1961-03-06

Mr. R. A. Webb (for Miss Aiken) moved: that the fifth report of the committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Thursday, March 2, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Third report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the house will wish me to make a statement about the incident which took place over the week end in the Congo when Canadian soldiers were involved in fighting between United Nations forces and Congolese troops at Matadi, a port city on the Congo river some 160 miles southwest of Leopoldville, and the chief sea supply centre for United Nations operations in the Congo.
At about noon on Saturday, March 4, Leopoldville time, elements of the Conogolese army attacked a United Nations force stationed at Matadi. This force consisted of Sudanese infantry and a detachment of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals which was operating the communications station for the United Nations command at that centre. The United Nations force returned the fire. The building in which the communications station was housed was hit by anti-tank, mortar and small arms fire.
Direct communications between the United Nations headquarters in Leopoldville and Matadi ceased at about 4.30 p.m. Saturday, Leopoldville time.
As soon as information of the attack was received in Ottawa on Sunday morning the Canadian permanent representative in New York, under my instructions, got in touch with the secretary general to try to establish the facts and to express the grave concern of the Canadian government about the fate of our men.
90205-6-169
I also instructed the Canadian consul general in Leopoldville to see President Kasa-vubu and the Congolese central authorities to express the anxiety and indignation of the Canadian government at the treatment of these and other Canadian personnel sent out to the Congo as part of the United Nations effort to restore stability and order. He was instructed to call upon them to do everything in their power to ensure the safety and protection of Canadian personnel. He was also to approach the representative of the secretary general in the Congo and the United Nations commander to obtain the release of our men.
Yesterday afternoon I received a report from our permanent representative in New York that a cease-fire had been arranged by the United Nations authorities with the Congolese at 11 a.m. local time on March 5. A period had been arranged for the exchange of prisoners and for the restoration of order, and for this purpose a mixed United Nations-Congolese commission was being set up. This report gave the names of the Canadians involved in the fighting as follows: Captain G. E. Belanger, Staff-Sergeant L. H. Harris, Sergeant F. B. Wood; Signalmen C. G. Bates, R. M. Beggs, C. B. Bostwick, G. A. Janules, D. J. Murphy and H. B. Strike.
In this initial report no Canadian casualties were listed but seven Sudanese troops were reported missing. It was stated that the secretary general had sent a protest direct to President Kasavubu about the Canadian and other detainees. Yesterday afternoon I received a further report from the Canadian permanent representative who had been informed by UN headquarters in New York that eight of the nine Canadians whose names I have given had been released and brought from Matadi to Leopoldville by United Nations plane. Three of our men were described as slightly wounded.
It was stated that Captain Belanger had not been included among those released by the Congolese forces to the United Nations. Captain Belanger had gone out to arrange a cease-fire at about four o'clock Congo time, March 4, and had not been seen thereafter. He was therefore listed as missing and action was taken to have his next of kin informed.
However, according to a report received half an hour ago, Captain Belanger has since arrived unhurt in Leopoldville. After the anxiety caused by the prolonged uncertainty
2668	HOUSE OF
Clash at Matadi in Congo about his fate, I am sure the house and Canadians everywhere will share my relief at this good news.
At this time I can only add that the Canadian government is deeply conscious of the indignation which must fill the hearts of all Canadians at the way in which Canadian troops have been treated by the Congolese forces. The Canadian government, through the United Nations Congo advisory committee in New York, is consulting with other governments which have forces under the United Nations command about the serious situation resulting from the apparent lack of control by Congolese authorities over their own troops, and about measures which can be taken to remedy the situation.
The United Nations is taking steps to build up the strength of its forces, and it is hoped that the presence of reinforcements will enable it to give increased support to its operations, especially in outlying areas.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I am sure all members of the house will have heard with both interest and relief the statement the minister has just made about the position of our Canadian troops with the United Nations forces in the Congo. There has, understandably, been created during the week end anxiety about that position in view of the reports which have come from the Congo; and while I think all Canadians realize that our members of this force have to face difficulties and dangers in an unprecedented operation of this kind, especially when facing troops of the local governments who seem to get out of control much too easily, nevertheless we all feel that whatever security can be given to them by the United Nations should be given. In particular, I think, anxiety was created by reports in the press to the effect that United Nations forces in defending themselves against the attacks were at times runing out of ammunition.
We can all join the minister in the tribute he has paid to our forces in the Congo, who have shown courage and discipline beyond all praise.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: am sure all Canadians were concerned over the reports which were being received over the week end, and on that account we particularly appreciate the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Also, I might say, we congratulate him on his prompt inquiries into this situation which so greatly concerned the Canadian people.
I am sure everyone is relieved to know that all the personnel who were mentioned are now safe. I am certain it is correct to say that this incident highlights the fact that


Canadian troops and forces in the Congo are taking risks and making great sacrifices for a cause to which we are all devoted.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. O. H. Phillips (Prince):: By unanimous consent it has been agreed that the name of Mr. Macquarrie (Queen's) be substituted for that of Mr. Macdonald (Kings) as sponsor of the notice of motion No. 7 as set out in the routine proceedings and orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the request which has been made. Is there unanimous consent forthcoming for the change?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-Mr. Benidickson:
For copies of orders issued by the Minister of National Revenue since December 1, 1958, under the provisions of section 38 of the Customs Act for the purposes of fixing duties.
Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister, who has not completed the examination of the documents, may I ask that this motion be allowed to stand.
Motion stands.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COVERAGE INSTRUCTIONS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 61
Mr. Racine:: For a copy of coverage instructions C-411, C-440 to C-444 inclusive, and of any amendments thereto, with regard to employment in forestry, as contained in the new insurance coverage manual issued in October 1955 by the unemployment insurance commission, together with the corresponding instructions contained in the insurance coverage manual issued in January 1950.


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister may I ask that this motion stand.
Motion stands.



ACCESS ROAD, WERNER LAKE, ONT.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 67-Mr. Benidickson:
For a copy of all agreements and correspondence between the governments of the province of Manitoba and the province of Ontario and the federal government since May 1, 1957, relating to the construction of an access road or a road to resources to serve the metal properties situate near Werner lake, northwest of Minaki in Ontario.
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable subject to the usual reservations.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister would indicate the reservation he has in mind, in accordance with our discussion of the other day.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The main reservation, Mr. Speaker, has regard to the agreement of the provinces. Also, some of these documents have been tabled on previous occasions and in this case will be excepted.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the explanation is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 68-Mr. Caron:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, contracts, agreements, and any other documents exchanged between the federal government, the provincial governments of Quebec and Ontario, and the municipalities of Hull and Ottawa, since June 1960, with respect to a name for the bridge to be erected over the Ottawa river connecting the cities of Hull and Ottawa.
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, this motion is quite acceptable subject to obtaining the agreement of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 69-Mr. Caron:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, contracts, agreements, and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the provincial government of Quebec, since November 15, 1955, concerning the construction of a bridge over the Ottawa river between the cities of Hull and Ottawa.
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this order is acceptable subject to obtaining the consent of the provincial government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 70-Mr. Benidickson:
For a copy of the statement of the chairman of the board of broadcast governors referred to by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, February 27, 1961,	(Hansard,
page 2448) relating to an application by radio station CKY Winnipeg, for authority to establish an FM broadcasting station.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this motion is quite acceptable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
90205-6-169J
Motions for Papers


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 71-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of the proposed regulations by the food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare regarding the control of the quality of pharmaceuticals, and for a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, submissions, and other documents received by the department or the directorate regarding the said proposed regulations, and for a copy of all communications exchanged between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the director of the food and drug directorate or any other person regarding the said proposed regulations, since July 1, 1960.
Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister I would ask that order No. 71 stand.
Motion stands.



EVACUATION PRIORITIES IN EVENT OF NUCLEAR WAR

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 72-Mr. Fisher (for Mr. Regier):
For a listing of names and addresses on a priority basis of all those people who are supposed to be moved out of Ottawa to a supposedly safe place of refuge in case of a nuclear war.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might say a word about this motion. On August 10, 1960, the Prime Minister reported to the house-his statement is to be found in Hansard at page 7943-on provisions for continuity of government in wartime. He said:
Provision must be made for suitable accommodation and essential communications. The functions to be carried on in an emergency must be determined now and individuals who will be concerned must be selected and trained.
The various federal departments involved in plans for continuity of government have been engaged in selecting the required key personnel. They would staff the central emergency facilities, together with personnel of the Canadian army. They would endeavour to meet those responsibilities arising in the emergencies of nuclear war.
It is not considered in the public interest that the names of those officials or their functions be publicized at this time. I am sure hon. members will appreciate that should this terrible emergency arise, it would be very unfortunate if enemies were able to take steps beforehand simply because of some information of this kind having been disclosed to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of the hon. member in whose name this motion stands on the order paper I cannot very well ask that it be withdrawn. I suggest that it stand until he is present, when a request for withdrawal might be in order.
Motion stands.

Inquiries of the Ministry COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE



REPORTED STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER OF MALAYA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, we are trying to work out a plan under which assistance of this type will be given. I am not yet in a position to make any announcement, but we are very much interested in such a plan. There would seem to be a very big scope for Canadian assistance to the new French speaking nations.']
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question arising out of a statement attributed to the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya on reaching London to the effect, and I quote, "There is some understanding between Mr. Diefenbaker and me". He was referring to the South African question now before the prime ministers' conference. Can the Acting Prime Minister give the house some indication of the nature of this reported understanding?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, of course this was a newspaper report, and the statement may have been made as the result of a question, but so far as I am aware there is no understanding between Canada and any of the other countries as to what will be done at this conference.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the general support of Canadians for economic and technical assistance to underdeveloped countries, has the government given any consideration to the establishment of a specially trained corps for work in underdeveloped countries, along the lines of the peace corps being established by President Kennedy?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Canada has been very active in promoting various types of assistance, including the training of personnel from other nations, and in the sending of Canadian personnel abroad. I announced in the house on Friday a new plan under which a Canadian university would be co-operating with the University of Malaya. We are doing everything we can to extend technical assistance of every kind which is at all feasible. I think there are also some volunteer activities being undertaken, for example, in Toronto, but we have not adopted the plan announced by President Kennedy. We are following it with great interest, and the hon. member can rest

assured that, if feasible, any plan that seems to make common sense will be of great interest to the government.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house what assistance the federal government is giving in the provision of French speaking teachers for various parts of the world from which such requests have been made recently?


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the hon. member has not been able to give notice of this question. It seems to me it is one of those which would require statistical information. It might well go on the order paper.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs is well acquainted with this field and with the requests that have been made.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to work out a plan under which assistance of this type will be given. I am not yet in a position to make any announcement, but we are very much interested in such a plan. There would seem to be a very big scope for Canadian assistance to the new French speaking nations.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. In view of the statement by the minister that the two bases now under construction at North Bay and Mont Laurier will provide an effective defence shield against an attack on major Canadian industrial areas, a statement which he made at a mess dinner in Montreal on Saturday as reported in the Gazette this morning, does this mean that the government has now decided to equip the Bomarc missiles with atomic warheads?
(Translation):


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, I must say that, in fact, I did state Friday night that the Bomarc missiles were considered an effective defence against bomber attacks. In the course of my speech, I did not develop any point other than the one I just mentioned.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? In view of the statement he just made, may I ask the minister

at what time nuclear weapons will become effective for the protection of industrial areas in this country?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the supplementary question of the hon. member for Laurier, I should like to tell him that it has been stated quite often that the Bomarc missile can be equipped with a nuclear or conventional weapon. As to the possible use of conventional weapons or nuclear missiles, I refer him to the many statements made in this house by the Prime Minister on this matter. I think that the hon. member for Laurier is familiar with those statements.
(Text):



PETAWAWA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question. Because of the great interest created across Canada by the announcement that he had sent an investigating team of three staff officers to Petawawa to look into certain matters of interest, and in view of the fact that, according to the press, they made their report last Friday, is the minister now in a position to inform the house and others who have a great interest in this matter as to the findings of the investigating team he sent to Petawawa last week?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker. The officers concerned have not yet made their report to me.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Chown (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Transport, which he can take as notice. Would the Minister of Transport obtain a progress report on the construction of the new terminal building at Winnipeg's international airport, with particular emphasis on the use of Canadian content, the settlement of the access road problem and the status of the tenders to construct the main building, which were opened at Ottawa on November 25, 1960, with the lowest bid being by Commonwealth Construction Limited?


Hon. George H. Hees (Acting Minister of Transport):: In the absence of the Minister of Transport I will take the question as notice and bring it to his attention when he returns.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



BORDEN, P.E.I.-ACCIDENT TO CAR FERRY &quot;PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Orville H. Phillips: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport. Is he in a position to report on the accident suffered by the car ferry Prince Edward Island on Friday last?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The management of the Canadian National Railways advise that due to difficult navigation and weather conditions the car ferry Prince Edward Island struck the pier at Borden. The extent of the damage to the ship is not known at the moment, but an inspection is now being carried out which will determine whether or not drydocking will be necessary. The management add that the motor vessel Abegweit is capable of maintaining the service between the island and the mainland satisfactorily.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Will the minister please advise the house whether an investigation was made by the destroyer Sioux to ascertain whether foreign trawlers have been fishing within the three mile limit of the cost of Newfoundland? If so, what was the result of the investigation?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, about a week ago, owing to reports of a number of foreign fishing vessels operating near our territorial waters in the general area of Port aux Basques and Rose Blanche, I asked assistance from the Department of National Defence for patrol work in that area. They provided an aircraft and the assistance of the destroyer Micmac for several days. I have not received a full report from the Micmac (as yet). When I have received it I will report to the hon. member. There is nothing further I can add at the moment until I have a further report.



SINCLAIR REPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask him

Inquiries of the Ministry whether today is that long awaited and eventful day on which he will table Doctor Sinclair's report.


John Angus MacLean: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR PRINTING OF ILLUSTRATIVE TABLES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: In the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether he would be willing to table and seek permission of the house to have printed in Hansard the three illustrative tables, the names of which I could give but I do not think he would ask me to do so, that were distributed at the same time as the Prime Minister's proposals to the federal-provincial conference and were made public at that time, so they will be available in Hansard to hon. members for purposes of reference.


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: I shall draw the hon. gentleman's request to the attention of the Minister of Finance, who will be back in the house tomorrow and will be able to deal with it.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Payne (Coast-Capilano):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. It has been reported in the press that the commander of the Canadian forces in the Congo has asked that the special allowance authorized for Canadian troups in that area be made retroactive to the date of the establishment of the force. Has the government given any consideration to this recommendation?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The house will recall, I think, that based on a treasury board recommendation it was announced on February 10 that all ranks serving in the Congo would receive a special allowance of $100 a month in addition to their normal pay and allowances, retroactive to December 1, 1960.
Now, after consideration of all the factors involved, the government has decided to make the special allowance payable to all Canadian forces who have served in the Congo, effective from the date of their arrival in that area.
At the present time the Canadian army has some 280 soldiers serving in the Congo

and the Royal Canadian Air Force has approximately 30 officers and men stationed there.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the minister not aware of the fact that when this question was asked of him from this side a short time ago he said that no change was contemplated.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have not the Hansard before me, but I do not think I said that no change was contemplated at that time. However, whether or not that is the case, a change has now been made.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicate to the house whether he has received any inquiries from the United Kingdom government or the United Kingdom atomic energy authority concerning possible cancellation or renegotiation of a uranium contract involving 24 million pounds of uranium, delivery to be made commencing March 31, 1963?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian government through its crown corporation, the Eldorado company, has a firm contract with the British atomic energy authority. I have received from the British authorities no indication that they do not intend to honour this contract. In fact I would be greatly surprised and even amazed if I received such an indication from them, because in my opinion the British government has always been a government which honours its obligations.



INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER SALES TO CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I should like to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary, arising out of a report that the general manager of the Australian wheat board is going to Peking from Hong Kong in order to discuss further sales of wheat to communist China. My question is this. Is the Canadian delegation now in Hong Kong for the purpose of negotiating a further contract also going to Peking to this end?


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: have no knowledge of this matter, Mr. Speaker. However, I will draw the question to the minister's attention.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Postmaster General a question, of which he has had notice of a kind. Has the government under consideration statutory changes which would alter either the classification or the postal rates paid on foreign published and printed periodicals which are transported by various methods into Canada and mailed here to Canadians?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Until such time as the report of the royal commission on publications is presented and we have had a chance to study it, I do not think we can come to any decision in such a matter.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that a team of government representatives are in Washington ostensibly to negotiate an exchange of defence sharing contracts, as announced over the radio, will the minister comment on this announcement?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be advisable for me to comment on the announcement.


Lionel Chevrier: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister say whether these negotiations concern the deal whereby Canada would be producing the F-104's for NATO countries and getting in exchange the F-101's from the United States for our NORAD squadrons?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am not either going to confirm or to deny the hon. member's newspaper reports.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just say to the minister that it is not a newspaper report; it was an announcement over the radio. I was wondering whether the minister would comment.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Forestry. Did the minister become acquainted with the decision taken by the Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick ministers of lands and forests at a meeting held in Quebec city on February 17, which asked that the provincial governments concerned should have their say in the joint preparation of plans with the federal government, in dealing with federal co-operation and the expansion of the forest industry? If the answer is yes, would the minister care to make any comments?


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Beauce for giving me notice of this question. I have received a communication from the minister of lands and forests of Quebec asking for a meeting with himself, the minister of lands and forests for Ontario, and the minister of lands and mines for New Brunswick, for the purpose of discussing joint agreements already in force in the three provinces whereby federal financial assistance is extended for the preparation of forest inventories, reforestation of vacant crown lands, the purchase of capital assets for forest fire protection, and the construction of access roads.
A meeting of the three provincial ministers I have mentioned, together with their officials, was held in Quebec city on February 16 and 17 at the invitation of the minister of lands and forests of Quebec. Our Department of Forestry was invited to send observers, and two of our officials were present. One of the chief subjects discussed concerned arrangements between the provinces for mutual assistance in forest fire protection.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I intended to address a question to the Acting Minister of Transport, but he has just vanished. I will ask the parliamentary secretary, or if there is not a parliamentary secretary I should say the former parliamentary secretary. Exactly a month ago today I moved a motion for the production of papers with respect to the proposed establishment of an airport at Creston. That motion was adopted by the house. Can the appropriate person inform me whether these documents will be tabled prior to prorogation?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not be as pessimistic as that. I will have the situation checked.

Inquiries of the Ministry NORTHERN AFFAIRS



STATEMENT ON CARGOES LOST AT SEA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Kootenay West asked the following question:
Has any cargo being transported by his department-
Meaning my department:
-in the northern parts of Canada been lost at sea recently?
I have had the matter investigated and the incident to which the hon. member refers seems to have occurred six months ago, when a boat was temporarily submerged. Toward the close of the shipping season last fall a small vessel, the Ithika, on charter from North Rankin Nickel Mines Limited, bound for the settlement at Rankin inlet, went aground outside Churchill. Its cargo included some departmental equipment, two electric generators and a small quantity of prefabricated housing material valued at approximately $21,600.
I understand that the bulk of the cargo was salvaged and that all our equipment- that is, the department's equipment-was recovered, except for a small quantity of repair parts valued at approximately $1,000.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could the minister assure the house that this was the entire cargo that was lost?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, according to the information at my disposal that was the entire cargo that was lost.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in deference to the minister I will tell him privately what was lost.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER ON TAX SHARING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the statement made by the Prime Minister at a political convention in Quebec on Friday, according to the Montreal Gazette, that no province would receive less under the tax sharing arrangements than it had been receiving, applies to the provinces of Alberta and Eritish Columbia.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, all the statements the Prime Minister makes are accurate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask whether this statement applies to Alberta and British Columbia.


Howard Charles Green: I have not seen the report of the Prime Minister's speech, and the hon. member knows very well that sometimes there is quite a difference between statements made and reports on those statements. But I repeat that the Prime Minister is in the habit of making accurate statements.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport. Has the minister received representations from Woody Point, Bonne Bay, Newfoundland, requesting the services of an icebreaker? If so, could the minister advise what action has been taken?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. I used to receive those inquiries in the old days but, as hon. members can well imagine, I have not been receiving them this winter.
In the days when I used to receive them I found that the department always acted very quickly on them to give the Canadian people who were interested the required service without any delay. I am sure that practice is being carried on at the present time. I will check on this matter for the hon. member and confirm what I feel sure is the case.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on February 28 the hon. member for Laurier asked me the following supplementary question concerning water pollution:
My recollection is that the recommendations by the international joint commission to which the minister has referred applied to international waters. Have these recommendations approved by the two governments been implemented?
The answer is that the 1950 report of the international joint commission on the pollution of boundary waters and connecting channels was accepted by the governments of Canada and the United States. Canadian acceptance was given after consultation with the Ontario government.

