March 14, 1950

LIB

George James McIlraith (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Mcllraith:

Yes, by all means.

Topic:   PROPOSED SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
CCF

Percy Ellis Wright

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Wright:

Is the Canadian Commercial Corporation governed by the provisions of the defence purchases act of 1939 in connection with the making of defence purchases? If not, why not?

Topic:   PROPOSED SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LIB

George James McIlraith (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Mcllraith:

I cannot answer the question at this time, but my recollection is that the defence purchases act was superseded by the munitions and supply act. The corporation is now governed by the provisions of the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act. I shall be glad to look further into the point and give the hon. member a further answer at the first opportunity.

Topic:   PROPOSED SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
CCF

Percy Ellis Wright

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Wright:

There were certain safeguards provided by the defence purchases act which are not provided by the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act. Those safeguards should be carried forward into that act.

Topic:   PROPOSED SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):

Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that all hon. members will be glad to have heard the statement which has just been made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Mcllraith), to the effect that no change has been made in the defence purchasing policy carried out by the Canadian Commercial Corporation. Taking those words' at their face value I must say that it is gratifying to have that assurance. However, I think one would be entitled to remark that it is a pity the explanation was not made earlier because great concern was caused by the somewhat equivocal statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on Friday, March 10, when he dealt with this matter. It will be recalled that his denial, if one could call it a denial, did not go nearly as far as the statement just made by the parliamentary assistant. The Prime Minister simply said that there had been no revolt among Liberal members so far as he was aware. Had that somewhat equivocal statement not been made, the credence given to the earlier reports might not have assumed the proportions it did. That being the case, it certainly is timely that we should have this assurance from the parliamentary assistant.

In commenting on this matter it does seem to me that this whole situation underlines the desirability of having a defence committee which could take as one subject of investigation the methods and procedure followed in making these defence contracts. If the chairman of the Canadian Commercial Corporation is free to appear before a group of Liberal members at the suggestion of the parliamentary assistant, I should think it would be quite proper and highly desirable that that gentleman should appear before a defence committee of the whole house. It seems to me, the fact that these private meetings are taking place reinforces the request that all hon. members should have the same opportunity of frank and free discussion which apparently this group of Liberal members has had.

There is one additional reason why we feel that a defence committee should be set up at this session without delay. Hon. members who have preceded me have referred to some of the occasions on which this request has been made previously. At one time we were encouraged to think that the request would be considered favourably. I intend to refer to

14, 1950 737

Proposed National Defence Committee one or two of the statements made by ministers which have not yet been referred to in this debate.

On March 29, 1946, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) asked the then minister of national defence, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), whether he would consider setting up such a committee. That is to be found at page 406 of Hansard for that date. At that time the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) made the observation:

We supported1 the suggestion last year and we do so again this year.

Topic:   PROPOSED SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Coldwell:

And we did so today.

Topic:   PROPOSED SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

As the hon. member has just reminded me, they have done so again today. At that time the then minister of national defence said:

I think I assured my hon. friend last year that his suggestion would receive sympathetic consideration, but I pointed out that the time was too short to do something about it last session. But I did promise consideration.

Thereupon the former prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, said:

I think the suggestion of my hon. friend is a very good one and, as the Minister of National Defence has just said, it is one that he is prepared to consider sympathetically. But once again the house will have to ask itself how many committees it can stand. We are enlarging the number and it will have a bearing on the attendance in the house. I think my hon. friend's suggestion of that particular committee is a very good one.

Referring to the question of whether or not the house can stand this additional committee, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in the discussions which have taken place since that time on the question of a general revision of the committee structure of the house it has been truly pointed out that many of our committees never meet at all, others only occasionally, and that in fact we could and should have an additional committee which would perform a regular and useful function in enabling the house to have a better grasp of defence matters than we can now have.

Later on in 1946 the matter was raised again. At page 5268 of Hansard for August 23, 1946, I asked the minister:

What is the intention with regard to the defence committee?

The minister replied:

I was sympathetic to it, as I indicated before. This session, as it has developed, many other committees got ahead of it. It seemed for one reason or another that a tremendous number of important special committees were set up this session, including the veterans affairs committee. I would hope that at another session it will not be necessary for the veterans affairs committee to undertake the stupendous amount of work it did this session, so that at the beginning of another session, which we could perhaps regard as our first normal session of the new parliament, it should be possible to give

Proposed National Defence Committee early consideration, to that question. The real reason why it was not actively considered this time was that there were so many other matters which had to be dealt with that it would not have been possible tor members to serve on- another committee.

