1950-03-20

Hon. Douglas Abboli (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, barring developments which I do not now expect, I would propose to bring down my budget next Tuesday night, March 28. I would hope that I might be able to get the unanimous consent of the house to do so at eight o'clock. Perhaps it might be arranged to have private and public bills, which is normally the first order of business at eight o'clock on Tuesdays at this stage of the session, follow my remarks and the brief ones of the opposition financial critic.



VACANCY

Mr. Speaker:: 

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: Just before coming into the house I saw a copy of Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day. At the top of page 3 the order of precedence is private bills, Senate amendments to public bills, etc. Further down the page is the heading, "Orders of the day". I think the usual procedure is to call private bills before calling orders of the day. Therefore I now call private bills.



EASTER ADJOURNMENT

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, because of the order of business to be followed today I would ask you to permit me to direct a question to the government which I believe is of particular concern to hon. members who live some distance away from Ottawa.
Several days ago a question was directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as to the date on which it is intended that the house shall rise for the Easter recess. At that time the Prime Minister indicated he would give instructions that the whips of the parties be brought together for the purpose of discussing the matter. Time is passing. It is obviously a matter of great importance to all members to be able to make their arrangements for the Easter holidays and secure the necessary travel reservations. Good Friday is only two weeks from next Friday, and the time is short within which members can make reservations. No matter what the length of the recess may be, I suggest to the government that this is a fairly obvious consideration which should be borne in mind.
Unless there are any matters of overriding urgency, I am sure that members would prefer to spend holy week in their own homes, because it is a week which is of great importance to most of them. Therefore I would ask the government to give an indication as to the date on which the house will rise for the Easter recess. No steps have been taken to bring the whips together; obviously, therefore, it becomes a matter for decision by the government.


Righi Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in discussing the subject the Prime Minister indicated the other day that the government had in mind adjournment on the Thursday evening before Good Friday and the reassembling of the house on the Monday after the week that follows Easter Sunday. I have heard no objection to that proposal, and I assume there is no change in view.


Mr. Wylie:: In that event we shall not get home until Sunday morning; some members will not get home until Monday.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Prime Minister will be in his seat tomorrow, and I will ask him either to confirm or to vary what I have said. In the meantime I think hon. members can make their plans accordingly.

Easter Adjournment


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to enter into a lengthy debate, but I should like to point out that there has been no discussion. It is stated that there has been no objection. There may be none within the ranks of the government, but we were unaware, aside from rumours which may have been reported to us, that the date mentioned was suggested. I repeat that it would be much more appropriate for holy week to be taken as a holiday, and for members to return immediately after Easter, than to take the following week.


Mr. Knowles:: Since the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said that there has been no objection to what the Prime Minister announced, I should like to point out, for the purpose of the record, that the Prime Minister said that the views of the other parties would be ascertained from the opposition whips, and I have written to the government whip indicating our views in the matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps the matter can be left in abeyance until tomorrow. I am sure the Prime Minister will endeavour to clarify the situation.


Mr. Low:: I should like to ask the minister to convey to the Prime Minister our desire that the matter be reconsidered in the light of what has been said. We would prefer to have the house adjourn earlier so that our members can reach western Canada before Sunday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was our request.



INCOME TAX


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I should like to refer to the judgment of the income tax appeal board in the case of "Mr. C." and the Minister of National Revenue, and make a request in connection therewith. Will the minister consider tabling the judgment, evidence and reasons for judgment involved in the order of the appeal board?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I shall look into the matter, and after I have reviewed the question more carefully I shall be able to give an answer.



FARMERS


James Joseph McCann: On a question of privilege, I should like to refer to a question asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), to be

found at page 849 of Hansard lor March 17. It had to do with prosecutions of farmers under the Income Tax Act.
The information which was given to the press was that during the period from January 1 to March 6, 1950, 1,953 summonses were issued for failure to file returns. These summonses covered all types of taxpayers, and this fact was so reported in most newspapers. I reiterate that it is not practicable to break down the figures by occupational groups. I should also like to state that the Winnipeg Free Press, if it published a report, as was stated by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, to the effect that 1,953 farmers were prosecuted, was in error in so doing.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Maybank for the second reading of Bill No. 7, respecting Alberta Natural Gas Company, and the motion of Mr. MacDougall: "That this question be now put."
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks on Tuesday last I outlined the two alternate routes for a pipe line from Alberta to the Pacific coast. One was the route which is proposed to be followed by this company, running from southern Alberta into southern British Columbia and then into the United States at the nearest point. The other was through the Yellowhead pass and down through central British Columbia, serving Canada first and then going on to the United States. I also spoke of public opinion in British Columbia favouring the Canada-first route. Further proof that I was correct in those statements is given in a resolution adopted unanimously by the legislature of British Columbia last Thursday. I will not read the recitals to that resolution, but the final paragraph was as follows:
Therefore be it resolved that the legislative assembly of the province of British Columbia urge upon the federal and provincial authorities concerned the advisability, in the interests not only of British Columbia but of Canada as well, that such pipe lines be constructed through the Yellow-head pass and thence through the interior of British Columbia to Vancouver, with provision for the extension of the line to the Peace river block, so that when sufficient supplies of petroleum and natural gas are available in that area there will be an available outlet to market without unnecessary delay.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: May I ask the hon. gentleman if the resolution of the British Columbia legislature opposes the bill now before this house?


Howard Charles Green: The resolution advocates the Canada-first route through the Yellowhead

pass. That resolution was moved by the member for Peace River, part of which is in the constituency of the hon. member who asked the question; and the one riding in British Columbia which would gain the most by the Yellowhead route would be the riding of the hon. member for Cariboo.


George Matheson Murray: I would like an answer to my question.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member may make his own speech. I am not answering any more of his questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would inform the hon. member that questions may only be asked with the consent of the hon. member who has the floor.


George Matheson Murray: It was an honest question, and I should like an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: I have here a press dispatch of the following day from Vancouver, headed "Victoria unanimous on B.C. gas pipe line". The dispatch goes on to say:
The house got on its collective high horse Thursday. Party lines were forgotten as M.L.A.'s unanimously went on record for a gas pipe line from Alberta through B.C. to the Pacific coast.
They feared that if they didn't do something, the U.S. would beat us . . .
Even the public galleries grew enthusiastic. One after another, M.L.A.'s hopped up to say why, of course, the line should be in B.C.
Opposition leader Winch said the C.C.F., too, wants the line in B.C. He urged the house to speak in a united voice for B.C. first, because there's a very powerful New York voice in the House of Commons . . .
Everyone agreed pressure should be put on Ottawa to have the line in B.C. The resolution went through with flying colours and everyone thumped desks.
It will be rather interesting to see the attitude of British Columbia Liberals in this house-interesting to see whether their fear of their constituents will overcome their fear of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).
Then I pointed out that no company had a prior right to this route. The Alberta Natural Gas Company could choose the Yellowhead route too, or any other route which served Canada first; and if they should do so there would be no objection in this house.
The suggestion has been made that the question of the route is none of our business. In moving second reading of this bill the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) made no attempt whatever to explain the route. Asked where the line was to run, he replied, "I don't know"; and he said it in such a way that one could only take from his remarks that he had no intention of giving the house that information. We have been told that the granting of a charter should 55946-57
20, 1950
Alberta Natural Gas Company be automatic, that parliament has no duty other than to grant it. We are told that questions of policy must be left to the board of transport commissioners, to the Alberta natural gas and petroleum conservation board, and finally to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
. Well, I suggest that the board of transport commissioners will never take the responsibility of deciding that the route must serve Canada first. There is no hint given in the legislation that such is government policy. How is that board supposed to know that it must decide whether or not the route is to serve Canada first? Besides, the board of transport commissioners have plenty of trouble of their own just now trying to straighten out the freight rates mess. So far they have not been very successful in solving that problem, and they are most unlikely to be successful in solving the pipe-line problem.
As for the Alberta natural gas and petroleum conservation board, surely its responsibility is to decide whether there is gas to be sold. It is not the responsibility of that board to decide which way it shall go from the province. As for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, he has made his attitude abundantly clear. He calls those of us who advocate that the resources of Canada should be used first for the Canadian people "little Canadians." That is the way he describes anyone who advocates serving Canada first. The other day he was asked a prepared question by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart), and brought in a very carefully prepared answer which said-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I just want to say I had no knowledge that any question was going to be asked, and I had no prepared answer.


Howard Charles Green: It is a funny thing that the minister should have read from a typed statement when giving his answer. Someone in his office knew all about it, in any event. The following day the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) asked, at page 850 of Hansard:
Am I to understand from that statement that no export permit will be granted other than through an all-Canadian route?
The minister did not answer; he made a number of evasive statements which did not have a thing to do with the question, and gave the hon. member for Fraser Valley no reply whatever. It is obvious that his policy on this question is the same as the policy of the United States oil and gas interests. We do not expect, therefore, very much help from the Minister of Trade and Commerce in seeing that this pipe line goes through British Columbia before going to the United States.

Alberta Natural Gas Company
This house has a duty to perform on this question, Mr. Speaker. If the members believe that the route to the Pacific should serve Canadians first, then they can easily force this company, as well as the second company for which application is made, to promise to build this route accordingly. In fact this parliament could write a stipulation to that effect into each bill. Certainly the record of the applicants for incorporation of this particular company is such that we know the Alberta Natural Gas Company will not serve British Columbia first unless it is compelled to do so.


Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out it is only with the consent of the hon. member who has the floor that questions may be asked.


Howard Charles Green: If you will not be too strict about my time, sir, I shall be glad to answer the question.


Alan Carl Stewart: When the other pipe line bills were before the house in April of last year, did the hon. member insist upon the insertion of a restriction such as he advocates for this bill?


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member will read the speech I made on the main pipe-line bill, I believe he will find I advocated that Canadians should be served first; that has been our stand throughout.


Alan Carl Stewart: You never moved any amendment to the bill.


Howard Charles Green: The charter bills are in the shape they are because that was the policy of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has made a statement about me; so may I say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had absolutely nothing to do with those charters. There was no reason why he should.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You drafted the over-all bills.


Howard Charles Green: They were at least approved by the cabinet. I may have named the wrong minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; approved by the law clerk of the House of Commons.


Howard Charles Green: The development of British Columbia has been a long, hard struggle, made possible largely by the determination, courage, and foresight of our pioneer parents. The people of that province have been in direct competition with our neighbours in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. They have been at a disadvantage as compared with those good folk south of the line. For one
[Mr. Green.l
thing, there are far more people in those three states than there are in British Columbia. The producers in those three states have a larger home market. There is far more arable land there than there is in British Columbia, and the produce matures much earlier. If this company's plan is followed and natural gas, and then oil, go by the United States route, British Columbia will be further handicapped. She will be handicapped because Canadian resources are allowed to go to the United States first.
If this house grants the application for incorporation, it is in fact betraying the people of British Columbia. I am in deadly earnest when I say that. I am convinced it is in the best interests not only of British Columbia but of Canada that this bill should be defeated.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me-


Mr. Speaker:: The leader of the opposition.


George Alexander Drew: I have no desire to speak first, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Skeena wishes to go ahead.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I thank the leader of the opposition for his courtesy, and I trust that nothing I have to say will make him regret his decision.
It seems to me that I have heard over and over again what amounts to the same speech in these debates; I have lost count of how many times or by how many hon. members the speech has been made. In fact I have the impression that I have heard what amounts to the same speech from the same hon. member on more than one occasion. These two bills have been before us now for nearly a month, and we had two somewhat similar bills before us for the most of last session. We have listened to a lot of words about them, but we have learned very little that is new. 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. Whether that is being encouraged and fostered by the friends of those who already have a charter, I am unable to say. It has been said before, but I am going to repeat it, that this bill we are discussing does nothing except bring into being a legal entity, a corporation or company

which can be born in no other way. 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. That may sound absurd, but it is no more absurd than some of the speeches to which we have listened.
Ostensibly the opposition to this bill arises out of the route of the pipe line, the construction of which this bill envisages. Those who oppose the bill claim to do so because they say they fear, perhaps with some reason, that this company might not build from Alberta to the Pacific coast by a Canadian route. As a matter of fact the bill does not say the pipe line will go to the Pacific coast, so it might be questionable whether that subject is before us. The responsibility for the route of that pipe line is not the responsibility of this House of Commons, as the law says today.
The Pipe Lines Act, sections 11(a) and (b), says:
A company shall not, except as in this act otherwise provided, begin the construction of a section or part of a company pipe line, until,
(a)	The board has by order granted the company leave to construct the line;
(b)	The plan, profile and book of reference of the section or part of the proposed line have been approved by the board.
Section 12(1) reads as follows:
(1)	Upon an application for an order granting leave to construct a line, the company shall file with the board a map showing the general location of the proposed line, the termini, and all cities, towns, villages, railways and navigable waters through, under or across which the line is to pass.
To protect provincial rights and interests, section 12(2) says:
(2)	The company shall file a copy of the application and of the map with the attorney general of each province to which the application relates in whole or in part . . .
Section 12(3) reads as follows:
(3)	Upon the application, the board shall have regard to all considerations that appear to it to be relevant and in particular to the objection of any party interested . . .
That is the law today, that the board of transport commissioners shall decide the question of a route. Is it a wise provision? The hon. member who preceded me evidently thought so. When he was speaking on the general bill on April 8, 1949, as recorded at page 2513 of Hansard he said:
The minister has already pointed out that the board of transport commissioners is to be made supreme in administering this act. That is a wise plan, because the board of transport commissioners
Alberta Natural Gas Company is a judicial body, and it is wiser to put them in control rather than have the control placed directly in the hands of a department of government. But the minister said nothing at all about the interest of the provinces in these pipe lines. I believe that the provinces of Canada, certainly the province of Alberta, are vitally interested in this legislation. I am afraid that the legislation will not work out as it is meant to unless there is the utmost co-operation with the provincial authorities.


Mr. Sinnoit:: Who said that?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). In order to set hon. members worries straight as to the views of the province of Alberta, I should like again to place on the record a paragraph from the telegram from Premier K C. Manning, who, I assume, speaks for Alberta, in which he said:
The Alberta government is not opposed to the incorporation of the Alberta Natural Gas Company or any other bona fide company under provisions of Pipe Lines Act but on the contrary feels very strongly that no bona fide company should be refused incorporation in that refusal would deprive the province of its right to deal with any or all legitimate companies interested in exporting gas and would restrict such dealings to those particular companies favoured by parliament for incorporation.
Are the hon. gentlemen still in favour of co-operating with the provinces, particularly Alberta, or do they prefer to restrict such dealings to those particular companies favoured by parliament for incorporation? I return to the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, at page 2513, where he is reported as having said:
I am going to suggest to the minister and to the house that when this bill receives second reading it be referred to a committee of the house. I presume the proper committee would be the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I suggest that it be referred to that committee for consideration. The same course should be followed with the special acts which are to be brought in in respect of the different companies. If such procedure is followed the result will be that the members of the house, the press and the Canadian public generally will have an opportunity to study the terms of the bill, and we may find in the end that we have the very best kind of legislation that can be enacted.
I assume that the hon. gentlemen are still in favour of the very best kind of legislation that can be enacted. Again, as reported at page 2653, the hon. gentleman said:
When the bill was up for second reading it was suggested by members of the various opposition parties that not only this foundation bill but also the special acts should be referred to that committee, and I would ask that that be done.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Whom are you quoting?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am quoting the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. The hon. member said a great many things on that occasion.
soo

Alberta Natural Gas Company


Mr. Fulton:: Why do you not read the whole of the speech?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: That was the end of that particular speech. I might just stop for a moment at this time, Mr. Speaker, in order to suggest that if hon. members would restrain that impatience born of frustration which always marks the defenders of the indefensible cause, I could perhaps get on with my remarks.
As reported at the foot of page 2513, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said:
The third consideration-and this is a very important one-is that this development of oil and natural gas must bring down the cost to the Canadian consumer. I submit that the development could be of great help in reducing the cost of living in Canada. There is not much use in Canada's developing vast quantities of oil and natural gas if our people are not going to have any benefit by way of reduced prices for those commodities.
That speaks for itself. The hon. member also said something else. I admit that on this occasion he was speaking with reference to his suggestion that railway rights of way be used; he said so many things that I have difficulty in keeping up with him.


Mr. Maybank:: You are doing all right.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: As reported at page 2657, he said:
If the cost is higher than necessary the Canadian people are going to have to pay the difference.
And again, at page 2514:
That means that pipe lines should be installed in the most economical way possible.
That also speaks for itself. Again at page 2514 we find the hon. gentleman saying this:
I hope the control of the board of transport commissioners is not to be a mere formality. If that were to be so, the bill would have little value.
The administration of this measure is left to the board of transport commissioners, and that board must be in a position where it can do a real job.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I should be most willing, Mr. Speaker, to permit at the end of my remarks all the questions that members wish to ask; but I think if they restrain their impatience they may find that the questions which are now worrying them will be met before I get through.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We will tell your colleagues to follow the same course.,


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall listen with interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was not the only person

who believed that the administration, in so far as these practical questions are concerned, should be left in the hands of the board of transport commissioners; because in the same debate, on April 27, 1949, as reported at page 2645, the leader of the Social Credit party, who is an Albertan, had this to say:
So far as it provides authority for the regulation by the board of transport commissioners of pipe lines for conducting oil. we think that the bill is excellent.
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. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. But we in this chamber are in this position: The existence of that feasibility and practicability, even possibility, has not been proved before us and cannot be proved before us, because this is not a forum in which that sort of evidence can be adduced. If this bill were allowed to go before a committee, or if this company were allowed to go before the board of transport commissioners, cost accountants could be produced and these questions could be answered. The failure to permit this bill to go to a committee just makes it impossible for us to get that information. In view of the requests that have been made from various sections of the opposition during the past few months for a committee on this and a committee on that, it is a little bit difficult for us to ascertain why the opponents of this bill are apparently afraid to let it go before a committee. No logical reason for that course of action, or rather of inaction, has as yet been produced.
I do not think it has ever 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. 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. Well, the cases in which someone did not know the gun was loaded are also accidents, accidents which could have been prevented with a little precaution; and, accident or not, the victim is just as dead. My friends of the C.C.F.-I think I still have some-will at least agree with me in this, that an established monopoly like death is pretty permanent and pretty hard to overcome. However, if the suggestion is that a monopoly is essential, and that the present company, which has its charter, is entitled to retain such a monopoly because it is going to build an all-Canadian route, though its charter does not say so, I would suggest this. Let the directors of that company hold a meeting and say so, and then let the directors of that company if they want us to hold off any competition in the interests of Canada, come to parliament and apply for an amendment to their charter which would forbid them to build elsewhere than in Canada, at least until they do reach the city of Vancouver. That would clinch the argument. I hardly think they will do that. It would be interesting to know what valid argument they can produce against such a suggestion.