We believe it is the responsibility of the province to implement the commission's recommendations. The government of the province of Ontario has taken an active interest in the matter and on March 28, 1956, legislation was passed in Ontario providing for the establishment of the Ontario water resources commission. This commission, which maintains liaison with the public health engineering division of the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, deals with sewage pollution in the great lakes and connecting channels.
Another supplementary question was asked by the hon. member for Lambton West, as follows:
Can the minister report to the house whether there has been any progress in the negotiations between the governments of Canada and the United States respecting the dumping of oil and sewage by ships using the great lakes system?
The answer to this question is as follows. The hon. member will recall that I have already referred to the regulations regarding the discharge of oil by ships operating in Canadian waters of the great lakes. To this I would add that the governments of Canada and the United States are aware of the problems associated with the disposal of waste, both from pleasure craft and from vessels employed in traffic on the great lakes and inland waters. Studies are being carried on by both governments to determine the suitability of existing methods of disposal. If suitable disposal methods are found, then consideration will be given to the possibility of drawing up the necessary regulations for implementation.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State. Has the hon. lady had a report as to whether the list of returns not complied with by the government, for which I asked about a week ago, has yet been compiled; and if not, could the hon. lady endeavour to expedite it?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, this is not one of the matters that came to my attention today, but I will be very pleased to inquire.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-2, to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company-Mr. Woolliams-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
90205-6-170
Private Bills
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Broome:: Mr. Chairman, this bill was intensively considered on second reading. Many statements have been made in regard to it. Some of the statements have been made almost on the assumption by the speakers that it was a government bill, when everybody in the house should know that, as a private bill, the government is not involved in it in the slightest degree.
The chief government whip made this quite clear when he interrupted the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam on February 13 and said, as is reported in Hansard, that the party whip was in no way involved in the decisions that are taken by hon. members in the private members' hour. There is no party whip on this bill. All members are entitled to speak on this bill as they think right and proper. When I spoke on second reading I said I would vote for the bill so it would go to committee, so that the questions which I wanted answered could be answered in that committee and we would obtain all the details on the bill.
The hon. member for Calgary South, speaking on second reading and asking the support of the house to give this bill second reading, said, as reported at page 1131 of Hansard, that if he was a member of the committee-
-I also intend to make a searching analysis once we have the witnesses before us.
He said further on the same page that after the committee submitted a report, this house would make a searching analysis of the report of that committee.
If I may refer to the minutes of the committee, I will deal first with the financial structure of this company. I would refer you, sir, to page 45 where, at the top of the page, the hon. members for Calgary South in directing a question to the witness spoke as follows:
You have already indicated to us certain basic principles of your financial structure. You have outlined the American participation and have made certain references in your opening paragraphs. You must have examined and given considerable thought as to why you wanted to proceed on the basis you have. Would you please elaborate on the details in your statement in regard to the necessity for this?
The hon. member continued as follows:
May I ask you one other question? Of course, you are aware of section 44 (d) of the national energy board-that in the final analysis, before a permit can be granted to you, the energy board must take into consideration the financial responsibility, financial structure, the method of financing, the extent to which Canadians should have an opportunity of participating, and so on. You are familiar with this section?
Before I go on to quote the reply given by Mr. Burgis I should like to return to the point

Private Bills
at which Mr. Burgis set out the basic principles of the financial structure of the company in question. It is to be found on the opening page of the report:
Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited was incorporated under the laws of Canada in 1926 and its shares are listed on the Toronto stock exchange. Approximately 10 per cent of its outstanding shares are owned by some 12,000 public shareholders, 22 per cent by the Hudson's Bay Company and 68 per cent by Continental Oil Company. Despite the disparity in shareholdings of Hudson's Bay Company and Continental Oil Company, each have by agreement equal voting rights and equal representation on the board of directors. The present board of directors consists of three Canadian directors representing the Hudson's Bay Company, three American directors representing Continental Oil Company, two Canadian directors representing the public shareholders and two senior officers of the company.
That is the basic financial structure of the company.
Now we come to the reply made by Mr. Burgis to the question asked him by the hon. member for Calgary South. He replied as follows:
Yes. We take the point of view that this is a relatively small line, and it would be quite usual for an oil company to build it as part of their normal operations. In terms of public financing, back in 1957 our directors did offer public participation in the ownership of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas, when there was no public clamour for ownership.


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: You say in 1957?


Mr.   Burgis@: Yes.


Arthur Smith: But, what was the final result?


Mr.   Burgis@: 9.6 per cent-approximately 10 per cent-of the outstanding shares are owned by some 12,000 public shareholders.
It is not only what is said in evidence given before the committee; what is not said is also of importance. The question asked by the hon. member for Calagary South was quite clear in its intent. Although the witness answered in part, he did not give a complete answer, because a complete answer would have left an impression entirely different from the impression left by the answer as printed in the report of the committee proceedings. The proper answer is that prior to 1957 the ownership of the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company was 75 per cent with Continental Oil Company and 25 per cent with Hudson's Bay. The inference given here is that they offered shares to the public which were only taken up to the extent of some 9.6 per cent. Well, shares were not offered to the public. There were rights. I refer to the Financial Post survey of oils for 1958. On page 129, under the heading "Rights", that paper states:
Shareholders of Continental Oil Company and Hudson's Bay Company were given the right to subscribe to 1,744,592 company shares in September 1957-

This is what the witness was referring to.
-at the rate of one share for each 15 of Continental Oil held or one and one sixth shares for each 15 shares of Hudson's Bay Company held. Any shares not taken up under the rights offered were subscribed to by the parent companies.
Well, the shares offered were 10 per cent of the total number of shares in that company. Before this offering there were no shares of the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company on the public market and there were no shares held by any citizens of Canada or, indeed, by citizens of any other country as shares in that company. But after this offering, 10 per cent of the shares of the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company were available to those people who had shares in either Continental Oil or the Hudson's Bay Company, and because of the provision of one for 15 in one case and one and one sixth for 15 in the other case, all the shares were taken up except some 34,623 which were not subscribed to, mainly because they represented fractional rights.
Thus the implication in the minutes of the committee that there are two Canadian directors representing public shareholders is hardly sustained, and I ask hon. members to note that the witness is most careful to say "public shareholders" and not "Canadian shareholders". They represent those people who were formerly shareholders of Continental Oil and Gas and Hudson's Bay Company. When the witness says there was no public clamour for ownership the implication is that they were ahead of public thinking in this country, but this is just not so.
I suggest that with regard to offerings of shares in pipe line companies-and this is tied in with this particular pipe line company and the operations of its parent companies-the people of Canada are as prepared to put their money into risk enterprises as are the people of any other country in the world. In support of this contention I should like to quote from a clipping which appeared in the Vancouver Sun of April 29, 1960. This states:
Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company hasn't formally announced Its new $30 million preferred stock and debenture issue yet but local Investment men are already worried about how they will fill the anticipated demand ...
Investment dealers here say they expect to receive only small slices of the two $15 million issues and will be rationing the pie right from the start.
I would refer also to the financing of the Alberta Natural Gas Company a few months ago, when shares were oversubscribed two or threefold, and to the Trans Mountain Pipe Line Company whose shares, when made available to the public, were also oversubscribed three or fourfold. I suggest that at no

time has this company in question given the Canadian people the chance to participate in its operations even to the extent of one share, no matter what inference Mr. Burgis may have left with the committee. This does not strike me as being a searching examination of the operations of this company.
Now I should like to go on to another point which is referred to several times in the minutes of the committee. Section 44 of the National Energy Board Act, paragraph (d), is the pertinent part, and it states that as to financial responsibility the structure is designed to allow Canadians the opportunity of participating in the financing, engineering and general construction of the line. I think I have dealt with this subject sufficiently by mentioning that in regard to the financial end the Canadian people will not be allowed to participate even to the extent of one share.
What is the situation in regard to the construction of the line? I feel I am being fair to the sponsor of this bill, as I have informed him of the information I have at hand. If I say something with which he disagrees he can correct me. I assume that he has been in touch with his principles. The information I have in regard to the construction of this line in Canada is that 41 miles is to be built by the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company, as well as the spur which goes across the border. There is only a half mile section to be built by Aurora Pipe Line Company. The contract for construction has been let to the R. H. Fulton Company of Lubbock, Texas. This was a negotiated contract and there was no chance whatsoever for any participation in this work by a Canadian company. When I conclude my remarks I hope the hon. gentleman will be able to correct me as to the accuracy of my information.


Mr. Woolliams:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Could you reveal the source of the information which you are quoting now?


Ernest James Broome: I have said that I received my information as the result of a telephone call to Calgary, and that is as far as I will go. I believe it is for the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill to put the facts before the house. He has not done so up to this time.


The Chairman:: I would remind the hon. gentleman for Vancouver South that I have not found out as yet the purpose of his remarks at this stage of the procedure. I do not know whether his remarks are relevant and, unless he indicates what his conclusion will eventually be, I have no way of deciding upon the relevancy.
90205-6-170i
Private Bills


Ernest James Broome: I am attempting by my remarks to add certain information to the evidence given before the committee. I am adding information to the statements made in this house on second reading. Everything I have said pertains to the discussion on this bill. We have heard references made time after time to the effect that this company would be subject to the rules and regulations of the national energy board and the Alberta conservation board on oil and gas. The remarks I am making at this time have regard to the propriety of some of the statements made in the committee. I am elaborating on those statements in order to provide this house with certain information. I am very happy to be able to give this information at this time, because I feel that it should be brought to the attention of this house. It has been said that there would be a searching examination conducted in respect of the operations of the company, and I feel that that examination did not go far enough.
There were questions asked of the witness as to why Bill No. S-2, which we are discussing, carries a capitalization of $10 million when the Aurora Pipe Line Company intends to build only one half mile of this line at a cost of $15,000. The hon. member for Victoria also asked at that time if the construction of the one half mile section was all that company intended to do. It was brought to the attention of the committee that a latter part of the bill contained a request for permission to build pipe lines within Canada in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Evidence was given that eventually the line might be extended into these areas, but at this time the company wished to secure the privilege of doing so in order to obviate the necessity of coming back to parliament at a later date.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Would the hon. member read the pertinent section?


Ernest James Broome: I will read Mr. Burgis' answer, if that is what the hon. member desires. His answer is reported as follows:
At the moment, sir, we have nothing else specifically in mind. However, we are, as are many of the other oil companies, in the pipe line business. Frequently, when we consider moving crude or condensate from one field or one market to another it might involve consideration of crossing interprovincial boundaries and at that time we conceivably could use Aurora to build more facilities, let us say, from the Yukon or Northwest Territories into Alberta or something like that.
I think I have read enough of the answer to give the sense of the situation.

Private Bills


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was referring to the portion where Mr. Burgis went on to say that it is customary to include such a clause in the bill.


Ernest James Broome: I agree that it is the customary thing to do. I am not referring to those subjects which come within the purview of the Alberta natural gas and oil conservation board. I am not trying to show that this line is economically sound, whether the reserves are sufficient, or to discuss any other item in this regard. I am now referring only to the basic foundation of this pipe line and how its application fits into our concept of ownership, control, construction and those items which are covered in the regulations of the national energy board, as well as the concept of the fundamental principles of this party and, I believe, of this government.
If this pipe line company intends to build only one half mile of line and then intends to make a connection with a line in another province I suggest the total expenditure would only be in the neighbourhood of $100,000. I suggest that the connection between Alberta and Saskatchewan would run only to $15,000; the connection between Saskatchewan and Manitoba, $15,000; the connection between Manitoba and Ontario, $15,000; and the connection between the Northwest Territories and Alberta would be in the neighbourhood of $15,000 each. Using this same reasoning, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited would be a company involving only $50,000.
In view of what I have said, I have asked myself why the Aurora Pipe Line Company is not in a position to build the 41 miles which will be built by the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company, and why they intend only to build the one half mile section. I have come to the conclusion that this is simply a device to allow freedom of action, away from the control of the national energy board, for a major section of pipe line. What this bill in effect says is that the company is going to spend $15,000 but will capitalize itself at $10 million in order to have some spare capital. This does not add up, in my estimation.
When we think of the discussion which took place in this house on second reading of the bill it is simply fantastic to me that from the very start the standing committee did not take minutes of its proceedings, particularly when we recall the criticism which was levelled at the committee in the other place. The committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines commenced its sitting at 10.30 a.m., and for 50 minutes the session proceeded without a shorthand reporter being present. At 11.20 a.m. the committee recessed when the hon. member for Yukon made a motion that the committee should 
recess until a shorthand reporter was available. The committee resumed its sitting at 11.30 a.m. and adjourned at 12.25 p.m., 55 minutes later. The committee tried to pick up the statements which had been made, but so far as the minutes of proceedings are con-erned half of the work of the committee is a blank.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is not true.


Ernest James Broome: It is not on record. I should like to say at this time-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, I think the hon. member has certainly left this committee under a false impression. At the beginning of the committee meeting Mr. Burgis read a statement, which took somewhere between 15 and 30 minutes, and that is all reported in the evidence that the hon. member has on his desk. It is true that about 15 minutes of the proceedings of the standing committee are not recorded in written evidence, but that is about all, and certainly not over half an hour.


Harold Edward Winch: That is not true.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The evidence is there.


Ernest James Broome: I did say the committee tried to pick up the lost ground, but Mr. Burgis' evidence takes up a page and a half. If it took 15 minutes to read a page and a half of evidence, then Mr. Burgis must have been reading awfully slowly. The point I should like to make is that right from the start I myself requested the committee to take evidence. I do not want to labour the point, but I did so because I was interested in the bill and I wanted to know what was said in committee. When this bill was before the other place there appeared as witnesses-


Harold Edward Winch: Did the hon. member say he sent a letter to the chairman of the committee which was not read?


Ernest James Broome: No, I did not say that. I said that I advised the chairman and I advised the committee that I thought a record of the proceedings should be kept.


Gordon Campbell Chown: When?


Ernest James Broome: I simply advised the committee that I thought minutes of the proceedings should be kept.


Gordon Campbell Chown: When?


Ernest James Broome: Who wants to know the answer to that?


Gordon Campbell Chown: I do.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to know the answer to that.


Harold Edward Winch: Does the hon. member happen to have the letter that he sent to the chairman of the committee, and would he read it to this house?


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, all I wish to say is that I asked the committee to keep minutes of the proceedings. When this bill was before the other place the same witnesses appeared there, but at that time there was also in opposition Mr. James Scott, president of the Pembina Pipe Line Company, and in attendance but not heard were Messrs. Charles Crawford and A. Douglas Armour.
It is the responsibility of anybody who wishes to oppose a bill to make his wishes known to the chief clerk of committees, and then a meeting will be held so that those who oppose a bill may be in attendance. I wish to point out, however, that second reading of this bill took place on February 13 and the committee held its meeting on Tuesday, February 21.
I hold no brief for the Pembina group; I am not saying that this particular pipe line will or will not hurt them. I am not going to say whether, as between these two as operating companies, we should make a decision; but I do say that, on the point I am trying to make with regard to Canadian participation in financing, engineering, construction and the whole works, the Pembina people seem to me to have a much better record than the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company for the reasons I have already outlined.
In the committee meeting many hon. members and the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Bow River, pointed out that this bill simply gives the company the right to incorporate, and that members of parliament in effect are exceeding their duty when they check into this in any great detail; that it is really none of their concern. At page 30 of the committee proceedings the hon. member for Calgary South, in questioning the hon. member for York North, who appeared before the committee, made the point that the hon. member for York North was not qualified to pass judgment on the technical aspects of this bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And he admitted he was not.


Ernest James Broome: At page 44 the hon. member for Winnipeg South made this statement:
I was just going to say that if they were strenuously objecting, they would be represented here by counsel. However, I think they realize this is a mere technical execution of a function of parliament and, undoubtedly, in the course of time they will appear before the energy board, if they feel disposed to do so.
Private Bills
It will be a sad day, Mr. Chairman, when we start to think of the operations of committees of this house and of the house itself as merely technical executions of a function of parliament. I say that every member has a right to ask questions on any bill, private or public, that comes before this house or before any committee of this house and try to ascertain the truth of the matter-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is irrelevant.


Ernest James Broome: -and that is what I have been trying to do. In regard to the operation of the committee itself, I should like to draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to citation 491(1) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, which discusses voting in committee, and which reads:
The names of the members attending each committee are entered by the committee clerk in the minutes; and when a division takes place, the clerk takes down the names of the members, distinguishing on which side of the question they respectively vote; and such lists are to be given in, with the report, to the house.
These minutes of the committee appear to me to be the report to the house, but the direction as laid down in this citation was not followed. There was a vote in committee; it was a vote in which the hon. member for-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Harold Edward Winch: Let him proceed.


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee giving its consent to the hon. member proceeding further?


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ernest James Broome: I wish to thank the committee for its courtesy, and I shall try not to trespass on the patience of hon. members any longer than necessary. As I said, Mr. Chairman, there was a motion in the committee moved by the hon. member for Westmorland and seconded by the hon. member for York East. The intent of the motion was to defer clause by clause consideration of Bill No. S-2 for a period of at least one week in order to give interested parties the privilege of appearing before the committee at the adjourned meeting. The said motion was negatived on the following division: Yeas, 5; nays, 8, or a total of 13 votes cast.
Two of the members who voted on the motion in the committee have an interest in the bill. I do not mean that they have a financial interest or anything of that sort; they have an interest in the bill because