By direct inference the minister there said that the reason a defence committee was not established was that we had a very large and active veterans affairs committee. At this session, in another parliament, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the government have made it very clear that they do not intend to set up a veterans affairs committee. Therefore on that basis there is no reason why we should not, particularly at the beginning of a session, in accordance with the suggestion of the minister of national defence of that day, have a defence committee established at this time.

Later on in 1948 when the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) was dealing with this matter, he made it clear at that time that he was not definitely opposed to the idea of a defence committee. He was asked about it again by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and in reply is reported at page 5807 of Hansard for June 24, 1948, as follows:

The hon. member for Vancouver South again raised the question as to whether the government would entertain the possibility of having a committee on defence matters. As I pointed out when that question was raised last year, my own personal inclination would be in favour of that course. I can see quite a few advantages from my own point a view as minister in having an opportunity of talking things over and having them explained in such a committee. I must say, however, that the suggestion raises considerations far greater than any such personal inclinations, and those considerations I have put before the house and this committee on a previous occasion.

The minister was referring there to his statements made at other times that he was not altogether easy in his mind about the enlargement of the committee system because, as he said, he felt it would lead to the same committee structure as they have in the United States. He went on to say:

I do not do so in any final sense. . .

That is to say, he did not put forward these reasons or any opposition to the committee in any final sense. Therefore we have reason to hope that the minister still has an open mind, and I think we should have reason to hope that we can, upon the arguments presented this afternoon, perhaps bring the minister around to the point where he would favourably consider the setting up of such a committee. I should remind you, Mr. Speaker, that at one time the minister held definite views in favour of the setting up of such a committee. I am not going to suggest that no one is entitled to change his mind, and indeed the minister has been very frank

(Mr. Fulton.]

in the past to say that on reflection he had changed these views. I hope he will allow us to suggest that on reflection we feel that his previous views, so firmly held, so clearly expressed and cogently argued in an article which appeared in 1943, I believe it was, were correct, and that his present views are not as sound as his former ones.

It seems to me that in defence at the present time, more than in any other aspect of our national life, there is need for as near an approach as we can get to a bipartisan policy. I think the need is even greater than in the case of external affairs, but surely it is not reasonable to expect that we can accept and support wholeheartedly without criticism a policy the reasons for which and the implications of which we do not know, and the background of which we have no means of understanding. Admittedly we criticize the minister and the government. It is our duty as the opposition, but I think I can assure the minister that in so far as we can properly do so we desire to facilitate his work in the building up of our defence forces, and we desire to co-operate to the fullest possible extent in the work of perfecting Canada's defence machinery. It is impossible to expect that we can do that unless we are taken into the confidence of the minister and the government, and have an opportunity of examining all the facts and factors entering into the decisions as to defence policy so that we can know the reasons behind the policy and accept and support it fully. If that is not done I suggest that we will find inevitably an increasing divergence of opinion with regard to national defence, and in fact an inevitable tendency towards criticism and pure opposition in this house.

In a matter so vital as national defence, a matter which concerns us all so personally, then as the member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) pointed out if we are continually to be held at arm's length in spite of efforts to co-operate, we can only come to the conclusion there is a desire to prevent us from co-operating, if indeed there is not an actual attempt to hide something. I appeal therefore, to the minister, and I assure him of an absolute desire on our part to co-operate to the fullest possible extent in this matter. I can assure him that, if he were to extend that opportunity which can only be extended through a defence committee, he would find that the gesture would not be abused but would be used to the benefit of himself and of Canada in formulating and supporting defence policies for this country.

The other reasons why I think we must have a defence committee are suggested by a study of a book to which reference has already been made earlier in this session. It

is one of the most complete studies of this question of defence under modern conditions, and is entitled "Modern Arms and Free Men", by Dr. Vannevar Bush. As Dr. Bush gives the outline of what he considers to be a workable defence plan for a free democracy under present-day circumstances, it seems to me he suggests that most weapons of offence, most weapons for delivering attack on a massive scale, have now produced their own defence. He says that the process was going on during the last' war, but that defence had not yet caught up with offence, or the means of delivering offence by way of mass bombing and so on. Now, with guided missiles, the defence against these mass attacks has, to a large extent, been at least brought into existence, even if it is not yet effective in an absolute sense. He emphasizes the necessity, therefore, for a highly competent defence network, a defence network which will eventually be manned at' a high degree of readiness.

