read a citation from Bouriraot's fourth edition, pages 322 and 323, with regard to intermediate proceedings. The last sentence of that reference reads as follows:
The rule applies literally to the adjournment of the house-
I take it that the rule referred to is standing order 30. There can be no doubt as to the procedure under standing order 30. The rule applies literally to motions to adjourn the house. But it does not apply literally to motions to adjourn the debate. Hon. members will note that the word is "literally". The citation continues:
-but it is usual and convenient to make an entry in the journal between two motions of the latter character.
Although a literal interpretation of standing order 30 makes it apply to the adjournment of the house, 1 take it that a broad interpretation would make it also apply to the adjournment of the debate. In any event, we have authority for the words, "it is usual and convenient to make an entry in the Journal between two motions of the latter character".
I might remind the house again that the only instance we have in which there were two motions to adjourn the debate without any intermediate proceeding was in 1891. Since then it occurs to me that we may have established a different practice in this house. No reference has been given to me tonight

wherein a Speaker has ruled that there does not have to be an interim proceeding. The references which were given to the house were not Speakers' rulings. One must give the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) full credit for finding an instance in 1891, when two such motions without intermediate proceedings were allowed. I repeat however that the Speaker did not make a ruling.
Beauchesne, in his third edition, which is the latest work we have On procedure in the Canadian house, in citation 164 states:
The term "Intermediate proceeding" used in standing order 30, means a proceeding that can properly be entered on the Journals. The true test is that if any parliamentary proceeding takes place, the second motion is regular, and the clerk ought to enter the proceedings to show that the motion in question is regular. It is usual to alternate motions for adjournment of the house and debate when a question is under consideration.
Even though it carries forward in part an extract from Bourinot, that is the citation from the latest authority. I realize that this discussion is probably of little effect, because the hon. member could change his motion to a motion for the adjournment of the house. Then, another motion could be moved to adjourn the debate. We are not making much progress. It is customary for the Clerk to make an entry between these motions. I would allow the hon. member who moved this motion to change it to a motion for the adjournment of the house. Perhaps I should not have said that, as I see the hon. member has risen, and perhaps desires to withdraw his motion.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, and in view of the position in which you find yourself, I will withdraw the motion. I will never withdraw another motion, however, unless those desk thumpers give us more order.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Speaker, with all respect to you, I cannot help recalling the song, "Carry me back to old Virginie . . . the place where I was born." When I heard the date 1891 mentioned just now, it occurred to me I should like to pay my highest respects to Bourinot, and everything that has transpired during the time I have been privileged to be in this house. I was thinking of something that happened to me a few years ago when I was a young man. There was quite a crowd in the crystal ballroom of the King Edward hotel, and I was quoting Emerson. I quoted him once and got away with it, and when 1 quoted him the second time in a loud voice it awakened someone among the representatives of the press, who said in a loud voice, "Emerson? He is dead." Perhaps some of these statutes might be forgotten,
Alberta Natural Gas Company so that we might have an opportunity of getting on with the business of our country as fast as we possibly can.
Mr. Speaker, to help these desk thumpers to realize the magnitude of the business that confronts them, I am going to make another suggestion, and a simple one. On the table here, sir, or on the floor in front of us, there should be a globe showing the oil potentialities of the world; the gas potentialities of the world; the wheat potentialities, and all the other features of our civilized economy.


An hon. Member:: Butter.


Joseph Henry Harris: Someone mentions butter, and I could talk about that too. Instead of having to look across the floor all the time, we might look at that globe and dream about what we have in this Canada of ours. We might even visualize our responsibilities in regard to these natural resources that we have. I say to the hon. members of this house, through you, sir, that we all have great responsibilities in regard to the natural resources of this country. Look at the two maps which we have before us. We know that gas and oil were discovered before, but they have been discovered to a greater extent in the last few years.
According to the sponsor of this bill, 85 per cent of the cost is going to be paid for in United States dollars. We are hungry for United States dollars, and we' are going to be paid in those United States dollars. If the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) will remain in his seat, I have something to say to him. When I see not only gas but oil going, I say, let us be sensible members of parliament. Where the gas goes, oil will go, perhaps not for a decade but later on. When it goes, Mr. Speaker, it does not come back. Be sensible. You know that. To my friends from Vancouver I say this. I hope you will live a few years yet, most of you. In looking over to my right I see the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson); he is still here.