Private Bills
they have been sponsors of it. First of all, the hon. member for Winnipeg South sponsored the bill in place of the hon. member for Bow River; then later the hon. member for Bow River came back into the picture. Section 2 of citation 292 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms reads as follows:
A member has been substituted for another on a committee of the Canadian Commons on account of the member originally appointed having acted as counsel for the parties interested in the matter before the committee.
I do not know whether a sponsor is in the position of acting as counsel, but when you have a very close vote of eight to five and two out of the eight are interested because of their sponsorship of the bill, the margin is very narrow. There is also the point that for the first time that I can recall the quorum of this committee is 10 members. According to the standing orders of the house the quorum of a committee of 60 members is 20. As all hon. members know, the quorum is then reduced to a more reasonable figure, usually to 15 members. This time the quorum was reduced to 10 members. This has nothing to do with the bill, except that a very limited number of members have made a decision with regard to whether time should be given for parties who may be opposed to the bill to appear before the committee and express their objections in the same way they did before the committee of the other place.
In no case, Mr. Chairman, am I supporting the viewpoint of the C.C.F. with regard to the economic feasibility of the line. I am simply talking about the matter of Canadian participation in financing, in construction and in the operation of the line. In this respect it seems to me that the Pembina group who opposed the bill in the other place-and I have no interest in that group-is operating more in keeping with the National Energy Board Act and with what that act says a pipe line company shall do than is the case with the company that is now before us.
I think I have pointed out that answers have not been full and complete. In my opinion it is ludicrous that we should have all this talk about a $15,000 project. It is nothing of the kind. As the sponsors and the people behind the bill know, they are asking for a capitalization of $10 million, yet what they are going to do is build a $15,000 pipe line.
It is too bad that this matter was not investigated more thoroughly in the committee. It is too bad that when the proposed Pembina pipe line construction is to cost $40 million, as I understand from the letter filed by the hon. member for Vancouver East, these people should talk about a $15,000 pipe line. In

sponsoring the bill the hon. member for Bow River made this statement on February 13, as found on page 1979 of Hansard:
I should like now to refer to this red herring, as I call it, which relates to our position in so far as United States capital and United States companies operating in Canada are concerned. My answer to that is briefly this. I have never considered any words used by any members of the cabinet or any members of the government as being against capital coming from anywhere, whether it was from the United States or any country in Europe.
No one will disagree with that statement. That is true. We welcome foreign capital in this country. However, the hon. member went on to say something really pertinent with regard to such capital. He said:
The only thing for which this government has stood, and I am proud to be a Conservative in that regard, is that Canadians can compete on equal terms with capital coming into this country from other sources.
If the hon. member would change the word "compete" to "participate" so that the statement would read that Canadians can participate on equal terms with capital coming into this country from other sources I would be 100 per cent in agreement with him. What I have tried to do is to show that that right is not being given to Canadians under the proposed incorporation of this company, and no matter what the witness said it has not been given in the past. I think the bill deserves a much more searching examination in committee of the whole house than it received in the standing committee. I want to say right now that when the bill comes to a vote I will vote against it.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Chairman, we have heard an exposition with regard to Canadian participation in the development of our resources in western Canada. The bill now before us concerns me particularly, because in my constituency in Alberta probably more oil and gas are produced than in any other constituency in western Canada. As a matter of fact the technical people who are opposing the incorporation of the Aurora Pipe Line Company, the so-called Pembina group, have their headquarters in my constituency and are now operating Pembina Pipe Line Company in that area. However, the Pembina field is only one of the fields in the area. The Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company also operates a number of fields in my constituency, particularly in the Whitecourt block, so-called, and they have been active recently in developing extraction plants and pipe lines in this area.
There is one other point which should be brought to the attention of the committee. Just recently hearings before the Alberta conservation board were completed with regard

to the application of the Pembina group to do what they want to do with the by-products for all of Alberta. Essentially they have proposed that they will build a pipe line system in Alberta and export up to 75,000 barrels per day of by-products into the Chicago market. These people who have come to us for incorporation under the name of Aurora Pipe Line Company have suggested that they have a market for something like
11.000	barrels per day through their marketing system in the United States. I am one of those who feel that we should try to develop any possible market for our petroleum industry and also for the by-products industry.
Several things were brought out in Pembina's presentation to the Alberta conservation board of which I think the committee should be made aware, and which in my view make it necessary for the house to pass the bill we are now considering. First of all, I should like to refer hon. members to the statement of the hon. member for Bow River with regard to incorporation. I think the principle of the bill is whether or not we are going to allow these people to incorporate. I believe in competition, and I think it is vitally important in this instance. However, in my opinion the bill does bring up a number of problems which we as members of parliament should be considering.
First of all, may I say that we have a tremendous amount of by-products which are going to become available in western Canada, very quickly, particularly in Alberta. I feel that we should be making representations to both levels of government with regard to doing more research into the utilization of these by-products in Canada, and in Alberta or Saskatchewan in particular, or wherever they may be. We should be encouraging the national research council to be doing work on the utilization and the marketing of these extremely valuable by-products.
In the second place, may I say this. This was one of the things on the application of Pembina. When hon. members think that this
75.000	barrels per day is a guaranteed market, they are not correct. This is a question of allowables. I would remind hon. members that a by-product is in essence a competitor with petroleum and therefore will have to be regulated by the conservation board in the same manner as is petroleum; and Pembina, to fulfil their obligations, will require a permit from the Alberta conservation board to delete the 75,000 barrels per day from the other allowables.
There is another matter about which I am particularly concerned, and I should like to say that I have no financial interest in any
Private Bills
pipeline or oil company. However, as a member of parliament representing the constituency of Jasper-Edson I have some concern for the people who are working on this pipe line and for the farmers in my constituency who will want to use some of these by-products locally. I am alarmed by the statement of another Canadian company, namely, Canadian Hydrocarbons, that if Pembina gets what it wants to get, it will be in a monopoly situation and the domestic users in Canada will be hurt by their scheme. These are things which must be given consideration.
There are other means by which some of the by-products will be transported out of the area of production. We have before us another bill to allow the Canadian Pacific Railway to complete an extension into the Rimkey-Home-Glen extraction plant in order to transport these by-products. It is interesting to note that in the recent hearing almost 25 per cent of the producers who were allied with or who had contemplated selling the by-product to the Pembina western oil group, came out against allowing them to do so because they felt that this would put the Pembina group in a monopoly position.
Something has been said by the hon. member for Assiniboia about Texas buccaneers. I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I am not too much concerned about putting any monicker on them. However, we in western Canada are against any kind of buccaneers whether they happen to come from Toronto or from south of the border. I want to say that in my constituency I have a great number of people who have come up from Texas and who are becoming able Canadian citizens. The solution of the question, therefore, is not quite as simple as has been suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South but rather is an extensive proposition relating to an industry which will mean hundreds of millions of dollars a year and thousands of jobs. We therefore cannot just pass it off and say we are going to vote against this bill because of the technicality which the hon. member has brought forward; and that is the only reason that he brought it forward, as far as I can see. I would remind the hon. gentleman that the Pembina group have incorporated Foothills to build a little chunk across the border and the rest of the group will be doing the other part. That course in turn suggests to me that inside the Pembina group there will be little chance for any open tendering or bidding on any of the pipe-line construction which will be done by them.
I should therefore like to leave with the members of the committee what I think are three salient factors in this discussion. First of all, we want to see to it that as much

Private Bills
use as possible is made in Canada of these by-products. We want to make sure that the people who want to use propane, butane, methanol and condensates in Canada have an opportunity to do so on a basis of equality with anybody outside of Canada, if not on a better basis. I would remind my hon. friends that we have a potential market in the grey wood soils in Alberta for a tremendous amount of this sulphur which is going to be produced in this plant in order to upgrade the soils.
In the second place-and I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South in this regard-we must make sure that Canadians are given an opportunity in the development, financing and construction of these lines and facilities. In the third place our policy must be dedicated to the general good not only of Alberta or Saskatchewan but of all Canada. I would remind hon. members that just recently, by resolution, the legislature in the province of Alberta has commended this government for its national oil policy and has upheld it 100 per cent. I do not think that we shall assist by defeating a bill to incorporate a pipe-line company which wants to make application along with several other competitors. It is not only a matter of the Pembina group versus Aurora. Husky, through its affiliated companies, would also like to have a network of pipe lines gathering in the by-product and taking it into the Chicago market. I also understand there are one or two other groups which would also like to do this.
However, as I said before, by defeating this bill we are not going to do anything that is going to help in any way. We have locally the Alberta conservation board which must pass on this application and which must set up the allowables. They report directly to the Alberta government. We have a national energy board which we spent a great deal of time setting up. At the time we did so we as members of parliament said that we are not capable of knowing all of the technical problems which are involved, and therefore we gave to the national energy board the power to sift these applications. We gave them certain criteria by which they were to operate. I am not going to repeat them now because other hon. members have done so, and I am sure the hon. member for Bow River will be able adequately to put them on the record.
I wanted to say these few words because it is most important in my area that some of these things be brought to the attention of the members of the committee. We shall not help the development of my particular part of the country by being restrictive or by trying to keep out United States capital.

We will only help if we go forward and allow these people to incorporate. After that they have to prove their worth; they have to prove they are going to allow Canadian participation in financing construction and everything else.
This is what I think we should do in this regard. We should allow them to go ahead. We want a free country; we want a free industry. We can best develop the resources of western Canada by free, competitive enterprise, as has been clearly shown by the development of Alberta to date as compared with that of the neighbouring province of Saskatchewan.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I know we have all listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson. It was a truly magnificent demonstration of how to sit on the fence, present arguments on both sides and deny your own government's philosophical policy on Canadian development. There were quite a number of arguments as to why this bill should be defeated, and then it was sanctimoniously said, "Because of my constituents"-who are not even affected by this bill-"I shall have to vote for it". Then in the last sentence the hon. member referred to Saskatchewan, which is not even concerned in the bill now before the committee.
When this bill was first introduced in the House of Commons I opposed it on principle and on the basis of my understanding. I opposed it in committee. I am opposing it now in this stage of discussion, where we can discuss its principle. I have no hesitation in saying that as long as I am in order, on every stage of this bill as it goes through, I will oppose it. I will oppose it because it is a disgrace to parliament that we, the members of the House of Commons, should be asked to give our stamp of approval to the incorporation of a company which is detrimental to the good of Canada and detrimental to the good of the province of Alberta, as it is.
The only way to discuss and understand the import of this bill is to relate it to the oil industry of Alberta, not particularly as a straight petroleum production but only what this bill deals with; that is, the utilization of the by-products of the petroleum industry. I refer to the methanes, the butanes, the propanes and the condensates, none of which are now utilized in the province of Alberta.
The hon. member for Jasper-Edson, if I heard him correctly-and I think I did-indicated that Aurora Pipe Line Company or its parent company, Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited, will be utilizing some of these things in Alberta. If that is what he

meant, then I say that is the exact opposite of what we were told in the committee by the four representatives of Aurora Pipe Line Company who appeared before us in the railway committee room.
I asked a direct question. It will not be found in the record of the first half of the proceedings of the committee meeting because that portion was not covered by a reporter, but you will find that the question was asked of the four men representing Aurora Pipe Line Company, "Do you intend to utilize, or have you any plans for utilizing the butanes, the methanes, the propanes, the condensates, any one of the by-products, in any existing industry in Alberta, or do you intend to establish any by-product industry in Alberta?" The answer was one word, "No".


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Mr. Chairman, may I just inform the hon. member that when I was talking about the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company I mentioned very specifically the fact that they had an interest in what we call the Whitecourt field and that they were, along with other companies, at the moment building extraction plants at Winfield, Whitecourt and Edson in Alberta. The by-products which they are producing there have nothing to do with Aurora at the moment.


Harold Edward Winch: This bill concerns Aurora Pipe Line Company.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Yes, but when I was making some general remarks I mentioned that Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company did have interests in other gas fields in the province of Alberta in this particular area. I said that these by-products would be available and are available for Alberta industry and Alberta farmers. That is all I said.


Harold Edward Winch: Then if what the hon. member for Jasper-Edson says is correct, this committee is being led astray, the provincial government of Alberta is being led astray and the people who invest money are being led astray. I say this because the hon. member has just said it has nothing whatsoever to do with the bill now before us for incorporation of this company and-


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I was talking about the general by-products industry.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: You have had your say; allow me to have mine. At the moment I am concerned with facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: We have before us a bill to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company, a subsidiary of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas
Private Bills
Company. Everything that we are being asked to approve in this bill is concerned with the collection and the export, not from Alberta as a whole but only from the cream of the oil area of Alberta, the southwestern area.
I am sorry; my hon. friend shakes his head. He had better not shake it too hard because it is empty and it will fall off. Obviously he does not know what this is all about.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Harold Edward Winch: Private Bills
the states of Idaho and Montana. The company is owned 68 per cent in the United States. The hon. member talked sanctimoniously about free enterprise and competition in this connection. This is a company to which we, the members of the House of Commons, gave our stamp of approval two years ago.
May I say I have no interest in Aurora Pipe Lines, nor in the Hudson's Bay Oil Company nor in Continental Oil Company, in Pembina or, indeed, in any other company. I have one interest only, and that is in the Canadian financing, Canadian control and Canadian development of Canadian resources.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the way you people opposite used to be, too.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, that is the way hon. members opposite used to be and it is the way they are supposed to be now, the way set out in the speech from the throne. I ask the committee to remember that only two years ago, for the collection and utilization of oil byproducts of Alberta as a whole, for the use of these products in Alberta and in Canada, and for their export only in the case of surplus, we granted the incorporation of the Foothills Pipe Line Company. In case there are Conservative members here who have forgotten, that company is owned 90 per cent by 2,000 Canadian investors, and of those 2,000 Canadian investors 50 per cent are citizens of Alberta. Moreover, 95 per cent of the company's financing-its debt financing-is from Canadian sources.
Is that company talking about a $15,000 short pipe line to be constructed at a total cost of half a million dollars? The answer is, no. Have they been able to get contracts to guarantee the money to finance the Canadian and American project? The answer has been supplied. The answer is, yes. One and a half million dollars-no, not one and a half million dollars-but $130 million. As well, they guarantee priority demand and supply for anything that can be required or developed in secondary industry in Canada as to the use of petroleum by-products, and in addition give an undertaking that only the surplus shall be exported to the Chicago market.
How different this is, reflecting the interest of all Alberta, not a segment of Alberta. The priority goes to Canadian industry first; export comes only second. It is a Canadian owned and controlled company, not an Amerian owned and controlled company. It is a company with $150 million, not one and a half million, and one that has contracts now. My hon. friend over there shakes his head. He cannot figure out why a socialist is speaking this way in a capitalist world. Well, it is because we have to face the realities of this

world we live in, and in the transitional period from the old, decadent system of free enterprise to the new socialist era we shall assist in any way whatsoever where something can be done for the Canadian development and financing of our own Canadian resources.


An hon. Member:: Amen.


Harold Edward Winch: The hon. member does not know the meaning of the word "Amen". He does not even know the meaning of "O Canada" or the Lord's Prayer, because if he did it would be Canada and the people first, always. Just think it over some time. I should like to meet the hon. member on a platform some day on that subject.
We ask the committee to make a ledger and put Aurora on one side, with all that it means, and put the other company and all it means on the other.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is room in Alberta for them both.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not know. I would like to see you and a couple of others try to get into one telephone booth.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They got 17 in one.


Harold Edward Winch: It depends on the circumstances and it also depends on the circumference. We are now discussing the development and utilization of the petroleum by-products resources of Alberta.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad you told us.


Harold Edward Winch: We say that anyone who is realistic, anyone who does not take a parochial view but a provincial and national view, will have to agree after a study of the facts that the introduction of the bill before us now was an absolute disgrace. It cannot result in a betterment of Canadian interest or in a more efficient development of Canadian resources. Behind it is only one thing, the fact that there is no capital gains tax in Canada, and this is another racketeering manipulation of a stock and corporation for the benefit of individuals; another group of Texas buccaneers who this time are called Continental Oil.
I am amazed that so many hon. members on the other side should have forgotten the words the Prime Minister used when he was on this side of the house in regard to certain oil company transactions. I take great pride in the fact that an hon. member from British Columbia should have risen first this afternoon and, as a Conservative, expose this bill asking that all of us should oppose it, as responsible members, and turn it down. That is the only right, honest and decent thing to do.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I did not intend to speak on this bill, but having listened to the frantic speech of the hon. member for Vancouver East proclaiming Canadian ownership I am tempted to intervene.
Certainly I am in complete support of Canadians having some say in the planning and development of their country, but I certainly welcome additional capital to help in this development and that is what is taking place in the present instance.


Harold Edward Winch: Fifteen thousand dollars.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, $15,000; but they are still going to provide a market for
11,000	barrels of our product a day. In their speeches on this subject on first and second reading the hon. member for Timiskaming and the hon. member for Vancouver East went on and on talking about the development of secondary industries. I know we must study this export picture because we do not want to export anything which could possibly be used to greater advantage here in Canada.
What is the actual content of it? I asked Mr. Burgis what the makeup of this product is and he replied that 90 per cent was gasoline. Certainly hon. members of this committee will not argue with the fact that there is a surplus of gasoline in Canada. We should try to create for this product as large a market as possible. That is precisely what we are doing through this bill. The hon. member for Vancouver East said that by supporting this $1 million expenditure we would do away with the possible expenditure of $150 million. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a great demand in regard to the exportation of oil products in Alberta. The Pembina Pipe Line Limited would like to export 75,000 barrels per day. Certainly exporting 11,000 barrels per day would not do away with that proposition on behalf of the Pembina Pipe Line Limited.
What did the socialist party have to say last year when a similar bill was introduced in this house by the hon. member for Kinders-ley, a bill to incorporate the Northern Pipe Line Company which intended to export oil and oil by-products from Saskatchewan? There existed at that time a company exporting oil and oil by-products from Saskatchewan but this was an additional company intending to operate in that province. In a speech made by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam he is reported at page 4381 of Hansard for May 31, 1960 as follows:
I should like to hear him, either when he concludes the debate or maybe this information can be made available when the bill is referred to the committee, on the reaction of the government of Saskatchewan in regard to the application for incorporation of this company.
Private Bills
The main concern of these socialists was to find out the opinion in this regard of their socialist friends in Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Kindersley at page 4381 of Hansard of the same date is reported as follows:
I will see that that matter is taken up with the proper parties.
The hon. member for Kindersley is reported earlier in the same paragraph as follows:
I am quite sure my hon. friend agrees with me that the government of the province is most interested in the development of the resources of the province and will do everything it can to co-operate with us in getting this company incorporated-
That was the only concern of the socialists at that time. They would be satisfied if it was satisfactory to those people in Saskatchewan. There was no great expenditure involved. I understand it amounted to some $12 million, but as long as the Saskatchewan government agreed then the hon. members here had no objection.
What do we find in their opinion today? We find that they are trying to make a mountain out of an ant hill. There is a $15,000 expenditure involved but they are trying to blow this up out of proportion and trying to claim that because we are going to grant permission to export 11,000 barrels per day we will disturb the possibility of exporting 75,000 barrels per day. I feel that any suggestion along this line is sheer nonsense.
What did Mr. Burgis say with regard to Canadian participation in this company? He said the board of directors consisted of three Canadian directors, representing Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company; three United States directors, representing the Continental Oil Company; two Canadian directors representing the public shareholders at large, and two senior officers of the company. I would suggest that the Canadians on that board of directors certainly have the right to participate and direct the affairs of the company. Certainly hon. members cannot object to the composition of that board of directors.
Those hon. members who object to the passage of this bill are attempting to create a monopoly as far as I can see. Nothing endangers democracy more than the creation of monopolies. The socialist party would like to create a monopoly and then get into power and take over this monopoly. Perhaps that is the reasoning behind their actions. I fail to understand what their main objection to this bill is except that they are perhaps attempting to raise a political fuss about it. The hon. member for Assiniboia appeared recently on television and said that if the party to which he belonged was in power it would socialize pipe-line companies. He said that

Private Bills
the government under the direction of that party would build its own pipe lines. If he intended to spend $15,000 I would suggest that he would not socialize much of this country.
I would certainly solicit the support of every hon. member in regard to this bill in an attempt to help create greater markets for the oil and gas industry in Canada. I feel there is sufficient gas and oil in Alberta to enable the Pembina Pipe Line Limited as well, as this company to export from Alberta.


Grant Campbell: The remarks I wish to make are few. Just because the devil is against this particular bill is not sufficient reason for me to support it. I think it is very salutary that this committee should scrutinize very closely any controversial bill coming before it. Some hon. members have said that it is only a bill incorporating a pipe line and it is purely a technical thing. I must say that we are not incorporating a laundry or a peanut stand or anything of that type but a pipe line. I feel that a pipe line or a railway or any public utility is of vital interest to the public and that it is incumbent on hon. members of this parliament to scrutinize the incorporation of any public utility very closely.
I understand that the building of a pipe line involves the powers of expropriation of private property and exploitation of natural resources. These are of extreme interest to the public and should be examined thoroughly at each stage of our proceedings. I say therefore that it is a salutary thing that we scrutinize this bill closely. This parliament or the government must not abdicate its responsibilities in favour of any board or commission even of its own creation. In the final analysis parliament is responsible and must accept that responsibility be it for ill or for the good of the Canadian people.
I have very little knowledge and certainly no interest in the substance of this bill but I think it is very important at this stage, as at every stage, that we scrutinize it. This is a responsibility we cannot abdicate, as I have said. I feel that we must look further into the matter regarding Canadian participation in comparison with other competing pipe lines. I do not think we can dismiss this as a technical matter and depend upon a provincial board or commission in regard to the establishment of a public utility such as a pipe line.


Frank Howard: I have heard a few very interesting points raised so far in this debate. One point just made by the hon. member for Stormont had regard to the basis upon which we should look at bills of this nature.

He suggested that we should examine the bill so as to find out if it serves the best public interest.
This is what we in the C.C.F. party have said in regard to this particular bill. We have been accused of having various ideas but those accusations are not true. We are attempting to make sure that this proposal is in the interests of the public. This is what we have been doing at each stage, and what we have been doing through the amendments which we have proposed at the different stages of the consideration of this measure. We have sought to find out whether this particular company if incorporated would in fact serve the best interests of the people of Canada or would in fact serve the interests of some other company in North America to a degree which would be detrimental to Canada. This was the sole basis of our discussion of the bill on second reading and indeed in the standing committee and in this committee also.
Regardless of hon. members on the government side of the house who have objected to this course and who have attempted on a number of occasions to raise points of order that would deter us from this course of action, like the hon. member for Stormont, we feel that we must at all stages closely scrutinize the company, its relations with other companies and with our industry and our economy, not only in Canada as a whole, but in the province of Alberta also, and its relationship with other countries.
In this regard I think we cannot be too careful, nor do I think we should be deterred from that course in quoting extensively from the provisions of the legislation setting up the national energy board. We should not say, as some hon. members from Alberta have said, "Well, after all, the national energy board has been established; it has certain functions to perform and accordingly we think we should give just a quick look at the bill before us and leave everything to the national energy board". We in the C.C.F. of course refuse to go along with the approach that merely because we establish a commission or a board with certain authority we should abdicate all of our responsibility and give to that board or commission the right to do everything.
As I said, I believe there are some hon. members from Alberta who advocate this approach. I do not think it is necessary to mention their names because it is not an issue in this particular instance. All hon. members know to whom I am referring. Their remarks are in Hansard, and in the record of proceedings of the committee, for everyone to read.