The author does warn against the perils- I do not think the word is too strong-of going too fast in setting up this defensive network. He also emphasizes the need for a highly compact striking defence force. This striking force would act not' so much in the offensive role in the over-all sense, but would in fact be available to strike back at an enemy immediately after he had struck us. In that sense, it is regarded as a defence force. The necessity for a warning screen against surprise attack is also emphasized. All these considerations, Mr. Speaker, seem to raise new factors for discussion. They raise new elements which must be considered in the framing of our defence forces, and the assigning to its various components of the major or lesser roles. This study paints a picture of defence which is quite different from and much more complicated than anything which we have previously faced. That, it seems to me, points immediately to the corresponding necessity for a committee to give these problems the closest and most realistic study, and to consider the means and methods by which they can be met.

Incidentally, again without a desire to criticize unnecessarily, it does occur to me that, bearing in mind what Dr. Bush has said about the necessity for a highly organized and constantly ready striking force, Exercise Sweetbriar has proven-perhaps it was designed to prove it, as I know it was designed to test it-that today Canada does not possess a force capable of completely fulfilling the role of a striking defence force. As we have seen from the reports, while our personnel are trained, ready and willing, the transports are not available to build an offensive, or to make it possible for these forces to carry out that role under northern conditions. I believe 55946-47J

Proposed National Defence Committee that is a matter which should be studied by such a defence committee. The committee should know what steps are being taken to remedy that defect. Indeed some of the members of that committee might be able to suggest a means by which the- defect could be remedied more quickly than otherwise would be the case.

Certain passages of Dr. Bush's study should, I think, be considered by the house as indicating the need for a committee. At page 53 of this paper-bound volume which I have, Dr. Bush states as follows:

The major effort-

That is in building up a defence force.

-should go into bombs and their delivery, until logic shows that a substantial defence effort should be added. Logic at some time will give the warning. The point will be reached at which investments in defence installations will so reduce the ability of the enemy to reach the target that this indirect effort will pay higher dividends than a direct one. It will make it more certain that if war came we should win quickly, and at a minimum net damage to ourselves from every cause. To estimate the arrival time of that point early enough to launch programs needing several years for consummation will call for pre-eminent organization for intelligence and analysis. We do not have-

Speaking of the United States.

-such organization now, and if we value our safety, we had better get it. It will not do to bungle through, in the type of contest we are now engaged in or in the kind the future may produce.

The author goes on to point out that we should concentrate on this intelligence system, and should not rush into attempting to build up a great over-all defensive network now. If it is a fact, and Dr. Bush states ft is a fact, that the United States does not have such an organization now, I think it is a fact, and at least until the minister tells us differently I take it to be a fact, that Canada has not. Admittedly, that is the opinion of one man, but one pre-eminent in his field, who states that should be the first step in our defence thinking. I believe that matter is one which should be reviewed by a defence committee, with respect not only to the actual building up and arming of our forces, but to the over-all defence planning as well. It is an approach which could be made in a nonpartisan co-operative spirit.

Then Dr. Bush deals with the necessity, while we are undertaking this over-all planning and the building of our purely defence system, of guarding against surprise attack. At page 54 he says:

Here we need to treat the surprise attack as a part of war in, the open, for one thing is certain: If another great war is started by a dictator, it will be opened by a smashing, great, surprise offensive calculated to paralyse us before we are aroused.

A little later, at page 55, he says:

In a dictatorship it is different. A surprise blow on a small scale would not be staged even by a

Proposed National Defence Committee

dictatorship. It would be large, or it would not occur, for arousing a people fully by a small treacherous assault backfires. Those who study war have realized this fact since Pearl Harbor, if they did not know it before. But a dictator, if his control were tight enough and his iron curtain utterly impenetrable, might stage a large surprise opening when' he decided to go to war.

So Dr. Bush says we must guard against this surprise attack. He makes certain suggestions as to how that could be done. He refers again to the necessity of staying on the alert and building up this efficient, highly organized intelligence system to warn us of any move which the enemy may make. He then goes on again to say:

We can do no more than this. We can decrease the value of surprise by staying alert, to some extent even in peacetime. We cannot reduce the surprise factor to zero, but we can cut it heavily. This does not mean that we sit with every post manned and every gun cocked throughout the years; to do so would be overly expensive and our efforts would be better placed elsewhere, for we should slacken in time if we tried to be thus continuously vigilant. Short of this extreme of having every man poised and at his post, we can do much.

One element of our strength should indeed be ready and straining at the leash. That is the retaliation force.

A force to which I referred earlier.