John Lambert Gibson: Yes, I am here.


Joseph Henry Harris: To them I would say: In your day and generation, if this bill goes through, you will not see much gas or oil coming back; not nearly enough to satisfy the desires and wishes of that sparsely populated, wonderful and marvellous province of ours known as British Columbia, which, as many of you know, has gripped the imagination of the world. But while it has gripped the imagination of the world, it has not gripped the imagination of immigrants sufficiently or attracted a sufficient number of

Alberta Natural Gas Company them to fill it up; and it has not gripped investments sufficiently to develop it to the extent that it will be developed.
As I sit here and see in my mind's eye the map of the world, and contemplate the world's potentialities, I realize what a privilege I have had in going round the world and seeing what has happened to oil in other places, and what oil and gas will do for a community. Glendavis in Australia, and the state of New South Wales, a few years ago put up 666,000 Australian pounds, matched by the Commonwealth of Australia; and some of my associates whom I learned to love and admire put up a like amount to make 2 million Australian pounds sterling in 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944. For what purpose? They lacked in Australia, and this is true of New Zealand as well, oil and gas with which to develop the country and to defend themselves in the last great war. They depended entirely on the United States of America. So those three organizations banded themselves together and what did they do?
When they found the predicament they were in, they checked the whole Commonwealth of Australia and found some shale deposits which had a bearing of oil, not to the same degree as has been found in Estonia, now behind the iron curtain, but still a certain bearing of oil. They banded themselves together because there was a war on and oil 'was vital to their existence. They were not sure whether the United States-Texas and the other states-could provide them with sufficient fuel to protect themselves.
I do not know whether my next sentence should be uttered, but now that the war is over I think I may say it is common knowledge that, finding themselves in that predicament, without oil and without gasoline, and without gas to propel their protective devices of one kind and another, they drew their defence lines back from the north part of Australia to a point close to the centre line of the country, with a view to making a last stand when that was necessary. But, thank God, the United States and the allied nations were able to keep pumping oil and fuel into that country of theirs and they were able in that remote part of the world to defend themselves.
When the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) rises in his place and says that, for our self-preservation and protection, we should not give away this natural resource which Providence has given us, I have no hesitancy in endorsing his statement. When the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) says the same thing, I have no reason to say that I am opposed to the idea. But,

let there be no mistake whatsoever, I am absolutely opposed to the method being used to put this bill through. When I said in a few words this afternoon that I thought this was a government-sponsored private bill, I was hearing the voice of experience. I believed everything I said at that time, whether you did or not, Mr. Speaker; and I am surprised that public opinion is not aroused in this country at the suggestion that this great natural resource should be-and I am going to use tl)e word-exploited. That is what you are going to do. Rarely, if ever, Mr. Speaker, will you find me reading a speech or a quotation to Canada's House of Commons; but I have here a clipping which makes me feel that I could talk on all through the night against this particular bill and its twin brother, the one which was postponed for a little while, when I find that pipe line bonds jumped from $100 in share value to $300. The heading of the article is "Without Precedent in Market History, Pipe Lines at $300." Must I read that whole article? No, I do not read anything in the House of Commons if I can avoid it. But here are a group of men sitting behind mahogany desks, in mahogany chairs, going to exploit this proposition. I will give you the reference. You can read it for yourselves and draw your own conclusions. It is dated March 25, published in a Toronto paper, under the heading "Trends and Prospects in Field of Enterprise, in Oil". I will not mention the name. Get the quotation yourselves. They are a responsible firm. What a clean-up they are going to make on these pipe line securities. I have not time to put it all on the record. Somebody else can do it. I have a great deal more I want to say. It reads in part:
Bond trading during the past week was marked by fractional easing in prices of a number of Dominion of Canada high-grade issues ... A total of $29,500,000 . . . the largest of these, $20 million.
Then it goes on:
An issue of Canadian Western Natural Gas Company ?8 million 3J per cent debentures due April 1, 1971, will early next week be offered at par . . .
And in the heading it is stated that the price has moved up to $300. You will always have that sort of trading, Mr. Speaker. You will always have people who will live by their wits. That group is perhaps only one out of a hundred. The rest of us will plow a lonely furrow or we shall earn our money so that it makes it easy for us to sleep at nights. It is my high privilege to be doing that now in Alberta, in Calgary, burning natural gas. I was privileged to start two enterprises there. Neither of them has made a dollar yet but they will for the future generations that my good friend the hon. member from Victoria, Ontario (Mr. Hodgson) was