Mr. Smith (Calgary V/esi):: You make the amendment and I shall vote for it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The suggestion has been made that we who support these bills on principle are in some way traitors to Canada or to our respective provinces. The word used by one hon. member was that this is a betrayal of at least part of the country. Nothing could be more absurd. A better job
20, 1950	901
Alberta Natural Gas Company in the interests of Canada, a better job in the interests of British Columbia and Alberta, is being done by those who are willing to see all these companies go before a committee, and all these companies take their applications before the board of transport commissioners, than is being done by those who would retain one unrestricted charter for only one company.
As I say, we have no binding information as to the intentions of either company, and we cannot get that information in this chamber. There has been quite a lot of talk about surpluses; there has been quite a lot of talk in this house and outside of it by hon. members from Alberta-and I am sure they would not exaggerate-about the surpluses and potentialities of both oil and gas in their province. Then we have had a lot of opposition criticism of this government because we have not found markets for Canadian surpluses. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not the Canadian government who are stopping the exploration of possible markets for this particular commodity. In that connection I trust the leader of the Social Credit party will not be annoyed if I repeat some remarks which he made, and which are reported at page 2776 of Hansard of April 29, 1949. I quote and adopt these words because he said them so much better than I could. Speaking of the bills which were before the last parliament, he said:
They should all be passed. If they are passed it will enable both the Alberta government and the board of transport commissioners to consider every application for a licence and to deal with that application on its own merits. That would be ample protection to the people of this country.
We have no facts-of course we cannot have them-as to the cost of construction of an all-Canadian route. If this bill were before a committee, and still more so, if this company were before the board of transport commissioners, these things could be found out. At the present time this house does not know whether it would cost $10 million, $20 million or $70 million to build through British Columbia, or whether it could be done cheaper; and for some reason every step seems to be taken to make certain that this house does not get that information.
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.

Alberta Natural Gas Company
I should like to ask the hon. member tor Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Calgary West, both of whom are successful lawyers with many years of sound practice to their credit, to take home a little question with them this evening, and to arrive at an honest considered opinion on it in the morning. Would they advise a client to apply for a charter limited by statute to an all-Canadian route, while Westcoast Transmission still hold their unrestricted charter? Neither of these hon. gentlemen could or would answer that question with a yes. Neither of them is as green as all that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: My answer is yes.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: And yet that question shows us exactly the position in which we in this house find ourselves today.
I should like to draw to the attention of the opponents of this bill a principle of which they may or may not have heard. It is the principle of stare decisis.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: In common layman's language, that principle means that the general public is entitled to consider that the law, once established, will remain the same without arbitrary alteration other than by statute.


Mr. Fraser:: You do not know the Liberal government.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I would suggest to those opponents that they could find many passionate speeches in recent Hansards on that principle. Here we have the law and the practice definitely established. We have decided to treat five or six companies one way, and we are now asked to treat two in an entirely different way. I suggest that such a course of action involves an entire lack of principle.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I think you had better go to work on stare decisis again. It has nothing to do with it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The vehemence of the interruptions that we get during these debates shows a lack of sound argument upon which the interrupters can depend. It has been interesting to me to watch some hon. members gaily flitting all over southern British Columbia scattering pipe lines with a lavish hand from Kamloops to Vernon to Trail to Penticton to Keremeos to Armstrong, to goodness knows where, over lakes and mountain ranges, cheerfully oblivious of cost or of density of population, of potential markets or any other practical consideration.
The fact is that in that whole area the largest potential market is offered at the city of Trail. I will admit, and I think others will


also, that if a line is built over the United States route it would pass in the neighbourhood of Spokane and Wenatchee. I suggest to hon. members that they look at a topographical map. If they do, they will find out that it would be easier and more feasible to build a line into places like Trail and Penticton from the south rather than down from Kamloops.
These are the practical facts we should have before us, and these are some of the practical facts which can be brought out only before a committee or the board of transport commissioners. I suppose it is because we do not want these practical facts brought out that we do not want to get this bill into a forum where they can be ascertained. Incidentally 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.
I assume that the fear in the minds of hon. members who are opposing this legislation is that gas will be exported for use by United States consumers leaving the Canadian consumers unsupplied. That is a very legitimate question to raise, but the question was answered last year by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) who placed on Hansard on April 27 the appropriate sections of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, which provides that a permit to export may be cancelled if Canadian requirements are not being met. That statute is effective, and it provides that protection today.
In these days nearly every board of trade in my district is passing resolutions urging greater freedom of international trade and international traffic. We are all urging a greater amount of international co-operation. This debate sounds very much to me like no truck or trade with the Yankees. It sounds to me like narrow nationalism carried to the point where it is definitely deleterious to our own country, as narrow nationalism always is.
The real argument in favour of this legislation is based upon a sound principle which we should be able to count on the Conservatives supporting. It is the principle that business is entitled to conduct itself in this country on two sure foundations. One is that there shall be free and untrammelled competition on an equal basis between all who are engaged in the same business. I do not believe in playing favourites. I am not going to say to one, "Yes, you can have your charter", and to the

other, "No, you cannot even apply for a hearing". I do not believe that that is the way Canada wishes to do business.
The second principle under which business should be able to operate in Canada is that it should be free from all restraints except such as are necessary in the public interest, and those should be applied with equal hardship on all. I make this statement whether these bills pass or not, but particularly if they do not pass: The history of the next five or ten years will show that the real interests of Canada, of Alberta and of British Columbia have been best served by those who supported these bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the hon. member sits down may I ask a question? I accepted his suggestion that I wait until he finished. When the hon. member was quoting from the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra made on April 8, 1949, why did he omit any reference to what the hon. member said as reported in the second column of page 2513 of Hansard?


An hon. Member:: You read it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member read from the first column and also from the next page, but he did not quote what the hon. member said-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member has asked his question and I will answer it. I was carrying on a certain line of argument, and when the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was wise enough to support my argument, I quoted him.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I offered to stand aside until the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) had spoken, because if it had been necessary to hear an argument in this house as to why there should be a demand for a procedure other than that now before the house, it was contained in the remarks that we have just heard.
I should like particularly to refer to one lofty observation the hon. member made to those less capable of understanding the niceties of debate. He asked hon. members to restrain that impatience which always marks the defenders of any indefensible cause. May I underline those words and remind hon. members that they are excellent words as applied to the impatience of other members of this house when certain principles are insisted upon in connection with private legislation.
I am entering this debate at this time because no one with the slightest appreciation of what has taken place can lopger regard
20, 1950
Alberta Natural Gas Company these bills, and particularly this one, as private bills. It is obvious that they have the support of the government, not simply the concurrence of individual members of the government. It is surely not without significance that the bill now under discussion is sponsored by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Maybank). That gives it at least a semi-official, if not a fully official, position before this house. It would be surprising if the parliamentary assistant of the department which handles minerals in this country were to sponsor a bill which did not have more than passing approval by the government. That may be quite all right, but let no one suggest that the government has no more than an ordinary interest in this bill. That interest has been shown by the intervention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on more than one occasion, and by other hon. members of this house.
There is a much wider principle involved here than that which has been discussed today. Before discussing what I regard to be the basic and fundamental principles involved, may I suggest that it was most improper for the hon. member for Skeena to speak of those who, as he said, might be prompted by friends of the applicants for a particular bill. If there is going to be any suggestion of special interest in these bills, then I suggest, to the hon. member who has just spoken that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has indicated a definite interest in only one of the bills now before the house, the bill under discussion at the moment.
I want to refer in some measure to ancient history with reference to what is under consideration in the two pipe-line bills now before the house. First of all, I ask hon. members to recall that the measure now under consideration is not a bill dealing only with gas pipe lines. It is a bill which also confers the power to build an oil pipe line. Therefore we should bear in mind the fact that the measure has wider possibilities than merely the handling of gas. Of course that has some relation to the question whether it is to be used for export purposes or merely within our own country.
A great deal has happened in Canada since the first oil well came into production at Petrolia in 1858. A great new industry developed in that area. Gas became a cheap and efficient fuel for homes, places of business and industries throughout a considerable part of southwestern Ontario. The oil industry became a most important one, and as a result of that discovery the Imperial Oil Company came into existence and has continually

Alberta Natural Gas Company expanded ever since that time. Today there is very little oil in that area, and there is real concern about the supply of gas, which requires to be supplemented by supplies from the United States. What has happened there, where the first oil and gas production came into being, offers many lessons which should be borne in mind in dealing with these matters. Both gas and oil are wasting assets. Gas and oil become exhausted.
The other side of the picture of course is that tremendous development goes hand in hand with adequate supplies of gas and oil. Every hon. member of the house is aware of the fact that there is a great chemical industry in the Sarnia area related to the production of oil now supplied so largely from the United States. That is something which can be paralleled in Alberta and in other areas where gas is found today. British Columbia, with its vast resources of raw materials, can make most effective use of this cheap fuel, as also can Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Nor is there any reason why the possibility of the use of gas as a fuel for industry, and particularly for chemical plants, should be limited to the provinces I have mentioned. At the present time a great gas pipe line is being built for a distance of 1,800 miles from Texas to the city of New York, a longer distance by far than it would be necessary to carry gas to the lake ports in the northwestern section of the province of Ontario.
There are vast possibilities for the use of this cheap fuel within Canada in the development of Canadian industry. I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Skeena suggest that the arguments that have been put forward in opposition to this measure sounded like "no truck or trade with the Yankees." That is simply a sample of the speoious type of argument which has been put forward to meet the sound reasons advanced in favour of the development of Canada's resources for the advantage of Canadians themselves. At no time have I heard any suggestion that, when Canadian needs were satisfied, we should not export such surpluses as we may have from time to time; but gas is power, power means production, and production means income and the possibilities of new population in different parts of the country.
Our first concern should be for the development of Canada, just as the first concern of the government of the United States has always been for the development of that country. While the United States have made available to Canada supplies of oil, gas, coal and other products which we require, they have never left any doubt that the export of their raw materials and other products must
fMr. Drew.]
always be related to the primary consideration of the development of their own country. No United States citizen will raise any question about the soundness of the assertion of that same policy in Canada. Certainly we want to have friendly dealings with them. Certainly we want to have an exchange of surpluses with them, but surely it is inconsistent for us to export vitally important resources from Canada until we have first assured to our own people those resources which are in short supply. We have imported, and will continue to import, enormous quantities of oil, and we shall continue to import gas. Certainly we should be sure that we use our resources of gas and oil here in Canada.
A Canada-first policy does not mean Canada only. It means that we make use of these resources to the greatest advantage of our own people before selling therq to others. After all, the same policy has been followed as to our forests. In Ontario, Quebec, and other provinces whence these resources are exported in such large quantities, provisions are in effect which insist that to the highest extent possible the raw wood shall be processed in Canada. That policy has not been seriously objected to in the United States. It is a policy which has built up the great paper, pulp and other wood industries of Canada. We should make sure that we build up other industries in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the other provinces of Canada, whether the resource be gas, oil, or any other basic commodity we have in Canada.
There are vast possibilities. In every case of this kind let us realize that cheap fuel means cheap production, and cheap production means not only the possibility of the development of new production within our own country, but also the possibility of export to other parts of the world in highly competitive lines.
A great deal has been said, and more will be said, about freight rates. What better way is there to overcome the problem of freight rates than to manufacture and use our raw materials right at the source, with the power available within our own country, so that we can ship the finished product when it has the highest value in relation to its volume? The best way to overcome the difficulty of freight rates is for the manufacturing to be done from the raw materials right in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and to send the products in their most valuable form to the rest of Canada. That is true in this case just as it is true in the maritime provinces, where they have possibilities of the development of power to which I made reference on other occasions.

What we are considering here is not only a gas pipe line but an oil pipe line as well; and it seems to me we should have a great deal more information before being asked to pass upon this application. We are told it can go before a committee, but the committee is not going to find out what route is going to be followed. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has stated that to his knowledge at least five routes have been surveyed by the company making this application. Therefore the house is not going to be in a position to pass judgment upon the route that will be followed.
This brings me to an observation made in this house a year ago when another of these bills was before us. If this house is not going to be asked to exercise its judgment in relation to the route to be followed, this bill should not be before us at all. Right in the act under which these pipe lines obtain their authority it is made quite clear that there is a similarity to the procedure under the Railway Act. That is to be found in section 4, where it says:
The provisions of the Railway Act relating to sittings of the board-
That is the board of transport commissioners. -and the disposal of business, witnesses and evidence, practice and procedure, orders and decisions of the board and appeal therefrom to the Supreme Court of Canada are applicable with respect to every inquiry, complaint, application or other proceeding under this act, and the board shall exercise and enjoy the same .jurisdiction, powers and authority in matters under this act as are Vested in the board by the Railway Act.
That would indicate quite clearly that an application is to be dealt with in a similar manner to an application under the Railway Act; and it is obvious why that should be so. These pipe lines become great common carriers, not just for one oil company, not just for the products of one or two designated producers, but common carriers for oil supplied to them. The principle is the same.
If we come to the practice in this house with respect to either railways or canals, if an application is made for a charter for a new railway or a new canal a map must accompany that application so that hon. members in deciding on the charter know the route which is to be followed. Surely if that is sound in the case of a charter for either a railway or a canal, or an addition or change in relation to it, that principle is equally sound in this case. The very fact that the practice before the board is to be similar to that under the Railway Act should make it clear that the practice and procedure in this house in dealing with a bill of this kind should be the same.
20, 1950	90S
Alberta Natural Gas Company
We are told that applications were dealt with last year, and that if we insist upon following this procedure now we are granting a monopoly. I wish to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that the remarks I make now apply with equal force to those applications which already have been made. If mistakes were made in the past that is no reason for continuing to make those mistakes. As it happens no confusion arises in regard to the carrying of gas or oil west, because the board has not yet disposed of the application of Westcoast Transmission Company Limited, which obtained a charter from this house last year. Certainly I would strongly urge that every rule made applicable to these two companies whose applications are now before the house should apply with equal force and without reservation to the company to which I have referred.
But, Mr. Speaker, I should like also to be sure that all these companies are going to be considered equally. I think that is something every hon. member would like to be quite sure about. In that respect I noticed that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had this to say at page 850 of Hansard of Friday, March 17:
Several members of the house have given information that they obtained from the principals behind the bill, and I have given information that I obtained from the principals behind the bill. X might say that I cannot understand the unnatural fear that certain hon. members have of letting these men come before a committee of the house where members of the house could find out what they intend to do.
The principals there referred to are the principals behind the bill under consideration. The remarks then made were not on any bill then before the house, but were in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). That, then, carries us back to a discussion that took place in the house on November 15, 1949, and I should like to quote again from the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as it appears at page 1806 of Hansard of that date:
A good deal has been said about possible routes of the pipe line. A good many uninformed assertions have been made in the house in that regard. I know nothing about the pipe line company which is asking for incorporation under this bill; but I do know something about the interests that are asking for incorporation under another bill now before the house. I know that that company has surveyed five routes from Alberta to the Pacific coast, and that one of them at least is an all-Canadian route.
I then pass over certain further remarks and quote again:
I should like to know much more about the incorporation asked for in the bill about which I am speaking than I know at the present time. But the place to obtain that information is in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to

Alberta Natural Gas Company which this bill will be referred, and before which the sponsors of the bill will appear to make their case for incorporation.
Further on the minister said:
The province of Alberta will, in the end, decide with which incorporated company it wishes to do business.
I might explain that those remarks were made when the Prairie Transmission Lines Limited bill was before the house, and the principals to whom the minister referred on that occasion were those behind the bill now under consideration, that is, the bill to incorporate Alberta Natural Gas Company. In other words the minister quite frankly indicates his knowledge and interest-and that interest is quite natural in regard to activities of this kind-and it is clear that he has been dealing with or that he knows about the Alberta Natural Gas Company but he does not know so much about the other company. From this it seems quite obvious that the minister has a much greater interest in this company than in the other one.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might explain that the representatives of one company called on me and told me their story, but that was not so in the case of the other company. I have not the vaguest idea who is behind the second bin.


George Alexander Drew: I accept that statement, but I must say that if the principals behind the other bill did not call upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce, he must be the only member upon whom they did not call, because they were moving around here fairly freely for some time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who are they?


George Alexander Drew: The principals are named in the bill. I do not know anything about them, beyond the fact that there were certainly people around here during the last session trying to see everybody about this matter. It may be that the minister avoided seeing them, and perhaps some others did as well.


Mr. Cruickshank:: On a question of
privilege, in fairness to the minister, I should like to say I do not think that is a correct statement. I sponsored the company seeking incorporation last year, and we did not think it necessary to communicate with individuals. We had a good case, and we let it go at that.


George Alexander Drew: Of what company is the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) speaking?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I sponsored the bill for
the Westcoast Transmission Company, whose directors are principally business and financial men in the province of Alberta.


George Alexander Drew: I am speaking about the other company whose bill is before us, Prairie

Transmission Lines Limited. I only interjected that comment because, as a matter of fact, it became something of a joke around here, the extent to which members were being met in the lobby and asked-


George Alexander Cruickshank: It was far greater this year than last year.