It is the force that would strike back within twenty-four hours of the time the first bomb fell, remorselessly, through every obstacle, pressing its attacks home, before enemy defences were working smoothly, for they will be less effective then than later, even if alerted.

The planes of the retaliation force must always be fully equipped and ready to fly, its bombs must be ready to go off, its every element must be so protected that the most severe surprise bombing cannot impede its launching. Its crews must be highly trained, fully briefed, and tested by frequent exercises. There should be an insp*ection system independent of the line of command up to the very highest echelons, to ensure that there is never any slackening in this picked group or any false assurance. The members of the force should be young, and rotated in duty, for men cannot stand the strain of being thus poised for long periods. But, in comparison with our full military power, the force may be relatively small.

If we just pause and consider that quotation, I think we can see inherent in the very idea he advances there the necessity for a constant review of our defence planning and system, as he himself puts it, not only by the government which naturally would be, shall I say, predisposed to view with satisfaction the plans which they themselves have prepared and put into effect, but a review, constantly and impartially, by a body such as a defence committee of the house, whose members would bring an impartial view to bear on these plans. Again I say that that review would be undertaken not necessarily in a critical attitude but in the desire to bring to bear on the problem the collective views of those who all have a joint interest in it and have something to contribute even though-

and I grant the minister this point-they do not have, under our system, the immediate responsibility for carrying out the plans. To a considerable extent they might, because of that very factor, be able to contribute more usefully to the formulating of the plans and to an impartial criticism of them.

Another suggestion made by Dr. Bush, which I think can best be implemented by this defence committee, is found at page 56:

This is not the only thing we can do to decrease the potentiality of the surprise attack. Later on we can build defence systems and contrive to have them alert and ready. In the meantime our entire military system can be ready, even if it is not at all times acutely alerted, and as affairs become tense there can be means for placing it in this latter condition before a blow falls. We can build a civilian defence system and see that it is ready to cope with disaster.

The principal element of our preparation for possible surprise attack is an intelligence system of high effectiveness, capable of warning us clearly if an attack is being prepared. No iron curtain is utterly impenetrable. The operations necessary to set in motion a major surprise attack are ponderous and far-reaching. Dictatorship and oppression produce individuals who dare to flee and then dare to talk. . . . We need a modern intelligence agency in every sense of the word, using modern methods as they were partially developed during the last war, not a musical-comedy affair or a stodgy refuge, not even the half-successful affair we now have, but an organization qualified to meet our needs in this kind of world. It can cut down the threat of surprise attack. It does not cost much; by all means let us have it.

Then continuing he says:

We ought to know how to build it. . . But the really able men who functioned then-

That is, during the last war.

-have largely scattered into civilian life, the type of ability needed is rare, and the work is not attractive. The task can be done, by an individual of great mental and organizational capacity, having ample authority and the full backing of the President of the United States. As we value our peace of mind we had better be about it.

There, it seems to me, is a line of thought which suggests a new departure, a new element, in our over-all planning for defence. There is on the one hand the necessity for a radar screen to give warning against surprise; but there is the further suggestion of Dr. Bush that it is impossible and unrealistic to build up a complete defensive barrier around all the borders of your country but that your defence must be concentrated at key points. As all these points raise at least fresh thoughts, if not entirely new matters, it follows that in dealing with those thoughts and in working out the practical application of the solutions of the problems, a defence committee could contribute enormously to the work. But most important of all, as I have suggested before, a defence committee could bring to the supervision of that work the constant and co-operative effort of the best minds of those in all

sections of the country who are vitally interested in, and anxious to serve in working out, Canada's defence policy.

Topic:   PROPOSED SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
SC

Ray Thomas

Social Credit

Mr. Ray Thomas (Welaskiwin):

I shall take only a moment or two, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to say that, in view of the international situation as it is today, I recognize not only the value but the necessity of setting up a committee such as the one suggested. It is true that under the estimates we have an opportunity of discussing these things; but it appears to me that the discussion on the estimates generally evolves into a political battle. The appointment of a committee would make it possible to have a wide open, heart-to-heart talk at its meetings, and as a result of these discussions, we could gain a great leal more useful information than we now get.

We realize, of course, that it would be impossible to expect to get any of the top secret information, but we could gain knowledge of material that would give us a much better understanding of Canada's defence position. This would help the average member greatly, in that he would be able to go back to his own constituency and give to the vet-srans' organizations there words of assurance backed by a knowledge of the facts. That is all I intend to say, Mr. Speaker. But in view af the situation, as I said before, we intend to support this motion.

