Mr. Low:

Yes, pro rata of course. In the second place, by declaring a pipe line company a common purchaser, it would be possible for the board to ensure equitably pro-rated production or pro-rated reduction in production if the interests of the field and/or the people of the province require it. It has been argued, and will be argued further I suppose, that the province has the right already to apply its conservation measures even to the extent of declaring the pipe line company a common purchaser within the province. But I say, Mr. Chairman, that there is grave doubt at the very best as to whether the province has sufficient right- that amount that would make it possible to avoid serious and grave constitutional difficulties at a later time.

Mr. Blackmore:

An unchallengeable right.

Mr. Low:

Yes. What the people require, and what they are entitled to under the circumstances, is an unchallengeable right to the declaring of a pipe line company a common purchaser and for the exercise and application of all of these regulations of the natural gas conservation board. There is at least reasonable uncertainty about it; and because of that uncertainty the Alberta people are asking for certain amendments. When we come to the proper clause I propose, on behalf of the people of Alberta, to submit amendments particularly covering this question of common purchaser, and we shall see what happens to them.

The Deputy Chairman:

We have allowed rather wide discussion on clause 1. I note particularly from what the last speaker said that he will discuss certain proposals when we come to the appropriate clause.

Mr. Blackmore:

Will the chairman please speak more loudly?

The Deputy Chairman:

What is actually before the committee at the present time is clause 1; that is the short title. If hon. members could refrain from making second-reading speeches until we get to the particular clause they wish to discuss, I think we would make more progress.

Mr. Harkness:

In view of your remarks, Mr. Chairman, I shall say little at this point. The hon. member for Calgary West gave an

excellent and clear exposition of the background of oil and gas development in Alberta. As a result, I think he has put all hon. members of the house in possession of the picture so that they have or should have a fairly good idea of what this bill is about. Consequently I shall make only two observations at this time.

First I should like to make it absolutely clear that I am completely convinced of the necessity of a bill such as this which will make it possible to construct pipe lines which will enable the oil now being produced in Alberta to be marketed. I pointed out earlier in this session that the coming big problem -the one which is now upon us in Alberta- is the matter of transportation and marketing of the oil. Those problems can be solved only by the construction of pipe lines. The pipe line which the Imperial Oil is at present starting to build from Edmonton to Regina is an absolute necessity; and the sooner that it can be constructed, the better for the economy of the entire country.

I think, however, this bill can be improved in certain respects. As we go forward through the clauses I trust that the minister will be agreeable to receiving amendments in connection with some of them, particularly to protect the people in Alberta who are probably most directly concerned at the present time and will be most concerned in the future, particularly as to the export of gas. Personally, I have an amendment that I wish to propose. As I say, my chief interest in the matter at this time is the protection of the consumers of gas in Calgary and southern Alberta. I am sorry that this bill is being dealt with at a time when we are rushed, and when everybody is anxious to get through the thing as rapidly as possible. I trust, however, that that fact will not militate against the acceptance of amendments which I think would improve the bill; and I believe it can be improved considerably in some respects.

Mr. Chevrier:

I think perhaps I should immediately put at rest the minds of hon. members who have spoken, in connection with some of the points which they have brought up. I do not think there is any doubt that the house in general will favour the principle of this bill as exemplified by the three speeches which we have heard from the opposition, first because of the necessity of the bill and next because, in one particular case at least, of its urgency. But I am somewhat surprised at the remarks of one hon. gentleman who has great knowledge of the law, in that he should have any fears at all in connection with the matters which he submitted. That is why I want to rise at this stage to put his mind and the minds

of others immediately at rest. Let there be no misunderstanding about this bill. It proceeds in no way to take over the rights of the provinces or to invade their field. It is a bill of federal nature simply because, as the hon. member for Calgary West stated, the pipe lines extend from one province to another. If it were possible to move the oil within the limits of one, two or three provinces, then this legislation would not be necessary. So that on the question of interference with the Alberta oil and gas conservation board, let me assure the leader of the Social Credit party, and the two hon. members from Calgary, that there is not the slightest intention on the part of the government or in any of the terms of the bill, to interfere with the program of conservation of that body, or with its activities in any way whatsoever. And I do not think it could, even if it wanted to, because this parliament has not jurisdiction so to do.

The hon. member for Calgary West wants to be reassured of two things, the first of which was that these lines should be or will be common purchasers. I said a moment ago to him, when his attention had been momentarily drawn away from the debate by one of his colleagues, that he is too good a lawyer and knows too much about constitutional law to suggest that introducing the element of common purchasers would be a matter within the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament.