George Alexander Drew: -to listen to certain arguments. I am not suggesting there was anything improper about that. It is quite proper for those who have business before the house to inform members on the subject; it is helpful if they do that. I am only pointing out that, if the minister has not heard any arguments on behalf of that company, I can assure him others did, and in the way I have mentioned.
I do want to point out that if the bill is sent to committee, the members of the committee will not get detailed information as to the route. The committee will be able to find out who the principals are, but their names are already shown. Committee members will be able to ask other questions as to the company's ability to carry out its obligation, the general purposes and so on. It is still a fact that the members of this house will not have before them the information which is an essential requirement in the case of an applicant for a railway, or a canal, and which is made a similar procedure by the words of the governing act.
Let us see what we are being asked to do. We are not just being asked to pass a bill which incorporates a company. We are being asked to pass a bill which gives to the people securing that incorporation extremely wide powers. I think those powers should be on the record, so that no one will be in any doubt as to what powers are being conferred when parliament passes this bill. Section 7 of the Pipe Lines Act should be on the record along with the arguments which are being made. The Pipe Lines Act was passed on April 30, 1949, and section 7 reads as follows:
7. A company may, for the purposes of its undertaking, subject to the provisions of this act and the special act,
(a)	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:
(b)	purchase, take and hold of and from any person any land or other property necessary for the construction, maintenance and operation of its line and alienate, sell or dispose of any of its land or property that for any reason has become unnecessary for the purpose of the line;
(c)	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;
(d)	join its line with the pipe line of any other person at any point on its route;

(e)	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 operation of its line;
(f)	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;
(g)	from time to time alter, repair or discontinue the works or any of them, mentioned in this section, and substitute others in their stead;
(h)	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
(i)	do all other acts necessary for the construction, maintenance and operation of its line.
Those are extremely wide powers, Mr. Speaker, to confer upon a company when we do not know where those powers are to be exercised. I do not believe it is sufficient for the members of this house to be told that this matter is to be passed upon by the board of transport commissioners; that the Minister of Trade and Commerce must give an export licence before the gas can be exported; or that the government of the Province of Alberta must approve of the delivery of oil to this particular pipe line. After all, the members of this house cannot delegate their responsibilities to others; but that is what we are being asked to do if we give an open charter of this sort, without any definition of the route or circumstances under which these extremely wide powers are to be exercised.
With this bill before us, the members of this house are not fully aware of what the ultimate, detailed application before the board will be. We know that a great many changes may take place, because a great many changes did take place in the routes under consideration in the case of the application of the Westcoast Transmission Company, which was granted a charter last year. Let us see what did happen in that case, so that no one will be under the impression that a company would be tied down to any route which it gave a committee to understand it would follow.
The Westcoast Transmission Company Limited was granted a charter by parliament last year. The company has made three applications since then to the board of transport commissioners for approval of a pipe line. The first application was filed on May 10, 1949, and that asked for a line from Athabasca to Vancouver, and a branch line down to Blaine. As hon. members know, this town is on the border, and three-quarters of it is in the state of Washington. That application was withdrawn on November 15, 1949. The second application was made on May 11, 1949, but no action has been taken on that application. It called for a line from 55946-581
20, 1950
Alberta Natural Gas Company Edmonton through the Crowsnest, following the route of the Canadian Pacific. It misses Macleod, does touch Cranbrook and goes to Kingsgate. Kingsgate is also on the border. This plan also called for a branch line from Kingsgate to Trail, and a map filed before the board in that case shows the pipe line continuing into the United States to Sand-point, Idaho, a little over 50 miles from Spokane.
A third application was made on October 13, 1949, by this same company. That called for the route to go through the Yellowhead pass, from Edmonton to Edson, Jasper, to Tete Jaune Cache, B. C., south to Vancouver and also a branch line to Dawson Creek, B. C. That application was heard on November 23, 1949, and adjourned to February 21, 1950. When it came up on February 21, 1950, it was then adjourned sine die and that is where it stands. I think it is important that we bear that fact in mind, because the concern of the members lest any monopoly has been created is not borne out by the actual situation. They are no farther along than are the present companies; and any observation that I make applies with equal force to any one of these companies.
But we are not leaving this matter in thin air. There is a simple procedure which should be followed. If this is not to be dealt with in exactly the same way as an application on behalf of a railway or on behalf of a company that intends to construct a canal, where they file their map, and that is before the members of parliament, then I submit that there is an extremely simple procedure which should be followed. There should be an amendment to the Pipe Lines Act, and that amendment should provide that the companies referred to in these procedures will be companies which have obtained a charter under the dominion Companies Act. In other words, if the members of parliament are not to exercise any judgment, if they are not to be given the facts upon which they can exercise some judgment, then there is no reason why this incorporation should not be granted in precisely the same way that incorporation is granted to any other applicant under the Companies Act. It should simply emanate as an administration procedure from the department of government that grants charters. Upon complying with the requirements as to information which is necessary for the purpose of obtaining a charter, they should obtain a charter in the ordinary way. Then they should go before the board of transport commissioners and make their application. We would then not be called upon to go through the pretence of exercising some judgment in

Alberta Natural Gas Company regard to bills which are before us but which do not give us information upon which any judgment can be exercised.
I hope that no one will suggest that we are standing in the way of charters being granted. Before any hon. member, whether it be a niinister of the crown or any private member on the Liberal side, suggests that we are standing in the way of companies getting incorporation so that development can be proceeded with in this country, let them give us some sound and understandable explanation why that simple procedure cannot be followed. It would save a great deal of time in this house; it would bring this debate to an end, and that seems to be a matter of great concern to the government and to some others; it would carry this procedure forward on a proper and sound basis; and it would do away with any suggestion that the members of this parliament are being used as rubber stamps to give a high degree of authority to those who are applying, and that they would be giving incorporation by parliament itself, which seems to have a strangely useful value when the financing stage arrives.
I want to make it clear that I do not think that the discretion of the members of parliament should give to any applicant that added measure of authority that comes from parliamentary responsibility, for the purpose of carrying out their financial arrangements with what appears to be an added measure of authority granted in that way. The charter can be a charter with all the powers conferred by the Pipe Lines Act. The amendment is simple. It simply needs to say that the company referred to in the act is a company with a charter granted under the dominion Companies Act. It seems to me that the government should have some reason for not following that course before it asks us to deal in this way with an application which will give us such limited information.
This is not something about which there has been no discussion. Some suggestion was made this afternoon that there had been nothing but vague generalities. But there are more than vague generalities in connection with this matter. I am not putting before parliament any one publication as having any special authority; but hon. members who have been following the discussions on this matter must have noticed that there have been in responsible publications a number of discussions which indicate that there is going to be substantial export of oil down from Alberta, through Montana, Washington and into Oregon. I am not suggesting for one moment that there should not be such export as long as our own requirements are first met and assured indefinitely.

I want to refer to a drawing which appeared in a publication which enjoys a good reputation for accuracy and responsibility. I refer to U.S. News & World Report. In their issue of December 2, 1949, there is a drawing which shows in black the oil pipe line from Edmonton to Superior as one which has already been granted, and then it shows the line down from Edmonton to the border at the junction between Montana and Idaho, then on into the state of Washington to Seattle, down through Tacoma to Portland. There is no line shown to Vancouver or in fact to the west.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is that not the Westcoast
Transmission Company line that my hon. friend just described?


George Alexander Drew: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Down through Kingsgate?


George Alexander Drew: No. This does not give the name of any pipe line. I was under the impression that this is a line which has been under discussion in some way. It refers to this as a proposed line, but it does not mention the name of the company at all. I would suggest again that we bear in mind that these applications are for oil lines as well as for gas lines.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, no.


George Alexander Drew: What is that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understood that this was a gas line that is under discussion?


George Alexander Drew: No; it is for oil and gas.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I mean, the bill indicates that the application is for a gas line; you cannot have both through the same pipe.


George Alexander Drew: I hope every hon. member will realize that it is dealing with an oil pipe line too; it does not mention oil by the name of oil, but it covers oil because instead of using the term "oil" as it is used in the other two bills it uses the term "liquid hydrocarbons", which means either crude or refined oil. It might have been more convenient perhaps if they had used the same term in each bill, but those who drafted the bill chose the term "liquid hydrocarbons".


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry; I think my hon. friend is right.


George Alexander Drew: Yes. I am merely pointing that out because I do not want any of the members to be under any misapprehension. This does cover oil. Consequently, in granting this we want to realize that we are granting authority both for gas and for oil, and that when this proposed line is drawn in a fairly exact form, it may be constructed for oil as

well as gas and in fact even be referring to the oil in this particular article to which I have referred.
May I qualify my remarks by saying quite definitely that I am not suggesting for one minute that this publication has any authority to speak either on behalf of the government of Canada or on behalf of the board of transport commissioners. I merely refer to this because it is only one of a number of well-informed articles which have shown similar drawings and which indicate that there is such an understanding in the minds of many people. I also would like to feel that we have all the information that is available in regard to discussions that have taken place. If, for instance, there is any quid pro quo as between the authorities in the United States and Canada I think we should know it. If there is any qualified understanding that there will be export of gas and oil south from Alberta, as a condition of the entry of gas particularly through Ontario for their requirements, then it would be helpful if we knew it. I do know that this has been suggested in the discussions to which I have referred. So long as our own requirements are met, it is only proper that we should deal in a businesslike way with those who have dealt in friendly terms with us in the past.
As many hon. members know, there was a very severe shortage of gas in southwestern Ontario, in 1944, in 1945 and again in 1946. Actually, in the cold weather it became quite severe, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows. An application was made to the federal power commission in the United States for permission to export gas from the United States. Actually there had been an executive order in 1944 permitting the Union Panhandle company to export gas into Ontario. However, in 1946 the federal power commission overrode that executive order and declared that such export was illegal without a permit being granted by the federal power commission. At present there is an application by the Union Panhandle Pipe Line Company before the federal power commission in the United States. They contemplate exporting gas to the province of Ontario, and meeting the requirements in that southwestern part of the province. There is also reason to believe that, if this application is granted, two other companies propose to apply, and they have in mind supplying gas as far as Montreal. It is already carried through to Hamilton. The intention of these other companies is to carry gas on to Toronto and to Montreal.
I am pointing out to the house that discussions have taken place, which contemplate the supply of a large quantity of gas in eastern Canada, to Ontario and to the province of Quebec, and that rightly or wrongly there is in
20, 1950
Alberta Natural Gas Company the minds of some of the United States interests a belief that there is a relation between the granting of this authority in the east and the granting of the power to export in western Canada. We should certainly know if any such consideration does exist. I am not for a moment suggesting-and I do not want the Minister of Trade and Commerce to take from my remarks that suggestion-that there would be anything improper in such a discussion; but I do say that if such a discussion has taken place, and if the representatives of the Panhandle company have had discussions here and have had discussions of which they are aware in Washington, and which are related to the export of gas and oil possibly from western Canada to the northwest states in the United States, these are certainly considerations that should be fully disclosed, because many hon. members would feel that this was a businesslike proposition. We would also like to know what the policy is.
Before we give any blanket authority from this parliament I feel that we should also know what the policy of the federal power commission in Washington is, because unless they are prepared to grant authority to export gas to this country where it is required, then certainly we should not put ourselves in the position of granting authority for the export of gas in another part of Canada. This should be one business transaction, if it is in fact under consideration, or if there is any relationship between the two.
I come back, however, to this part of the discussion which has been before the house. We hardly yet realize the change that has taken place in the opportunities that are offered to the people of Canada in these last two years as a result of the discoveries in Alberta and of what may happen beyond that. I should like to quote from this article, which uses a colloquial form of expression:
Oilmen say that, from the standpoint of exploration, Alberta is "the hottest place on earth."
They do not mean just the ordinary heat; they are talking about the tremendous possibilities of this development. Just to take the province of Alberta alone, let us keep before our eyes the opportunities presented to the province by these oil discoveries, and by the presence of gas in such enormous quantities as a result of these oil discoveries, along with the existence of coal. In this instance coal becomes valuable as something more than fuel, because today coal is the basis of some of the greatest chemical developments that have been discovered by man. Through the use of cheap gas, through the use of oil right in Alberta, chemical developments could take place which would make Alberta one of the great industrial centres of the whole

Alberta Natural Gas Company Dominion of Canada and of the North American continent. That applies with equal force to British Columbia, if adequate supplies of gas and oil are carried to the great centres of British Columbia and to tidewater where industries can locate and export to the markets of the world. With their enormous resources, let us not measure the demands of British Columbia in terms of the gas they can use today or tomorrow, but measure it in terms of what could happen there with their raw materials being fabricated in great' industries that would use these cheap forms of fuel for the employment of hundreds of thousands, yes, possibly millions of people in that one province alone.
Let us not forget the raw materials that lie in the north of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, to say nothing of the increasingly strong belief that there are oil resources in Saskatchewan and Manitoba as well. These are the possibilities of tomorrow. And what we do today, and the conservation that is insisted upon today, should relate to these possibilities of tomorrow.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I for one am not raising these views today for the purpose of opposing development. I raise these views because I believe that the way to get development is to simplify the procedure, and not take the time of this house in dealing with things when we are not asked to pass judgment upon any known facts. When I say "any known facts", let me say any known facts in regard to the final route over which this pipe line will go. Let the government accept the suggestion that has been made. If the bill before the house is not to contain a map which shows where the route will go, then let there be a simple amendment to the Pipe Lines Act, which makes it possible for any company to obtain a charter, and then the board of transport commissioners will in fact assume the authority.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Apple-whaite) was quite frank in his statement that we have not the facts before us. According to him we should pass this bill along and let somebody else exercise his brains in regard to the way it is to be done. That is not the reason we were elected to come here. We were elected to represent the people in our own constituencies, no matter to what party we belong. We were elected to exercise some measure of judgment and I believe we should insist upon being given the facts upon which judgment can be exercised before we deal with a bill of this kind. It is for that reason that I for one intend to oppose these bills before the house.
I believe it is the duty of every member to realize the tremendous future that has
opened up to the whole of Canada by these mineral discoveries, not only in Alberta but elsewhere, during the past few years. With that knowledge we should gauge our course of action here to the tremendous future that lies immediately ahead. Yes, we should be prepared to export our surplus, but quite frankly our policy should be Canada first in the use of the resources which we possess.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Speaker, because the riding which I represent has been mentioned this afternoon it is necessary for me to take some part in this debate. I come from the Peace river district of British Columbia where many wells have been put down and where there is a large surplus of natural gas and very good prospects of oil. We will be much concerned with any policy adopted by this parliament in connection with this bill or any other bill which may be brought in later.
As I see the picture today, if we do not allow this bill to pass we will be giving the company which has been Incorporated a monopoly. If there is one fear that we should have in this country it is about private monopoly controlling our great basic resources. A pipe line is a transportation system and the question of rates would come up. If there is but one pipe line transporting these vast resources of oil from Alberta and northern British Columbia to the Pacific, I am sure there will be a likelihood of danger of a monopoly taking advantage of its position and levying excessively upon the consumers.
It has happened in the past in Canada. It was very fine to hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) refer to the early days of oil development in Ontario in 1858, but if you will trace the history of our country you will find that the only misery and civil difficulties that arose were due to monopolies which were forced upon the people of Canada. I think that this bill or any reasonable bill backed by honourable men should be passed by this parliament. There should be a free field in the development of the oil resources of our country so that there will be safeguards for industry and for the consumers of the products which are carried by these pipe lines.
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. I can remember when there were a dozen cement mills across Canada competing one with the other and producing plenty of
CMr. Drew. I

cement in the golden days when the west was being developed and new homes were being erected from coast to coast.
Then came the sinister hand of monopoly. These cement mills were gathered together and placed under one directing head. The price of cement per sack was at once advanced. Companies were incorporated and stock was placed upon the market to the great enrichment of the promoters who were clever enough to manipulate the creation of a monopoly in a product essential to the country. 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.
Across the line in the state of Washington, where our alleged enemies live who are going to squeeze the gas out of this pipe line and deny it to the widows and mothers of British Columbia, Henry Kaiser is manufacturing cement on the Columbia river and shipping it into British Columbia by scow loads. This at a time when our own great monopoly is not able to meet the needs of the community in respect to that commodity. It will be the same with oil. Just the other day complaints were raised in the House of Representatives that one of the oil lines in the United States was imposing excessive charges upon the industrial community around Detroit, Michigan, running into many millions of dollars. It was claimed that they were exacting tribute from that industrial area as a result of their monopoly.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Was it true? Were they?


George Matheson Murray: True or false, that was stated in an Associated Press dispatch under date of March 16 which is in the library and available to hon. members to read. It is almost prophetic of what will happen if we permit one interest to move the gas and oil from Saskatchewan and Alberta to the great Pacific seacoast.
Some people seem to fear the United States as though they were about to destroy us. But they did not talk that way when the Repulse and the Prince of Wales were sunk in the Pacific and the United States came in and built a pipe line from Norman Wells to Skagway. They did not ask for delay to incorporate another company to carry it over a Canadian route. That oil was carried some 600 miles to service the ships of the United States navy at a time when things were very dark in that part of the land.
20. 1950
Alberta Natural Gas Company
I was up on the Peace river when it was necessary to build a bridge across the river for the defence of North America. A group of United States engineers arrived with their equipment, steel, cement and the other things necessary for the construction of a bridge. I assure you that no Canadian rose to say that it must not be done because it was not a Canadian bridge. That bridge was built over the mighty Peace river to increase the security of the defence of both Canada and the United States.
Supposing they do take gas out of this line for industries in the state of Washington. I was in British Columbia not long ago and I met a group of lumbermen who told me that lumber is now going from British Columbia to the United States market. Future shipments of lumber to that country depend upon the existence of good will. If the United States tariff on lumber were increased, certain mills in British Columbia would have to shut down. I ask you if it is not a proper thing to maintain employment in British Columbia where thousands of men are working in the logging camps and mills producing lumber for sale in the best world markets available. The best market at the present time is the United States of America. None of us have complained about loads of lumber going over there. None of us have complained about the tons of newsprint from Powell river and other places that go to the United States of America. Why should we complain about selling them a little gas or oil from the Peace river country or Alberta?
As I say, I regret that able men have risen in this house to champion monopoly in the great basic industry of the transportation of gas and oil. We remember the monopoly that was granted when the first Canadian railway was put through to the Pacific coast. One railway had the sole right to transport goods east and west, and no other railway might cross it at right angles in the region from the head of the lakes to the Pacific ocean. Within my own memory I recall that the people of Manitoba desired that other railroads should be constructed in their province to serve the settlements, to move wheat and other products, and carry on trade north and south in their province. The man who sought to build that railroad from the United States north through Manitoba was a good Canadian by the name of James J. Hill, an empire builder, born at Guelph, Ontario. He was told that he could not build a railroad across the main line of the railroad then in existence. The legislature of Manitoba had something to say about that. They made a request that the new company be allowed to build a line running up into the northern part

Alberta Natural Gas Company of the province. Resolutions to that effect were passed by the Manitoba legislature and sent to Sir John A. Macdonald and his government at Ottawa, but they said: No, we have made a contract, we have given them a monopoly, and we do not propose to see it broken.
Just imagine what would have happened if they had had their way in the 1890's, if the government at Ottawa had been adamant in its refusal to break the franchise that had been granted. There would not have been any members here from northern Saskatchewan, from the Peace river district or from Edmonton because all the traffic was east and west. The monopoly had it within its power to decide what part of the country would be developed and at what time. I have not noticed this in any of the school books that my children and grandchildren are reading today, but the people in Manitoba made an armed protest against the monopoly which was throttling the province at that time. Under the leadership of a fiery man who was then attorney general of Manitoba, the late Hon. Joseph Martin, K.C., who later became premier of British Columbia, an organized rabble burned boxcars and tore up tracks. As a result James J. Hill was allowed to build his railway to the north.
After their protest they came to Ottawa again to ask that the monopoly be broken and Sir John A. Macdonald was wise enough to yield. The government of Manitoba said they would pull out of confederation and make Manitoba a state of the United States if the federal government did not grant their request. In the face of that attitude the monopoly was broken, and railroads were allowed to be built north and south in Canada. As a result there was free competition, and the country was developed as it has been in the last several generations.
The history of the Peace river country suggests a monopoly which existed in Canada long ago when the fur trade and all other resources of Canada were vested in one corporation. Then the Northwest Company came into the picture as a competitor of the vested interest which had been established in 1670 by the courts of England. With the Northwest Company came Alexander Mackenzie looking for an opportunity for peaceful trade in the northwest section of Canada. Alexander Mackenzie discovered the Peace river, and also the Mackenzie river which bears his name. It was he who first found evidence of natural gas and oil in that country, and it is noted in his chronicles away back in 1793. He was a man who came there as a result of his desire to enter into free competition in a free la ad.

He established trading posts here and there. I believe Kamloops, which is so ably represented in the house, was one of them. Many of these posts would never have come into existence had the cold hand of monopoly remained in control of the northwest.
It is a great opportunity to be able to rise at this moment and support the bill now before the house, and to state my support of any other measure which will encourage free competition in Canada.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words as to this measure in order to clarify my own position. I listened carefully to the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray), and I have also listened to many other speeches that have been made in the house for and against the bill. I have yet to find that anyone has made the statement, in such a way that it carries any weight, that the granting of charters to these two companies would assure competition in the transportation of oil from Alberta to British Columbia or anywhere else. Not from personal knowledge but from listening to the experts, my understanding is that only one pipe line is to be constructed. If there is to be one only, then I assume it will be built by one company, or else it will be constructed by a combination of two or three companies, who will get together not to serve the people of Canada but to skin them as they have always done in the past. If I am wrong about that, we are wasting a lot of time and money investigating combines and monopolies. A few weeks ago a new commissioner of combines was appointed. If I should happen to be talking through my hat in saying that the purpose of companies is to skin the people of the country, then why do we have to have all these safeguards?
I am somewhat at a loss as to why I am here.


An hon. Member:: So are we.