talking about. In the meantime we have a vision of what Alberta and British Columbia mean to the Anglo-Saxon race.
Sitting with me in the Savoy hotel some three or four years ago were some Englishmen. We decided that we would start these enterprises. One of the reasons was that fuel was cheap and that we could get help there.
I have in front of me the financial statement of the Canadian Organic Development Limited. It is my high honour to be the president of it and its subsidiaries. I find that the judgment which was used some four years ago in London, England, may not have been as sound as it might be. I notice here a red figure of $271,683.52 for one organization; $111,592.22 in red figures in the other; and $29,768 in red in the third. There is a credit balance of $13,945 in Edmonton. But that does not matter. We have faith in Alberta; we have faith in British Columbia.
I know what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker. There is no place in the world where fuel is as cheap. As you who are in business know, fuel comprises anywhere from 20 per cent to 40 per cent of the cost of production. There is no other place in the world where fuel can be found which is as cheap as in Alberta. I plead with the house. I use the words of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). He pleaded with the house. Let some of the rest of us plead with the house that we keep these natural resources in this country, and bring here people who will develop them. How are they going to do it? It was my privilege to ride by plane over the pipe lines of Iraq and Iran, to see the sand, the desert and what not; and in the same period to see what pumping water on the sand accomplishes. I saw that it would grow almost anything. Let me give you one example. I saw it in Mildura, Australia, where water was brought to the sand. As soon as it was brought from the Thomson river, the area which was irrigated supplied half the world with raisins and currants. I saw the camels in Nigeria go round and round. They brought buckets and buckets of water. I saw the grapes and tasted the wine made from the grapes that were produced on that soil. I am thinking of British Columbia. I am thinking of those irrigated areas such as we have seen in the Kootenay valley. I am thinking of the other irrigation schemes that some hon. members have in the backs of their minds.
I am thinking of the dreams of the previous member for Davenport, who visualized what might be done for western Canada if water were brought to those areas where the sand blows so often, and how it might be irrigated. I am thinking of the oil and gas so close to
Alberta Natural Gas Company Lethbridge, which might be used for pumping water to irrigate that area, for generations to come. I am thinking of the sandstorm over which I flew over Lethbridge a couple of years ago. We had to go so high to get away from that sandstorm, and finally we had to land in Calgary and go back by train. I am thinking of the oil in Calgary. I am thinking of the oil and gas which might be used not only for irrigation of those provinces but to pump water to irrigate Kelowna and Penticton. I can remember most of them, but I am not going to take the time to repeat them to the house. There are a lot of them out there that need water for irrigation, but they need gas and oil to pump the water to where they want it when they cannot get enough from the mountainside. I am thinking that one and all should pause before we give away our birthright for a mess of pottage.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henry Harris: Someone chuckles. I am very serious in what I say. My hon. friend from Ontario has not got a monopoly on things even if he happens to have nine children. A grandchild of mine was born yesterday, and I am thinking of our youth when they come along.


Mr. Marlin:: I hope he is going to be a Liberal.


Joseph Henry Harris: He is fairly liberal at twelve pounds, but apart from that the last word that I have had is that he is quite all right. We have to think of them. This is no idle chatter. If some of you younger members will look at the statistics you will find out for yourselves that there are more Canadians in the United States than there are in Canada. That information might make you stop and think a little bit. Even though we have a cold northern climate I say in the same sentence that there is no country in the world that offers greater opportunities than Canada. I have been round the world except for Japan and China. You can have them. I have got behind the iron curtain only once, and I do not want to get behind it again. But no matter where I have been, I tell you I cannot visualize in my most quiet moments any better opportunity than we have in this country.
I ask this simple question: If you are going to take care and be responsible for those opportunities, what are you going to do about those God-given resources that are at your elbow? Are hon. members going to sit in this chamber and let their constituents be hewers of wood and drawers of water for people south of the border just because they have some high-priced money or United States dollars? Or are you going to be men