We approach this particular bill to incorporate the Aurora Pipe Line Company from this point of view. Will it serve Canadian interests? When I say "Canadian" I mean all of Canada. Will it serve Canadian interests to the fullest possible extent, or is it merely a smokescreen to serve the interests of others who are not Canadians, those for whom the Prime Minister apparently has great affection, contrary to the opinions he held about them a few years ago?
After listening to the two hon. members from Alberta who have spoken today one would think that each of them is putting in his oar for the leadership of the Social Credit party. I refer to their references to the welcoming of capital-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tim Buck is supporting the hon. member.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend knows full well that Tim Buck does not support me.


Mr. Hodgson:: Yes, he does.


Frank Howard: My friend knows full well also-perhaps he does not know, but I will tell him-that the commies have supported the Conservatives in many instances that I know of.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Not Tim Buck.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Not publicly.


Frank Howard: No, they do not dare do it publicly; they want to help you, that is why.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tim Buck says he Will support you.


Harold Edward Winch: I will be amazed if the hon. member is not paying him to do what he is doing.


Frank Howard: I know my friend has a one track mind and likes to cast aspersions whenever he gets the opportunity.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member is doing a very good job.


Frank Howard: This is typical of a fascist-minded individual, to grab onto the tar brush and smear everybody and everything when he cannot defend his own position in supporting a certain line of action, Mr. Chairman.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member has cast aspersions on some other hon. members and now he is objecting when something is said about his party or himself.


Harold Edward Winch: If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I don't live in a glass house.
Private Bills


Frank Howard: I am trying my best to proceed in an orderly way but certain things get in the way from time to time. It amazes me but the hon. gentleman, and I am using the singular, appears to have a screw loose in his head; it is the one which controls his tongue. The hon. member for Acadia interjected his comments, and perhaps I should deal with one or two of them. I did not particularly intend to deal with them, but what he said earlier in this debate made me wonder whether he had in fact read the speech from the throne or heard about it, because it was the speech from the throne that contained the reference to Canadian control of corporations. The hon. member is advocating something entirely contrary to that in that he is advocating the establishment of the Aurora Pipe Line Company regardless of Canadian control or of the speech from the throne. I do not know whether he heard the references in the baby budget to Canadian control of corporations.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Don't put words in my mouth.


Frank Howard: The hon. member's approach to this question is obviously contrary to the announced policy of his government.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It certainly is not.


Harold Edward Winch: That is a fact; the hon. member may as well take it.


Frank Howard: I did not realize that the hon. gentleman had such an effect upon the government. I did not realize that the government supported this particular bill, but obviously it does and it did not mean what was said in the speech from the throne about Canadian control if we can believe what the hon. member for Acadia says. Obviously, the Minister of Finance did not know what he was talking about in announcing government policy about the Canadian control of industry. We have just had word about the government policy in this regard but apparently it was not correct. I know the Prime Minister says a lot of things from time to time, but I did not realize that he was quite so off base as he apparently is in this regard.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has implied that I said something which I never said. In my speech a few moments ago I read from the committee proceedings the amount of participation that Canadians would have in the direction of this company. There would be three Canadian directors and three United States directors; there would be two Canadian directors at large and two directors at large from the company. Certainly this points

Private Bills
out that Canadians will have good participation, in fact a better participation in this company than their share holdings would warrant. Certainly Canadians will have a fair amount of control of this company.
In my remarks I said that this government and Canadians wanted to have some say in connection with the development of their natural resources, but certainly we welcome financial capital and aid in the development of those resources.


Harold Edward Winch: The Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company is 67.8 per cent controlled by Continental Oil Company of the United States of America.


Frank Howard: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has the inside track on those things or whether he is misinterpreting what is contained in the committee's report, but let me read from the Financial Post's survey of industrials for 1960. Let us keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, that the Hudson's Bay Company is the parent company of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited, the company sponsoring this particular Aurora Pipe Line Company bill, the gentlemen who were before the committee. What about the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited which is the company sponsoring the Aurora Pipe Line? It is owned to the extent of 22.6 per cent by the Hudson's Bay Company and 67.8 per cent by the Continental Oil Company of the United States of America. I am reading from the Financial Post's survey of industrials.
If that is not sufficient indication, may I point out that information about the ownership of this particular company was also given by the hon. member for Winnipeg South, the co-sponsor of the bill, and by Senator Thor-valdson who sponsored the bill in the other place. Whom am I to believe? Am I to believe the rash and brash hon. member for Acadia or am I to believe the hon. gentleman who appeared before the committee?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There again, this is in the evidence. If the hon. member did not believe it he should have asked Mr. Burgis to clear it up. The hon. member was at the meeting of the committee and he did not raise the matter at that time. He sat there like a bump on a log. Now he gets up and speaks just to take up the time of the house.


Frank Howard: If it is a question of taking up time without contributing anything, obviously we have just had a good exhibition of that. If the hon. member for Acadia wans to engage in side issues of this sort I would ask him to remember that I said initially that it is the approach of the C.C.F.

that we do not want to give up our responsibility and do not think that parliament should give up its responsibility, as the hon. member for Stormont said, to committees or boards or commissions or other bureaucratic organizations that are established. We do not believe in quoting extensively from the acts establishing these boards to show that they have certain powers and then saying that we do not have to do anything except to give the bill a cursory examination and then pass it. That is what the hon. member for Acadia said as found on page 39 of the proceedings of the committee. I will read the whole paragraph so I will not be accused of misquoting. He said:
Mr. Cathers and I agree on a lot of things. I agree with him in his theory-
In his theory.
-that parliament should not pass on to boards anything which would be within the jurisdiction of a member of parliament. I have a gross dislike of how boards have used people at times. In this case, however-
Now he qualifies it.
-a company is here asking to be incorporated. What if the company already was incorporated and wished to export this product? It would not come to parliament at all. It would go to the national energy board. In other words, the national energy board is set up to serve a function. You and I would not have a voice in this if the company had been incorporated already. In other words, a company which already is incorporated and which wished to compete with Pembina could present argument and you would not have an opportunity to say too much about it.
There is this twofold approach again, Mr. Chairman-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I disagree.


Frank Howard: -obviously designed to overcome his remark on second reading when he said the same thing only more definitely, that we should give up this responsibility-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I never said anything of the kind.


Frank Howard: -that we should not concern ourselves too much with the full effect of the incorporation of this company. His attitude was: Let us not look too carefully into the effect this is going to have. After all, we have the national energy board. Let us just pass the bill without too much argument. Let us not inquire too much into the effect it is going to have. After all, we have got the national energy board, a Tory appointed-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is again putting words in my mouth in saying that I made this statement for a reason. I presented an argument to the hon. member for York North who had put forward an

argument against the bill and had said that the committee should investigate it fully. I placed a proposition before him. I asked him whether, if the company had already been incorporated, parliament would then investigate the matter and his answer was "no doubt not". I just used an example to try to point out to the hon. member for York North that the national energy board had a purpose and a function. The hon. member for Skeena has gone on to interpret my remarks as meaning something that I certainly never said and certainly never meant to say.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, this is not the
first time we have seen hon. members opposite interpret what they said initially and which they wish they had not said in the first place. An example, of course, is the veterans affairs committee where hon. gentlemen opposite practise politics and wish that they were not on the government side. That is just another indication. In any event, I suppose the theory is that if you are on the government side you should not worry too much about anything-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is absolutely false and you know it.


Frank Howard: -or inquire into anything too much. My friend is going to get apoplexy if he is not careful. Even when I am speaking in general terms he seems to think that what I say applies to him. I cannot help that. If the hat fits he will have to pull it right down over his ears and make it quite obvious that he thinks of himself in these terms which I have only used generally.
The hon. member for Jasper-Edson made one reference which I should like to have cleared up, and I am sure he will be able to clear up any misunderstanding on my part in a more gentle way than has been the case in the last few moments. The hon. member for Jasper-Edson referred to Pembina, the other parent company of Foothills, and I understood him to say that Pembina would in fact be a monopoly and that this would be injurious to the people living in the Whitecourt field and that part of the country around Edson and Jasper. I would ask the hon. member to let me complete my statement before he replies. I understood him to say that under Pembina there would be no open bidding on the pipe line itself because it would be a monopoly that would operate to the detriment of all concerned including those who might want to bid on the supplying of pipe, I presume, or on the construction of the line. I understood him to say that there would be this rigid, monopolistic control which would not be advantageous to everyone concerned. I
Private Bills
see that the hon. member is rising and perhaps he may want to clear up that point before I proceed.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I appreciate the opportunity to clear up the hon. member's misunderstanding and I assure him I will do so gently. First of all, I said that the representations before the Alberta conservation board created some doubt and that some of the people opposing Pembina's application felt that if it were granted Pembina in effect would have a monopoly on the by-products industry in Alberta. I mentioned particularly Canadian Hydrocarbons, the local domestic distributors of propane, butane and associated by-products.
I might tell my hon. friend that this has nothing to do with Whitecourt field which is in essence another gas field now being developed and which will be linked up with the export of gas to California. Various byproducts will be available from that field. This has nothing at all to do with Pembina.
What I did say was that there was some fear in Alberta that if Pembina were granted a licence to do what they wanted to do they would be in a monopoly position. It is also a well known fact that Pembina is connected with a pipe line contracting firm. As a matter of fact, their agreement with Standard Oil was filed before the Alberta conservation board and it sets out that Standard will look after the engineering and construction of the pipe line for Pembina. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware of the arrangement that Pembina and Foothills have with Standard of Indiana.


Frank Howard: I gather that the hon. member asked me whether I was aware of the arrangement that Pembina had with Standard Oil. That was dealt with rather extensively at another stage. It is interesting that one point has been cleared up by what the hon. member has just said. Notwithstanding all bis earlier remarks about his own constituency, we can see now that Aurora Pipe Line Company has absolutely nothing to do with it and that it is far removed from it. That is the point I wanted to clear up.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: We were discussing the by-product situation in Alberta generally.


Frank Howard: I want to point out also that, if we are going to draw inferences-and I think we must do so in this instance especially in view of the comments of the other member of the hon. gentleman's party who is rather closely related to him-the inference is that Pembina is by itself of not much value to Alberta because it is a monopoly.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Not at all.

Private Bills


Frank Howard: All right. Pembina is not a monopoly or will not be a monopoly.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: 1 think this matter should be cleared up, Mr. Chairman, because I do not want the hon. gentleman saying things which he knows are false.


Frank Howard: Oh, I would not do that.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Not unless you could get away with it. What I said was that evidence was brought before the Alberta conservation board to the effect that if Pembina and associated companies received a permit to do what they wanted to do, they would in fact have a monopoly. I did not say that I said they had a monopoly. I said that qualified people who appeared before the Alberta conservation board had said they might have a monopoly. I would appreciate it if the hon. gentleman would at least stick to a few facts.


Frank Howard: I am always interested in facts, but there is no sense in getting excited about the matter.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I am not excited.


Frank Howard: The hon. gentleman said, if I have it correctly this time, that apparently qualified experts who appeared before the Alberta natural gas conservation board said that if Pembina gets a licence it will in fact be in a monopoly position.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: That is correct.


Frank Howard: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman, in making that reference, agrees or disagrees with it. I think we all know that we tend to draw forth factual statements in order to support a particular position of our own. I hope the hon. gentleman does not agree-he may do so; I do not know- but I should like to know whether he agrees or disagrees with the comments of those qualified experts, namely that Pembina will be in a monopoly position.
This is an extremely important matter, Mr. Chairman. I do not want any member in the opposition to misunderstand my position. I tried to clear up this matter on second reading and I tried to make it quite clear in my opening remarks today. My position and that of the C.C.F. with regard to this matter is not one of Pembina versus Aurora or Foothills versus Aurora or whatever the name might be. It is a matter of which is going to be to the greatest advantage of Canadians and of Albertans; in this instance, their interest is one and the same. I want to have that point particularly clear because I do not want hon. gentlemen opposite later on to be going out and accusing me of supporting a monopolist corporate structure. That is why I want to

get this particular point clear. But if it has been made clear that the hon. member for Jasper-Edson is not in fact himself saying that Pembina will be a monopoly or in a monopoly position-


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Of course I am not saying that.


Frank Howard: -but is only saying what others have said-


Hugh Macarthur Horner: That is right.


Frank Howard: -then we have that point cleared up; and I hope that later on no one- because he may say that I opposed Pembina or opposed Aurora-will make the accusation that I was in fact supporting a monopoly. I want to get that point clear-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: -because there are other people, like the one who has again broken the rules by speaking from his seat, who may make these accusations and cast reflections on what people do at every turn of events, every time they get the opportunity to do so; and even when they do not get the opportunity, they are prone to do this.
In any event the point of view from which we must approach this matter is this: Is it or is it not beneficial to Canada, compared with other circumstances, to have this particular company doing the things it seeks to do under the corporate powers which it seeks and with the financial structure it seeks to have? Moreover, is there something additional that it seeks to do or that it might do with these corporate powers and with this financial structure? This matter we can deal with a little bit later.
At this time I should like to say this. I do not see the hon. member for Vancouver South in the chamber at the moment. He may be unavoidably absent. However, I should like to say that the hon. member for Vancouver South in his initial comments did a decent analytical job on this Aurora matter and outlined his position quite clearly. When this bill was before the house for second reading it will be recalled that those of us who wanted to find the full implications of it were told that we would get the full story and the full picture in the standing committee. We were told that one of the reasons why standing committees existed in so far as private bills were concerned was that people would have an opportunity of appearing and of presenting their case, and that committee members would have an opportunity of querying them about all and sundry matters in which they might be interested.

In this particular instance-whether by coincidence or by design, I do not know- it was unfortunate that one of the major organizations, or rather the other major corporate organization concerned about the particular bill was not able to be there. We know they appeared before the committee of the other place, although that committee kept no record. We almost kept no record either, not having done so until we were part way through. In any event we know that Aurora and Foothills appeared before the committee of the other place and I think every hon. member of the house expected that they would also appear before our committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines which considered this particular bill. Unfortunately, they did not do so. This failure to appear left a fairly large gap in the evidence which was presented.
As the hon. member for Vancouver South said, it is not always so much what is said in a committeee that matters but rather what is not said. I am quite sure that the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas people who were there were presenting information-I do not say they were hiding anything-and arguments which would support their particular application and that they would not in fact present arguments which would support Pembina's stand if it was opposed to them. This is a natural course for people to follow. However, we reached the committee and we did not get the information in full or complete form.
Perhaps this is a good time at which to mention that possibly what we need on these committees or attached to them is a staff of research people who will be able to go into these subjects and advise members of the full impact of things so that all members of the committee and of the house will have a better opportunity of assessing the effect of them. However, perhaps this is not the point at which to deal with that matter.
In the committee the hon. member for Westmorland attempted to do what I think was the decent thing to do. It is unfortunate that it was not carried out. As found at page 46 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee-and this was fairly well at the completion of the evidence of the Hudson's Bay Oil people-he moved as follows, and I quote his words so that I will not be accused of paraphrasing them. He said:
But, I move that before going on with the clause by clause discussion, that the meeting be adjourned to a later date in order that anybody who might oppose the bill will have an opportunity to give evidence before the committee.
Then he went on further to state as follows:
However, I think it is our duty to give the public ample opportunity to get here, and for that
Private Bills
reason I am going to move that this committee hearing be adjourned for a period of one week before we take it clause by clause.
I think this was the decent and correct thing to do, especially in view of the earlier evidence which was given by the hon. member for York North. I make reference to him only in the sense that he appeared and gave evidence. It is quite true that he mentioned the fact that he had a particular axe to grind in that he was a shareholder in the other company which had opposed this Aurora Pipe Line Company bill before the committee of the other place. I will quote what the hon. member for York North said as reported at page 37 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee. This was after we finally got shorthand reporters there. The hon. gentleman was not reported in his initial evidence. In any event, he did say:
It is in answer, I think, to a remark by Mr. Winch about how this was advertised. I would like to add that the Pembina people had intended to be here, but the hearing is going on today in Calgary before the conservation board, so they could not be here.
I subsequently asked him whether they desired to appear, and so on. He claimed that he would not know because he appeared, as I understood it, not as an agent or representative of Pembina but as an individual shareholder. In fact, when he finished his evidence I think he said something to the effect that perhaps Pembina would rather he had not come.
However, the hon. member did point out at the committee meeting on Tuesday, February 21, 1961, that the Pembina people had on that day intended to be here but they were before the Alberta oil and gas conservation board. That was extremely unfortunate.
Following upon that the hon. member for Westmorland moved that the meeting be postponed for one week. There was then some argument as to whether or not the meeting was adequately advertised. Reference was made to the fact that advertisements had been placed in the Canada Gazette and the newspapers. Undoubtedly there was advertising in connection with the formal notice of petition for a private bill, without reference to the actual date of the meetings of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
I should point out in this regard that it would be pretty difficult for those advertisements to have contained the actual date of the meeting of the committee.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure that the hon. member for Skeena would

Private Bills
like to continue. I will just say a few words and then he can carry on. I think we were indeed fortunate in this house, and in the committee, to have people on the committee who were not concerned with hearing only one side of the matter. We were indeed fortunate to have on the committee such people as the hon. members for Vancouver South, Vancouver East and Skeena. These members were interested in seeing that both sides of the story were presented.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? Does he know how great a part the hon. member for Skeena took in the committee? Does he know how many questions the hon. member for Skeena asked in the committee? Has he read the committee proceedings?