Angus MacInnis: I am equally at a loss as to why some of my fellow members from the province of British Columbia sought election to the house. I put their statements made on the public platform and in their newspaper advertisements, when seeking election, against the statements they have made in connection with this measure, and they do not seem to jibe at all. The bill under discussion is one to incorporate the Alberta Natural Gas Company, and the proposed motion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) that the question be now put. My understanding of the rules of the house is that there is only one reason for moving "that the question be now put", namely, to obviate any amendment being proposed to the measure. So far as debate is

concerned, it does not limit debate at all. It really extends the debate because there can be a new debate on the previous question. So amendments were moved to this and the other bill in order to prevent the moving of an amendment such as we proposed to similar bills last year. I shall read the one I moved, which is at page 2103 of Hansard for November 22, 1949:
That Bill No. 119 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house further consideration of this bill should be deferred until the house has been assured that the route of any pipe line built by the proposed company will be laid out so as to serve Canadian requirements before any such pipe line leaves Canadian soil.
That is my position today in regard to this pipe line, as it was my position last December when I moved the above amendment. When speaking in the debate on this bill on March 7 the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) said at page 540 of Hansard:
The bill does not authorize the building of a pipe line. Even if a charter is granted to the company there is no assurance whatsoever that it will ever build a line.
If it will never build a line it can neither be a monopoly nor operate in opposition to a monopoly.
It would be impractical for it to do so without, first having a permit from the government of Alberta to remove gas from that province. It would also require the assurance of an export permit from the Department of Trade and Commerce before it could export any gas from Canada.
Let us be quite clear on what is proposed to be done by this bill, because we aim to do something; and what we do will carry some implications. We are creating an entity that will have the powers we give it to do certain things. If that is the case, surely we are not going to create an entity and let it run wild. We are creating a company, a corporate body, for the purpose of building a pipe line; and this parliament has a right to say where that pipe line should be built. Surely this parliament is supreme in this matter. If we cannot say where a pipe line must be built, who has authority to say so?
That brings me to another statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard in the same speech, he said:
I think we are entitled to assume that before permits are granted by the authorities concerned the interests of the citizens of Alberta and of Canada as a whole will be protected.
The authorities concerned are the Department of Trade and Commerce, the authorities in the province of Alberta and the board of transport commissioners. What right has the hon. member to assume that the authorities in Alberta, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the board of transport commissioners will do what he has refused to do,
Alberta Natural Gas Company that is, protect the interests of the people of British Columbia? That is not what he was elected for. He was elected from British Columbia to protect the interests of that province, and of course the interests of Canada as a whole; and if he does not fulfil that trust I do not think he has any right to assume that someone else will do it for him. As a matter of fact the people of British Columbia are beginning to realize that something is wrong. I rather regretted that in his excellent speech the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) took the position that everyone who did not think as he did on this matter was either hysterical or not seeing things straight. I am not suffering from hysterics or confusion of thought in this matter. If there is any reason for electing us as members of parliament, if there is any reason for paying us our indemnities, it is to look after the interests of Canada, and to do it without offence and without discrimination against any other people or any other country. It is not only a right, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) reminds me; it is a duty.
Then the hon. member for Skeena went on to say that the administration of the act rested with the transport board. I submit that the question of where the pipe line shall go is not a matter of administration at all. It is a matter of direction, which the board of transport commissioners, as a body created by the government of Canada and taking its authority from the parliament of Canada, should be expected to accept. Referring to the danger of creating a monopoly I see no danger at all. The sale of gas in the province of Alberta is under the authority of the Alberta natural gas board; and when the gas reaches British Columbia it will be under the authority of the public utilities commission, which has authority to set rates. As a matter of fact we learned long ago, though perhaps not as well as we should, that we can no longer leave matters of this kind to the unchecked action of owners.
The point was also made by the hon. member for Skeena that if we gave a permit for the export of gas to the United States and it was found that such export prejudiced or jeopardized the interests of the Canadian people, the permit could be cancelled. There is only one way to protect the people of Canada; that is to make sure the permit is not issued until after the needs of the Canadian people have been met. Let us see just what would happen if we permitted the construction of a pipe line which would serve United States cities first and then come into British Columbia to serve Vancouver. In what possible way could an export permit

Alberta Natural Gas Company be cancelled? We know the charges that would be made both here and in the United States alleging discrimination if any such action were attempted.
I agree with the hon. member for Skeena that there has been a great deal of repetition in this debate. I think he also referred to vagueness. I agree that there has been an enormous amount of vagueness as well, particularly from the supporters of the bill. But I think the time has come when we should have a vote in this house so that hon. members will decide whether Canada shall have the first opportunity of using a valuable Canadian resource, and developing it in the interests of the Canadian people. We have paid out hundreds of millions of dollars to bring immigrants from all parts of the world to this country, only to find that, because of the greater opportunities in the United States, they left here, along with large numbers of our Canadian-born citizens. Are we going to overlook one of the best opportunities we have had in half a century to keep our own people here, as well as the people who came to our shores to start their lives anew? We should make sure before we grant this charter that we shall know where the pipe line is going to be built; and that it will be built to serve the interests of the Canadian people first.


Mr. G. F. Higgins (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, it was quite some time before I decided I should indulge in the privilege of joining in this debate. It was more or less a private fight until recently, but now it has become a public one. I feel that even those members who live in the eastern part of the country might join also in this debate. It is the duty of every hon. member who has to vote on this important measure not only to participate in the debate, but to give serious consideration to the whole matter.
I believe this is a continuation of a matter that was discussed during the greater part of the last session, and it would appear as though it might continue through the greater part of this session as well. Of course, that is a matter entirely within the province of the members of the house. I have been trying to ascertain what the trouble is in arriving at a decision on this subject. I have endeavoured to listen carefully to the pros and cons, in order to form my own conclusion. I do not think it likely, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to have a pipe line built to Newfoundland, but it could very well be because no route has been decided upon as yet.


An hon. Member:: There is a lot of gas down there anyway.
[Mr. Maclnnls.l


Gordon Francis Higgins: I agree with that. I take it as a compliment. We could export a lot of natural gas, but I do not think it could be used for power-although it might be illuminating gas for some people.
The measure, Mr. Speaker, seemed to be more or less a private matter between the sponsor and certain members from the west coast.- Some time during the closing hours of the last session, however, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) took it upon himself to more or less threaten the members of this house, as I recall. Either they agreed to have this measure passed shortly, or else it was going to be put forward as a government measure. He charged that hon. members of the C.C.F. party were running a filibuster. According to my. recollection the members of that party were entirely innocent at that time, since only one member of that party had spoken. Whoever was running the filibuster, it certainly was not that party. It is rather hard that, at that time, these people should be given the honour of running a filibuster which they really had not undertaken at all. I do not know where the filibuster came in. I believe it was only members seeking information which was not forthcoming, information which the minister told us bluntly we were not going to get. I think that is what started the trouble. I do not think we would have had one-quarter the number of speakers had that threat not been made.


An hon. Member:: Dictatorship.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Definitely. Certainly, I would never have thought of speaking except for that powerful threat. The people from that part of the country which is now almost the maritimes, but not quite, are extremely independent. I am sure that if any hon. member from Newfoundland were threatened by anybody, no matter how austere a personage he might be, that member would not cringe. He would endeavour to give back as good as he got, and that is all we are trying to do. Even that, Mr. Speaker, is hardly answering the question very well.
I suppose the real matter before the house is whether or not the members are going to agree to this measure. I feel that most members are in accord with the idea of a pipe line. They want the natural resources of the country developed to the highest possible extent. They realize, as do all thinking men, that unless the natural resources of the country are developed to the fullest possible extent the economy of the country cannot prosper or be on a safe and sound basis. What is it these members on this side of the house

want? We have heard various expressions, Mr. Speaker, about people who are trying to stop this measure, but what do these members really want? They only want to be safeguarded. The members on this side of the house, indeed all hon. members who are brave enough to withstand the ire of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and be independent, only ask that the needs of the Canadian people be served first. They are not trying to stop the company being formed. They are not trying to stop any company being formed. As my leader so well said, they want Canada put first; no more than that. You can export all the gas you want, provided the needs of the Canadian people are served first.
I must confess that the other day when I heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce make his statement I felt quite reassured. I am referring to the statement found on page 791 of Hansard of March 16. It was a reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart) on the orders of the day. It reads as follows:
I should like to direct the following questions to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Have any representations been made to him by the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan with regard to protecting Saskatchewan so far as export of oil and gas from Alberta is concerned? What is the policy of the minister with regard to the granting of permits for pipe lines from Alberta to the United States?
When I first heard the answer given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and when I read his answer in Hansard, in my rather simple way I was quite content that everything was, as we say colloquially, "hunky-dory", because this is what the minister said:
The answer to the first question-
That is the question with respect to representations from the C.C.F. government.
-is that I have no knowledge of any representations from the province of Saskatchewan in that connection.
And here is the particular statement that I refer to especially and that I say satisfied me in my own mind at that time. This is what the minister said:
In answer to the second question I would say that I spoke on this subject at the last session of parliament, and pointed out that the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act is designed to protect Canadian consumers. It is necessary under the act for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to give a certificate to the effect that the present and foreseeable future needs of Canada are protected before any exports of electricity or gas are permitted. It has been suggested frequently in the current debate that gas will be sent to the United States from the pipe line before the pipe line reaches Vancouver. I stated last session that that would not be permitted. I know from discussions with the sponsors of the pipe line that it is not proposed to undertake any such export.
Alberta Natural Gas Company
Then the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) made an interjection. The quotation continues:


Arthur Leroy Smith: I know from discussions-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Sit down; you have said enough on this subject.


Arthur Leroy Smith: -that just the opposite has been said.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, in my simple way I believed that the answer given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was quite satisfactory, that it answered any doubts that I might have in my little mind and should answer the doubts of other hon. members. But then on March 17, of all days-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the day he could be different.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that day?


Gordon Francis Higgins: It is an awful day for people not to be telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But as reported at page 850 of Hansard, on March 17, we have a question directed to the minister by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruick-shank). As I say, I am reading this deliberately, Mr. Speaker, in order to try to explain to you why my doubts have not been resolved by any statements made by the minister two days before. This is the question:


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I was not in the house yesterday when the orders of the day were called, but I note the minister is reported on page 792 of Hansard as having said:
"It has been suggested frequently in the current debate that gas will be sent to the United States from the pipe line before the pipe line reaches Vancouver. I stated last session that that would not be permitted. I know from discussions with the sponsors of the pipe line that it is not proposed to undertake any such export."
That is a citation from the citation I gave a short while ago. The question by the hon. member for Fraser Valley continues as follows:
Am I to understand from that statement that no export permit will be granted other than through an all-Canadian route?
That is a direct question, Mr. Speaker, and requires a direct answer. It is impossible to evade the question if the Minister of Trade and Commerce wanted to give the answer in a direct fashion. What did the minister say in answer to that direct and specific question? This is what he said:
Several members of the house have given information that they obtained from the principals behind the bill, and I have given information that I obtained from the principals behind the bill. ' I might say that I cannot understand the unnatural fear that certain hon. members have of letting these

Alberta Natural Gas Company men come before a committee of the house where members of the house could find out what they intend to do.
Then the hon. member for Fraser Valley stated as follows:
I take it the minister is not going to answer my question. Is that correct?
And there is no further answer recorded. What, then, are we to understand by that position, Mr. Speaker? We have, as I say, what I in my way understood to be a direct statement by the minister to the effect that the rights of the Canadian people were going to be protected. That was a definite and clear statement. Yet when the question is put formally and forcibly to the minister, what does he do? Does he answer it? Does he make a statement and say yes or no? No, he does not answer it at all. In other words, it is a direct evasion by the minister. How can hon. members of this house vote on a measure such as this when we have this kind of attitude on the part of the minister responsible, when he tells us in one breath, "Yes, you may go ahead and vote safely on this and I will see that the people of Canada are protected", and then when one of his own party members asks him for a direct and deliberate statement, he refuses to give it. I therefore say to you in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, that it is not fair to ask hon. members of this house to vote on such a measure, in which even the members of the party proposing it themselves have not faith. I may be reading that wrongly, but I think not.
It has been suggested that this measure is being interfered with and that there has been a filibuster for reasons of selfishness. When you think of the matter, Mr. Speaker, all you have to do is merely to look again at the people who are asking that they be protected.
I refer now to the legislature of British Columbia. I believe the legislature of British Columbia is made up of three parties: representatives of the Liberal party, representatives of the C.C.F. party and representatives of our own party, the Progressive Conservative party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have been swallowed up in the coalition.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Yes, I believe it is a coalition.
I do not know who did the swallowing. It might have been Jonah or the whale. Who was it? Whoever swallowed whom, the whale has spoken in the matter, the whale being the legislature of British Columbia, and it specifically makes recommendations that I think this parliament should not do anything else but follow. I am referring again to those resolutions quoted at page 875; because, after all, the legislature of British Columbia is vitally interested in this matter. This particular resolution was quoted at page 875 by the hon.

member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton); and I do not think it will do any harm to any member of this house to hear it read again, particularly hon. members from British Columbia. It is as follows:
Whereas there are strong indications that a great potential of both petroleum and natural gas exists in the northeastern section of British Columbia: And whereas exploration is presently taking place to ascertain the extent and value of these resources: And whereas it would be a further incentive to greater and more intensive exploration if an outlet to market of these commodities was available: And whereas proposals are now being considered for the construction of gas and petroleum pipe lines from available supplies in Alberta to Vancouver and the Pacific coast states of the United States:
And whereas, in the opinion of many members of the legislature the requirements of Canadians in this connection would be a matter of first consideration :
And whereas the industrial development of the interior of British Columbia as well as the Vancouver and Fraser valley areas would be greatly stimulated by the construction of oil and natural gas pipe lines from Alberta and northeastern British Columbia through the interior of British Columbia to the Pacific coast:
And whereas, if the proposed northern route is followed, many millions of dollars will be spent in British Columbia in the construction of the lines with consequent employment of thousands of our citizens:
Therefore be it resolved, that the legislative assembly of the province of British Columiba urge upon the federal and provincial authorities concerned the advisability in the interests not only of British Columbia but of Canada as well that such pipe lines be constructed through the Yellowhead pass and thence through the interior of British Columbia to Vancouver, with provision for the extension of the line to the Peace river block so that when sufficient supplies of petroleum and natural gas are available in that area there will be an available outlet to market without unnecessary delay.
This is a resolution of the province of British Columbia. I understand that municipalities in the interior of British Columbia have passed resolutions. In his speech the other day the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) mentioned that fact. These are responsible bodies, Mr. Speaker. No suggestion of selfishness can be levelled at them. These are Canadian people. These are people whose only interest is the serving of Canada and Canadian people first.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite). He spoke, as he always does, in a very acceptable manner. From the applause which he received from the other side of the house on the proposition he made it would appear that there was common agreement upon it. That was my understanding, and I took down his words. He said: "Every hon. member on this side of the house would be satisfied to support this motion for an all-Canadian route if it could be shown to be economically feasible and possible." I understood that that remark

received the approbation of all hon. members on the opposite side of the house. If it could be shown to hon. members that it is economically possible to have an all-Canadian pipe line they would insist on an all-Canadian route being constructed.
I should like hon. members to follow me for a short time. I understand that the oil body from which the gas is to come is the same oil body and the same gas body that the Westcoast Transmission Company, which was incorporated last year, is working on. The Westcoast Transmission Company have made application for an all-Canadian route. I should like to quote from a brief entitled: "Natural Gas in Alberta and British Columbia and its Development for the benefit of Canada". At page 15, and referring to this particular proposed pipe line of the Westcoast Transmission Company from the same body of gas, they say:
Westcoast Transmission Company Limited is the only company which has consistently sponsored an all-Canadian route to take gas to the Pacific coast. The route now chosen for the main transmission line from Edmonton through the Yellowhead pass to Vancouver is the shortest line from the approximate geographical centre of Alberta to Vancouver. The pass through the mountains is one of the lowest and most easily traversed. The only other mountainous terrain is through the coast range where the line will follow the new Hope-Princeton highway.
The entire length of the line has been inspected most minutely by the firm of Ford, Bacon and Davis, Incorporated, 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.
Then on page 16 we find the following:
Plans for a pipe line to take oil to tidewater for the Pacific coast market from the Edmonton area, Normandville, Stettler and the large potential Peace river country of both Alberta and British Columbia, following the route of the gas pipe line are far advanced. Westcoast Transmission Company, whose charter provides for the transportation of oil as well as gas, has already had Ford, Bacon and Davis complete the preliminary engineering and design for the oil pipe line from Edmonton to Vancouver following exactly the same route as the gas line.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, before the
adjournment I had proved to myself with complete satisfaction that an all-Canadian route for this pipe line was entirely feasible and practical, but I cannot say how many other hon. members I convinced. Having the presumption to make such a statement, I also quote as an authority the well-known and
20, 1950
Alberta Natural Gas Company highly respected firm of Ford, Bacon and Davis Incorporated of New York, the largest pipe-line company in the world.
At the request of the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited this company made a survey of an all-Canadian route for a pipe line to transport gas from the same natural gas fields which the company now seeking incorporation would serve. They reported that the proposal was entirely feasible and sound in every respect.
That being so, there is an entirely different angle that I want to address myself to in the short time I have left. As I said earlier this afternoon, there was nothing selfish in the stand taken by the opposition, but there may be a selfish angle in another phase of this matter that I should like to stress.
Bell island is the main source of iron ore for the Dominion Iron and Steel Company at Sydney, and, of course, steel is manufactured from this iron ore. There are about 10,000 people in the town of Wabana and because of present world conditions more than half those people are affected by the reduction in the staff at the mine, which is the largest iron ore mine in the British empire. Men who have worked upwards of thirty years have been discharged and the only recourse they have is to accept the miserable pittance of unemployment insurance.
The selfish angle to this matter is this: It is estimated by the Westcoast Transmission Company that it will cost approximately $100 million to construct the proposed pipe line, and I would assume that a large part of that would be for the steel pipe. If a large order for steel were placed with Dosco, not only would it help out the constituency of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis); it would help out my own riding where Bell island is located. In addition to Dosco, there are two other large steel companies in Canada, the Steel Company of Canada and the Algoma Steel Company.
There is no reason that 1 can see why a provision could not be inserted in this bill that Canadian steel be used for the construction of this pipe line. It might be interesting to hon. members to know that the act empowering a company to operate the ore body in Labrador close to the Quebec border contains a provision that Newfoundland labour shall be employed if available. There is no reason at all why a similar provision should not be inserted in this bill. If that were done, imagine the employment that would be created. Imagine the value it would mean to all Canada.
As I said before, the practicability of a pipe line going through Canada to the United States has been proved satisfactorily to a lot
918	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company of people. A great number of communities in Alberta and British Columbia would be served and it would not in any way affect the places at the end of the line or interfere with the object the sponsor of this bill has in mind, the sale of gas to the United States.
It may mean a longer pipe line, but that means more money to be expended in Canada and more Canadian labour to be used. Ultimately it will mean a greater number of United States dollars to be spent at the end of the line because I presume the gas would cost a little more.