Topic:   PROPOSED SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
PC

Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):

In

rising to support the amendment of the hon. aid gallant member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) I do so for one or two reasons which [ think the house will be interested to hear.

In the past the Minister of National Defence Mr. Claxton) has always opposed the setting ip of a defence committee. He has opposed it "or what appeared to him to be good reasons. He said that the setting up of committees in ;he congresses of the United States took away :rom the executive of that country executive powers of legislation. Were any committee to ae set up in this house which would take away "rom the executive the powers and the responsibilities of governing the country I too would 3e opposed to it and for the same reasons. However, that is not the case.

We have a parliamentary system under vhich the government controls the House of Commons, and the responsibility of govern-nent is directly through the house, which is ;ontrolled by the government. Therefore I ;ay, Mr. Speaker, that no committee set up lere could possibly take executive powers iway from the government. For that reason [ suggest that the previous main arguments if the minister are false. He advanced other irguments. He said that it would interfere vith the operation of the services; that it

14, 1950 741

Proposed National Defence Committee would jeopardize the free operation of the three armed services and would, in other words, cause inefficiency amongst the services. I feel that that also is an unwarranted assumption.

If the recent experience in the United States is of any value to us in Canada-and I suggest it is, and I am going to quote the reason why I suggest it is of value-it is this. The recent widely publicized quarrel, call it that, among the three services has done more to bring about unification of those services in the United States and to build good will now and in the future among those services than had the issue of the continued petty jealousies been suppressed and kept under cover.

There is another reason I come to, namely, the danger of the people of Canada considering the heads of the defence services as top brass. If there is any country in the world that loves peace it is Canada. There is no country in the world where the man on the back concession distrusts the brass hat as much as Canada. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I suggest that it would do an inestimable amount of good to give the heads of the three services, the technical experts, an opportunity to state, to this house and to the country, their case for the expenditure of $400 million.

In this connection I want to quote Albert Einstein on the military mentality. I shall quote one paragraph of what he had to say:

It Is characteristic of the military mentality that non-human factors (atom bombs, strategic bases, weapons of all sorts, the possession of raw materials, et cetera) are held essential, while the human being, his desires and thoughts-in short, the psychological factors-are considered as unimportant and secondary. Herein lies a certain resemblance to Marxism, at least in so far as its theoretical side alone is kept in view. The individual is degraded to a mere instrument; he becomes "human material." The normal ends of human aspiration vanish with such a viewpoint. Instead, the military mentality raises "naked power" as a goal in itself-one of the strangest illusions to which men can succumb.

There is considerable fear among the civilian population, among the peace-loving people of Canada, who want one thing only, namely, to be left alone, that the military mentality may upset them. Hon. members will recall that during the war men were referred to as bodies. They used to say: "Give us twelve bodies or fourteen bodies to do a certain job." This phrase became so prevalent that orders were issued from many headquarters stopping it. That I think shows the danger of the military mentality. If the military authority talks to a committee of the house, his problems and the problems of the defence of this country become a

742 HOUSE OF

Proposed National Defence Committee great deal more apparent, and I submit it would make the job of those whose business it is to create efficient fighting forces much easier, because of the sympathetic hearing they would have from the committee.

I feel that the experts should be allowed to tell their stories and to state their difficulties so that the information that we get in this house and pass on to the people would be complete or as complete as possible. Not only that, but the costs, the hundred and one different matters of defending this country would be dealt with in detail.

The committee in the United States, about which there was so much controversy, has recently made its report on unification. As the house will recall, the most bitter feelings between the United States navy and the United States air force were engendered by evidence given before that committee. The house will also recall the bitterness that existed between the two services. As I say, the committee has made its report. The report, except for one section, which had to do with one officer, Admiral Denfeld, was unanimously adopted. I will quote four of the most important sections.

They are of sufficient importance to quote verbatim to the house. Section 11 of the report had this to say:

A political body cannot of itself reach, through deliberative processes, final answers on professional military questions but must depend upon and encourage a continuation of the process of exploration, study, and co-ordination among our officers of the several services to preserve a satisfactory doctrine of defence, to have ready applicable plans, and to devise units, suitably equipped, to meet the most probable circumstances of any emergency. The significant thing is to ensure that the national-defence structure ensures adequate consideration of all professional views, especially during these early days of unification.