Alberta Natural Gas Company and not mice and rise in your places and say to the rest of the world, "We are a strong nation; we are going to develop our resources; we are going to keep that gas and oil in Alberta and British Columbia." Some of my family are there now. If I were not so enthusiastic about my home town, as every young man is as a rule, I would like to transport right into Alberta well over a million dollars' worth of bricks and mortar on which I am not making a dollar at this time in Ontario. That is where I would go. A poet said "Give me back my youth". I would love to have some of it back, and Alberta and British Columbia would be my destination if I had to make a living, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the day when these ideas, if they are worth anything, will grip the imagination of my friends. I heard an hon. member from Quebec province make a very brilliant speech today in French. Let the possibilities of these provinces grip the imagination of his own people in Quebec. Let them grip the imagination of my people, not only in Ontario, but also in the old land. Let us go out and take hold of these two provinces, with all their potentialities, and give nothing away. Let us hang on to it and let us develop that country, because the possibilities are there. Then, when your day comes to sign off, you will be able to say that you have done a good job. I am glad to be able to look back twenty years and to say that that is where the possibilities are. Let us keep them for our Canadian people. Let us have a pipe line worthy of the trust Providence has placed in us, when we were entrusted with all these natural resources.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to say a few words in connection with this bill. First of all I am anxious to put on record the opinions of constituted bodies, municipal and civil, in British Columbia who have been studying this problem and who have been wondering about the action their representatives in the House of Commons will take.
I am pleased that we are having the opportunity to discuss this bill further, because I believe we can throw some additional light upon what has already been said. Then, when the various members go to their constituencies during the Easter recess, they will be able to explain to them the benefits which will accrue to Canada if this line is routed through Canada and becomes an all-Canadian route. They will be able to show to their constituents the great possibilities in the development of our western country. Therefore I welcome this opportunity of speaking with respect to the bill for the first time before the Easter recess.
[Mr. Harris (Danforth.l
First of all, however, I should like to place on record the opinion held by the city council of Vancouver. Hon. members will have heard in previous speeches the opinion expressed unanimously by the legislature of British Columbia. Now we come to the great metropolitan area of Vancouver. The Vancouver city council on March 27, 1950, just a week ago today, passed this resolution:
That the city council advise the federal government of its opinion that the routing of a gas pipe line through British Columbia is imperative for the industrial development of the regional area through Vancouver.
Apparently that resolution was sent to the government. However, as this is not a government bill-although perhaps one might be excused for thinking that it is-it is possible that private members who do not represent British Columbia constituencies might not have had a copy of the resolution. It is for that reason that I am anxious to place it on the record.
I have in my hand a resolution passed by the Vancouver-New Westminster and district trades and labour council. This resolution, dated March 30, reads in this way:
Whereas an all-Canadian route for the proposed natural gas pipe line from Alberta to British Columbia will help control the gas in Canada until most Canadians have first been served and
Whereas more employment will result in Canada, both from construction and future maintenance than any other proposed route
Therefore be it resolved that this Vancouver-New Westminster and district trades and labour council strongly urge the dominion government to authorize the proposed all-Canadian route.
Another labour council which is very directly interested, the metal trades council of Vancouver, New Westminster and district, through a brief, states that it admires the persistent efforts which are being made by certain British Columbian members to route the pipe line through British Columbia. They go on to say:
Our delegates and members support you in the efforts which are being made to have this line routed through British Columbia. We earnestly request the continued support and favourable assistance to any company favouring a pipe line through British Columbia.
Then, to show the similarity between the views expressed by the great metropolitan areas and those of the smaller communities, I will now quote the view of the small community of Rutland. Their board of trade, which has a motto the first two words of which are "Be loyal", passed this resolution:
Resolved that this meeting of the Rutland board of trade go on record as being opposed to the natural gas pipe line going through the United States to Vancouver, and urge rhe support of the British Columbia members of parliament be given to the plan of routing the line through British Columbia.