Mr. Harkness:: $14,500,000 a year.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) says $14,500,000 a year. To use what may be considered an impolite expression that could be borrowed from the United States, "That ain't hay." My leader enunciated very well this afternoon the principle of Canada first, and that perhaps covers the whole field. But in particular, employment would be given, Canadian steel would be used and there would be a greater return of United States dollars.
No hon. member wants to be named at some later period as having been a mere rubber stamp, as some of us unfortunately have been told already we are. Nobody wants to be called that. As no particular and useful purpose will be served, so far as I can see, by granting permission to the company now making application in this form, I am quite satisfied that no wrong will be done to it or to any other companies if the matter is delayed until we have the necessary undertaking. Remember, as I said earlier, all that hon. members on this side of the house want is an assurance from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that the pipe line will go through Canadian territory. I should also like to hear something about the use of Canadian steel. I should like to endorse that myself, but I will not make a point of it.
If he will give us a guarantee that the pipe line will go through Canadian territory then, so far as I am concerned, I will not vote against the measure.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, the discussions on these various pipe lines have now been continuing for some time. While I have listened to them with a great deal of interest on occasion, this is the first time I have risen to participate in any debate on the matter. I felt I should do so because of the fact that my colleagues and I are in complete agreement with regard to this question. When we look back over the history of Canada ever since and even before confederation, and read the parliamentary records and debates of other


days, we are struck by the fact that at times parliament has not given sufficient care to the alienation and utilization of our great resources.
A short time ago reference was made to railways. I remember the manner in which many of the railway charters went through this house, apparently guaranteed by the men who were asking for them, but ultimately they proved to be to the advantage of small groups of people, and did not always inure to the welfare of the great masses of the people of the country or of the country itself. In recent years we have discovered in Canada, and particularly in the province of Alberta, one of the world's great resources, oil. It is just over forty years ago since I went to a district in Alberta not very far from where this great oil field has now been discovered. I stayed with a small rancher between Wetaskiwin and Camrose for sixteen months. I remember riding over the prairies with him, and particularly down into the Battle river valley. Having lived in California and Oklahoma, he would often say to me that one day a large field of oil would be discovered in that vicinity. I paid very little attention to his prophecy.
Some nine or ten years ago-and I remarked about it in the house afterwards-I heard the Arctic explorer, Stefansson, say at a luncheon, at which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) was also present, that probably the largest oil field in the world would be discovered somewhere in northern Alberta. Again most of us paid little attention to his prediction. A great field of oil has been discovered, and it seems to me that this House of Commons must consider how and where the oil and gas shall be utilized. If I may say so, I also remember that a few years ago, when gas was being burned wastefully in the Turner valley, we were told that there was a sufficient amount of gas being burned every day to heat every home in the province of Alberta. Now there is this very valuable oil and gas discovery in the province of Alberta in far greater quantity than anything that we dreamed of a few years ago.
It seems to me, when an application is made to the house for the piping of gas or oil from the field elsewhere, it is one of the duties of hon. members to see to it that the utilization of the gas and oil is considered from the point of view of the greatest good first of all to our own country. I do not believe that we should ever behave as narrowly nationalist, or that we should try to build a wall around the country in order to make Canada self-sufficient, but nevertheless

I believe we owe it not only to this generation, but also to generations to come after us, to see that the people of Canada derive the maximum benefit from the resources that Providence deposited in this land in ages gone by. Because of that, I am supporting those who are urging that, before we give assent to this application for a charter, before we pass the bill which gives this company very substantial rights, we should be informed before we cast our votes as to how the people of Canada are to be protected, and how this great resource is to be utilized in the public interest. In other words, I think we have a perfect right to have placed before us a definite statement that the pipe line will pass through Canadian territory, that Vancouver and the Canadian towns and cities between it and the field shall receive first consideration from this parliament rather than that Vancouver, that great Canadian city, should be served at the end of a pipe line after several places in the United States have been taken care of.
After all, this House of Commons represents the Canadian people, and if we as members are sent here to do any one thing it is to protect the interests of the people of Canada. It seems to me that we not only have a right, as was said this afternoon, but we also have a duty to perform in that respect. I do not think the House of Commons will be doing its duty if it fails to continue to ask, until we get it, for a definite statement as to the route that the line will take if we grant the charter. I do not think that hon. members should vote on the bill without making doubly sure that the interests of the people of western Canada are properly and adequately protected. When one looks at the measure and realizes how comprehensive a charter would be given under the legislation, one begins to understand the importance of the bill now before us. The company may do many things. It may build pipe lines for the transportation of oil and the movement of gas; it may construct, purchase, lease, or what you will, property within or outside Canada for its purposes. It may do almost any conceivable thing than can be done under legislation. Such a measure, conferring such tremendous power upon a company, should require the most careful consideration of every hon. member of this house.
I do not think we should do what was sometimes done in the past; that is, put through a bill of this description without knowing precisely what is involved. Last year, because we heard there was some urgency in the matter, we passed an oil pipeline bill. After it was all over and done with we found that the pipe line was not going to convey oil to a Canadian lake port but
20. 1950
Alberta Natural Gas Company was going to transport it to Superior, Wisconsin. Of course there was a great deal of protest by Canadians not only in western Canada but in all parts of the country. As a matter of fact, when subsequently we came to see where that line was going we found that while it went from the oil field to Regina, it entirely cut out the largest of our prairie cities, Winnipeg, and crossed the border to the southeast of that city. So if it should become desirable to build a refinery of any sort there it would necessitate a feeder line from the main line to the city of Winnipeg.
We should have known before we approved that line what route it was going to follow, and where the terminus would be; but the house was urged to pass the legislation because we were told there was a certain amount of urgency in the matter, and I am quite free to confess that I thought there was considerable urgency. In yielding to that plea I do not think any of us gave that measure the consideration that should be expected of us in this House of Commons, both individually and collectively. I do not propose to agree to a similar error at this time, Mr. Speaker. I hope a large number of hon. members will not agree to its repetition, for error it was, and error it will be if we adopt this bill without knowing the route the line will follow.
Then, too, how do we know that when we grant this charter to the people who are named as applying for it, they are actually the people who are going to carry out the undertaking? I notice that in the bill introduced this year, instead of the two names there were in the bill introduced last session there are now several. Last year we had two legal gentlemen, I am told of very good repute, though I do not know either of them, applying for the charter. It was quite obvious that they were applying on behalf of clients; and even today, with the more impressive number of names in the bill under discussion, we cannot be sure that these are the directors or officers of the company who ultimately, if this charter is granted, will carry out its provisions. I believe that is another point we should consider and endeavour to find another way in which we should try to protect the people of the country. Again, if I may say so, in days gone by charters were obtained which were used as sources of great profit to those obtaining them. Those who received the charters did not carry out the work, but turned them over at some very considerable profit without doing anything except get the charter through the House of Commons or, in some instances, through a provincial legislature. A few days ago I was looking up the records in connection with the granting of railway charters some years ago. One finds millions of dollars made

Alberta Natural Gas Company by persons who obtained the right to construct, and then turned over the undertaking to someone else. We should be assured that this is not going to happen in the case of these pipe lines, and particularly in the case of the bill now before us.
Consequently I repeat that before we grant this charter, before we pass this bill, we should know far more about this measure than we know at the present time. I know that men who have sat in this chamber over the years, men of different parties, on occasion have warned this house to be careful about this sort of thing. I have before me a quotation I copied some few years ago, and I thought of it this evening. It is from Hansard of May 18, 1932, when Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was prime minister. He was speaking in the house on another matter, but along somewhat similar lines, and at page 3036 he said:
I believe that there is no government in Canada that does not regret today that it has parted with some of these natural resources for considerations wholly inadequate and on terms that do not reflect the principle under which the crown holds the natural resources in trust for all the people.
It seems to me that is apropos of this discussion. We are not alienating a resource under this legislation, but we are facilitating the disposal of a resource that we should be treating as a trust on behalf of all the people. So I say we should not pass this bill until we have answers to the questions that have been asked over and over again, not only by hon. members on this side of the house but also by hon. gentlemen sitting on the government side, as to what this proposal really is, where the line is going, and how oil or gas or whatever it may be will be disposed of when this line is built.
I said a few moments ago that this country has great resources. During the last parliament we granted a company the right to build a railway to give access to great deposits of iron ore in the province of Quebec and in Labrador. I do not think we should pursue a dog-in-the-manger attitude regarding the development of these resources. Only a few days ago I was talking to some people in the United States about these great resources. Apparently the hope is that much of this iron ore, to which we gave access by the granting of a railway charter, will be moved from our country down into the New England states, where smelters and a new iron and steel industry will be established. Yet we have in our own country, as the member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) pointed out a few moments ago, an iron and steel industry established on Cape Breton island. In that region at the moment there are a great many unemployed. Almost continuously during the


15 years I have been in this House of Commons, except for a brief period during the war, there has been unemployment in that area of Canada. I believe we have to consider how we can utilize these resources, primarily for the benefit of the people in the country in which those resources are located. The first thing is not to allow these resources to be used without regard for the benefit of our own country.
We should consider that we in Canada today are, in a great many respects, hewers of wood and drawers of water for our great neighbour to the south. Many of our resources, timber, pulp, ore of various types, and so on, move across the border for manufacture. To some extent, the finished product comes back to this country, and rather complicates our dollar situation with the United States. I think that is regrettable. I do not think we can stop it by legislation. I believe that if this parliament, and the provincial legislatures, considered these matters from the point of view of the public interest, ways and means could be devised by which native industries could use more of these raw materials in Canada. This would make us more independent economically, and assist us in building up a more prosperous country. It would afford opportunities for inviting more people here by way of immigration, and prevent the constant flow of young people from this country to the United States.
I was in one of the seaboard cities in the United States last Saturday, and I was surprised at the number of young Canadians I met on that visit. Some of them were from western Canada, some from Montreal, and others from various parts of this dominion. True, they were studying in the United States, but on chatting with them I found that several of them contemplated remaining in the United States, because they considered the opportunities greater in that country than in Canada. Every time we do the thing that is implicit in this bill, allow a company to take our natural resources and utilize them outside our border when they could be utilized inside, we are encouraging the flow of young Canadians out of this country. We are denying them the opportunities that should exist in the country in which they live. After all, we have to remember that we have an obligation to future generations to conserve these resources.
I suppose every member of the house knows that over the last 50 or 60 years the resources of the United States have been steadily depleted. One has only to drive through Minnesota and Wisconsin and see how the great open iron mines of these two states are running out to realize the truth of what I

say. We have an obligation to conserve our resources to the extent that may be necessary for the welfare of our country. We do not know just exactly what is going to be done with a charter of this description. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we have no right to pass this bill without making further inquiries, and demanding of the sponsors a more complete outline of what it is proposed to do than we have yet received from anyone, including the ministers who are supporting this bill.
So then we have to make the decision. I repeat that I believe the decision we should make is that we will not pass this bill until we have the information for which we have asked, and which has been sought during the last few weeks. The conservation of gas and oil is undertaken primarily by the provinces. If there is a great surplus which could be utilized elsewhere, then I submit that the province of Alberta, and the people interested in pipe lines, might look to the east of the province of Alberta if they will not look west. Some of this gas could be utilized for the heating of the homes in the neighbouring provinces. As I said earlier in my remarks this evening, I was told some years ago that the gas which was burned wastefully in the province of Alberta would heat every home in that province, so today it would be quite easy to utilize quantities of gas not needed in the province of Alberta to heat the homes in the neighbouring provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. With the intensely cold climate of those provinces, it would be a godsend to many of the people who live there.
A pipe line going south into the United States, to Spokane and Seattle, perhaps as suggested this afternoon even going down into the state of Oregon, would leave the Canadian communities in the interior of British Columbia, even the cities of Vancouver and New Westminster, either without gas or at the end of the line, and with a problematical instead of an assured service. Again I say that if we are going to allow a company to build a line of this description, we should see to it that it is built to the greatest possible advantage of the people of our own country.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) just now introduced the matter of unemployment in another form. He spoke of the miles of pipe line that would be necessary in a project of this description. I do not know where the pipes would be obtained, but I do know that a few years ago, when it was proposed to bring gas from another field into some of the prairie cities, the pipes were going to be brought in from some of the United States iron and steel centres.


Mr. Knight:: These are coming from
Wisconsin.
20, 1950
Alberta Natural Gas Company Mr. Coldwell: The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) says these are coming from Wisconsin. I have not that information; but I am sure that if we allow this pipe line to pass out of our country and through the United States, the labour required, both in making the cut and in manufacturing the pipe as well as in the laying of the pipe, would be undertaken in the United States and not in our own country. Again I say, as the hon. member for St. John's East said a few minutes ago, that there is unemployment in at least one part of Canada where there is a steel industry; and even if it were working at the full at the present time, there is no guarantee that in a short time there would not be unemployment and the need for that kind of work in that particular area. After all, with the dollar situation the way it is across the seas, the market for Nova Scotia steel in the United Kingdom is likely to be curtailed sharply for some time to come; and anything that can be done to provide work for the people of our own country and those engaged in Canadian steel mills should be done by this parliament. That is of course another reason why, before we vote on this bill, we should first know just exactly the route that this line is going to follow. I repeat what I have said several times in the course of my remarks, namely, that until we know the route that this line will follow we should not approve this particular bill nor indeed the other bill which is on the order paper with it and which will come before us after we have disposed of this one.
We in this house have a duty to perform. Those of us who are opposing the passage of this bill and are speaking against it are not engaged in a filibuster. I had not spoken on the matter until tonight, but my colleagues were accused of being engaged in some sort of filibuster. There is no filibuster about this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: I am going to repeat that statement. There is no filibuster about it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: But I will tell you what there is. On the part of a large number of members on this side of the house there is a determination that we are going to do everything we can to prevent this bill from going through until we know what the bill is all about; and that is all there is to it. That is not a filibuster. This, my friends, is an attempt on the part of an opposition-because apparently this has become a government bill-to fulfil the duty and the function of an opposition, which is to get the facts before the people of this country and to have all the facts before allowing the government to take the next step.
922	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, I know that there may be laughter at that kind of thing. But let me say this. In a house of this description, with the overwhelming majority that is behind the government, the only method open to the opposition is to endeavour to force the issue and to get the facts in the best manner that we can get them.
The other day I was reading an interesting book, which I might just quote from memory, dealing with the British parliamentary institution. The writer said that responsible government required that a government should always live in the shadow of defeat, and that the most dangerous thing under our parliamentary system was for a government to remain in power so long that it got the idea that it had permanent power. If you apply that statement to the present situation in this House of Commons you begin to see the reason behind some of the things that have been done over the past number of weeks or months. If we can help it, we do not propose that this bill shall go through until this house is properly informed about it. Who are the people that want to build the line? How is it going to be financed? Is this project going to be really undertaken by the people who are asking for it or is the proposed charter going to be turned over to somebody else at a profit later on? Where is this line going to be built? What is its route? Is it going through Canada or is it going south through the United States? Is it going to serve Canadian communities first, including Vancouver, or will Vancouver and other Canadian communities in British Columbia be at the end of the line to take what is left after the cities on the other side of the boundary have been first served?
For the reasons I have given, Mr. Speaker,
I therefore propose to cast my vote-and I hope the matter will come to a vote-against this bill, because I believe that I owe it as a duty to the people of this country to protect their interests and to see to it that this house does not approve an application for a charter until we know what that charter involves and, in this instance, how the line is going to convey this valuable resource from one place to another.


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: On this occasion, Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my opinion why this bill should not be passed. In the town of Collingwood in the county of Simcoe, where I reside, I have the great privilege of enjoying natural gas for heating water; and I must say that it is a terrific boon to anybody who has such an asset. I can remember how delighted I was when I purchased the property and was informed that there was a natural gas well that would heat the water


for my home at no cost whatever. It was a pleasure to me to hear of the abundant supply of natural gas that had been discovered in the province of Alberta. I am not very conversant with oil or natural gas wells, but I do realize that this House of Commons has been asked to pass a bill granting a charter to a group of men in order that they may be able to sell a natural product of the Dominion of Canada.
I was a resident of Philadelphia some years ago, and I remember the amalgamation of the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company. It comprised several operating companies prior to the amalgamation and numerous charters that had been granted by the various governments in power over a period of fifty or sixty years. When these charters were granted by the state of Pennsylvania the representatives of the people at the time did not think, apparently, that it meant much. It was simply a piece of paper that some members of the legal profession were asking for on behalf of a client. These charters were obtained in the city of Philadelphia to run transportation lines up and down various streets. They did absolutely nothing with their charters. But when the people of Philadelphia wanted proper transportation facilities, and desired to run streetcar lines down certain streets in the city, they discovered to their consternation that charters had been granted for that purpose years before, and unless they paid fabulous sums for a charter they could not give the public the service to which they were entitled. These old charters were irrevocable. Before the people could obtain what they were entitled to, millions of dollars were paid for charters that had been granted by the governments of Pennsylvania without any more consideration than this government has given to the granting of this charter for the carriage of natural gas, an asset of the Dominion of Canada.
When we hear of people heating their homes with natural gas in this cold climate of ours for the paltry sum of $125 to $150 per year we should stop and think. We should ask ourselves, are we going to give away this asset to the United States of America?