Frank Howard: I will tell you.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member for Skeena is quite capable of telling you himself how many words he spoke in the committee, if that is what you want to know. However, although I am not a member of the committee, I did sit in on the committee meeting and listened to the discussion. I think these three hon. members put forward a fairly comprehensive argument in support of the contention that the application of Aurora Pipe Line Company was not all that it seemed to be, nor was it all that the sponsor of the bill indicated.
I am suggesting that hon. members of this committee who did not have the opportunity to sit in on that committee, and who have not taken the opportunity of reading the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee, would have been quite impressed with the presentation made on behalf of the opposition which should, in my opinion, have had an opportunity of being there.
In this regard I should also point out that the hon. member for York North brought quite a number of points to the attention of the committee that would not otherwise have come up. I think the members of this committee and those who are interested in pipe lines being built by Canadians for the distribution of Canadian products for the benefit of Canadians would have been quite impressed by the presentation that was made on their behalf.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it may be an interesting sort of diversion if I counted the words I used in the committee, as required by the hon. member for Acadia; but I do not intend to do that. He knows the answer to that question as well as I.
I think that on the question of personal participation as between himself and myself

in the committee, he was perhaps more verbose than I. There is no doubt about that. This applies in the house also.
However, I was dealing with this matter and I should like to continue. I had raised the matter as to whether or not there was a full opportunity for interested parties, particularly Pembina, to attend this committee meeting. That day they were unfortunately before the Alberta oil and gas conservation board. Because they were unable to attend that committee meeting, I wonder whether they should not now be given the opportunity of appearing. This could be done by the committee undertaking-perhaps we should do this in a formal way later on, Mr. Chairman; I merely toss out the idea as a suggestion-to rise and report progress and recommending that the bill be referred back to the committee. In that way interested people who were prevented from appearing earlier could now appear.
There was some argument about this. Pembina were obviously the major corporate organization that was interested; they appeared before the committee of the other place which dealt with this particular bill. The hon. member for York North, who appeared as a witness, stated that Pembina intended to be in Ottawa, but unfortunately they had to appear before the Alberta oil and gas conservation board on that day. There was quite a discussion in the committee about advertisements. It was said that even though there was no date in the advertisements pointing out when this committee of the house would be meeting, nevertheless anybody who wanted to find that out could do so.
This is quite true. Anybody who wanted to find out when the committee was meeting could do so. I do not wish to quote the words of the hon. member for Acadia, who told somebody else that he had no vital interest in it and then mentioned to my hon. friend for Vancouver East that he could have found out and that other people could have found out, but the words are there. It is a fact that if something is to be presented before a committee of this house, and it is set down for hearing, anyone who is interested can in fact find out when that committee will meet. It is published in the Journals, a letter to a member of parliament will obtain this information, or it can be obtained by a communication to the clerk of the committee. There are a number of ways of discovering when a committee is going to meet.
However, the fact of the matter is that on February 13 this year this bill passed second reading in the house. After extensive debate, on February 13 it passed second reading and was referred to the standing committee. One

week later, on February 21, the committee met to consider the bill. There was only one week between the time the bill was read a second time and its perusal by the committee.
The Pembina people, who had a vital interest in this matter, who the hon. member for York North said were going to appear and who had appeared before the committee of the other place, could not be here on February 21. Why could they not be here? It was because they were appearing before the Alberta oil and gas conservation board. They obviously could not be in two places at once.
Even if the Pembina interests had known-[DOT] and I am not saying that they did not know -that February 21 was the day set for the hearing, do you think they could have prevailed upon the Alberta oil and gas conservation board to postpone its hearings so that they could come to Ottawa? I think not. The Alberta oil and gas conservation board undoubtedly has a number of people appearing before it in connection with applications for licences. Undoubtedly they have a number of hearings and have to set a schedule and keep to it as much as possible.
The decent thing would have been to follow the suggestion made by the hon. member for Westmorland and postpone the actual clause by clause consideration of the bill for one week in order that interested people could be there, and specifically in order that one interested group of people-and I am not advocating their case at the moment; I am merely pointing out that they were an interested group, Pembina and the Foothills company-could be present. It would have been proper to postpone the clause by clause consideration for one week in order that the Pembina people could have come forward to present their point of view, put forward their ideas and participate in eliciting information from the Aurora people, and vice versa, in order that some of the unanswered questions which are still in the minds of hon. members might be answered so that at this stage the committee of the whole considering this bill might have a more complete picture than the one-sided picture we have at the moment.
I do not wish to cast any reflection on the action taken by the committee, because that action has now been taken, but I think it was regrettable that this course should have been followed when postponement of the discussion for one week could have meant all the difference in the world. As I suggested before, I do think this committee of the whole might reasonably express the view that an opportunity should be given to the Pembina people to appear and present their point of view. I do not know whether this should be done in any formal way at the moment. In
Private Bills
fact, I do not know even if it would be in order to move the particular motion which I have in mind.
Perhaps before any action of this kind is taken, the sponsor of the bill who has worked hard and assiduously to promote its passage through the house might care to comment on this suggestion that the committee of the whole might report its considerations to the house, one of those considerations and recommendations being that the bill be referred back to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines in order that it might go more fully into these particular questions.
I know one could level the accusation that this is a delaying tactic and that anything which consumes time is a means of delay, but in this particular instance I submit that would be an incorrect conclusion to reach, because one of the things I am concerned with is the right of people to present their views and their ideas. The Pembina people were denied that right. There is no question about that. Of course, they could have appeared before the committee on the day which had been advertised, had they known about it, and thereby foregone their right to appear before the Alberta oil and gas conservation board, but they could not have been in two places at once. In the circumstances the proceedings before the Alberta board were, perhaps, more important for that company since they involved licensing. In any event, the company chose to put forward their case before the Alberta board on the same day as our committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines was meeting.
It seems to me that this committee might profitably follow the course I have suggested, bearing in mind that we are not attempting to postpone things or to call things off but merely trying to give these interested people an opportunity to appear before a standing committee of this house, an opportunity which was previously denied them because of circumstances over which, I am sure, they have no control. Action along the lines I am suggesting would preserve the undeniable right of individuals to appear before a standing committee and present their views on particular questions, whether in opposition to them or in favour of them is immaterial to me, the major principle involved being the right to appear. I think this committee will agree that by force of circumstances, if for no other reason, the Pembina people did not have the right to appear before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines on February 21.
Possibly, following such an appearance we would be in a position where the doubts which have been felt by some hon. members here would have vanished to the point

Private Bills
at which they are no longer doubts at all. The suspicions which some hon. members may have with regard to the Aurora Company might be seen to be without foundation and it might appear to be in the best interests of Canada and Alberta for Aurora Pipe Lines to proceed. At the moment, however, when we have been presented with a one-sided picture, one party-an interested party-having been unable to appear before a committee of this house, I think the only decent and correct thing we can do is to provide that such an opportunity be given. Perhaps at another stage, later on, after we have had some discussion on this point, it may be logical to move a motion to that effect, but before we actually reach the formal stage of doing so we may, perhaps, have the opportunity of hearing the comments of one or two other members and learn whether or not they think it would be the correct thing to do.


Mr. Howe:: In view of the fact that there have been some allegations that proceedings of the committee of which I am chairman were not carried out in a proper and orderly manner, particularly in connection with the fact that a certain body was not allowed an opportunity to appear before the committee, perhaps I might briefly intervene at this stage.
The hon. member for Skeena made reference to the fact that the committee hearing was advertised in many newspapers. Advertisements giving notice of the meeting to discuss the matter of a private bill for incorporating a company known as Aurora Pipe Lines appeared in at least 12 and, possibly, 15 papers in September of last year. The company concerned had a perfect right to petition the committee and ask for the privilege of appearing before it at any time but we did not get an application of that type from the Pembina people or from the other pipe line company affected.
In fact, knowing the opinions of the hon. member for York North, a member of our committee, on the very day when this bill was passed on second reading and referred to the committee I asked the hon. member for York North if he would like to have his people appear in opposition to the proposal before the committee. They were notified, at that time, when the committee meeting was to be held but after that there was no indication from the Pembina people that they wished to offer any opposition to the bill. Therefore, I maintain that at no time were they denied the right to appear. They had a perfect right to appear before the committee and we could have changed the date of the sitting if they had indicated they wished to

come. No indication was given that they were going to be in attendance and we did not think it was necessary to postpone the meeting. The meeting was then called for February 23.


Frank Howard: I have just one comment to make, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Welling-ton-Huron who was the chairman of that committee. I understand he just referred to February 23 but I did not catch what he said following that reference.


William Marvin Howe: I was referring to the date set for that meeting. Perhaps it was February 21, 1961.


Frank Howard: I take it the hon. member was referring to February 21, 1961 the date the committee was to have heard the witnesses representing this company.
I was referring to the advertisements that were made in regard to the petition for incorporation, as the hon. chairman of that committee said, sometime last September. These advertisements did not, in fact, mention that the committee was to sit on February 21, 1961 to consider this particular bill. As I understand it there was no advertisement to that effect. Perhaps my understanding in this regard can be cleared up. Were there any advertisements in regard to February 21 being the day upon which the meeting would sit for the purpose of considering this bill?


William Marvin Howe: The hon. member should realize that committee meetings are not advertised in newspapers. These meetings are advertised in the Votes and Proceedings of this house.


Frank Howard: Yes, I understand that was the only method of advertising. I wanted to make sure that was clear.
As I have said, there was a considerable amount of discussion regarding newspaper advertisements. I think the hon. member for the Yukon mentioned that he had seen an advertisement in the Whitehorse Star. I am sure that this was widely advertised, as is required by the rules of the other place.
Unfortunately I was not quite able to hear what the hon. member for Wellington-Huron said in regard to the hon. member for York North being in touch with the Pembina people respecting the proposed hearing date. Would the hon. member indicate what he said regarding the hon. member for York North?


William Marvin Howe: I did not indicate what the hon. member for York North had said. I did indicate the proposed date and time of the meeting and suggested that he might get in touch with the Pembina people in this regard. He intended to inform me as to their wishes in respect of appearing before that committee. If

these people wished to appear before the committee it was indicated that a day would be set to correspond with their wishes.


Frank Howard: These difficulties have probably risen through unfortunate circumstances.
At page 37 of the minutes of proceedings of that committee, I asked the chairman a question which is reported as follows:


Frank Howard: Because of his close association with Pembina perhaps I might ask Mr. Cathers whether they would desire to appear before the committee following the hearings in Alberta before the oil and gas conservation board.


Mr. Cathers:: I would not know.
I took this to mean that the chairman did not know if the hon. member for York North had received an indication that the Pembina people wished to attend or did not wish to attend. I want to have this situation clear. In view of the fact that the hon. member for York North is, I gather, our only contact in a formal or informal way with the Pembina people, I would like to know whether or not he intended to convey the impression that they wanted to appear or did not want to appear. I feel that perhaps in view of the fact that he is only a shareholder and not an official acting on behalf of the company we should perhaps refer this back to the committee in order to find out whether or not these people, who perhaps through unfortunate circumstances, were not in a position to participate in the hearings, wish to appear.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed listening to the debate which has taken place this afternoon, and it seems to me a fundamental difference in opinion has been revealed. Perhaps this is one of the occasions when the members having this difference of opinion should refrain from taking part in the debate.
The difficulty involved in regard to a pipe line operation is the fact that it is transmitting a natural resource from one place to another. In this case it is seeking to transmit condensates which are very similar to crude oil. We are faced at this time with the fact that one company has already been giving fairly extensive coverage across the provinces in the distribution of oil and oil products. I am referring to the Pembina Pipe Line Limited, whose officers appeared before us a couple of years ago. They were given at that time what has amounted to almost a monopoly. I would suggest that we look into this situation and find out if this monopoly is in the public interest at this time.
In handling any natural resource a transportation factor is involved, because of the necessity of providing highways, railroads and pipe lines, some of which are built at the public's expense. I think that this is
Private Bills
perhaps an argument in favour of putting railway services under a public utility monopoly. I feel that each time we deal with natural resources or the transmission of them we should take a look at the distribution history of other natural resources. I believe that if we did so we could only come to the conclusion, as many people did in 1957, that the transmission of natural resources should be controlled by a public utility board.
There does exist in Canada today one pipe line company distributing oil and oil products from the western provinces and it seemed to me at the time this company was incorporated that it would eventually expand perhaps to the extent that it could look after the market developing in the Chicago area. Anyone belonging to the C.C.F. party believes that there should be exportation of natural resources. It seems to me, however, that this company is only interested in the exploitation of natural resources, particularly oil and oil products, through the transmission of these products, using a branch line running into the Chicago area and that there would be very limited expenditure necessary. It seems to me this company is interested in the exploitation of the oil industry through milking off very rich profits from a very short distribution line which will send the product to a trunk line running into the Chicago area where a very limited amount of expenditure will be necessary.
We have heard conflicting stories about $15,000 being enough to make the connecting link across the international border. If this is true, if the Canadian people are going eventually to fit their export market into this kind of action, then it would have been a very nice thing, in my opinion, if we had built this line as a public enterprise and as a public utility. If we had built this $15,000 link across the international border we would have had complete control of distribution into the export market.
Those who talk about exploitation should bear in mind that they are federal members; that they represent not only a small oil area of Alberta but all of Canada. They are not elected here as the representatives of a particular area but as members for all of Canada. This point has been argued by prominent parliamentarians down through the years and I do not intend to duplicate the argument at all. It is an established fact that members represent not only a very limited area or a limited interest but the country as a whole.
Bills of this kind have to be sponsored. There is no kick against anybody sponsoring these bills. According to parliamentary procedure they have to be sponsored by somebody. It may be quite an honour and

Private Bills
an opportunity to sponsor a private bill, I do not know. I hope it never falls to my lot to sponsor one in which I am vitally interested or concerned because I think it would be very difficult to remain impartial and still be closely connected with the particular industry concerned.
In this committee there are a number of hon. members from Alberta who are vitally concerned with the production of oil and the sale of oil, and particularly with the money which will result from and flow back into their own areas because of the sale and export of oil. I have no kick against that, Mr. Chairman. Probably they are doing their duty to their constituents; that is what they should be doing. But there is a great deal to be said on behalf of all the other people in Canada.
I have been interested in the stories we hear about our having too much oil. It is said that we have too much gas and too much of everything. In northern Ontario we pay over 49 cents for a gallon of ordinary grade gasoline, and we pay 51.9 cents for grade one gasoline. It would appear to me that there probably is quite a spread between the cost of the production of the gas that is exported across the border into the Chicago area and the gas that reaches me in northern Ontario. I looked up the Canadian Statistical Review, which is probably a pretty shoddy way of finding out how much petroleum products is exported and how much is imported because it is not broken down in a way which would give you that information. If we were more closely conversant with the various factors in those condensates we would probably come up with a little more accurate figure. The committee was told that in its natural form these products are made up of about six parts condensates, one part butane and one part propane, and when they are processed through the plants the various condensates end up as four parts condensates, one part butane and one part propane. We were also told that they were a very high type product; they are the basis for high grade gasolines and oils; they are a competitive product with crude oil that is being imported into the country.
It was interesting, in looking at this copy of the Canadian Statistical Review, dated January, 1961, to find out that with respect to petroleum products, in 1958 we exported $6.4 million worth; in 1959 we exported $6.7 million worth, but at the same time we imported $6.5 million worth in 1958; and $6.5 million worth in 1959, of the same petroleum products. This would indicate to me that there is a large market in Canada for these products. If we are importing petroleum
[Mr. Peters.l
products to this extent, then there is an opportunity for processing some of these products into gasoline and oil, and that is what I am particularly concerned about.
Northern Ontario is completely a natural resources area. It has no major secondary industry development; it has had very little in the way of transportation. We are not blessed with any large bodies of water or other natural geographic features to enable us to be anything other than a natural resources storehouse, and this area has produced very little industry over the years other than industries based on the natural resources. In this respect, our resources are phenomenal and have contributed to the development of such cities as Toronto, but we get very little benefit from the production of our natural resources. In the very early days perhaps there was some justification for the buccaneers coming in and exploiting our natural resources.
People from the Ottawa valley have come into our area and cut down the trees. They have floated them down the waterways and taken them out of the area completely. It is advantageous for some to say, "Let us take the condensates out of the area; we have no plants that will manufacture them". A secondary industry development is necessary to put these petroleum products on the market in a form in which they can be used. We in northern Ontario have not this development. I for one would not like to see other areas develop where exploiters would come in and exploit the area. We should do everything we can to see secondary industry developed as close as possible to the source of the natural resource.
If it is necessary to spend $15,000 to build this pipe line, then goodness gracious, surely the Canadian people could afford to do this, if it would give them the key to the complete control of the Alberta oil fields and the export markets. If this is the gateway into the export market, then let us get control of this and export only what we cannot develop for ourselves.
I think we should learn a lesson from other areas. Let us look at northern Quebec where we have a fabulous iron industry, as we have a fabulous oil industry in Alberta. This country is not getting much advantage out of the iron industry in northern Quebec. It is true that a few miners are employed, and the few people who are connected with the development that takes place in this type of industry. If we had kept the gateway of Seven Islands we would have the largest steel mills in the world situated in that area. I think the same is true with respect to these condensates, if we took control of them. If

they are as important as they appear to be, let us keep them in Canada and develop them as far as we can in Canada. Let us sell the finished product to the United States public who will be demanding it as they are demanding other natural resources. I think it is this simple.
In recent months I have been impressed with some of the statements that have come from the Conservative hierarchy in which they have said, "Let us put some control on the exploitation that is taking place by the use of United States capital. Let us retain some of these advantages for the benefit of the Canadian people." This matter has not only been discussed. A few controls were instituted not long ago with regard to the establishment of companies and that may be in part the reason why Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company did not itself ask for a charter that would have extended its rights and allowed it to construct this pipe line. These controls may have had some effect and it may be of interest to some of the financial geniuses to sit down and figure out how much less money will be derived from taxation because of the establishment of this new company than would have been the case if the development had been carried out by the parent company or one of the other companies participating in this development along with the parent company.
In my opinion these are all problems that cannot be dealt with by the national energy board. It has been said that the national energy board is going to make the final decision on a number of these matters. That is true but it cannot make any decision on where we put secondary industry in Canada. If we have secondary industry the board can only decide that a certain amount of the product must be available to Canadian plants and for Canadian development. If we are to do our duty in parliament we must put some roadblocks in the way of those from outside this country who would exploit us so that we will be able to develop our own products. I think the national energy board then has all the authority it needs to see that industry we establish on the Canadian side of the border will be able to function to some advantage.
We have heard a great number of charges levelled today about whether there was a proper hearing when the bill was considered by the standing committee. I was surprised at the vote that took place in that committee. I am not disclosing anything that is not known. I was not a member of that committee and the fact is reported in the procedings of the committee. I was interested to see that again in my opinion party lines were drawn so as to forestall a number of members who
Private Bills
wished to have a delay which would have allowed the chairman of the committee an opportunity to ascertain whether the opposition, the Pembina group, was interested in appearing before the committee and opposing the bill.
I think this is again an example of one of the great failings in the functioning of committees of the House of Commons. We do not have any source of making information available to people who might be involved and in many cases we do not know who is involved. I think many members of the standing committee were surprised when they found a member of their own party standing up in that committee-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the Chair will support me when I say that the hon. member is entirely out of order at this time in speaking about the general conduct of the committee.


William Arnold Peters: I was not a member of the committee. I was present as a member of the general public and I fail to see how I am bound through participation in the committee when I was not a member of it.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that what the hon. member has been doing is perfectly in order. He has been referring to a decision made in the committee. That decision is public knowledge. It has to do with the bill under discussion. All afternoon there have been repeated references, and very properly so, to evidence taken before the committee and to decisions taken by the committee. I realize that an hon. member cannot impute motives and I do not think that is what the hon. member was doing, but surely a reference to a decision of the committee having to do with the bill now before us is very much in order.


Jacques Flynn: It is permissible to quote from the evidence given in a committee but the hon. member knows it is not permissible to discuss any decision taken by the house or by a committee or to refer to the conduct of hon. members in a committee or in the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Surely if the decision in the committee has to do with this measure it is quite proper to refer to what happened in the committee. It would be a very foolish rule that would allow us to refer to the evidence leading up to a decision but would make it impossible for us to refer to the decision. The motion moved in the committee had to do with the bill now under discussion and I suggest that the hon. member is very much in order.

Private Bills


William Arnold Peters: I should like to suggest that the hon. member for Edmonton West jumped to a conclusion with regard to what I was saying. I did not intend to mention how anybody voted. What I was referring to was the fact that in my opinion the committee does not have the power I think it should have with respect to allowing people to come forward and oppose a measure. In this regard perhaps I might refer to the miscellaneous private bills committee. In that committee we have never been able to ascertain to our own satisfaction that the people involved in various measures have necessarily been served with the proper notices. In the case of the bill now before us we did not know who the participants were going to be. I point out that one member appeared as a participant in opposition to the bill and that this was a surprise. In all fairness I think I should point out that the chairman of the standing committee would have no opportunity of knowing that this particular gentleman should be notified that there was going to be a hearing on this particular day. In this case the hon. member in question has informed us that he did know about the hearing but this would not apply generally.
I suggest, for instance, that if Husky Oil had been interested in this matter they would not have known about the hearing. I presume that most companies do not subscribe to Votes and Proceedings and would not see much advantage in subscribing to it. If we are to take it that Votes and Proceedings contains notice to a company as to an opportunity to oppose an application, I think we can be certain that the company would not find out until the hearing had been held and the information had been made public.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Before the recess hour, Mr. Chairman, we were trying to point out that this type of application has implications that are far-reaching, that there is a difference of opinion and that the difference of opinion is rather a fundamental one. We are trying to make our position clear. Our position is that this is a large natural resource that is being tapped; that although this company has made application for a small and inconsiderable program, it comes to parliament and asks for wide powers for a large corporation and that this can be a large and influential segment of our economy as it affects the oil industry.

A great deal of responsibility has been left with the national energy board. I think most of us can and do agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East when he pointed out that in setting up this particular company you are setting up a new type of distribution that is going to have only as the basis of its initial program the distribution of oil not through Canada but into the export market of the United States.
Some of the hon. members who have participated in this debate have pointed out the Canadian content in this particular company and how it is comprised. I believe that we have an obligation, particularly in view of the many statements that have been made from the Conservative party and the C.C.F. party. I believe that, from the C.C.F. point of view, consideration should and must be given to using our national resources for the advantage of all Canadians and that, from the Conservative party's point of view, greater consideration should be given to Canadian control and Canadian ownership. In both these respects this company fails to meet the requirements.
We have been told that the national energy board will protect both these interests, that all we have to do is to pass this bill and we shall have accomplished only the setting up of a company or a corporate body, and that then the national energy board and the conservation board of the province of Alberta will make the decision as to whether it is in the interests of the Canadian economy or of the Canadian people and as to the extent of the export licence that this company will be given. I think it is interesting to note however, what has been said about the application of the energy board act to this particular company. The sponsor of the bill, as reported at pages 37 and 38 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee, quotes part of the National Energy Board Act, refers to Section 27 and states as follows:
Section 27 says:
Except as otherwise provided in this act, a company shall not begin the construction of a section or part of a pipe line until
(a)	the board has by the issue of a certificate granted the company leave to construct the line.
In this respect we have been told what has been done by this company which just does not exist in fact, although the sponsor of the bill talked about the flexibility of the law, the flexibility of legal arguments and certain other flexibilities. This company does not and will not exist until this bill is passed. Yet they have already gone to one of the boards, namely the board in Alberta and have asked for certain considerations. However, actually in fact there is no such company.