There you have the recommendations from the municipal authorities in the cities, the labour councils, those who are closest in touch with the labour situation, urging that from the point of view of providing labour for Canadians these pipe lines be routed through British Columbia. Finally we have one of many small municipalities, which might be along the route, urging that the all-Canadian route be followed.
All those organizations are anxious to have this great Canadian resource made available for Canadians. At this time I do not intend to elaborate upon that point, nor do I intend to deal with the matter of these pipe lines going through British Columbia from a national defence point of view, as I did a few weeks ago when we were discussing another bill. Everything I said on that bill is applicable to the one we are discussing tonight.
Reference was made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) to the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) in which, if I understood the hon. member for Kootenay West correctly, he intimated that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was not interested in these problems, or had said he was not interested in these problems, because he represented a Vancouver island constituency and that it was not possible to convey the gas and oil across the straits of Georgia to the gulf islands and to Vancouver island. If the pipe line was routed through British Columbia to Vancouver it would be practical to carry it across these inland waters. The waters are sheltered by Vancouver island and no severe storms occur in that area. Then Nanaimo, Victoria and other points on Vancouver island could be served.
Apparently certain hon. members who have spoken did not think that this could be done. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) seemed to be hesitant and did not think it worth while routing the line through British Columbia. I am not an engineer and therefore cannot speak with personal knowledge regarding the feasibility of carrying a pipe line under water so with your permission I should like to read to the house a detailed account of Operation Pluto which I am sure will be of interest to hon. members. Just after D-day it was found essential to pipe across the English channel petrol, as it is called in the army, to supply the forces operating in northwest Europe. After an exhaustive examination it was found practical to put a pipe line under the English channel. If a pipe line could be constructed under the English channel then it should be feasible to construct one under the strait of Georgia so that the residents of Vancouver island might
Alberta Natural Gas Company have the benefit of Alberta gas provided it were piped through British Columbia to Vancouver. I am going to quote from Kees-ing's Contemporary Archives dated June 23-30, 1945, page 7273:
United Kingdom-British wartime engineering and scientific departments. Allied expeditionary force supplied by petrol by cross-channel pipe line- (Operation Pluto).
Particulars, hitherto withheld for security reasons, were recently released of important British engineering and scientific developments in connection with the war.
It was announced on May 24 that a large part of the allied expeditionary force had] been supplied with petrol by an under-water pipe line system stretching across the channel to the continent. An account of this operation, known as "Operation Pluto" (pipe line under the ocean) and wholly British in conception, is given below.
The scheme originated in April, 1942, when Admiral Mountbatten (then chief of combined operations) asked the petroleum warfare department whether it would be possible to lay a pipe line across the channel in order to guarantee the uninterrupted delivery of millions of gallons of petrol, normally requiring special harbour, dock and storage facilities, at times and places needed. Experts considered this impossible, but some days later, Mr. A. C. Hartley (chief engineer, Anglo-Iranian Petroleum Company) suggested the laying from cable ships of a pipe line resembling a submarine electric power cable without the core and insulation. Within a fortnight several hundred yards of this pipe line (later known as "Hais" Hartley-Anglo-Iranian-Siemens) had been produced by Messrs. Siemens Brothers Limited and laid in the Thames, with such promising results that Mr. Lloyd (secretary for petroleum) was instructed by Mr. Churchill to press ahead with the scheme. In December, 1942, an experimental cable was laid between Swansea and Ilfracombe, where currents and conditions approximated most nearly to those of the English channel, and for over a year consumers in north Devon and Cornwall were supplied with petrol without knowing that it had been pumped across the Bristol channel.
Meanwhile a second proposal had been made at the end of April, 1942, by Mr. B. G. Ellis (chief oil fields engineer, Burmah Oil Company) and Mr. H. A. Hammick (chief engineer, Iraq Petroleum Company), who suggested that three-inch diameter steel piping might be used by welding together 20-foot sections into the required lengths and winding on a drum. It being demonstrated that from drums of 30 feet or more in diameter it could be wound relatively straight.


Mr. Robinson:: When you get through with that read Dun and Bradstreet's.