I may say that every word of that is germane to our situation in Canada, because we too are going through a unification of the three armed services, and we are also facing problems identical with those faced by the United States. There are two more paragraphs in the report, which form part of that section to which unanimous agreement was given by all thirty-three members of congress. While I commend the whole report to the house, section 22 is in these words:

Civilian control of the nation's armed forces is integrally a part of the nation's democratic process and tradition; it is strongly supported by the committee. But in supporting civilian control of the armed forces, the committee does not mean (1) preventing free testimony before congressional committees by members of the armed forces, or (2) the relegation of the United States congress to a bystander role in issues pertaining to the national defence.

Does this House of Commons want to be placed in the role of bystander in connection

with national defence? I do not think so.

Sections 30 and 31 deal with appropriations. Section 30 states:

The appropriations committee should augment its staff in order to keep in intimate touch with the development of national defence budgets, thereby easing the stresses and strains in the Pentagon and keeping the congress adequately informed on basic national defence planning as reflected in budgetary plans.

There is a definite suggestion that a committee of the house assist the high-ranking officers and act as intermediary between the congress and the three defence forces. I suggest such a body would be of great help in this country.

Then section 31 states:

The management committee of the Department of Defence should be placed under the direction of the comptroller of the Department of Defence on all fiscal and budgetary matters.

Those are four parts of the report which was produced, admittedly, after considerable heat and after the development of a good deal of bad feeling among the three services. It was, however, a report which, apart from one clause, was accepted unanimously by the thirty-three members who produced it. It has always been the supposition that the heads of defence departments, such as the chiefs of the general staff, the joint staffs committee and their subordinates or experts in the weapons production branches, would not be able to say anything concerning their knowledge of the services. Here again I disagree, and call as witness the United States chief of naval operations, Admiral Forrest P. Sherman, who has given a most extensive interview on a question and answer basis, to a periodical known as U.S. News, which is published in Washington and is of a semiofficial nature. I am sure the admiral would not have given the interview had he not had the full co-operation and consent of the executive and of the entire defence department in the United States.

These are the sort of questions the answers to which we would like to know in Canada. The head of the United States navy, and chief of naval operations, with the consent of his government, gave a most illuminating interview in which he answered many specific questions, just the kind we would like to have answered in this House of Commons. I believe hon. members would be interested in the kind of questions asked and the answers given. Here are some of them:

Q. Do we have an over-all plan? Is there an over-all strategy?

A. Definitely yes. There is and must always be an over-all plan and it must be revised each year in the light of the world situation and our military capabilities.

Then he goes on to discuss financial matters, which I shall not deal with at this time. Following that is a discussion of the subject which most interests the admiral, namely, the size of the United States navy and the decision to put the only battleship of that navy into a condition where it became a training ship, and would not be on active service.

With respect to # cruiser strength, the questions and answers are these:

Q. The other day we noticed in the papers that the decision to make the Missouri a training ship and, with the reduced cost, use part of the money for an extra carrier was cleared by you through the joint chiefs and the secretary of defence; is that a new procedure?

In his answer he proceeds to deal specifically with cruiser strength, in these words:

Since I have been here I have proposed to the joint chiefs of staff, and obtained their concurrence and the approval of the secretary of defence in three separate propositions;

The first was the retention of thirteen cruisers instead of twelve, in order to permit us to provide Admiral Conolly (Admiral Richard L. Conolly, Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean) with a permanent flagship and also have six in each fleet for rotation to the western Pacific and the Mediterranean, on the basis of two ships in each relief, which came to a total of thirteen cruisers, as now required. This was instead of the twelve which had been agreed upon previously.

I quote that not because of its significance as part of the over-all defences of the United States but as an example of the detailed type of information which is being given by the highest authorities in the United States. Here is another question that was asked:

Q. How many landing battalions will that mean- eight?

A. Well, the commandant of the marine corps prefers, and I agree with him, that we talk in terms of marine divisions instead of the smaller components. The infantry battalions in each division will probably be more than three-nearly four. It will result in increasing the infantry component in each division by a third over what could have been accomplished otherwise. That will be done at the expense of service units, administrative units, security detachments, and so on.

Then he goes on to give further details. I submit that here are being given details about formations which we in this house and through us the country have every reason to expect will be given to us in regard to our own forces. There is a very pertinent thing here with regard to carriers and I quote:

Q. Is there any indication that the flush-deck carrier is the carrier of the future?

A. We believe we must eventually get into flush-deck carriers to handle the heavier and faster planes of the jet type.

There is information as to the different type of carrier that is necessitated by the heavier impact and faster landing of jet planes. I am sure the minister has read this article but I think hon. members will be interested in it.