An hon. Member:: In that respect it is just like the new party.


William Arnold Peters: There may be some similarity; I do not know.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hope not.


William Arnold Peters: There is the analogy that both of them are meeting with stiff competition before they are born. There may be some similarity in that respect. Then he goes on to show what is necessary; and I am quoting from the statement of the sponsor of the bill:
Section 44 sets out the kind of evidence which shall go before the board:
The board may, subject to the approval of the governor in council, issue a certificate in respect of a pipe line or an international power line if the board is satisfied that the line is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity, and, in considering an application for a certificate, the board shall take into account all such matters as to it appear to be relevant, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the board may have regard to the following:
(a)	the availability of oil or gas to the pipe line, or power to the international power line, as the case may be;
(b)	the existence of markets, actual or potential;
(c)	the economic feasibility of the pipe line or international power line.
On those three points, when and if this bill is passed and if this company is formed, the board is going to have a great deal of difficulty in assessing even the limited information that is now before the committee. We have by law set up one organization in this field of public utility. We have set up an organization which came before us and asked for a distribution and collection system of pipe lines that fairly well covered the whole area and which at that time indicated that it could more than meet the supply that was available at the time. Now we are increasing the decision that will have to be made by the board because we are saying to the energy board, in effect, that we feel that one company was not able to meet one of the requirements and that the second company was needed. We are also deciding that we are having to have a second company because of the existence of markets either actual or potential. If we have not filled the markets which the original company agreed to fill, I would think that we are giving to the national energy board a direction to the effect that here is another company that must be given part of the potential that may arise in the future.
As to the economic feasibility of the pipe line, if it is only a matter of $15,000, I think even the Canadian government could afford at this time to build that small section of the pipe line. I therefore assume that with a large company having the opportunity and 90205-6-171
Private Bills
the resources of revenue that they obviously have and the money that is available for pipe lines, there is not much question that they will be given the opportunity under this section to produce the line. The sponsor of the bill then goes on to say this:
And this is one of the points you raised.
(d)	the financial responsibility and financial structure of the applicant, the methods of financing the line and the extent to which Canadians will have an opportunity of participating in the financing, engineering and construction of the line;-
Under section (e) parliament stated, when setting up the national energy board, that it would have the right to choose as follows:
(e)	any public interest that in the board's opinion may be affected by the granting or the refusing of the application.
I would assume that the national energy board would take into consideration the fact that we have decided there should be a second company competing with the first one in this particular field. They would have no alternative but to say, "If the government is going to give them a licence to set up a new company, we are going to have to give them a licence to allow them to make some use of this particular company".


Mr. Fairfield:: Are you advocating a change in the powers of the national energy board?


William Arnold Peters: I do not think we ever intended to give the national energy board the right to say what was in the interests of the Canadian people from one period of time to another. I should think that when the legislation was passed setting up the national energy board the Conservative party was not on this anti-American kick that they are on now. Times change and direction changes. I assume that parliament itself is the body that should decide what is to be accomplished, and it should not be left to a board to make that decision.


Mr. Brunsden:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member is imputing that the Conservative party has certain underlying motives with respect to the oil and gas industry in western Canada.
This is a bill to incorporate a company. We have a national energy board. As far as we on this side are concerned, we have every confidence that the national energy board will take care of the various problems referred to it in the best interests of all Canadians. I very much resent the implication of the hon. member with respect to what this government may have in mind.


An hon. Member:: Is this a speech or a point of order?


Edwin William Brunsden: It is a point of order.

Private Bills


William Arnold Peters: I believe parliament should be supreme in deciding what the position is going to be in relation to the wishes of the Canadian people. We, as the representatives of the people, should interpret the wishes of the people and make changes if necessary. But a board is not in a position to make these changes.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, we are taking this opportunity to make our views known-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Very interesting.


Edwin William Brunsden: As always.


Hazen Robert Argue: -on this bill. We are doing our part to point out the weaknesses in the legislation before the committee, the reason why this bill should not be passed and the fact that the government in recent years has completely changed its attitude to legislation of this kind.
I think the bill now before the committee should not be here at all. When we were discussing the bill on second reading some of us pointed out what we thought to be very great weaknesses in it. We were told by some hon. members opposite that the bill was merely to set up a corporate entity, that it had nothing to do with policy and that it was merely for the establishment of a company that, under certain other laws and regulations, would appear before the national energy board.
We were also told that second reading of the bill was not the stage at which to obtain detailed information about the company. We were told that the proper place for this to be done was in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines where all information would be made available, where witnesses would be called, where hon. members would be given every opportunity to inquire into the bill, to obtain particulars of the proposed company to be incorporated and, in general, to satisfy themselves that this legislation was in the interests of the people of this country.
That committee met. Very little evidence was adduced and very little opportunity was given to hon. members to find out the details of the measure involved or to find out to their satisfaction whether this legislation should be passed. But there was some information obtained in the committee, and if there had been any doubt about United States control before the committee met, there was certainly no doubt after the evidence of Mr. K. H. Burgis, the vice president of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company.

Mr. Burgis had this to say in his opening remarks:
The application for incorporation of Aurora Pipe Line Company is being sponsored by Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited. Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited was incorporated under the laws of Canada in 1926 and its shares are listed on the Toronto stock exchange. Approximately 10 per cent of its outstanding shares are owned by some 12,000 public shareholders, 22 per cent by the Hudson's Bay Company and 68 per cent by Continental Oil Company.
Therefore, the fact is on record that we are dealing with a company which is largely United States-owned and which is and will be largely United States controlled. Hon. members opposite are saying to us that this is not government policy, the government has not given its stamp of approval to this legislation. I suggest that the government has approved of this legislation. I suggest that the government clearly demonstrated that it is 100 per cent behind the legislation, in that when the vote was taken on second reading the cabinet lined up solidly in support of this measure.
This is a rather startling disclosure in light of the stand taken by the Conservative party when in opposition. Not only did the Conservative party in opposition oppose United States control of companies like this one, but when the Conservative party was in opposition it opposed measures which had to do with this very company in question and went on record in opposing this kind of United States control.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not nonsense at all; that is a fact.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A fact to you is not a fact to anybody else.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Conservative party has had many leaders in the past; they change quite regularly. In 1956, when they had one of the temporary leaders of that party, the Hon. George Drew, he had this to say, as reported at page 2177 of Hansard:
The present distribution of the ownership of this enterprise shows also that the control is in the hands of financial interests in the United States; that it is definitely under the control of these immensely powerful financial interests: Canadian Gulf, Hudson Bay Oil and Gas and Tennessee Gas Transmission,-
These were the all-powerful United States companies that were so opposed by the Hon. George Drew in his day but which are taken to the bosom of the Conservative party in power. This company is given the blessing of the government and the great battle put up by Mr. Drew in former years has gone by the board. This government, in practice and

in office, has disowned and disclaimed everything that he said in relation to United States control of gas pipe lines.
The Hon. George Drew went on to say this in regard to the same question:
Contrary to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said, this is the occasion to focus attention on our resources. This is the only place to do so and this is the opportunity to declare our economic independence of the United States.
That was the song in opposition. The theme in government is, ostensibly, the same but actions speak louder than words and the party in power is now prepared to turn over this pipe line monopoly to a United States company.


George Clark Fairfield: Would the hon. member permit a question? I wonder if he would mind reading the rest of Mr. Burgis' evidence at page 35 of the proceedings in so far as voting rights are concerned.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I may conclude my sentence, I should be very glad to comply with the request which has been made. I was saying that the government in power is now turning over this monopoly to a group of United States interests controlled by the Texas buccaneers to which the government made such grave objections in days gone by.
Now I am asked to read from Mr. Burgis' evidence following the quotation I have made. This is from Mr. Burgis:
Despite the disparity in shareholdings of Hudson's Bay Company and Continental Oil Company, each have by agreement equal voting rights and equal representation on the board of directors. The present board of directors consists of three Canadian directors representing the Hudson's Bay Company, three American directors representing Continental Oil Company, two Canadian directors representing the public shareholders and two senior officers of the company.
Having regard to the distribution of the shares and the measures for the control of the company as they have been set forth, there is no doubt that this company will be United States controlled as well as United States owned.
I had expected that this committee in dealing with this legislation would have held a great many hearings and would have called to appear before it a great many witnesses so that all the details of such an important bill might be inquired into. Unfortunately this is not what occurred. Those of us who are not members of the committee learned this afternoon that the proceedings of the committee during a substantial part of the time were not recorded and transcribed, with the result that the evidence as far as we are concerned is just hearsay evidence. No record was kept, and the hon. members on that committee did not take action soon 90205-6-1714
Private Bills
enough to have that evidence taken down in order that members of the house might have the advantage of the record before them. This certainly makes a mockery of the statement made on second reading that the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines would provide an opportunity to bring forth evidence so that hon. members on all sides of the house might be able to peruse it and learn all the details about the company which was to be incorporated. I am flabbergasted that the committee has been so slipshod in its proceedings, or that the committee should have been so disinterested-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sure the hon. member realizes that he is criticizing the proceedings of the committee. That is contrary to our rules.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think I went a little far under the rules when I said they had taken a slipshod attitude. That expression might be a good one for horse dealers but it is not good as far as a committee of the house is concerned. I will say, then, that apparently this committee did not consider this legislation of sufficient importance to think it worth while having all the evidence transcribed. I would say that the committee failed to perform its functions in such a way as would be most helpful-perhaps that might be in order, Mr. Chairman-to hon. members of the house. It is one thing to be able to go over evidence that is available; it is quite another to have evidence given of which no record at all has been kept.
I do not understand why the committee was not prepared to call additional witnesses. I do not understand why the committee was in such a terrible rush to get this legislation back to the house unless, perchance, it was because if it were sent back soon, or immediately, the legislation would not be dealt with at very great length and thus, in the opinion of the sponsor, have a much greater chance of being passed during the current session.
None of us, I am sure, is happy or would prefer to use private members' days to discuss private bills at very great length but we are not masters of the rules. The rules are as they exist in the various editions of Beauchesne and we must govern ourselves accordingly. So we have the opportunity during this whole day to discuss this bill and its provisions and the very great lack of evidence of a worth while nature which has come from the committee to this chamber. We all know that this company is not designed to do something which could not have been done if the company had not been brought into existence. We

Private Bills
are all aware that there is another company involved in the same field-the Pembina company.


An hon. Member:: Are you in favour of the other company?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not in favour of one company as against the other.


Edwin William Brunsden: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Gladly.


Edwin William Brunsden: I want to ask one cardinal question. Is the hon. member in favour of marketing this tremendous resource of the province of Alberta provided only that no expense to the federal treasury is incurred, or does he wish to retain it for posterity?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a very pertinent question and it was put very directly by an hon. member who is probably the most persistent questioner in the house. Certainly he runs interference with most members who are speaking.
The answer is simple. We are in favour of marketing all the surplus of Canada's natural resources on a planned basis in such a way that will bring the greatest benefit for this and future generations. We are not only in favour of marketing those resources now, where there are surpluses, and net surpluses; we are in favour of getting the greatest possible return for the Canadian people and we are interested in marketing those resources in such a way as to avoid selling out our country to United States interests and United States pipe line companies. We are no more interested in 1961 in selling our country to these pipe line operators than were the Conservatives when they were in opposition in 1956. The main difference is that the Tories have changed their policy and we have insisted on maintaining ours.


Mr. Smith (Winnipeg North):: Is the hon. member suggesting that by passing this bill we are indeed sanctioning the marketing of these resources?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, when the government majority, sometime during this session, pushes this legislation through the house I suggest that they will be taking a course that is not the most preferred one, a course that is not necessary, and one which will in fact be insulting to parliament and to the Canadian nation.


William Murray Smith: Would the hon. member make a comment as to the national energy board in that same regard?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the national energy board is apparently bailing out the

Tory party from all the mistakes it is making in regard to this particular measure. I do not think the responsibilities of the members of parliament can be foisted on the national energy board. I am speaking of the responsibilities of the members of parliament to examine bills coming before this house, and the responsibility to decide whether or not a given company should be incorporated. After we have made that decision the national energy board will make its own subsequent decision.
I suggest that this measure before the committee should not be passed. I suggest that it be turned down in the interests of Canadians. I suggest that there are alternative means by which the fuel products involved can be marketed and we can do more in the interests of Canadians by turning down this bill at this time than we shall do by passing it.
Mr. Chairman, the bill was before the committee and was apparently given some consideration. I am unaware of any presentation urging amendments to this proposed legislation. I am not aware of any amendment at all being suggested by the committee. I would suggest that the committee gave, in a very hurried manner, a rubber stamping to this legislation, and hurried it back to the house but failed to bring forward the kind of information that was in order.


Edwin William Brunsden: On a point of order. When the hon. member refers to the committee rubber stamping the desire of the government he certainly is not in accordance with the practices of parliament.


Jacques Flynn: I have warned the hon. gentleman that he should not speak disrespectfully of any decision made by the committee or the members thereof. I would ask him again to be more careful in his wording.


Hazen Robert Argue: Perhaps I should not use the words "rubber stamping". I should use the words that were used so often by the Hon. George Drew, "trained seals". There is considerable evidence that they did not need the party line laid down for them by the whip in the house, they were able to gather from the united stand of the cabinet which way the party winds were blowing, and the bill had no difficulty whatsoever in the committee.


Edwin William Brunsden: I rise on a question of personal privilege. The hon. gentleman is calling me a trained seal. I am not a trained seal. I am just as independent in my thinking as is any member of the hon. member's party. I am interested in developing western Canada's oil and gas industries. I am trying

to approach this problem very dispassionately and will not accept the hon. member's suggestion that my thinking is done for me by someone else.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment. The hon. member for Medicine Hat very strenuously objects to being called a trained seal. I apologize. He is an untrained seal who is learning very quickly. I think if he is here much longer he will be a trained seal, and will be just as efficient as the hon. members of the previous administration who were accused so often by the Hon. George Drew of being trained seals.


Jacques Flynn: I would suggest that the hon. member in correcting his first remark has made it worse and would warn him to be more careful. If I understood him correctly in his first remark he referred to a group generally. I did not think he was referring to the members of the committee. If he did so this would be too specific a remark. In apologizing to the hon. member for Medicine Hat I feel he has gone too far and would suggest that an appropriate rectification is in order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I think that I was in error if I applied this terminology to the members of the committee because it has much broader application. This applies to the members of the government party opposite who, in a few short months in office, have become just as well trained as the seals in in the former administration as they were referred to by the then leader of the opposition.
The bill before us deals with the incorporation of the Aurora Pipe Line Company. Some of us thought this company was going to build a pipe line 41 miles in length. We now find that it is going to build a pipe line one half a mile long. We thought that this was a measure-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: May I ask the hon. member a question.


Hazen Robert Argue: When I sit down.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: A few minutes ago the hon. member was talking about a pipe line that this party dealt with some years ago. How much difference in mileage is there between these two lines and where are the lines heading for?


Hazen Robert Argue: I would think if the hon. member wanted to he would find it much easier to oppose this little joining one half a mile in length which is so important to this country than opposing the trans-Canada pipe line. Surely if the principle was bad in 1956 the principle is just as bad today.
Private Bills
I was suggesting that we thought-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The pipe line considered in 1956 was to go into the United States and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec would have received no oil at all if the government at that time had its way. This little gathering line does not amount to very much.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is a little gathering line all right and is going to gather something: 700,000 common shares and 60,000 preferred shares as well as a most fabulous amount of money to build a half a mile of pipe line. This company is not content with building the pipe line. They do not want to build just half a mile of pipe line. Incidentally, I thought the witness when appearing before the committee was in contempt of that committee and parliament in saying as follows, as reported at page 43, when asked a question by the hon. member for Acadia, and I am glad at this time that I can quote that hon. member. This reads as follows:


Hugh Macarthur Horner: There is one question which comes to my mind: Did Aurora Pipe Line oppose the Foothills application before the Alberta oil and gas conservation board last week?


Mr.   Burgis@: Yes sir, we did.
This parliament has not passed this bill incorporating the company but we find its officer has already testified before the oil and gas conservation board. Representatives of this company have given evidence. The hon. member for Vancouver South this afternoon said that the contract to construct the line had been let. We have not passed this bill yet but the company has appeared before the Alberta conservation board, according to their own witness, and he should know. I was not there to twist his arm or to put words in his mouth. He made the reply "Yes sir, we did". This afternoon we are told that the company has already let the contract for the construction of the pipe line. This is contempt of parliament.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member permit a question. Is he suggesting that Aurora has let the tender for the pipe line of the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company for the 41 miles or does he know the difference?


Hazen Robert Argue: The Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company owns this little company, does it not?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are absolutely wrong.


Hazen Robert Argue: This company has not been spawned yet. However, it has already appeared before the conservation board. It has not yet been born but it is giving evidence. The hon. gentleman who sponsors the bill asks, "Don't you know that the company

Private Bills
that is letting the contract for the 41 miles is the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited and that the half mile is to be built by the Aurora Pipe Line Company?"


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman-


Hazen Robert Argue: I was asked a question and I propose to answer it. I do not mind a question but I dislike questions superimposed upon others. Oh, Mr. Chairman, the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited has let a contract-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Are you sure of that?


Hazen Robert Argue: in the words of the hon. member for Vancouver South, to build 41 miles of line down to the point where it meets the half mile, and they have so much faith in the legal efficiency of my hon. friend from Bow River who is sponsoring this bill in such a fine parliamentary fashion that they know the rubber stamps will be put on the right places and that they are running no risk at all in letting a contract for 41 miles of pipe line, the economic existence of which requires this house to pass this bill.
I think Mr. Burgis was in contempt of parliament, if what he says is in fact correct, namely that the Aurora Pipe Line Company, before its incorporation, appeared before the Alberta oil and gas conservation board to give evidence.
We think this bill is bad on many counts. We feel that it should not be passed by the committee at this time, but that a great deal of examination should be carried out and much more evidence given before hon. members agree to pass the legislation at all.
The hon. member for Calgary South told the committee what in his opinion was the duty of the committee. In questioning another hon. member, he said:
Do you not feel, therefore, that you should reserve the right to make a decision on these technical problems?
United States ownership is a technical problem. I continue with the quotation:
Do you think that you, as a member of parliament, are qualified to pass judgment on this?
The answer reads:
I do not think I am qualified to pass on the technical aspects. However, 1 took an interest in this; I went to the hearings before the Senate, and I was here during the hearings on the Foothills bill. I am not speaking with any expert knowledge, but I think it is my right as a member of parliament, when this comes before us, to pass my judgment and to object.
I think there is every reason why hon. members of the committee should object, not only to the terms of this bill but to the way in which it is being proceeded wivh at this time.

A very simple motion was put before the committee which asked that since witnesses could not come from the Pembina Pipe Line at the time, that the proceedings of the committee should be postponed for a week in order to give interested parties the privilege of appearing before the committee at the adjourned meeting. This motion was turned down; the guillotine was applied; closure was applied at the committee stage and no further evidence was called.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but, according to the standing orders, his time has expired.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hope I can be brief this evening. As sponsor of the bill I should like in my introductory remarks to say that this bill is sponsored by me as an individual member of parliament. It has nothing to do with the government or other hon. members except that I seek their support for the incorporation of a company having to do with the petroleum industry in Alberta. When any of the hon. members who have spoken today say that this is a government-sponsored bill I want to assure them that in sponsoring this bill I am doing so as an individual member of parliament.
It seems to me that the criticism of this bill boils down to two points. I should like to answer both of these points individually. If I understand my good friends who have spoken against the bill, it seems to me they are opposed to it because they find that there are United States interests behind the company which is asking for the incorporation of the company in question. Second, if I understand their arguments aright, they are against the export of the by-products of natural gas from Alberta.
Let me deal with the first point first, and I do so sincerely. I appeal to hon. members. I emphasize that we are merely asking for the incorporation of a company. Whether hon. members like it or not, in 1959, when the National Energy Board Act came before the house, hon. members supported it. I should like briefly to review the sections of the act which they supported. Whether they like it or not, or whether they stand in their places tonight and say that we are going to hand over this particular jurisdiction, the facts are that, according to the National Energy Board Act, they did in fact and in law hand over that particular jurisdiction to the national energy board.