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is $125 a year.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I remember my father saying to me forty years ago on Portage avenue in Winnipeg when they were digging the excavation for the Eaton store: "Son, when you are my age-" and I have reached that age now-"this country will have a population of 30 million." I have reached that age, and to my regret, and to the great regret of all Canadians, we have not a population of 30 million. We still pay $160 for washing

machines because we have a small market in which to sell them as compared with the United States price of $80. We all know of railroad men travelling across this country and coming to the border and handing their train over to United States engineers who receive far better remuneration than our [DOT]engineers do. That applies to freight or passenger trains. I know that in my own town of Collingwood there are capable seamen who travel across the great lakes in boats of tonnage identical with that of boats which sail from Duluth, and carry the same commodities; yet our sailors receive far less money than the United States sailors. How much longer must that go on? Our resources are as great as those of the United States. Our work is as hard and our burden as heavy to carry, but our remuneration is far less than is received for the same work in the United States. I as a Canadian, and as a member of the House of Commons, must protest against the continual giving away of Canada's resources.
This afternoon I heard the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) speak in a flippant manner regarding the assets of this country. He does not seem to realize what this resource means not only to Alberta but to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and the remainder of our ten provinces. How delighted we were when Newfoundland became our tenth province. Do we want to have anything to give these people to work with? The desire seems to be to get the gas across the line as quickly as possible over the shortest possible route. I say to the members of the Liberal party from all over Canada, cease being rubber stamps and look into this situation. If we object to this, it is called a filibuster. When I as a Canadian born of three generations endeavour to save the resources of the Dominion of Canada it is called a filibuster. What are we sent here for? So far as this bill is concerned, 90 per cent of the men who fill the Liberal benches do not know what they are here for. Numbers of them have never voiced an opinion. Just a scant handful have said anything. Some person must have said to them, this is what you are going to do and nothing else. We have all heard the old saying that 50,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong, that there is a sucker born every minute, as Barnum said, and that the organ-grinder has more than one monkey on his string.
Do hon. members realize that natural gas is the. greatest selling commodity now known to the industrial world? Do hon. members know that it is being transported 2,000 miles from its source in the United States? Do the Liberal members realize that this $100 million which is being spent on this pipe line
20, 1950
Alberta Natural Gas Company is infinitesimal compared with the amounts being spent by pipe-line companies in the United States? Why, this is just a bagatelle. Do they realize that 13,500,000 people in the United States are now enjoying natural gas? And yet they want to put this pipe line down in the United States to feed the only part of that country which is not now enjoying natural gas. Why not put this pipe line into British Columbia? Why not let it serve Saskatchewan, that great and wonderful province? Why not let it serve Manitoba and Ontario? The distance from Fort William to the source of supply in Alberta is far less than from Houston, Texas, to New York.
We need it in Ontario not for selfish reasons but for the advancement of the people of this province so that Ontario can become more densely populated and its people will not have to go to the United States to receive better pay than they are now receiving. Let us build up this country of Canada in the way in which it can be built up. Let us stop giving away our resources as we have been doing. This is no filibuster. We are facing one of the most serious problems that has ever confronted the members of this House of Commons.
It is beyond belief when I hear a large industrialist from eastern Canada, who sits to the right in the House of Commons and who has made a few hundred thousand dollars out of industry, laugh loudly when the suggestion is made that our resources should be preserved for Canada. It is a pity that he could not see fit to get on his feet and urge this parliament to use a sane method in exercising its power to say, "No, we are responsible to the people for the protection of the resources and we will not grant this charter with the information we have before us."
What have we to vote on? We have lots not to vote on. We have simply an application whereby some barristers and solicitors of the Dominion of Canada ask for a charter to build a pipe line. Do we know what quantities of natural gas we will require in Canada? How thoroughly has the government studied the needs of this country, not five years from now but ten or twenty years from now? Have they considered it in the light of a proper program-something they have not thought of -of immigration to swell our population, a program that would permit people to come here and earn a living rather than to receive Marshall plan aid and the free gifts of Canada?
No, they will wait until we have lost our markets. They will wait until our farmers are back where they were in 1930 looking for some place to sell their products. They will

Alberta Natural Gas Company do that rather than encourage immigration which would help to use up our resources. We hear that $100 million is going to be spent in the United States to manufacture this steel pipe line. Surely there is some person in the government with a vestige of vision, with enough soul to say, "I am a Canadian and I am going to build up this country. We are not going to keep on being subservient to the United States and saying, 'Please, Mister, you put up $100 million and we will lend you a few workmen, we will garner in a few shekels and we will give you our birthright.' " Is there no man in the party to the right of the Speaker who feels as I feel, that this is important to Canada irrespective of what province you come from?
Surely there must be some of you who will say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), "Wait a minute, I do not know enough about this. There must be something in what these fellows are saying." I venture to say that eighty per cent of the members of the Liberal party do not know what a natural gas well looks like, or what an oil well looks like. I will bet you that they have not spent five minutes in studying the great potentialities of the natural resources of Alberta.
The Progressive Conservative party, the C.C.F. and other members are questioning this charter. They want to know what the charter is going to give and what it is going to take away. They want to know what we are going to receive. They want to know what this will mean to the people of Alberta and Canada. When this pipe line is completed and gas is flowing down to the United States it will give those people an opportunity to operate their industries and produce at less than we can produce in Canada. What will be the loss to the government and the people of Alberta? It will be nothing compared with the gains of the people living in the United States who will be operating the industrial enterprises with the assistance of this gas. It will only strengthen their arm to continue to operate against Canada in producing at prices we cannot compete with. They will be paying their labour while our men will be walking the streets in a short time from now.
There are no signs on the part of the government of a slackening up in the granting of this charter. For some reason or other they want to push it through. No one here representing any group, apart from the chosen few of the Liberal party, has any right to read, study or worry on behalf of his constituents if they get up to voice their opinions. I am sure that there are members of the Liberal party who, if they were questioned about this situation and asked what they knew about it, would have to reply that they had made absolutely no study whatever. It is simply a case

of, "Let us get it through because some person in our party has told us to rubber stamp it and that is what we are here for."
That is not what you are here for, gentlemen. You are here for the same purpose that I am here for. Irrespective of party you are here to watch the resources of your country. We are ten united provinces who should work as one. I want some information as to what is going to happen under this charter. This is the last rope by which I can hang on to our natural resources. This is the last rope by which you gentlemen can control this.
If this charter is granted, these people will go before a commission not made up of members of the House of Commons. When people vote for a candidate on election day they say, "I believe that man is honest; I believe that is the man I want at Ottawa. I do not think he will let them take any undiscovered or recently discovered natural resources away from the people of Canada. I think he will go down to Ottawa to look after our interests."
We have seen our pulpwood being sent to the United States to be manufactured into newsprint. For years newsprint produced in United States mills has been coming back to this country to be used in putting out our newspapers. We were printing our newspapers on United States paper manufactured by United States labour from the natural resources of Canada. Then thanks to a certain premier of Ontario this practice was stopped. He put his foot down and said, "That is as far as you can go; this pulp must be made into paper in the province of Ontario:	If you want this paper, you
Americans whom we love and respect, put up your paper plants in Ontario, employ Ontario labour and keep them off the breadline. We will give you all the pulp you want and you can sell the finished product back to your beloved United States."
The net result is that there are paper mills across northern Ontario and the rest of Canada that we are all exceedingly proud of. As we go through those mills we see pulp from our forests being churned up, manufactured into paper, rolled up and being tagged for the Chicago Tribune, the New York Herald and other newspapers. All this being made by Canadian labour.
This is a filibuster being put on by this side of the house, with few exceptions such as the hon. Liberal member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). He has every right to be proud of the fact that he got to his feet to speak. He is a veteran of the first war. He is a man who thinks of his people. Are there not some others who are men enough to get up and say, "I cannot vote by standing

on my feet for the passage of a charter when I know absolutely nothing of the way in which this charter is going to be used?" Who is going to use it? What is Canada going to get out of it? Surely members of the Liberal party coming from Ontario, as I do, can understand the plea of the members of the legislature of the province of British Columbia. Surely they can understand their point of view when they ask to have the pipe line go through their province, and then if there is anything left over by all means sell it south of the border. Surely members of the House of Commons of Canada must hearken to the pleas of the provincial government of British Columbia, the unanimous vote of their legislature, and the municipalities of that province.
I do not live there. In fact I almost froze there last August. You are here as members of the House of Commons of Canada but surely some small part of your hearing must be able to catch the voice of British Columbia. Members of their government and legislature have made a more thorough study of the question than ninety per cent of the Liberal members here tonight, during the day or at any other time. Do not be so generous with the other fellow's money when you vote, because it is really your money to protect also. Let me say that if any Liberal member of the House of Commons owned these resources he would be a little more careful about how he was going to use them and where they were going to be sent. He would want to know more about the future. That is your duty, and that is what you are here for. Make no bones about it.
The speeches of some Liberal members who have taken part in this debate will make lovely reading at the next election. Let me assure you that I intend to take the speech of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Apple-whaite) and simply comment on it, and I will certainly be re-elected because my people will not stand for anybody giving away the resources of Canada as he wants to. I will be back for sure. We are just ordinary everyday businessmen with various vocations in life. Surely it would be an easy matter for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to say that it is possible for him to produce further facts regarding this charter. Surely it would be easy for him in has capacity to enlighten even the Conservatives as to what additional cost would be involved if the pipe line went through the province of British Columbia rather than through the United States. At various times in the House of Commons he has referred so casually to millions of dollars as being a mere nothing. In fact he called them peanuts once. Surely
Alberta Natural Gas Company he could say:	Even if it does cost three or
four million peanuts, let the boys in British Columbia have it their way. It is their natural resource, it is their province and it is their Canada.
If the founders of the Canadian Pacific Railway had listened in the early days to some of those who were advocating railroads in the west, you would never have had the Canadian Pacific Railway today running from coast to coast. There are members of the house who do not realize that. We stand back and point with pride to our two railroads paralleling one another from coast to coast, but when the idea of a transcontinental line was first conceived, there were members of parliament who said:	Why not run the
C.P.R. from the western provinces due south to the United States? Thus they would have isolated that section of Canada and impeded the growth which has certainly been fundamental in making the Canada we have today. The pioneers of the Canadian Pacific Railway have made it possible for us to say that as Canadians we are proud of the fact we are citizens of this great country and that we have inestimable natural resources.
At this time the people of the United States find that certain resources are becoming exhausted, and they are scratching their heads wondering where they will find the ore necessary to produce steel. They are willing to come to Canada, to Labrador, and to spend millions of dollars. It was announced in our papers recently that United States industrialists are going to spend millions of dollars on the development of Canadian resources. The development of Canada has only been made possible by men with vision, people who are now dead but who have given us the Canada that we have today. I make a solemn plea to the members of the Liberal party. They would do well to go to the minister and ask him to give them time to look into the situation. They need time because it will take a long while for some Liberals to get it through their heads what they are giving away. From their actions in the debate on this measure, undoubtedly they will have to go to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask his permission. There is no doubt about that.
No matter when the bill comes to a vote, let us hope that the slate is a little clearer and cleaner. Let us hope that the parliament of Canada will not grant such charters without any more thought than the bill received from many Liberal members who called for a vote before very many had had an opportunity to express their views on a matter which I believe is of the utmost importance and of the greatest value to the Dominion of Canada. I plead with them not to vote until

Alberta Natural Gas Company they know that history will not prove that they have given away a resource to the United States which at the present time is one of the greatest industries in that country. It has proven to be one of the greatest investments for investors.
Life insurance companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars of their policyholders' money on the purchase of stock in gas pipe-line enterprises. Surely we should give the people of Canada a better opportunity and more time to learn about what is going on in Alberta. The average citizen of Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland or Nova Scotia does not realize, any more than the Liberal members of the house, what a great new resource has been discovered in Alberta. Fortunately I was able to go out there last summer, and I had my eyes opened as to the tremendous potentialities of the new-found wealth of the Dominion of Canada. Each year we pay hundreds of millions of dollars for United States coal and oil.
What does it cost the people of Ontario to heat their homes with United States coal and oil? Do we know whether or not they can pipe oil and gas from Alberta and deliver it in Ontario at one-quarter the cost? We do not. It is the duty of this government, in looking after the welfare of the people of Canada, to ascertain those costs and find out what are the possibilities. If that cannot be done let them prove it to us, and show the people of Ontario that they must continue to spend millions of dollars for United States fuel and then watch it go up in smoke, while our people go on unemployment relief or go to the United States for jobs.
Let us stop somewhere. Let us populate the country. Let us build up this nation of ours. We are all very keen in saying we are a great nation. We were through the war. We made munitions, and did a great job. We promised our soldiers the world with a fence around it when they came back; and in some cases that has turned out to be the breadline. Here in this country, which is the last great undeveloped source of wealth, what great vision is the Liberal government showing in the development of Canada? They cannot take credit for the discovery of oil and gas in Alberta, though no doubt they will try, as they have tried to take credit for everything worth while in Canada. We must face the facts. United States capital owns the oil and gas developments in Alberta. The federal government simply toddled along behind; and when those developing these resources asked for a charter which would mean giving our heritage away our government said, "Bring 
it into parliament and we will sign it as-quickly as possible. Do what you like with our resources."
There will be no doubt about my vote on this matter. Liberal members to the right and left of Mr. Speaker should think pretty seriously about how they will vote if they dare face their electors again.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot share the hope of the hon. member who has just spoken that he may somehow, by his eloquence, influence the backbenchers on the government side to oppose this bill. One of the criticisms I think that can be levelled with some justification against the party system of government is that backbenchers will condone a great deal they do not think is right or they do not think is justified on the part of their government rather than cause that government embarrassment. After all, as they look at it, while a certain piece of legislation proposed may be bad, the embarrassment, or more particularly the fall, of the government to which they owe allegiance would be to them the ultimate disaster.
We have heard a number of fine speeches in this debate. If it has served no other purpose it has at least produced some eloquence in the house this afternoon and evening. I envy the hon. member who just spoke his forcefulness, though I must disagree with him in regard to the speech of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite), whom I envy for his facility in the use of the English language.
I might agree with the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) that the hon. member for Skeena rather spoiled his remarks at one point by flippancy, but on the whole I thought it was a very good speech, and carried away by his eloquence I felt for a moment that almost I was persuaded; but it was only almost. I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member did not point out that under this legislation the company may build its pipe line within certain provinces, and then the wording is "and outside Canada."
It is that provision in this bill to which I have some objection, like many other hon. members. This objection is founded on several reasons. I do not expect to be able to say anything that has not been said already, but it is still my glorious privilege to say it; and in doing so I shall not delay the legislation very much. In my mind the question arises as to the extent to which one is justified in delaying legislation which is quite evidently popular with the majority of hon. members here. The argument against that, of course,

was put forward by the hon. gentleman who just preceded me. To what extent is it the real opinion of the individual members of this house that this bill should be passed with such expedition as the government demands? I personally have said nothing previously in these debates. In spite of the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) last year, up to that time only the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones) of those belonging to this party had spoken on the subject.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You have fixed that since then.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Right; and as far as we were concerned our opposition last session was not directed so much at the subject matter of those bills as to the challenge laid down by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to us as private members and the fact that, no doubt justifiably in his own mind but unjustifiably in the minds of most of us, he interfered with the procedure of this house in order to give those bills a certain priority. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), no doubt inspired by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, did that very thing by moving a resolution which extended the time for consideration of private bills.
I was going to state the reasons for my opposition. I shall do so as concisely as possible and without taking up too much time, lest I too should be accused of holding up legislation. In the first place, in my opinion a pipe line is or should be a common carrier. It is part of a transportation system and as such, according to the political philosophy I hold, it should be under public ownership and control. As it is I am afraid it will go the way of so many other things. United States capital will build and own it, and the dividends will go across the line into the United States instead of being distributed as they should be among the rightful owners of the gas or oil, the people of Canada.
That is the first thing. We are simply carrying on to completion a process of economic absorption into the United States by the alienation of our great natural resources. Look at what has happened to our timber in British Columbia. When I was out there a short time ago they were burning sawdust as fuel. They had some bad weather, as hon. members from British Columbia know, and in a few days the mills shut down because it was not economically profitable to produce lumber under those conditions. Within three days Vancouver was out of sawdust, and I saw a woman wheeling a fifty-pound sack of coal in a baby carriage. Those are the conditions with respect to fuel that can exist today in the great cities of British Columbia; yet we
20. 1950
Alberta Natural Gas Company are going to take our gas down to the United States and give it to the people of Seattle, letting the mothers in British Columbia push coal instead of babies in their baby carriages.
I am opposed to this bill because it proposes to take that gas down into the United States before taking it to the city of Vancouver. I do not know whether anyone has mentioned the matter of the employment the construction of a pipe line would afford, but in view of our unemployment situation it is an important consideration. Apparently Canadian industry is not geared to manufacture these pipes. I do not know why, but we have been told that there are 780,000 tons of this pipe being loaded on flat cars to supply the material for the construction of the pipe line under construction between Edmonton and Superior. I do not know whether the pipe for the construction of the line envisaged in this bill would come from the same source, but I am only speaking of what I do know.
The next thing I would draw to the attention of this house is that the granting of a franchise by the passage of this bill would be no guarantee that the line would be built. There is a story about that, which occurred in my own constituency. In the year 1940, it was the wish of the mayor and council of the city of Saskatoon to bring natural gas to that city for heating purposes. It was during the war, of course, but a contract was entered into with a firm called the Northern Natural Gas Company. I do not know anything about it, about its reliability, or whether it has any funds behind it which would enable it to carry out its commitments. The company obtained the franchise in 1940 but did nothing further about the matter. I suppose the minister will tell me that was due to the lack of material during the war years, and I grant him that. The point is, however, that nothing has been done since then. The company put up a deposit, and I presume that, because of the tortuous manipulations of the law, the council is somewhat reluctant to try to possess itself of the money which has been left in its hands. I do not know the law of the situation, but I do know we are interested in getting the gas. The other day representatives of that particular company met with the city council and had the audacity or pure cheek to apply for a further extension of the franchise for 20 years, while Saskatoon waits for that source of heat.
In short, those are the reasons why I am opposed to this bill. Again I say my opposition is chiefly because this pipe line is not going to be built by and for Canadians.



S28 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Alberta Natural Gas Company Canadians will not get the full benefit of the product which, in my opinion, belongs to them. If I wanted to be somewhat flippant, as the member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) sometimes is, I might suppose the government is anxious to put this pipe line down through United States territory to keep it out of the way of the bulldozers of the next military operation staged by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). Let the sponsors of the bill declare the route they intend to use. Then let parliament make its decision, in the light of that information.
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to oppose this bill, as many other speakers have done. I am not prepared to make a lengthy speech on the legal aspects of this bill. Those legal arguments have been well presented to this house by other speakers, who are opposed to the bill as it is now worded. It is supposed to be a private bill, but when you look at it, and when you listen to the attitude expressed by some members of this house, one finds it is a private bill closely cuddled by the government of the day.
I was asked to speak on this bill by my constituents, who have written asking me to state my position on the bill because it is not in the interests of Canada first. I shall not make any lengthy reference to those things that have already been mentioned. I am only speaking in the interests of our sister province, because we in the maritime provinces of Canada know what it is to be discriminated against, and neglected by this government. What is this so-called private bill before us? It amounts to discrimination against our sister province of British Columbia. The members from that province are speaking in opposition to the bill to ensure their province cheap power from the wonderful oil and gas fields of Alberta.
We have no information as to where this bill came from and, as the sponsor of the bill has admitted, he does not know where it is going. I believe all members of this house, when it comes to a vote, should send this bill to limbo immediately. I should like to say a word about the opportunities that will exist under this measure, if properly handled, from the point of view of British Columbia. It will give that great province on the Pacific coast the opportunity of developing her industries with the cheap power for which she is longing. Why then should this pipe line, as the promoters of it have almost admitted, go down through the United States, instead of first serving that part of Canada which is the gateway to the whole of Canada, namely, British Columbia?

A short time ago we had an example of the principle contained in this bill. Canada's great railway line was short of fuel. Why was there a shortage? It was due to the fact we had not developed the coal fields of Alberta. Properly developed, those coal fields could have supplied the necessary fuel, and there would not have been any shortage. If the principle of "Canada first" had been adhered to, the Canadian National Railways would have had a supply of fuel. Owing to the fact that this principle was not adhered to, there was a shortage of coal in the midst of abundance. If the mines had been properly developed, the coal could have been brought from the west to the east.
I do not intend to develop any phase of the arguments which have already been advanced, about the work that will be provided if the pipe line is constructed in Canada. It will mean jobs for the jobless, and we all know that subject is uppermost in the minds of the representatives of the people today. Certain industries should be developed in order to take care of the jobless, who are increasing across this country from east to west.
All maritime members know this bill; and I say to them that on this occasion they should declare themselves with reference to the principle of it and that, first of all, they should have in their minds the idea that we, as a young nation, should look to Canada first. The other nations near us can take care of themselves. The natural resources of Canada served this country well during times of war, and in times of peace they should be so developed in the interests of Canada first that this young nation will be made prosperous and the unemployment that exists throughout our country today will be done away with. Oil will aid in bringing this about. Today the spotlight of the world, you might say-or at least of America-is directed to the province of Alberta owing to the great discoveries that have been made and the great development of the oil fields there. This bill is brought in by the promotors with one idea in mind, namely, that the country to the south of us-and it is a great country-must have the first preference with regard to all the power from the province of Alberta. But, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the members of this house, no matter where they reside or with what party they are affiliated, first of all -when they come to vote, if they vote on this bill-will vote in favour of Canada first and to let us develop our own homeland.
In closing let me say just one word more. From time to time we have spoken of our great development in this country. As I said a moment ago, we now have the opportunity to give to the sister province of British

Columbia, the one that is really affected most by this pipe-line bill, that assistance that will enable her to have power to develop her own wonderful industries. That is my submission with reference to this bill; and I will certainly vote against it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Sinclair:: Are you going to close the debate?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, although I know some of the parliamentary assistants would like to. I am not going to take much time tonight, but I want to make a few remarks.