I say this to him with a great deal of deference. The matter was gone into carefully before the committee. The attorney general of Alberta moved an amendment seeking to make the carriers of gas pipe lines common purchasers. When he and his associates discussed this with me, I indicated immediately a doubt concerning the legality of that position. He said, "Perhaps you are right, but it is a matter which I think should be given consideration." I did give it very careful consideration, and submitted it de novo to our legal officers. They immediately came to the conclusion that not only would it be dangerous but that it was ultra vires of the federal parliament to attempt to make these common purchasers.

There is no intention on the part of the bill to control in any way the question of production or of prices. Those are matters of provincial jurisdiction, and we are not going to enter upon them in any way whatsoever. This bill deals with the transportation and construction of gas and oil pipe lines and the transportation thereof from one province into another. Neither does it deal with export of gas and oil. I did not wish to interrupt the hon. member who spoke a moment ago when he made reference to that very import-

Pipe Lines Act

ant matter; but I should point out to him that this bill has nothing to do with the export of gas and oil. The bill does not touch that in any way. It is a fact that the act dealing with the export of fluid and electricity has something to do with the export of electricity and, incidentally, of gas. But certainly this bill has absolutely nothing to do with that.

The second assurance the hon. member desired to receive was that the people of Alberta should not be disturbed in their control over the production. I can give him the assurance immediately that they will not be. This bill does not seek to control the production. I do not think parliament has the right to do that, and certainly I know of no attempt in any of the provisions of the bill to interfere with control or production. So that the pro-rating of oil and gas, to which he referred, will not be interfered with in any way.

The leader of the Social Credit party wants to have the assurance that sufficient protection is provided to the people of Alberta and to the oil companies. I believe that was the expression he used. I do not think there is the slightest doubt that the rights of the people of Alberta, so far as their natural resources are concerned, are left in the same manner and in the same position after the passage of this measure as they now are. So that they will not be interfered with.

Then, oil companies made representations to the committee. In so far as I could ascertain from their evidence, I think they were unanimous in their support of the bill. The hon. member for Calgary West referred in glowing terms to Mr. Richie Donald. I had a great deal to do with that gentleman during the war years, when I was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Munitions and Supply at that time. Mr. Donald was director general of chemicals and explosives, and did an outstanding job for Canada in those years. He has been here to consult the authorities on more than one occasion in connection with this bill, and I believe he is satisfied with its terms.

The hon. member for Calgary East wanted to be assured that the people of Alberta would be protected in so far as the export of gas was concerned. I believe I have sufficiently covered that point.

I hope I have succeeded in convincing the committee that there is no attempt whatever to control prices or production, or to interfere in any way with the operations of the Alberta oil and gas conservation board, or any of the rights of the provinces in connection with their natural resources.

Mr. Cruickshank:

Would the minister permit a question, for purposes of clarification? Did I understand him to stay that it would not be possible to export?

Pipe Lines Act

Mr. Chevrier:

That it would not be?

Mr. Cruickshank:

Yes.

Mr. Chevrier:

Not under this bill; this bill does not control the export of gas or oil. It has to do with the construction of pipe lines.

Mr. Cruickshank:

But it would not prohibit it?

Mr. Chevrier:

Oh no.

Mr. Young:

Mr. Chairman, not having legal training I must confess that sometimes these matters puzzle me, and they may be puzzling some other members. I have reference to the difference between the jurisdiction of the federal government and that of provincial governments in a matter of this kind.

I heard the assurance given by the minister, and I must confess he has me pretty well convinced. However there are one or two points about which I should like to ask him. Since the railways bear some analogy to the case with which we are dealing, in view of the fact that they come under the same authority, why is it that a railway when it is dealing with labour in British Columbia is not subject to the British Columbia minimum wage laws? How is it that they are subject to federal regulations? Labour is a commodity-

The Deputy Chairman:

Order. The committee at the present time is discussing the short title, section 1 of the bill, which states that, "This act may be cited as the Pipe Lines Act."

Mr. Young:

My question has to do with the minister's recent remarks made under the same section.

Mr. Chevrier:

I could answer the hon. member's question, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the bill. It is a constitutional matter which would require some time to explain. It is a fact that the conditions of labour on the Canadian National Railways, for instance, are governed by a national agreement, and that it would be quite impractical to have different labour legislation affecting the operators of the railways in nine or ten different provinces. This procedure is by virtue of an agreement between the men and the company. Then there is a further legal problem which I do not wish to discuss at this time.

Mr. Young:

If a pipe line goes through two or more provinces, with one province under its jurisdiction making a decision that the pipe line shall be considered a common carrier, while the next province says it is not a common carrier, does not the same thing apply?

Mr. Chevrier:

It is not the province which would do that. This bill seeks to give the power to the board of transport commissioners to decide whether an oil company may be a common carrier.