William Arnold Peters: Now we are taking it back.


Hazen Robert Argue: We are exercising that right now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not want to get into an argument; it my hon. friends will hear me out, they have asked for some information and they will get that information. If they will listen to me I will endeavour to set out some of the facts and I will try to do it in the most courteous manner I know how. I am not going to get into any political argument with my hon. friends. They have asked for information and if they will hear me out I will endeavour to give that information to the best of my ability as a backbencher in this house.
I want to go back to my original argument before there was a digression and deal particularly with three sections of the National Energy Board Act, namely sections 10, 27 and 44. As I said before, when I spoke on second reading of this bill, section 10 of the National Energy Board Act sets out that the board is a court of record. As I said on that occasion, a court of record hears evidence either by documents, verbal evidence or any other kind of evidence, and from that evidence it makes certain decisions. What is the decision that the national energy board makes? It makes this decision. It decides whether the company can have a certificate to build a pipe line, whether a half mile, 41 miles or how many miles it is. That is the specific function of the national energy board as set out in the National Energy Board Act which all hon. members, I believe-and if I am wrong I wish somebody would correct me-supported in this House of Commons in 1959.
What does section 27 say, Mr. Chairman? Section 27 says that provided the evidence is satisfactory-and I am not going to go into what kind of evidence is necessary-then a certificate can be granted to build a pipe line. If there are four or five applicants certain considerations arise and I want to come to that point in a few moments.
We have heard a lot about Foothills Pipe Line Company-this seems to be the darling of the C.C.F. or of somebody-and they come before the national energy board and they set out the facts. They say that 95 per cent, if that is the correct figure, is capitalized by Canadians. Our company has set out the facts honestly and fairly-I do not think anyone can deny that-that 68 per cent of the stock of the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited will be owned by Continental Oil Company of the United States of America and 22 per cent by Hudson's Bay Company and 10 per cent by the public at large. These are the facts taken into consideration. If these facts meet the standard set by the national energy board whose chairman is Mr. McKinnon, who was for years chairman of
Private Bills
the Alberta conservation board, then someone, a pipe line company, will get a certificate to build a pipe line. That is the first point.
Let us look at the kind of evidence that has to be produced under section 44. I am not going to go over all of it but one of the most important things that have been emphasized in this argument-and I come right back to the first point I talked about-is the question of United States financial interest in this particular company if it is granted incorporation by parliament. Under subsection (d) of section 44 the board must have regard to the question of financial responsibility. That will be considered. It must have regard to the financial structure of the applicant. That will be considered. It must have regard to the methods of financing the line. That will be considered. It must have regard to the extent to which Canadians will have an opportunity of participating in the financing, engineering and construction of the line. That will be considered.
Those are the functions of the national energy board which was established by the members of this house, and all supported, the board's creation and jurisdiction. When they supported it they created a court of record to consider these things in a technical manner, in a manner in which all the evidence and all the pros and cons are weighed. If the national energy board considers that one company has more Canadian financing that is one of the ingredients that will be taken into account. In fact, it is not one of the ingredients that may be taken into account. Using "may" in the sense of "shall", the act says it is one of the ingredients that shall be taken into consideration.
Let us get down to the facts of the line itself. It is true that it is half a mile of line. In order to comply with the regulations and the National Energy Board Act, which embraces part of the old Pipe Lines Act, it was necessary for us, being interested in this particular project, to come forward and ask parliament to incorporate a company to build a particular pipe line. If this company is incorporated by parliament and their application is approved by the national energy board, then Hudson's Bay, of course, would consider the building of 41 miles of pipe line. No one in their right sense would suggest tonight that they would commence to build the line first before this company was incorporated and until their application had been approved by the national energy board to build the half mile of line joining the Canadian line across the boundary with the United States line.
Let us get down to facts. We have heard a lot about facts today. I think true facts are very important. Never in my life have

Private Bills
I listened to any set of facts usurped or twisted as they have been today with reference to this particular application. There is no question in my mind that the facts have been usurped and twisted, and in my opinion this is just proof of one thing. It is proof that the seven or eight hon. members in the corner are going to conduct a filibuster and talk out the bill so the company will not be incorporated. That is why I say the facts have been usurped.
I have heard the hon. member for Assini-boia make the same speech on several occasions and his effort was much worse tonight than on previous occasions. He talked about letting the contract for 41 miles of pipe line. He was whistling Dixie. He has whistled Dixie in this house bef ore with regard to many other facts but tonight he was far more wrong than he generally is because he works in the house to get a good press. I went to university with him and occasionally he does get a good press but there is one thing about him that is most irresponsible in that he continually feeds the press a line of incorrect information, as he did tonight on several occasions, to get a good press for himself.


Hazen Robert Argue: I learned it from you in my early days.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad the hon. member for Assiniboia wants to talk. I can talk at the same time and just as loudly as he can. If he will bear with me, and I know he will, I want to read a letter dated March 3, 1961, addressed to me by Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited. The letter reads as follows:
I understand you have been advised that Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited has let a contract for the construction of its proposed pipe line from the Pincher Creek-Waterton area to the United States border.
That is the 41 miles of line about which we are talking.
I wish to advise you that this allegation definitely is not true, and that we do not now have, nor have we at any time in the past had, any commitments whatsoever to any contractor with respect to construction of this line.
In the event that we are awarded the necessary permits to construct our line, including the portion across the international border which would be owned by Aurora Pipe Line Company, it is our firm intention to follow our established policy-
What is that established policy?
-which is to use Canadian contractors, labour, materials and equipment to the greatest extent possible. We will call for competitive bids from Canadian pipe line contractors under the foregoing policy and will award the contract for construction of the line to a Canadian contractor.
Yet the hon. member for Assiniboia in opposing the bill tonight set out facts that were untrue or at least facts that he never tried to check or he would have never made the

statement he did. He could not have appeared before the committee and made under oath the same statements he made tonight because there are rules contained elsewhere that apply in such instances.


William Arnold Peters: Could I ask the hon. member a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not finished with the letter. Perhaps the hon. member will sit down and listen. He has wanted to hear the facts for two or three days and if he will listen he will learn because he has been misstating the facts up to now. I continue with the letter.
No construction of course can be undertaken unless favourable action on the required permits is taken by both the Alberta oil and gas conservation board and the national energy board.
The letter is signed by G. T. Pearson, president of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Vancouver South is not in his seat because I wish to answer a point he made in his speech this afternoon. He said that a contract, in referrence to the 41 miles of pipe line had been let to Fulton. That fact is untrue, and I am advised by the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company that the facts as set out by the hon. member for Assiniboia are untrue. His statements are not even a facsimile of the truth. Surely if you are going to oppose anything one of the first things you do is to get your facts straight. I want to go into the second part of what I wish to say.


William Arnold Peters: Will the hon. member permit a question now?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would you mind waiting until I finish? I have told you that before and I do not know how many times I will have to tell you again. You have been asking for facts and I am going to try to give you the facts because I have done considerable research. I try to put my mind in gear at the same time as my thinking processes, which the hon. member fails to do. Let us take a look at the by-product itself. For years the province of Alberta has been bulging with natural gas. In fact, the Borden commission found that there are 23 trillion, and some odd billion cubic feet of natural gas as a proven reserve in Alberta. As a by-product of natural gas there is condensate. We have heard a lot about these other by-products but again the facts have not been given by hon. members in the proper way.
What is condensate? I do not know whether there was a reporter present in the standing

committee at the time this was said. However, it was set out there that condensate is really crude petroleum. If ever a westerner stands indicted in his place tonight, it is with reference to any statement about keeping our crude petroleum within our borders in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Let us look at that matter for a few moments. Condensate will make one and a half times the gasoline that people use for their cars. We are only producing 50 per cent of our capacity in the petroleum industry today in the province of Alberta. We want to produce 100 per cent under the proper rules of conservation which we have.
I cannot believe that these people can be serious in wanting to keep 50 per cent of our petroleum production at home. Let me draw this analysis. Would you keep 50 per cent of your wheat at home in the bins when you can sell it or 50 per cent of your cattle in the foothills when you can sell them? Here is a by-product that we can sell, crude petroleum. Ever since I have been a member of the house we have been wanting to export crude petroleum to the United States. I have not been a member as long as the hon. member for Assiniboia. Experience is a wonderful thing and we can all gain it but some take longer than others and my hon. friend is no exception.
To come back to my point, we have been wanting to export crude petroleum to the northwest states in the United States. That is the very foundation of the national petroleum policy that was announced. If we cannot raise the market volume up to 600,000 or 800,000 barrels per day we are in trouble in our petroleum industry in western Canada. We are only asking that the condensate, which is really just plain ordinary crude, be exported across the line to the United States where it can be used in Montana and Oklahoma.
The hon. member for Vancouver East said that this was not fair to the province of Alberta. Let him go through the province of Alberta and talk to the residents of that province. They will decide what is fair for the province. They want to sell what they produce, whether it is wheat, cattle or petroleum.
I submit in all seriousness and in all sincerity that the thing that would be fair to Alberta is to export the commodities we have so that we can build up our trade and give full employment to our people in that province which enjoys fuller employment than any other province.
Let us now deal for a few moments with the other argument about United States financing. My good friends in the corner know as well as I do, Mr. Chairman, that the
90205-6-172
Private Bills
same companies that are developing the petroleum industry and likewise the natural gas industry in Alberta in the last few years, after long years of negotiation are developing the same industry in the province of Saskatchewan. The deals that are made in reference to petroleum are that a company on a gross basis gets 874 per cent of the profits and the government gets 12J per cent. That is the reason there has been a flourishing budget in the province of Alberta. That was the reason why, after long negotiations, and after losing out on drilling rigs in the province of Saskatchewan, Tommy Douglas began to realize that the petroleum policy of Alberta had something they wished they had. Now the same people, the only C.C.F. socialist government, are making deals in which 874 per cent of the gross profits go to those companies. I put it to him in all seriousness tonight, if he is serious and honest about the subject, that 87J per cent of these profits are going into companies which are United States companies. He knows it, I know it and my hon. friends in the corner know it. This talk we have heard is just plain hogwash and a red herring in order to smother this bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: Don't mix your metaphors.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't worry about my metaphors. I have seen you mix a lot of things and they have not been metaphors.
I now come back to one important thing, namely the question of whether this byproduct should be exported. I said that we are trying to gain the market in the northwestern states. Here is a company that comes forward legitimately-it is true that it has some United States interests; it is true that there is United States capital in it; we have not hidden anything in any way-and has asked to incorporate a company in order to be able to go before the national energy board, first to get leave to build a pipe line and, second to export through the pipe line a substance which is plain ordinary crude petroleum. The matter is just that simple. Yet we have heard all these facts on this subject and most of those facts have been obscured in that regard. Not one fact has been laid before the house in a straightforward way by the C.C.F.
Let us deal with this great lover boy of theirs, namely Foothills Pipe Line Company. This was their first love; it is hearts to them. I would refer them to an agreement which was signed on December 14, 1960. Who were the parties to this agreement? This is not something I am raising tonight for the first time. People in the public gallery or the press gallery might believe that this information did

Private Bills
not come out. This information was laid before hon. members in the standing committee which considered this bill. When they say that this was not fair and that was not fair, may I point out that one of their members asked only four questions. There was nothing to prevent him from asking 44 questions. If he had wanted knowledge, we had four of the finest experts from Alberta that could have been obtained. Those eight fellows in the corner of the chamber scream about the petroleum industry but they shut up like clams in the said committee and did not ask for information. What was the reason? The reason was that they wanted to do in this chamber exactly as they did today. They did not want the facts.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is the situation.


Hazen Robert Argue: How did you vote on the motion with regard to Pembina?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am going to quote from the agreement.


Hazen Robert Argue: Tell me how you voted. You voted for closure. You did not want answers. You moved the bill and then stopped discussion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, we all cannot talk at once. I know that you are having difficulty in hearing me.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not for lack of volume.


An hon. Member:: Send for Tim Buck; you need him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Who were the parties to this agreement? The parties were Pembina Pipe Line Ltd., Standard Oil Company of Indiana, Westalta Products Pipe Line Ltd., and Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd. On page 13 of this agreement, we find this. I have not time to read it tonight nor do I intend to read it. However, on page 13 we find that a little deal was entered into and that this matter came before the Alberta conservation board. It came to light by a slip of the tongue of one of their counsel who appeared before the Alberta conservation board.
What does it say? This is the C.C.F.'s first love; this is their only love of the pipe lines in this particular area. Provision was made that 50 per cent of the directors of Foothills Company must be from Standard Oil Company of Indiana-that is what the agreement says- and that 50 per cent must be Canadian and that the chief executive officers must be Americans. Here are these great Canadian supporters who are supporting Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd. when 50 per cent of the directors, as set out by the agreement, must be Americans. Are the Americans in control?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is false.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You may deny it now. You may deny all that was said this afternoon. However, the facts will speak for themselves because they are now on record.


Hazen Robert Argue: Red herrings.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The fact is that if they do not want Foothills to export condensate and do not want Aurora to export the condensate, then the C.C.F. want to keep it at home.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What do they want, then, Mr. Chairman? They cannot have their cake and eat it too.


Hazen Robert Argue: We want a publicly-owned company.


Frank Howard: The hon. member is just about as good as the Prime Minister. Let him keep it up.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is exactly what they want. They want the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan to go to bed with petroleum and natural gas just as Alberta went to bed with the coal because some Albertans were afraid that we did not have enough coal with which to look after the people in Alberta. The people were so few that it was necessary to have a six-man jury instead of a 12-man jury. The answer is that they have got to use either one company or another. But all their arguments are hogwash and I am going to come right back to the point from which I started. The fact is that all we are asking to do is to incorporate a company. What I submit is this. Suppose a company came to the House of Commons as petitioners and asked to incorporate a pipe line and did not say where they were going to build their pipe line. Is there anywhere anything in law that says that any of these members on that side of the house can suggest that the certificate of incorporation should be turned down? Is there anywhere anything in law that says that you must set out particularly where you are going to build the pipe line?


William Arnold Peters: If you do not do so, you will not get a licence.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The fact it that all we are asking for is this. We are petitioning parliament to incorporate a company. My hon. friends say we cannot do it because some United States money is being used. Let me say to my good friends that there are very few companies-I do not know the percentage but it would be negligible-that have not United States capital and British capital. Just as the United States was developed by British

and French capital, so is this country and particularly the petroleum industry of Alberta being developed by United States capital. To my hon. friends I say this as a private backbencher. I hope that capital continues to flow into the province of Alberta even if it dares not go into the province of Saskatchewan because it is frightened out by the socialists. If we had the socialists in power-


Frank Howard: Good old Social Credit.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We think we have problems of unemployment now. But if we had the socialists in power, in Canada or anywhere, they would drive out capital and we have no idea what would happen to our economy. What would the rate of unemployment be?
In conclusion may I just say this. I appeal to the common sense of the members of the House of Commons. We are merely asking- and I repeat this-for the incorporation of a company. All of these facts that have been argued and submitted by the C.C.F. Mr. Chairman, may I submit with the greatest respect to you, are out of order. The fact is that those facts, questioned by the C.C.F. come before the national energy board which has the jurisdiction to consider the matter; and before the application reaches that board it must receive approval from the Alberta conservation board.
We have those two boards set up by law, one by this parliament and we have not temporarily handed over any jurisdiction; we have handed over that job to the national energy board. They have their engineers; they have their technicians; they can weigh the pros and cons of the evidence.
When the hon. member for York North was asked, "Have you the knowledge in reference to this matter?" he said, "No, I have not". He answered fairly the question put by the hon. member for Calgary South. The fact is that the board was set up to decide these things.
I ask the hon. members in the far corner who have been filibustering to look at this bill. I ask them to make their statements in accordance with the facts in question and direct their arguments to the bill. When they say I should be ashamed of myself for presenting this bill, let me say to them that I am proud to bring forward a bill for freedom of enterprise and for the development of the industry in my home province. As the hon. member for Jasper-Edson said, "We have the roughnecks; we have this man and that man, all engaged in the petroleum industry. All these fellows are working in our industry. Keep it healthy, keep it competitive, and we will have a healthy economy in the province of Alberta".


William Arnold Peters: And keep it American.
90205-6-1724
Private Bills
(Translation):


Mr. Deschatelets:: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few brief remarks to make on this bill to incorporate the Aurora Pipe Line Company.
After the dispute that has been going on since the beginning of the afternoon between the partners of 1956, the C.C.F. socialists and the Progressive Conservative members, I think a few remarks are in order at this point.
What a strange reversal of things. During the discussion on a pipe-line, we hear once more the terms of filibuster, obstruction, guillotine, Texas buccaneers. Now, that C.C.F. filibustering reminds me of a proverb:
He who sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind.
Today, the Conservative government reaps what it has sown with both hands in 1956. It is appropriate to note that the C.C.F. party was schooled and trained by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) during a similar debate in 1956. As a matter of fact, it was when he was denouncing the "Texas buccaneers" that the desk of the hon. member for Eglinton was adorned with the union jack. But I would hardly think that the former associates of the Conservatives would go as far as that in ridicule today.
Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, the Progressive Conservatives have changed their policy. They now adore what they burnt in 1956. As far as we, Liberals who remained logical and consistent in our policy, are concerned, we denounce once again the confusion, and the lack of consistency and logic this Conservative government has shown in its various stands since 1956.
(Text):


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make just a few brief remarks regarding what was said by the hon. member for As-siniboia about this government changing its mind. He was referring to these hon. members changing their minds.
In May last year the hon. member's party supported the private member's bill to incorporate Northern Pipe Line Company. Who financed that company? The answer to that question is to be found right here in Hansard. At page 4379 of Hansard for May 31, 1960, the hon. member for Kindersley is reported as having said:
-the principal beneficial shareholder is Minnesota Pipe Line Company, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Delaware-
He went on to say that its principal office was located at Saint Paul, Minnesota. Certainly hon. gentlemen opposite did not oppose that bill at that time, and they now appear to be trying to paint a picture of consistency

Private Bills
in this regard. They are consistently painting a picture of a bunch of fools talking of something about which they know nothing.
The hon. member for Assiniboia said that the committee was ineffective and he deplored the ineffectiveness of the committee. He said it took no action whatsoever, it said very little and reported the bill back in a great rush. What part did the hon. member for Skeena play in the committee? As is reported at page 42 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence, he asked four simple questions when trying to review some statement made in the house at an earlier time. Four simple questions represent his great contribution to the committee. It may have been five; he may have asked another question somewhere else. But if the committee was ineffective, as has been said, why did not the members of that socialist party take a greater part in it? They had counsel with them. The hon. member for Timiskaming sat in the background listening to the proceedings and giving them his great counsel.
I would only say in conclusion that this bill differs greatly from the one debated in 1956, if I remember correctly, although I was not in the house at that time. The matter then under discussion was the trans-Canada pipe line and the government of that day suggested a loan of something like $380 million to a United States company. That question would have concerned me had I been in the house at that tune. There is no such question in this bill. This is a private company wishing to build a 41-mile pipe line, and there is no comparison whatsoever between this bill and the one debated in 1956.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make just one or two remarks in connection with what the hon. member has just said. He questioned the role which I played in the committee. He and others are usually quite pleased to accuse me of speaking too much.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have never accused you of that.


Frank Howard: Oh, oh, the hon. member says he has never accused me of speaking too much.


An hon. Member:: Hansard is telling stories again.


Frank Howard: Here, on the one occasion perhaps-and this is for the benefit of those who have made this accusation, untrue as it is-when I got to a committee to listen attentively to all the proceedings and to absorb as much as I can, the hon. member for Acadia jumps up and says I should have made just as big a fool of myself there as he is doing here. I can appreciate how he in particular,

and others, can get off on this wrong track. When it is not possible to justify a position, wild statements are made in this house.
I have only one further comment in connection with the remarks made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont. The hon. member referred to the inconsistencies apparent in the committee today.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Be careful now.