An hon. Member:: Where do you stand?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will tell you where I stand in a minute, if you will just be patient. I have not changed my stand.


An hon. Member:: The fourth row back.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I hear an interruption, "the fourth row back". May I say that if I have to go against my principles in order to get one row farther forward, I will go one row back. I think if some of my friends will wait a minute they may get a surprise around here, because I want to make it quite clear where I stand. I heard some question about my colleagues on this side of the house today. May I say that no pressure has been brought to bear on me by any member of the government, in any way, shape or form, to change my stand; and so far as I know, no pressure has been brought to bear by any member of the present government on any of my colleagues with regard to their stand. I want that to be perfectly clear.
I have not changed my stand at all. I want to make it clear that I am standing on my own say-so as the member for Fraser Valley. I was told tonight by some of my colleagues that possibly I was aspiring to the leadership of the Conservative party. I know they change their leaders often, and I know that my wife and I have not a house or an apartment; so on that ground alone I might have aspirations to take over the leadership of that party.


James Sinclair: Why not?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just a minute. I do not know why I always get involved in controversial measures here in this House of Commons. The last time I was involved in one was during wartime. At that time I had two colleagues from my party who took a stand with me in connection with reinforcements. One of them-and rightly so-through his ability has obtained a high position within the government today; and I believe that on his ability he should go higher. The other 55946-59
20. 1950
Alberta Natural Gas Company member who sat with me was promoted to that other place, and I believe he deserves that recognition as a worthy old government supporter. I have not given up hope. I am apparently swimming the ocean alone at this time, but I have not given up hope. Who knows but that I may yet be appointed ambassador to Tibet or some other country such as that. You never can tell. There is always a hope.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Viet Nam for you.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to make my posi-t'on clear. I have not changed at all. I want to say this. To those from my own province who oppose me, I give full credit for their sincerity in their stand. All I ask of them is that they give me credit for sincerity in my stand, even if I oppose them. I think that is reasonable enough. I know they have their ideas and beliefs, and I have mine. But of course, with regard to the province of British Columbia, I happen at this time to be standing on the right side. Three or four years from now it may be a little bit embarrassing for some of those who are not.
I am just going to read part of a report in one of the papers of British Columbia. Unlike one or two of the other members, I am not staging a filibuster. If I were, I would conduct myself differently. I have forty minutes yet to go, but I do not intend to take it all. If I were staging a filibuster, I would continue until my time expired. But may I say that a filibuster is the only weapon a private member has with which to enforce or to endeavour to enforce what he believes is in the best interests of his riding, of his province and of Canada as well. Although a small paper in Vancouver called the Sun adopted somewhat the same attitude, I will just read you from one of our weekly papers. I read one of the other local papers the other day.


James Sinclair: Is it a weekly or annual?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am quite prepared to answer that question, because I paid what I thought was a deserved compliment to that colleague of mine. I am only going to say that I hope this paper, whether it be a weekly, a monthly or an annual, will suggest to the government that I be sent on a trip around the world at the expense of the people of Canada. The article to which I refer is headed "Grounds for Suspicion" and reads as follows: Current attempt of George Cruickshank and Calgary's A. L. Smith to "talk out" bills proposing incorporation of companies for the exporting of natural gas from Alberta to British Columbia is an example of a tarnished weapon being put to use in a worthy fight. Normally a filibuster is a pointless procedure, but the battle spearheaded by Messrs. Smith and Cruickshank-

Alberta Natural Gas Company
They should not have put my hon. friend's name ahead of mine.
-is of serious concern for British Columbia, and for the lower mainland in particular.
I am not going to read the whole of the article at this time. It is from the Abbotsford, Sumas and Matsqui News, a paper that has a larger circulation than any paper in my colleague's entire riding.
As I said, I am going to be extremely brief tonight. I am just going to quote one wire I received from my riding, although I could go on quoting them all night. This is from the minister in the province of British Columbia and reads as follows:
Retel sixteenth resolution recommending all Canadian pipe line route was given' unanimous support by our legislature at last night's sitting . . .
L. H. Eyres
Minister of Trade and Industry
This is the sort of thing that some of my colleagues cannot understand. Incidentally here is a letter from the provincial Liberal member for the city of Kamloops. I shall read just part of it:
We who are spearheading the pipe-line issue appreciate very much the work you have done, and we trust it will result in our mutual satisfaction.
I am watching the clock. I shall be brief. One of my colleagues rose in his place lately and talked for 52 minutes telling what a great man he was. I am going to tell what a great province British Columbia is in 15 minutes. One of the things I am most interested in, in this discussion, is what was mentioned by one of the previous speakers, namely, the building up of industries within our dominion, and more especially within the province of British Columbia. We have lost many of our overseas markets. We all know that. There may be different opinions as to the reasons for it, but we who come from farming districts know that we have lost many of those markets. We have to develop new markets overseas. We send great touring bodies over there. I do not know whether it would be just as cheap to pipe some of those delegations over there as it is to fly them over.


James Sinclair: Be careful to whom you are directing your remarks. They all look the same in Hansard.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Let us all hear it.	|


George Alexander Cruickshank: I hold in my hand a magazine which discusses where to build factories. I hope that every hon. member will get a copy of Canada's Weekly of February 17.


James Sinclair: Where is it published?


George Alexander Cruickshank: If my hon. friend wants me to go on for forty minutes he can only

blame himself for it. Over the article entitled "Where to build your factory" there is a beautiful picture. That is the reason I should like you to see it. The subheading reads:
A number of localities which, it is thought, may recommend themselves to firms considering the establishment of branch factories in Canada, are being described in this series of articles.
Chilliwack, British Columbia
By a special correspondent
I shall read only a part of it, but I hope that you will all get a copy of it. Chilliwack happens to be the largest centre within the finest riding in the Dominion of Canada, namely, Fraser Valley.
This article differs from most of those which have preceded it in that it deals with one of Canada's smaller cities, situated in the locality which is mainly rural. Throughout Canada, there are many such. The sites they offer may not attract the industrialist with a multimillion corporation behind him. The factors governing his choice are manifold. He requires not only ready access to his raw materials, a ready market, transportation facilities and power, but has necessarily to consider a host of other problems, not the least of which is the labour situation. He will have to site his plant with due consideration for its suitability for the North American or, conceivably, a world market for his product.
I could read the whole article, but I do not intend to take up the time. I think I have made my point clear. I do not expect to speak on the pipe-line bills again. The people of my riding, and the people of the province of British Columbia, know exactly where I stand on the matter. They know that I believe sincerely in what I say on this question. As I said before, anybody in my province, or in any other province, who opposes me is sincere in his belief in the opposite direction, exactly as I am sincere in my belief in developing Canada first rather than the United States. I want to make a suggestion to the government. There is no rush in this matter. The sponsor of the bill that is before the house tonight said he had no idea where his company intended to build. He said he had no idea of the route over which his company intended to build a pipe line. I have no definite authority to speak on behalf of the company whose bill I had the privilege of sponsoring last year, the Westcoast Transmission Company, which has been mentioned tonight. It will be remembered that we gave them a charter without possibility of having the necessary details of an all-Canadian route written into it.


James Sinclair: Whose fault was that?


George Alexander Cruickshank: That was the fault of all of us, including myself. I have every reason to believe that the company would be willing to have those details written in. I agree with speakers who have said previously tonight that there is no reason to rush this matter.



195C

[Stage Direction]
I have every reason to believe that the West-coast Transmission Company is willing to have its charter amended and an allCanadian route written into it. I would not say that unless I had some idea of what I was talking about. I ask the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) not to interrupt me. I did not interrupt him.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I object to being interrupted every minute when I am trying to speak seriously. I believe it is in the best interests of this country-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am trying to speak seriously. If you want me to talk for forty minutes I shall do so. I say to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano that he took sixty or seventy minutes to tell what a great man he was. I am making a serious suggestion. I would not make it unless I had some idea what I was talking about. I have every reason to believe that the company that got a charter last year, that we may have let slip through last year, without having an allCanadian route written into it, has made a formal application which is now under consideration by the Alberta petroleum board and the government of that province, and that this application is on a straight allCanadian route.


Mr. Robinson:: Have they withdrawn their United States application to the board of transport commissioners?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Not so far as I know. I will answer that. I am trying to give the information, Mr. Speaker, but they will not let me do so.


William Alfred Robinson: We like to hear you.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to repeat what I said. I have every reason to believe that I think this company is agreeable to having an all-Canadian route written into its charter with the proviso that the same thing be done by other companies going to the west coast. This company already has a charter. Could there be anything fairer than that? So far as I know, they have not withdrawn their application.
When some of our west coast athletes were young they were taught to play ping pong and other pussyfoot games. I was brought up in the city of New Westminster. We were taught to play lacrosse. You had to be able to take it. When you play lacrosse you have to be able to box a bit. I was also taught that in boxing or in any other game the first rudiment of self-defence is to protect yourself
931
Alberta Natural Gas Company in the clinches. I do not play these schoolboy games of ping pong. I played lacrosse, and in that game you have to protect yourself in the clinches. What did this company do? They made their application. They made the statement to their sponsor, and they made a statement in the railway committee room, that they were going to build an all-Canadian route. Then they discovered that their opposition was applying for the cheaper route down through the United States. What did they do? They protected themselves in the clinches. They also applied for a charter for a route down through the United States. That is only common sense and good business. I am not a businessman, and I am certainly not a lawyer, and above all I am not a mining engineer. That will sink in deep.


An hon. Member:: Or a world traveller.


William Alfred Robinson: You are not a Rhodes scholar?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I would not insult anybody by accusing him of being a Rhodes scholar. I would not go that far. This company naturally applied for a route to protect themselves. But I want to repeat this fact. There is an application before the Alberta petroleum commission-I think that is the correct name-and before the Alberta government. The decision will eventually be made by a vote of the Alberta legislature, or by the judgment of the government of the province of Alberta, as to whether a permit will be given to export gas from that province. With that I entirely agree. This company has an application before these two bodies for an all-Canadian route.
As I said, I have every reason to believe that Westcoast Transmission will agree to have it inserted in its charter, provided it is inserted in the charters of all other companies. I have spoken for about fifteen minutes, Mr. Speaker. I have done so because I should like to give some of my colleagues on all sides of the house the privilege of speaking. I am glad that one hon. member from the maritimes has spoken. In this morning's paper there is a speech by an hon. member from the other place, that delightful spot that I hope some day to reach. He asked that some of the injustices that have been perpetrated against the maritimes should be rectified. Many of us from British Columbia have agreed with hon. members in the past and we expect to agree with them in the future, that they may always get a fair deal.
We fought for the prairie provinces when they were suffering during the depression. We fought for justice for the wheat growers and tried to get them a cheaper route. I remember that the people of my riding, and the

Alberta Natural Gas Company people of British Columbia as far as that goes, paid a fair share to build an imaginary railroad up to Churchill when you could pack more grain in the back of my Chevrolet than you will ever get to go over that route. We did not object to that so why should not some of those hon. members get behind us and, as the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) has just said, support the province of British Columbia?
Every hon. member is entitled to his own opinion. I respect the opinion of hon. members and I expect them to respect mine and the opinions of the people I represent. I ask them to respect the opinions of the majority of the people of British Columbia. I have not changed my opinion one bit. Before I conclude my remarks I wish to congratulate you upon the exalted position you are occupying for the first time this evening.
We believe we have a just cause and we are asking for the support of hon. members. I hope that this matter is decided by a recorded vote because I want the privilege of standing up and having my voice recorded, because I believe I am right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can avoid repeating any of the arguments that have been presented already in this debate. In fact, it is my purpose to go into a slightly different phase of it than has been discussed, at least so far today. I take my cue for what f want to say from the fact that reference has been made a number of times to what happened last year, and by that I mean last April or, in other words, at the end of the last session of the twentieth parliament.
It has been asked, and quite properly, why those who are opposed to this bill treat it differently than we treated five other bills in the last parliament. It has also been asked why we do not recognize the fact that basic legislation is on the statute books, namely, an act respecting oil or gas pipe lines, and that any company which meets the requirements of that act should be permitted as a matter of routine to get an incorporating charter from this parliament.
For the benefit of those who have been referring to what happened in April, 1949, but who were not here at that time, I should like to indicate what happened and let them realize the hectic time we had. Those of us who were here at that time will remember that it was a bit of a nightmare. A great deal of legislation was put through in a short period of time. We were given a number of assurances which we thought carried certain implications but we later found out that such was not the case.

We permitted considerably more speed in the disposition of legislation at that time than parliament should permit. As a result of that I think it is fair to say that most of us who were members at that time do not feel happy about the Pipe Lines Act that is on the statute books and under which this application for a charter has been made. I have on my desk a considerable number of documents, including a couple of order papers of that last week in April, 1949, copies of the bills in the form in which they were brought in, together with Hansard and the Journals and the statutes themselves, and a copy of Beauchesne to boot. So I know whereof I speak, and have the evidence under my hand.
What happened was that on April 4, 1949- please remember that that date was close to the end of that session and to the end of that parliament-there was received in this house from the other place a bill known as an act respecting oil or gas pipe lines. The next day, Tuesday, April 5, that bill was on our order paper and was given first reading. First reading, of course, is without debate. It stayed on the order paper ordered for second reading until Friday of that week, April 8, 1949, the last day before we went home for Easter.
To our amazement we were asked to give second reading to that very important bill on that last day before the Easter recess. Two ministers asked us to do that and you will find their remarks reported in Hansard of April 8, 1949, at pages 2512 and 2515. On page 2512 the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) in moving the second reading of the bill said:	t
I recommend this bill to the house. In doing so, I trust that hon. members will bear in mind that there is great urgency for the passing of this act because of the fact that these private bills are awaiting the passage of this enabling legislation. While there is some urgency because of the importance of these projects, at the same time parliament is breaking new ground in the matter of general pipe line legislation, and the bill deserves the most careful consideration of the house.
Note the circumstances. We were being asked to give speedy second reading to the Pipe Lines Act, the basic legislation, because it was urgent and so that something could be done to deal with private bills which as yet had no right to come before parliament because the enabling legislation had not been passed.
Later that same evening, after a few speeches, one by the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green), one by the former member for Kindersley, Mr. Jaenicke, and a few remarks later by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), the Minister of

Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had a few words to say, which are to be found at page 2515 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak only briefly. There is an urgency about this bill because I am told the capacity of the railroads to transport petroleum products from the Alberta field is approaching its limit. A real effort is being made to get this pipe line under way. The steel controller has arranged for the fabrication of steel for the principal pipe line being planned,-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is being fabricated at Hamilton, Ontario.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We now have word we should have had then.
-which will be undertaken as soon as the bill incorporating the company can be put through.
The minister then went on to say that he had the authority of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to say that if the bill was given second reading it would be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and then he said:
But it would facilitate matters in several directions if the bill were moved forward tonight. It would allow a private bill to be considered in another place if the principle of this bill were approved here and it would also permit prompt consideration of the bill when the house reassembles. I hope that this suggestion meets with approval.
These few pages constitute the totality of the debate which took place on second reading of this very important piece of legislation. I think members who were here at that time will confirm that we were uneasy about the whole matter, but two ministers were pressing upon us the urgency of it, and so the house consented.
The last thing that took place before we went home for the Easter recess in 1949 was the second reading of that bill. We had a two-week recess on that occasion and came back on Monday, the 25th of April. I remind hon. members that we returned to an atmosphere of considerable expectancy. There were rumours that an election might be called soon. Members who were here then will recall that late that Monday evening the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made a statement to the effect that parliament was only going to last for that week, and then there would be dissolution and the holding of a general election.
In the course of his statement that Monday night as to the dissolution of parliament, it became necessary for the Prime Minister to indicate what business was important enough to be dealt with during the few days that remained. During his remarks the Prime Minister said at page 2570 of Hansard for April 25, 1949:
As to the matters with which it would be desirable to deal at this time, if possible, there is this pipe lines legislation . . .
20, 1950
Alberta Natural Gas Company
A little later I interrupted the Prime Minister in the course of his remarks to ask a question related to a subject about which I often have something to say. It was:
Will the Prime Minister permit a question at this point? Would1 he make clear what he said about the resolution respecting old age pensions? Is it intended to give it priority this week?
Then the Prime Minister said:
It is intended to proceed with this pipe lines legislation, then to deal with the budget until it is disposed of . . .
And so on. I read these quotations to indicate the pressure that was put on us with respect to this pipe lines legislation, and so far I am just talking about the basic act under which the company, in the bill before us tonight, asks for a charter. That was on Monday the 25th of April. On Wednesday of that week, April 27-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lesage):: May I
ask the hon. member to make his point clear? I do not see very well how he is discussing the principle of the bill in what he is saying now.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I submit I am a lot closer to the point than a good many of the speeches that have been made today. I note that Your Honour agrees with that, but you may still want me to answer your question. The point I wish to make- and I am leading up to it, if you will permit me, sir-is that we had discussions during the course of that week which related to the point involved in this bill that is now before us. I shall be showing you in a few moments that during that debate there arose a discussion in the house as to what attitude we would accord to the bill for the incorporation of the Alberta Natural Gas Company which was introduced at that time. It was the same bill that is before us now with the exception of the names of the sponsors. If you will let me pursue the matter for a few moments, I submit that you will see that I am definitely speaking with regard to the matter that one should discuss on second reading, namely, whether or not we should support the principle of this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lesage):: I believe the question that should be discussed now is the principle of the bill itself, and not the principle of a bill that was before the house in the spring session of 1949. The hon. member should relate his remarks to the principle of the bill now before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the principle is the incorporating of a company wishing to build an oil or gas pipe line, and that it is necessary to relate their request