George Randolph Pearkes: Will the hon. member let me have the article he wants me to read from?


William Alfred Robinson: I will send you down a copy tomorrow.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am sorry I should have been interrupted because I thought hon. members would be interested in this. I continue to quote:
After the building of a factory to weld "Hamel" piping (Hammick-Ellis) into 4,000 foot lengths, with storage facilities for 350 miles, the Admiralty converted a hopper barge into a craft (named H.M.S.

Alberta Natural Gas Company
Persephone) with a "great wheel" rotating in trunnions on deck, capable of carrying many miles of piping and paying it into the sea. This was followed by a second idea, the construction of a giant floating drum capable of carrying the full length for the channel crossing, tests at the national physical laboratory, Teddington, showing that this could be towed like a large bobbin, paying off pipe as it went. Arrangements were made for mooring the drums, known as "Conundrums" ("Conuns") in deep water at the end of the pipe racks to enable the 4,000 foot lengths to be welded into a continuous length of 30 or more miles and wound on the "Conuns" while they were rotated. After successful trials, the manufacture of "Hais" cable and "Hamel" pipe was arranged, and the petroleum war department (Director-General, Major-General Sir Donald Banks) was made responsible for the whole scheme, including the provision of pumping stations.
"Force Pluto", numbering 1,100 officers and men under Captain F. J. Hutchings, with vessels ranging from 10,000 ton ships to barges and motorboats, was then formed; six "Conuns" constructed, each 90 feet long and over 50 feet in over-all diameter (the drums themselves being 60 feet by 40 feet), carrying 70 miles of pipe line and weighing 1,600 tons; new pipe lines run from the British system (extended north to special tanker discharging berths at Brom-borough dock, near Birkenhead) to the coast, making 1,000 miles in all; and high power pumping stations built and camouflaged in an old fort and amusement park, seaside bungalows, etc. Shortly before "D-day" the arrangements were inspected by Mr. Churchill (who had kept in close touch with all developments, and whose decision that the scheme should be pressed forward had ensured close interdepartmental co-operation and priority in materials), Mr. Lloyd, and the late Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay.
Operation Pluto began a few weeks after "D-day", as soon as the approaches to the tip of the Cherbourg peninsula had been cleared of mines. Several lines were established, and on August 12 a special petroleum unit of the R.A.S.C. began pumping petrol from the isle of Wight to Normandy, maintaining close contact with Cherbourg by wireless telephone, so as to detect instantly any variation in the quantity delivered. It soon became necessary, however, to establish lines across the narrow part of the channel in order to avoid the strain of supplying the advancing allied armies from Cherbourg. As soon as Boulogne was captured, and mines cleared, pipe lines were laid from Dungeness to Boulogne, bringing the oil 200 miles nearer the front. The Royal Engineers then built and the R.A.S.C. operated a continually lengthening system from Boulogne to Antwerp . . . and eventually across the Rhine, enabling over one million gallons daily (sufficient for the entire needs of the 21st army group) to be pumped through to Germany, other lines being subsequently laid from Cherbourg to Frankfurt for the use of the American army. In all, twenty pipe lines were laid across the channel (four or five to Cherbourg and fifteen or sixteen, totalling 500 miles, to Boulogne), many operations taking place under adverse weather conditions and strong tides. "Operation Pluto" achieved complete surprise and even the "Conuns" sailed unscathed across the channel, the enemy assuming them to be not worth attention. By the end of the war in Europe 120 million gallons had been pumped through to Germany, ten cable and six steel pipe lines being continued in operation thereafter for the use of the allied armies of occupation.
I thought this would be of interest to many hon. members. Not only is it worth while putting it on record as a glorious achievement and demonstration of the skill of the engineers, but it demonstrates the practicability of
(Mr. Pearkes.]
piping gas and oil from the city of Vancouver over to Vancouver island in order that the people of the island might have the opportunity of utilizing the surplus gas available in the Alberta fields. I think it is generally known that the commission appointed by the Alberta government in 1948 found that at that time there was an abundance of surplus gas, having regard to the foreseeable requirements of Alberta for many years to come.
Since 1948 new fields have been discovered. The Leduc field has come into operation, and also the Redwater field. Many others are being developed in northern Alberta. The result is it is estimated that the surpluses available today in Alberta are three times what they were just a few years ago. We know that the premier of Alberta has announced that, provided the long-range requirements of the people of his province are safeguarded, it is the policy of the Alberta government to allow gas to be exported from that province. Without going into the particular details, we know that a bill was passed a year ago granting a charter to a company which has intimated that it will follow an allCanadian route. The two bills which are before us at the present time contain no assurance that the gas will be transported by an all-Canadian route to the Pacific coast. In fact, I think it is no secret that the directors of these companies have intimated that they will transport the gas through the southern part of Alberta into the United States to supply the great cities of Spokane, Wenatchee, Seattle, Portland, and so on. They have intimated that what has been referred to as a stub line will be extended to Vancouver in order to supply Vancouver so far as is practicable with whatever gas there may be left over. I understand that would be a longer and probably more expensive route than the one from Edmonton through Jasper, Yellow-head, Kamloops, and along the new provincial Hope road. I say longer because it would be longer from the centre of oil and gas activity. A few years ago the centre of that activity was in the southern part of Alberta. Gas fields were first discovered south of Calgary in the region of Purple Springs, Grassy Lake, Lethbridge, the Turner valley, and so on, but that centre of activity has moved northward.
Now, I do not think it is incorrect to say that it will probably be north and west of the city of Edmonton. If the route should be measured, therefore, from some point around Edson, west of Edmonton, through the Yel-lowhead pass, or coming down through Lethbridge, the gas will have to be gathered at some central point such as I have suggested. I understand that a company has been incorporated to gather the gas from the various