Frank Howard: I would say to my hon. friend that I am always careful, especially when I am speaking through you, Mr. Chairman, to such an astute and capable member. However, I would point out that the fact is that the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont belongs to a party that is consistent; it is consistently in favour of the Texas buccaneers, pirates, and so on, whom they favoured when they were in power.
I should like to make a comment or two about some of the things which the hon. member for Bow River so flamboyantly poured into this committee a while ago. The hon. member began by saying that he was going to provide us with some factual information. He wound up by saying that he was back where he started from. In the whole process he did not go anywhere. But he did make one very interesting comment. He used one very interesting-I wonder whether it is revealing-phrase when he was talking about the Foothills company, I believe it was, which would go before the national energy board, would have to prove certain things and produce certain information, and so on. Then he said, "Likewise our company", referring to Aurora Pipe Line Company, the company with which we are presently concerned. I think it is important that he should qualify what he means by "our company". Does he mean a company with which he is associated, if he is associated with it? Does he mean the company which is silently endorsed by the government? This is important because it could have a bearing on the voting of the hon. member on a previous occasion. If the hon. member meant by the phrase "our company" the Aurora Company or the Hudson's Oil Company, a company with which he is associated through share capital, then he should not have voted previously on this bill. This is one matter into which we should inquire immediately before we proceed any further. I think that possibly this was only a slip of the tongue and the hon. member is associated with this company simply by being the promoter of the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate the hon. member having brought this to my attention. If I did use the phrase "our company" I did

so as the sponsor of this measure only. I can assure the hon. member that I have no financial interest as far as this company is concerned and I certainly was not speaking for the government. I made that clear, and I think the hon. member knew exactly what I meant, too. But if he wishes me to clarify my statements I am always happy to do so because hon. members in that comer of the house are always so exact.


Frank Howard: The hon. member is jumping to conclusions if he imagines people can always understand what he means. The word "our" is capable of various interpretations but, as I said, it could have been a slip of the tongue.
I should like to point out one other thing to the hon. member for Bow River. The hon. member made reference to the national energy board as a great protective agency. He told us how it kept the interests of the Canadian people always in mind and implied that all we had to do was to follow his ideas blindly and say: this is a good company, and the energy board would then carry out whatever it has to carry out in the best interest of Canadians and everybody else.
The hon. member made reference to the National Energy Board Act, sections 10, 24 and 44. He referred also to those sections in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. In fact he quoted from them and read them into the record. There is an interesting part of this operation which was conveniently glossed over, but it is contained here in the act and it is, I think, worthy of consideration when people talk so much about the national energy board being paramount in these matters.
We are told that this agency is one which works independently in the best interests of Canada-that it is an entity to which certain authority has been given, that there is no interference with those powers, and so on. But what does section 44 say? I recall some objections being raised about this in committee of the whole when the national energy board bill was before parliament.
I am reading now from the evidence at page 38 and I am assuming that the hon. member for Bow River, when he read this, read correctly from the act. I am quoting now from his own statement of what the act contains. If I am wrong, I am sure the hon. member for Bow River will correct me, admitting at the same time, that the error was originally his. I read:
Section 44 sets out the kind of evidence which shall go before the board.
The board may, subject to the approval of the governor in council, issue a certificate in respect of a pipe line or an international power line if the board is satisfied-
Private Bills
And so on. So it is not the board which acts as the final agent in protecting the interests of Canada as we have been led to believe or misled into believing; it is the governor in council, or, in other words, the cabinet, which decides.
The board is not, in fact, an agent free of political interference. What could be easier than for this cabinet, this government, to have given its blessing already to the Aurora Pipe Line Company or Continental Oil or whoever their friends are in the United States oil industry, knowing full well it would have to appear before the board at which time the cabinet would approve the granting of permission to build a pipe line? All this talk about the board being an agency to protect the people of Canada is so much nonsense. It is the governor in council who is going to make the decisions, and I think that should be understood.
The hon. member for Bow River was generous in his accusations against the hon. member for Assiniboia. I see they are sitting close together now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't blame me for that.


Frank Howard: I know the hon. member for Assiniboia has aspirations to sit on those benches. Perhaps that is why the hon. member for Bow River is there too. In trying to seek out-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Frank Howard: In any event, the hon. member for Bow River did level in a generous way these accusations against the hon. member for Assiniboia. He accused the hon. member of not knowing what he was talking about. Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver South started all this. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Vancouver South, a member of the hon. gentleman's own party, was the first speaker today. It was he who said that Aurora Pipe Line Company had already let a contract for the half mile of pipe line. That contract was let to a firm named R. H. Fulton of Texas. This was the comment as I took it down while the hon. member for Vancouver South was speaking.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know the hon. member would not wish to be wrong about this but what I understood the hon. member for Vancouver South to say was that the contract had been let with reference to the 41-mile pipe line. In fact the hon. member had mentioned that to me outside the committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member is not a cabinet minister. He cannot speak from there.

Private Bills


An hon. Member:: A few moments of glory.


Frank Howard: I jotted down the words of the hon. member for Vancouver South and I took them to apply to Aurora Pipe Line. My note says that with regard to the half mile section to be built by that company a contract had been let to the R. H. Fulton Company, a Texas firm. It is true the hon. member did at the same time make reference to the 41-mile section and the two sentences were close together. It could have been he was referring to that. This is the question to which I think the hon. member for Bow River should have addressed himself instead of going off at a tangent and accusing the hon. member for Assiniboia of making incorrect statements.
The hon. member for Bow River was the one who left the impression a few days ago that the Pembina people had withdrawn their application to the Alberta gas and oil conservation board. The hon. member for Bow River left the impression by way of a question and because he left this impression by way of asking a question it was impossible for us to deal with it. We have since found that this was not a true impression. The hon. member for Bow River who sponsored this bill did not know what he was talking about in respect of at least one of these companies and for him, of all people, to accuse the hon. member for Assiniboia of making incorrect statements, particularly when that hon. member was basing his statement on the information given to this house by the hon. member for Vancouver South, is certainly very improper.
I suggest it is improper for the hon. member for Bow River to follow this procedure in presenting a bill to this house. It is also improper for that hon. member to level accusations against the members of this party in saying that we are supporting the Foothills company in favour of the Aurora company. It was made clear from the beginning that that suggestion was not to be read into our remarks. We are concerned, as I have said before, with that which is in the best interests of Canada, the oil industry and the general economy of the nation. We are concerned in regard to the rights of interested people and, in this instance, I am referring to the Pembina company.
It certainly was not in the best interests of that company when it was denied the right to appear before the committee of this house on February 21, 1961 when this matter was partially dealt with, even though this may have resulted from unfortunate circumstances. That is the type of thing we are concerned with. We do not feel it is simply a question of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing.

We have grave doubts and misgivings in regard to the Aurora company and the manner in which it has dealt with certain questions.
Certainly there are grave doubts raised by a letter dated January 10, 1961 appearing as appendix A to the minutes of proceedings of the standing committee. This letter was addressed to my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East and signed by Mr. James A. Scott, president of the Pembina Pipe Line Limited. The letter consists of two printed pages. I would like to read a portion to this committee so that all hon. members will be familiar with the situation outlined therein. I feel that I am entitled to read these portions because reference has been made to the Pembina pipe line company this afternoon and the request which was made regarding their appearance before this standing committee. I will read the last paragraph rather than just the sentences of importance so as to present the complete context. The last paragraph reads as follows:
Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited (Continental Oil Company) is now trying to compete with Pembina by offering to take the surplus gas by-product liquids-


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Hazen Robert Argue: You cannot rise on a point of order, you are in the wrong seat.


An hon. Member:: We are now in committee, and hon. members can speak from any seat.


Edwin William Brunsden: The hon. member for Skeena is confused as to the oil company. It is my impression that we are discussing the Aurora pipe line bill and I am wondering why we are now considering Pembina Pipe Line Limited.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I agree that perhaps the discussion regarding the Pembina company is not relevant but this subject was raised in the first instance by the hon. member for Vancouver South. It has been referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver East as well as by myself on earlier occasions. There has been ample reference to this company and I feel, Mr. Chairman, that if you enforce the rules strictly it would be unfair because we would then be left with an impression which is coloured or flavoured but not necessarily accurate. I would not be allowed to contradict those statements and we would be left with an improper comparison.


Jacques Flynn: I feel that the contention made by the hon. member for Skeena is an accurate one. I do not intend to ask him to refrain from discussing this particular matter but I must say that I feel the debate has

strayed from that which normally takes place in the consideration of a clause in a bill. 1 would say that almost every hon. member who has spoken in regard to this bill has been guilty of straying from the subject matter.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to go into this at great length but I would like to refer to the last paragraph because it bears relation to the company which the bill is designed to incorporate.
The last paragraph reads as follows:
Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited (Continental Oil Company) is now trying to compete with Pembina by offering to take the surplus gas by-products liquids from the extreme south of the province of Alberta into the Continental facilities in the United States. They state that they have no present intention of extending the Alberta facilities to handle production from gas fields to the north. If this is taken at face value, Hudson's Bay is prepared to skim off the easy cream of the product at the expense of the other production in the province. Further, such action if permitted might well imperil our comprehensive and equitable system because of the lack of an economic pipe line volume. If it is the Hudson's Bay ulterior intention eventually to extend north into the province, they intend to duplicate what we have been proposing for many months. It is for such a purpose that Hudson's Bay are endeavouring to incorporate a special act pipe line company comparable to our Foothills company.
I have read the entire paragraph so that the important sentences will appear in their context and hon. members will appreciate how they fit into the paragraph as a whole. The main two or three sentences read as follows:
They state that they have no present intention of extending the Alberta facilities to handle production from gas fields to the north. If this is taken at face value. Hudson's Bay is prepared to skim off the easy cream of the product at the expense of the other production in the province.
I assume that this statement means that, if this is a correct assessment of the intention of the Aurora pipe line company, it would be detrimental to the interests of Alberta. That is at least the point of view which is put forward by the Pembina company in this letter. They suggest that if the Aurora company is going to channel the condensates south into the United States without going north they will in fact be skimming off the easy cream of the product at the expense of the other production in the province. If this is a factual statement I would suggest that the whole situation should be explored further. I do not know whether this is a true statement. I know that it appears in this letter dated January 10, 1961 written by Mr. James Scott, the president of Pembina Pipe Line Limited. If it is the intention of the Aurora company to skim off the cream at the expense of the other production then this
Private Bills
will not be beneficial to either the companies concerned, the citizens of Alberta or the citizens of Canada generally.
I think this situation should be clarified. I feel that the officers of the Pembina company should be requested to appear before a standing committee of this house and explain their reasons for arriving at the conclusion as set out in this letter. The Aurora people being there would be able to say, "Well, this is not correct, and this is how we disprove it", because, as I said before, the main concern is what is most beneficial to Canadians and Albertans and to our economy. This is the thing that we want to do. These are some of the questions that still have not been answered. It is quite true that questions of sorts were posed to one of the gentlemen from Aurora in the committee and he said, no, that is not so; it will not be skimming the cream off the crop. I cannot offhand find the particular reference in order to quote it verbatim, but I do recall that it was dealt with to a slight degree.
There is another matter of concern in so far as Aurora is concerned, and it has to do with their future intentions, and whether or not they do intend to proceed further northward into Alberta and perhaps even further north than that. Mr. Burgis of the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited did give some evidence to this effect, which appears at page 48 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee where, in answer to a question posed to him about what else they had in mind besides this little $15,000 line, said:
At the moment, sir, we have nothing else specifically in mind. However, we are, as are many of the other oil companies, in the pipe line business. Frequently, when we consider moving crude or condensate from one field or one market to another it might involve consideration of crossing interprovincial boundaries and at that time we conceivably could use Aurora to build more facilities, let us say, from the Yukon or Northwest Territories into Alberta or something like that. But specifically we have nothing in mind at the moment. We put that in, as most companies do, when they are setting up a corporation which is going to have an indefinite life, to make it more flexible and to have more flexibility to cover future things that might happen.
In so far as it is possible for this gentleman to see into the future, I suppose this does to a degree endorse what Mr. Scott of Pembina said when he took them at their face value in saying that they have no present intention of extending the Alberta facilities for the production of gas and oil into the north. Mr. Burgis said in effect that for the present that is quite true, although at some time in the future they might very well want to go up there. In fact, he did mention that in answer to a question of the hon. member for the Yukon who asked about the authority

Private Bills
and powers to start pipe lines in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
The hon. member for the Yukon asked about activities in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon and Mr. Burgis said:
I will be glad to answer that. We have undertaken a fairly extensive exploratory program in the Yukon and Northwest Territories which we hope will be successful in finding oil and eventually might need to build a pipe line or assist in building a pipe line to get the oil out to market. We certainly do not need it yet. We have undertaken a fairly extensive exploratory program in that area.
The witness went on further to say that they had exploration permits there, and that they were active in their search for oil and gas in both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I think this goes to prove the comments of Mr. Scott of the Pembina Pipe Line who assessed it in this way, namely that there was a lack of intention on the part of Aurora to extend north into Alberta. Perhaps he was correct in taking it at its face value. In two specific places before the committee Mr. Burgis mentioned that they had nothing specific in mind except building this half mile pipe line across the border into Montana and that, as far they could see, they had no intention at present of going north into Alberta to tap other lines or of going into the Northwest Territories.
I think we must take that at its face value and that it is not the intention of Aurora to go north. If that is so, then I think we should query the conclusion and I think the Pembina people can also, when they say that by so confining themselves to this section of the province they are not skimming off the easy cream at the expense of other production. Apart from the slight reference made to this in the committee, I do not know whether it is so or not, but from the very brief reference in the discussion that was held-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in listening to the remarks of the sponsor of this bill who outlined in glowing and evangelistic terms the righteousness of his company and the relationship that they have and the wonderful job they would be doing for all of the people, particularly of Alberta. It seems to me there is a touch of selfishness developing in some of the hon. members. It seems to me that instead of our friends supporting the buccaneers who were mentioned in the house three or four years ago, perhaps we should start protecting the buccaneers from Texas and from some of the

other places because some of this selfishness would appear to me to be not in their favour.
Here we have a little itsy bitsy company which, according to the sponsor of the bill, should not make any difference at all. He sounded like one of those great Social Crediters who go around with the bible under one arm and with the other hand picking the pockets of the people through exploitation.
It seems to me that we have been told by the sponsor we have this little itsy bitsy company which has only 1 million common shares at $1 a share and 60,000 preferred shares at $50 a share, making a capitalization of $10 million, to build this little itsy bitsy pipe line of one half mile. No matter how the argument goes, I think the sponsor will agree that the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company has already decided that it is going to build the 41 miles. The sponsor is quite right in making the statement that Aurora has not let this contract. I do not imagine they will ever let it. At the present time they have provision for spending only $15,000, and they are going to build just one half mile of pipe line, which is the key half mile crossing the international boundary.
Do hon. members not think that we are pretty naive if we expect this company to go into the United States where they intend to raise $10 million to capitalize a company which is going to spend only $15,000?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the hon. member permit a question.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member would not allow one but I will.


Hazen Robert Argue: We are democratic.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We know that. When Foothills Pipe Line was incorporated in 1959 by chapter 64 of the statutes the capital stock of the company was to consist of 10 million shares at a par value of $5 per share, and if they built the pipe line in question it would cost $160,000. What is the difference between Aurora pipe line and the Foothills pipe line in question? It is a matter of form and the hon. member knows it. It is all set out that way in the incorporation of the company.


William Arnold Peters: If we make a mistake once we do not have to do it again. We do not make the situation any better by making the same mistake again. I am not sure that we made a mistake.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Did you vote for it? Did
you support Foothills? I thought you did.


William Arnold Peters: I cannot remember if I was here that day.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member's memory is bad.


William Arnold Peters: I know I have shown some consideration for western members when they have been interested in the building of pipe lines. I was quite impressed with the attitude of the Conservatives two or three years ago when they wanted to build pipe lines in Canada. I am not so impressed with some Conservatives when they get up and want to build another pipe line before the first one has had a chance to operate. I am not so impressed when they want to build another pipe line for the specific purpose of not allowing any of the product of the first line to bring benefit but rather of taking all the product and shoving it through a second pipe line into the United States.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: You don't know what you are talking about. You have absolutely no knowledge of the situation.


William Arnold Peters: I am not alone in that. I have heard these flexible legal interpretations made. I have heard the sponsor of the bill tell us tonight how he wanted to put the facts on the record. I also heard him stand up and interject not long ago at which time he certainly did not state the facts because he told us the application for another pipe line had been withdrawn and therefore there was no reason-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that question was raised in the committee. If the hon. member will read Hansard he will see that I asked a question and I said it was alleged from the knowledge I had that a certain application had been withdrawn. When that question was asked in the committee it was said under oath that the application was withdrawn. He should read the sworn statement and stay with it instead of running away from the facts in the manner he has been.


Frank Howard: If I may speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out what the hon. member for Bow River did in the house, and the hon. member for Timis-kaming is quite correct in this regard. The hon. member for Bow River interrupted in the house to ask a question. He did not ask a question but made the bald-faced statement that it was his understanding that Pembina had withdrawn their application.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is not true.


Frank Howard: This was on the very day that Pembina was supposed to appear before the Alberta board. In the standing committee I asked a question as to what had happened with regard to this application and whether
Private Bills
it had been withdrawn. As found on page 42 of the proceedings of the committee there is the following:


Frank Howard: Within the last week or two
Pembina and the people-your associated companies-appeared before the Alberta board?


Mr.   Burgis@: Yes.


Frank Howard: They did not withdraw their application?


Mr.   Burgis@: No, sir. They withdrew only their application to duplicate the portion that we have indicated in green.
That is entirely different from what the hon. member for Bow River led this house to believe-I am speaking to the point of order-not by way of an explanation or formal speech but by way of a back door question. He introduced this information in that way at that time obviously in an attempt to lead those who were speaking then into believing there was no point in inquiring any further into the matter because the Foothills company had withdrawn their application. That was not true. It was only true in respect of that section that was outlined in green. We have not got the map here to show hon. members but that was the situation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think I should put what I said on the record. As found on page 1815 of Hansard I said:
May I ask a question at this stage? These are the facts, though I have not yet had an opportunity to substantiate them-the information was communicated to me by telephone.
I set that out and the hon. member who has just spoken has not set out the facts. I continued:
In all probability the oil companies of which the hon. member speaks have withdrawn their applications in respect of this particular project before the Alberta conservation board.
Under oath before the committee it was stated that this particular application had been withdrawn. I do not see how the hon. member can stand in his place and say anything different. I went on to say:
I wonder whether the hon. member has given any consideration to that?
Those are the facts and the hon. member knows those are the facts. If he wants to make statements that are not in accordance with the record, as he has done all afternoon, that is his privilege. The record will speak for itself and the people will know what the record says.


Frank Howard: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that both the hon. member and myself are now stating facts.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will take my facts.


Frank Howard: However, I doubt very much whether he can recognize them.

Business of the House


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have been stating what happened and as I was not a member of the committee I suggest now that the hon. member has put forward exactly the same facts from the letter that he read tonight as he put forward the other evening and that they are probably no more reliable tonight than when he got them over the telephone the last time because I imagine they come from the same place. I am surprised he has not got a more coherent story to tell the committee as a result of the many communications he has had with the same source of information. It seems to me that the situation is still very confused as far as the sponsor is concerned. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, it is not ten
o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, one hon. member indicated in his remarks this evening that there were no political implications in this or any other committee. If I have time I should like to put on record what was said by a Conservative member in another committee because it deals directly with the point in question.


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member will be happy to learn that it is now ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Mcllrailh:: I wonder whether I could ask the house leader to indicate the business for the next three days, if he is in a position to do so.


Mr. Churchill:: For tomorrow and Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, there are six items of legislation that we would like to see considered by the house. The first one is No. 11 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with the Tariff Board Act. The second item is No. 1 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. C-47. The third item is No. 5 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. S-5. The fourth item is No. 6 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. S-6. The latter two will be referred to a committee. These four items stand in that order for tomorrow.
The other items I have in mind are the second reading of Bill C-71, an act respecting the civil service of Canada, and the second reading of Bill No. C-73, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. I am not certain tonight whether they will be taken in that order. If there is a change I will inform hon. members on the other side of the house before 2.30 tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 7, 1961