Alberta Natural Gas Company to the legislation that makes such action possible. If we did not have the main Pipe Lines Act on the statute books this company could not request a charter at all. The point I am trying to make is that the legislation that made it possible for measures of this kind to be introduced was pushed through at a time in the spring session of 1949 when there was great pressure on members of the house, and we were being told that it was urgent to get these matters through. Since you do not wish me to proceed with that phase of the matter much further, Mr. Speaker, I will eliminate a part of what I intended to say. I will only point out, if I may summarize it briefly, that second reading of the main pipe lines bill was the last thing before we went home for Easter. We came back on Monday, the 25th of April, and were told that this measure was one of the most important to be put through. On Wednesday of that week the bill was put through committee stage, and on Friday just before six o'clock, as is reported at page 2770 of Hansard, third reading was given to it.
One of the things that some of us feel should have been in that measure relates to the whole problem we are talking about, namely, whether or not parliament should agree to a bill when we are led to believe that the route of the line is going to be outside Canada. During that same last week, and overlapping the consideration that was being given to the basic pipe lines bill, there was the matter of some six other bills that were brought before the house, one of which was Bill No. 239, an act to incorporate the Alberta Natural Gas Company, the same measure that is now before us. The petitions for five of these six companies were received in the house on Tuesday, the 26th of April. Under ordinary parliamentary procedure there was not time for that legislation to be passed before Saturday, the announced day for the dissolution of parliament. That created a rather odd situation. It was known that some of these companies would receive the support of most members, but there was at least one company against which there was considerable opposition. That was the Alberta Natural Gas Company, the same one that is before us at the present time.
I can say that so far as our group was concerned we did not like any of the proposed companies. We felt that public ownership should come into the picture, and at the appropriate occasion during that week one of our members moved an amendment stating that principle, which was defeated on the floor of the house. As I say, we felt that none of these private companies should be incorporated, but we were in a difficult position. We were just a small group in the house at


that time, and the suggestion was being made to us that as a minority group we had no right to hold up a project of this kind. Therefore we made what may as well be called a compromise so far as our group was concerned. We looked them over; we inquired about the various companies that it was proposed to incorporate, and we learned that one of them proposed to build a pipe line outside Canada. We were told that the other five were not going to go outside Canada. Therefore we took a firm stand with respect to the one company. We said: We will not give on our behalf the unanimous consent that is necessary to waive the various rules with respect to that one company which proposes to go outside Canada. That is the same company we are opposing at the present time. On the other hand we did agree to let the other five bills go through. We gave that consent in the same way that we had agreed earlier to let the oil or gas pipe lines act itself go through, under protest, and because of the pressure of time and the sense of urgency that was being impressed upon us, especially by the two ministers to whom I have referred.
I could go through the Hansard of that last week and show hon. members who have asserted that we are acting differently this time than we did then that we watched this one company, which we were told was going to go outside Canada, like a hawk. Every procedural move that was made, including a motion by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Winkler) to send Senate bills when they came to this house direct to the committee, without first and second readings, was carefully watched. We required the observance of all the rules of the house at every point with respect to that one bill. There was no question about it, nor was there any doubt as to the reason we drew a line between that company and the other five. We had been told by the sponsors of the bills, we had been told around the halls, we had been assured that the other five would build their pipe lines in Canada, whether for oil or gas. This one, however-and the principal name connected with at that time was the present hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney)-proposed to go outside Canada; so we said "No" to any request for unanimous consent with respect to that bill.
I ask hon. members to go through Hansard of that last week. They will find that we did not get the petitions for those bills, including this Alberta Natural Gas bill, until Tuesday, April 26; and even then that petition, together with the others, had to be referred to the committee on standing orders because the promoters had not met all the

requirements laid down with regard to public notice across Canada, and so on. The committee on standing orders was asked to waive some of the rules respecting private bills. I was a member of that committee and objected strenuously to waiving those rules, but we were overruled by the majority and the report of the committee was brought back. On Wednesday the hon. member for Lisgar made his motion to waive certain rules, but we refused to give the unanimous consent that was required. Thursday he made the same motion, to send Senate bills straight to the appropriate committee without bothering with first and second readings, and we let that go only after we got the assurance that it did not cover these pipe-line bills but simply divorce bills and certain miscellaneous items. It was only on Friday, I think after the evening recess, that we came to the second reading of these six bills. If hon. members will go through Hansard they will find the discussion back and forth between some of us in this group and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in which it was made crystal clear that we were prepared to extend such unanimous consent as was necessary to waive the rules in order to get the other five through, but that with respect to this one which we knew was going outside Canada we said "No"-I said it myself, several times-and it did not go through.
I have spelled out that opposition in detail so hon. members will see that there has been no change in our position as far as this one company is concerned. We were told then it was going outside Canada, and we opposed that. Today we are led to believe that is still the position, at least we have not been given any assurance to the contrary, and that is why we are taking the stand we do. On the other hand some of us were amazed after the session was over to get word that one of the companies which had been granted a charter during that last short week proposed to build its line down to Superior, Wisconsin. I know the first time it was mentioned to me in Winnipeg that this was going to be done I said there must be something wrong, that this could not be done because we had stopped the one company that was going to build its line outside Canada. But I had to look into the question further, because this matter kept coming up; and I soon discovered that we were mistaken.


Alan Carl Stewart: Was anything contained in the bills that were passed which would prevent the companies from building their lines outside Canada?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly the point I am coming to. There was not. We accepted the assurances we were given that everything
Alberta Natural Gas Company was all right. We acceded to the urgency that was impressed upon us, and agreed to let those five bills go through. The hon. member for Yorkton has driven home the point I have in mind right now, that too often we have accepted these assurances; too often we have given unanimous consent; too often we have let things go through even under protest. I believe this whole story is an excellent example of the validity of parliamentary rules which call for time to be taken with important legislation. I object most strenuously to the times without number when the government comes along and asks us to rush these things through. Hon. members say no rush about these pipe-line bills is being permitted because of the time that has been taken; but if we add up the hours that have been spent on these bills it really does not amount to much, considering the importance of the whole question.
I had all the pages down here giving the various times this matter came up during that last week, but hon. members who were here will agree that I am correct in saying that we stopped the one because we were told it was going to be built outside Canada, so I need not say all I had intended saying. We let the other five go through because we were told that was not the case with them. Later we discovered that one of them was being built outside Canada, and there was nothing we could do to stop it. As I looked into it further I discovered that not only had there been a mistake made in the charters of these companies permitting them to go outside Canada, but behind that was the fact that the basic oil or gas pipe lines act did not require a company applying for a charter to state in its application where it intended to build the line. This afternoon the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) pointed out that the act does require a company, once it has its charter and appears before the board of transport commissioners, to file a map showing its route; but the die is cast by the time you get over to that judicial body.
I remind hon. members that we are not only acting in a judicial capacity when we deal with private legislation; we are acting in a legislative capacity as well. Beauchesne makes that quite clear in citation 759:
The proceedings of parliament in passing private bills partake of both a judicial and legislative character.
My contention-and I want to get to this point because I think that parliament is in a jam over this whole business and that it is the responsibility of the government to straighten it out-is that it is no use merely requiring a company to present to the board of transport commissioners a map showing

Alberta Natural Gas Company where its pipe line is to be constructed. What should be required is the presentation of that map or chart together with the application to parliament itself, sp parliament could insist on a change in the route, or refuse to pass the bill until the route indicated was satisfactory. Someone should interrupt at this point and say that the other companies have not been required to do this. The answer would be that that is perfectly true, they have not; but that is the mistake that comes from legislation having been put through too hastily, as was the case during the last week of the last session of the last parliament.
It seems to me the answer to all this is for the government to ask the sponsors of these two bills to agree to have them remain on the order paper for a little while, not proceeding with them every time they are called, so that in the meantime the government can bring in an amendment to the Pipe Lines Act itself.
Now, someone is going to say that you cannot deal with both of those types of legislation at the same time. Do not tell that to those of us who were here in the last parliament, because that is exactly what happened. We had these six private pipe line bills, which were passed in the Senate, and were sent over here and given first reading, before the basic legislation had passed. After that, the basic legislation had to go to the other place and then get royal assent. In other words, consideration was given in that last parliament to private bills which were contingent upon a basic piece of legislation, and they were being considered before that basic piece of legislation had been passed.
I thought that was rather sloppy. As a matter of fact, I questioned the propriety of what we were doing on several occasions. If I had taken the time to give the page numbers in Hansard of all these citations, hon. members would know the number of times during that last week that I objected strenuously to the procedure being followed. The member for Peace River (Mr. Low), may remember one interchange between the two of us when he said that we were talking out certain of these bills. My retort to him was very definite, and will be found on page 2776 of Hansard, namely, that we were not talking the bills out but we were exercising our right to insist upon the observance of all the rules with respect to one of the bills, Bill No. 239 of that year. I do not recall that interchange to stir up the argument, but rather to stress the point that some of us were considering the impropriety of the whole business, and the manner in which this important subject was handled in that last week.

I believe the government should recognize that the matter has not been dealt with properly, and should now call a recess in this business. It should ask the sponsors of these two bills to let them rest until the government has asked parliament to amend the Pipe Lines Act itself. The amendment to be made is quite simple, namely, that no company should have a right to apply for a charter until it presents to parliament a map showing where it plans to build the pipe line. Let parliament have some say as to whether or not we are going to grant these charters, on the basis of where the lines are to be built, and whether or not we feel they serve the best interests of the country. I remind members of the statement of Beauchesne with respect to what we are doing when we are dealing with private bills. We are not acting merely in a judicial capacity, and Beauchesne makes that very clear. We are not here to say yes to every company that comes along that has met the conditions laid down in some previous piece of legislation. We are also here in a legislative capacity. We have to decide whether each and every bill, on its own merits, is good legislation for Canada. I strongly urge that the government take stock of this situation, and try to give the lead to get parliament out of the jam in which the government has put this house.
I do not wonder that members are bewildered about what is going on. I recognize the arguments on both sides. I recognize the argument of my friends of the Social Credit group, that the basic legislation is there and this company has met the requirements of that legislation, so why do we say no to it when we said yes to the others? The fault lies in the basic legislation. We have a situation now in which one company does seem prepared to build its line from Alberta to British Columbia over Canadian soil. The other company is not so prepared; so it seems to us who think the line should be built on Canadian soil that the only thing we can do is to hold this bill up until this company will voluntarily take the position the other company appears to have taken. But it is really not satisfactory to have it on that basis. It seems to me a better basis would be to have it laid down in the Pipe Lines Act. I urge the government to consider, even at this time, the desirability of amending that basic act.


Mr. P. T. Hellyer (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard so many speeches today in which members tried to give the impression they were the sole defenders of the people's interest, that I feel obliged to state my position before we are all asphyxiated. The member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) implied that the members on this side of the

house did not have adequate information concerning this bill. After listening to his stirring address, I am led to believe we have more information than hon. members opposite.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) spent some time talking about conservation this afternoon. I was not too clear about the meaning of this term, and so I asked for an explanation. I had it explained to me this way: By postponing the construction of a large power plant on the Ottawa river, the Ontario government conserved electricity.


George Alexander Drew: If the hon. member wants to be educated, he should go out and see it now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Better late than never, but better never late. The leader of the opposition then said that both gas and oil are wasting assets. It is interesting to note that during the weeks we have been gassing in this house, the assets of Alberta have continued wasting. I am led to believe, Mr. Speaker, so much natural gas has already been discovered in Alberta that even after the one pipe line is built ample reserves will exist to take care of new cities, industries and other requirements which may occur within the foreseeable future.


An hon. Member:: Why not serve Canada first, then?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In addition, the lack of substantial markets for this gas is holding up the production of oil in Alberta. It may be advisable to try to sell considerable quantities of the gas, looking forward to the possibility that at some future date it may be superseded as a source of energy. Someone opposite mentioned something about serving Canada first. It seems to me an irreconcilable fact that the Socialists and Conservatives as a combination, of all people, should try to force a company to accept what might prove to be the least economical route.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is not in his seat-


An hon. Member:: Yes, he is.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should say that he is not in his own seat. He has said that the interests of the Canadian people must be properly and adequately protected. With that statement, Mr. Speaker, I am in complete accord. In order to protect them, however, those interests must first be recognized. The member for Rosetown-Biggar also suggested that gas might be piped east to Saskatchewan. I understand that as soon as there is a change in the government of that province sufficient discoveries will be made to take care of that area from local sources.
20, 1950
Alberta Natural Gas Company


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member means the Liberals have a lot of it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then, the same member
seemed worried about the possibility that someone might make a substantial capital gain on the sale of one of these charters. On reflection, I believe he would be forced to agree that the more charters there are the lower the resale value of any one of them would be. Certainly, it would be lower than at the present time, when there is only one unrestricted charter in existence. I have always thought that in any race it was desirable to have a common starting line. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is because of my belief in fair play, my belief that all participants should have the same handicap, that I intend to support this bill.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron Norih):: I do not
think anyone can accuse me of taking part in a filibuster, Mr. Speaker. This is the first time this session that I have risen in my place in the house to take part in a debate, and I seldom speak. I do so tonight because of the fact that this afternoon two Liberal members took up an hour of the time of this house; and if there has been a filibuster, they are also implicated in it. I think perhaps they added to that filibuster, if it is one, by trying to support the bill on the one hand and, on the other hand, by trying to talk it out. I conscientiously believe they hoped that it would be talked out.
I am one of those who believe in Canada for Canadians. I am one of those who believe that in our minds we should always have Canada first. If we are going to have a strong nation, we must build a strong Canada on a strong foundation. There is no one who does not appreciate the wonderful country south of the border. That the United States is so wonderful is explained by the fact that never at any time have United States statesmen failed to stick up for United States interests. That is why they have become so great. Because we are trying to stick up for Canada is no reason why the United States should think any the less of us.
One reason why we had so much assistance from the United States in years gone by was the fact that we did not have sufficient capital with which to develop our resources. I think the time is long past when we need to have assistance from the United States to develop our resources.
Here in Canada we are privileged in having many resources such as gas, coal and oil. As hon. members know, when gas is in the pipe line, it is ready for distribution and use. Oil must go through the refinery, but gas is ready for use. I think we should realize that British Columbia should have the first chance to
938

Alberta Natural Gas Company consume this gas. British Columbia has been suffering from more unemployment than any other part of Canada. As a result of the wonderful climate there in the summertime, many people migrate to British Columbia; and when autumn comes, they find themselves out of work. They then stay in British Columbia for the winter because it is so mild. That is one reason why British Columbia has so many unemployed. I happen to have a boy in British Columbia. He has never been unemployed, but there are many there who are. He tells me that the streets are lined with unemployed in the city in which he is located. If British Columbia had the opportunity of getting this gas at first cost, there is no doubt in my mind that there could be developed there industries that would provide much employment and would help a great deal to relieve unemployment in that part of the country.
I started as a farmer at the head of a family. I was the breadwinner. I had to look after my family first. All hon. members no doubt started in the same way. You did not worry so much about others as you did about your own. That was your responsibility. You had to look after your own family. After you had done that, you could look around and see what you could do for others. The same thing applied in municipal life. I started in municipal life as a councillor. When I was a councillor, I tried to look after my own ward. That was my responsibility. After serving in that capacity for several years, I was elected to the reeveship. While reeve, I had to attend county council and my mind naturally developed. As a member of the county council, it was my responsibility to look after my municipality. I had broadened to that extent. I had to see to it that the roads in my municipality received their fair share of the moneys that were spent. That was my responsibility. No one could criticize me for doing that.
Then when I came into the House of Commons, I again had to broaden my outlook and to develop my mind to look after the Dominion of Canada. That is what I am trying to do tonight. In rising in my place here in the house I am trying to look after the Dominion of Canada. I am not interested in what is south of the border. We get gas and oil from the United States; and I appreciate the fact that we can get it there. But now that we have so much of our own, why is it not possible for us to develop that gas and oil in our own country first? If we have any to export after that, then it is time enough for us to start worrying about what is south of the border.
This afternoon we heard many good speeches. I am going to refer to only one,

namely, that delivered by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). It was the speech of a statesman, not of a politician.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: All right; you can laugh at that if you like. May I say that I have a habit of reading minds; I looked over the members of the house at that particular time and I did not see anybody in any quarter of this house who was not digesting that speech to the full. I might also say that there were not any comments directed to the leader of the opposition when he was making that speech. It was the speech of a statesman, it was well delivered, and it will be remembered for a long time.
I put down a few notes here, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think they are of much use to me. In the first place, I do not know anything about gas lines nor pipe lines, but I do know this. If the gas line or the pipe line is constructed in Canada it will create employment for a great many Canadians; but if it goes through the United States there is no question in anyone's mind that it will give work to a great many people on the other side of the boundary. Suppose the pipe line did cost more to build on Canadian soil, would it not be worth the difference to have a pipe line through our own country first and to have our own people served before it is taken out of the country? In British Columbia and through the west there are many industries that would receive cheap gas. By receiving cheap gas they could manufacture things at a much lower cost than would otherwise be possible; they then would be able to compete in the markets of the world. I believe in Canada for Canadians first. After that, if you have anything to spare, sell all you can sell to those outside your own border.


Mr. J. W. Noseworlhy (York South):: In this bill, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with one of Canada's great natural resources; and I think it is rather unfortunate that the debate on this important natural resource should have taken on the purely party-political character that it has taken on in this house. It has become quite evident that the bill before us is sponsored by the government although it is known literally as a private member's bill. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has indicated quite clearly to the house his point of view, and quite evidently has given a lead to all the government followers in the house.
Here we have what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) rightfully described as a wasting asset, a wasting asset in the sense that it is not something that can be replaced once it has been disposed of. This particular resource is one that nature has created over the past ages, which has lain hidden in the

ground, according to geologists, for possibly millions of years. We now become the discoverers of that great natural resource, and the question is, what to do with it. Quite evidently our present government has just one policy on that matter, which is to get this natural resource to a market by the shortest and cheapest possible route that will bring greatest profit to those who have invested in that industry, and to those who are concerned with its disposal. That is one way of dealing with it.
Here is a natural resource. We assume it belongs to the province of Alberta. I am quite sure that hon. members from Alberta and the government of Alberta will be among the first to recognize that this is a heritage of the whole Canadian people. The government's policy appears to be: Take this great natural resource. Let us dispose of it through any ready channel that will bring immediate profits, either profits to a government or profits to private investors; and if it is going to cost a few hundred thousand dollars more to build a route that will serve Canadian people, then we cannot take that route. The fact that they are getting this market cheaply, and immediately realizing profit on the disposal of this natural resource, appears to be the chief concern of the government today, and appears to be their chief concern in the matter of this bill.
There is another way in which that natural resource could be disposed of. There is another policy that could be followed. I can well imagine that we have had governments in this country in the past that would have been prepared, in the interests of the Canadian people, to have taken a much more statesmanlike view of that policy than the present government is taking in connection with this matter. We have had governments in this country in the past that would have looked upon this natural resource as a heritage of the Canadian people to be safeguarded for future generations, and not to be exploited as quickly as possible by the shortest and cheapest route possible and for the highest immediate profits possible, which appears to be the present policy.
This afternoon the leader of the opposition gave us a vision of what this particular natural resource could mean in the building of this country, a breadth of view that we have not heard come from a single member or minister of this government in connection
20. 1950
Alberta Natural Gas Company with the development of this resource. Every word we have had from the Liberal side of the house has been concerned with one policy, and one policy only, namely, to get this natural gas market, get it there by the most economical route, get it there to serve the large centres of population in the United States, so that somebody may be able to reap a profit therefrom.
We sometimes talk of the future possibilities of Canada. We sometimes talk of our need of immigration. We sometimes talk of this country as a country that could support many times our present population. But here we have a natural resource that will provide cheap power for the building of industrial centres in our western provinces and, as far as we know, a product that could be economically brought east to build industrial centres east of the great lakes as well. Instead of that our first concern must be, which is the most economical way of building a pipe line. Never mind what happens to Canada; never mind what happens to the cities and towns of British Columbia; let us get the pipe line; get the gas disposed of; get our profits.
On motion of Mr. Noseworthy the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow being government day we shall move to go into supply, and if that motion carries we shall call four departments: finance, transport, veterans affairs and trade and commerce. In committee of supply we shall consider the further supplementary estimates for the year now closing, with the supply bill. Then the Minister of Finance will also ask for interim supply. I understand he has spoken to the leaders of the opposition parties on these matters.
Then we should very much like to conclude the debate on the motion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) to set up a committee on old age security. If we were fortunate enough to complete that business we would take up the motion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) to refer his estimates to the external affairs committee.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
55946-6O2
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, March 21, 1950