fields in Alberta. Then, if the Canadian route were followed it would be possible to tap in, perhaps west of Jasper somewhere, the fields which are being developed in the Peace river country. The extent of those fields has not yet been estimated, but there would appear to be enormous reserves there. It may be that by having a line from Prince George, Dawson Creek, and Fort St. James, some of those places, it would be possible to service the whole of the eastern side of British Columbia with oil and gas.
A difference between the two lines, which I think is quite striking, is that if the southern route were followed I believe there would only be a distance of some 150 miles of the pipe line in British Columbia. If the northern route were followed, then some 700 miles would be located in Canada. As pointed out by those resolutions which I read, the construction and maintenance of this line in Canada would give a tremendous amount of employment to Canadians, not only in the actual construction of the line, but in the preparation of such things as bridging materials. These bridging materials would be required for the construction and maintenance of the line. Then there would be a road paralleling the pipe line, no matter which direction the route followed. We want that northern part of central British Columbia developed. It is a wonderful country. I have been through it many times, and I know that there is untold wealth in that hinterland. I believe this pipe-line measure presents an opportunity whereby we can feel we are really making a contribution to the development of the province, or a part of the province, which at the moment is but sparsely populated.
There are unlimited possibilities for further development there, and I do hope that when members return to their constituencies, particularly those members from British Columbia who at the moment perhaps do not know the interior as well as they would like to know it, who have not grasped the enormous possibilities of that area, they will take advantage of the opportunity to see that district. They will find out how it can be developed, and how it can be given industries if these pipe lines go through that area.
Alberta Natural Gas Company I hope hon. members will seize the opportunity presented by the Easter recess to view that land, anid consult with their constituents as to whether they would like to have that line run through the northern part of British Columbia. I sincerely hope it will be possible to give the people of British Columbia the advantages of a pipe line from the Alberta fields to the British Columbia coast.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: It was not until a short time ago that I decided to take part in this debate. I am sure that a debate such as this interests not only the people of British Columbia and western Canada, but also the people from the rest of Canada. I am satisfied that anyone listening to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) would realize that almost anything at all can be done with pipe lines. I feel sure the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) will agree with me when I say that almost anything can be done with pipe lines.
As it is one minute to eleven o'clock, I should like to move the adjournment of the debate, if I have the permission of the house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Since there is only one minute to go, it makes no difference. The people from all parts of Canada are most interested in these pipe lines. It is a great Canadian development, and we ought to see that it is well used. While we may be a little jealous of the people in western Canada for having so much oil-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; it is now eleven o'clock.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall resume the debate on the budget.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 4, 1950