Proposed National Defence Committee There follows a discussion of Russian reserves, and then there is reference to the reserves of the United States as follows:

Q. Are you satisfied with the progress you are making in maintaining reserves?

A. From what examination I have been able to make of the naval-reserve situation, I believe that our organized reserve is in a very healthy condition. Our voluntary reserve is quite large, but. of course, the effectiveness of the individuals is not being maintained to the degree that the organized reserve is. We have roughly 200,000 officers and men in the organized reserve and about 800,000 more in the volunteer reserve.

You might be interested to know that I have recently changed the organization of my office to make the assistant chief of naval operations for reserve matters responsible directly to me and thereby permit me to keep in very close touch with naval-reserve problems.

Then follow details as to numbers and classifications and types of reserves. Then the article goes on to deal with the Russian air force and the submarine question, and I want to quote the next question and answer:

Q. In case a war breaks out, would you have to wait for the reserve fleet to be taken out, or would you have enough strength to go ahead and start an initial blow with what ships you have? Would submarines, in other words, be able to stop our present navy?

A. That is a rather complicated question.

And later on:

We haven't as much anti-submarine strength as we would like to have. In the event of an emergency, we would need additional anti-submarine craft immediately-escort carriers, destroyers, patrol planes-all the elements of anti-submarine forces would have to be expanded very quickly. However, that situation would not cause us to delay using our offensive forces.

I have quoted these questions and answers because I feel that this is the sort of information our defence committee could obtain from the high officers in the armed services. There has been a candid admission of the situation with regards to the anti-submarine defences of the United States. If we had a candid admission that we needed so many more escort vessels, so many more radar screens, so many more anti-submarine devices, so many more submarines, or so many more of the other modern devices, hon. members of this house could go back to their constituents and say, "All right, it is going to cost us $400 million, or maybe more, but from the evidence given to me I know that if we want to preserve this country we have to have these things."

At the present time I cannot do that. I go back to my constituents and say that the minister has said so and so, but my constituents say, "The minister is a member of the government and is bound to say everything is O.K." I submit that it would create a more healthy position if members of this house could go back to their constituents and say that these expenditures were necessary because the information had been given in the

Proposed National Defence Committee committee on national defence. It would be information and not just a statement made by the minister standing in his place in the house and replying as briefly as possible to a question.

There are sombre, serious and even appalling possibilities in the hydrogen bomb. I should like to quote Professor Harrison S. Brown of the department of nuclear physics of the university of Chicago who I understand is one of the scientists working in the Argonne laboratories where the hydrogen bomb was either conceived or will in large part be put together and produced. He has this to say about the effectiveness of this weapon:

Few of us fully appreciate the enormous potentialities of the new weapon for destroying life. It has been stated many times that the bomb, if it works, can be used to destroy entire cities by the blast effects. That is horrible enough. But unfortunately the destructive potentiality of the hydrogen bomb does not stop there. If the bomb works at all, there may well be no upper limit to the size of the explosion that may be created.

Then he speaks about the calculations of the force of the explosion and goes on to say:

. . . the amount of destruction due to radioactivity from a hydrogen bomb could far exceed the destruction due to blast.

This extremely sombre statement follows:

If the hydrogen bomb works, technically speaking it is easy to visualize a series of explosions carried out along a north-south line at about the longitude of Prague, in Czechoslovakia. The radioactivity produced by the explosions would be carried eastward by the winds destroying all life within a strip 1,500 miles wide, extending from Leningrad to Odessa, and 3,000 miles deep, extending from Prague to the Ural mountains. By the time the radioactivity passed the Urals, the intensity would be lower, and the destruction would be less. By the time the Pacific had been crossed and the west coast of America reached, the radioactivity would not be dangerous. Many human beings could survive such an attack by protecting themselves with shielding and wearing gas masks to filter radioactive dust, but radioactivity is not specific against human beings. Animals and vegetation within the area would be destroyed. Such an attack would produce a scorched earth of an extent unprecedented in history.

The United States could be attacked in a similar manner. Hydrogen bomb explosions could be set off on a north-south line in the Pacific, approximately 1,000 miles west of California. The radioactive dust would reach California in about a day, and New York in four or five days, killing most life as it traversed the continent.

That, Mr. Speaker, is a statement of one of the principal nuclear scientists of the United States. Complete and absolute devastation of literally thousands of square miles and every living thing thereon is envisaged. Today we are spending $400 million on defence. We are spending some $600 million for all social security and welfare services. If this sort of weapon can be used against us all the money we spend on everything else other than national defence may be completely wasted. I suggest that this issue transcends every other

issue facing the Canadian people today. It is an issue on which we cannot afford to be kept in ignorance. If it is necessary even to double the expenditure on national defence in order to preserve our lives and to preserve Canada we should be told about it. We should know about it because in the hands of this parliament rests the responsibility for the peace, welfare and security of the Canadian people. I therefore support the amendment.

Topic:   PROPOSED SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LIB

Daniel (Dan) McIvor

Liberal

Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):

Mr. Speaker, I have just three things to say, and I will say them in two minutes. The best preparation against war is the elimination of hate. I have heard cabinet ministers and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), when addressing church organizations, say that the churches had the cure. What do the churches do? They believe in the providence and direction of the Almighty. They believe that peace will win, and if we can instil peace and love in the hearts of the enemy instead of hate we will win.

There is another thing I should like to say. I congratulate the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) on the fine display we saw last Saturday. I saw more than aeroplanes, and others did too. It was a chilly Saturday morning and some of us were cold. I thank the minister for the hot refreshments he served which warmed us from head to toe. A man like me could take lots of it because we could walk away as sober as when we came there. That suggests to me the thought that we have to be careful in the provision of stimulants to our youth under twenty or twenty-one years of age in the army, navy or air force. No man can give his best to his country if he cannot think clearly, and if a man has two, three, four or five hot Scotches in him then he does not think clearly. I do not drink because I do not like the look of some other people and how they act when they are under the influence. I do not like the taste and I have not a steady enough head to carry it.

Coming back to my first point, the best cure for war is to be found in the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that great prime minister, that love is stronger than hate and faith is stronger than doubt. If we practise this we will drive out the devil of hate.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

Topic:   PROPOSED SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink

AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS


ALBERTA NATURAL GAS COMPANY


The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Maybank for the second reading of Bill No. 7, respecting Alberta Natural Gas Company, and the motion of Mr. MacDougall: "That this question be now put."


CCF

Owen Lewis Jones

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):

Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this bill last week, I outlined the visible support in our province behind the suggestions we have made to the sponsor of the bill that the pipe line should go through British Columbia. Since then, I have had a great deal more evidence of the public support of our efforts in British Columbia. Boards of trade and other groups, as well as many individuals, have plied me with letters requesting that we carry on the fight to prevent this valuable natural asset from being taken to the United States. We have tried to answer those letters as best we could, but it has been difficult to explain why a private bill such as this apparently has a priority which I have never seen given any other private bill.

Naturally, one wonders why this is so. I do not know the reason behind it, but I am satisfied that the people who are fighting to have this pipe line taken directly to the United States are totally unaware of the possibilities this pipe line offers for developing our own country. I, therefore, put it down to possible ignorance or indifference. Perhaps it is due to the impression these people have that money can be made quickly by taking the gas to the United States. On the other hand, I believe a long-range policy of conservation, and utilization of this natural resource in our own country, would pay big dividends over a period of years. I can quite see why a private company is anxious to take this gas to the easiest market as quickly as possible, and as cheaply as possible. It is true that they may derive some immediate benefit from the profit point of view, but I assure you that the public of Canada as a whole, and particularly the people of British Columbia, would be the losers. Any recompense given by the ultimate consumer to the private company would bear no comparison with the benefits that could be derived if we were to use this gas in the development of our own country.

At times I wonder if we lack that pioneering faith we had in the early days, when the Canadian Pacific railway first decided to cross the country. I am sure if that company had come to this house, and requested approval of a route through Spokane, Tacoma and then possibly to Vancouver, it would have been turned down with scorn. I cannot conceive any government granting the privilege, nor can 1 conceive of any public-spirited body of men requesting that privilege of the government. It is true that the same arguments 55946-48

Alberta Natural Gas Company could have been used then as they are today. The Canadian Pacific could have said that there were several flourishing towns in the United States, filled with people who would use the passenger trains, freight trains, and so on. On the other hand, there was nothing on the prairie. Such a statement would have been correct. These men had vision. They could see a future for the territory through which that railway was going to travel. They could see hope for a bright future for the youth of that day. With men of vision at the head of the government, they entered into what has proven to be a major development in Canadian history, the bringing of the railway from east to west.

I am satisfied that modern youth is just as adventurous. It is as capable of developing the utilities and factories in the wake of a pipe line as our fathers were in developing things in the wake of a railway. The other night the member for Camrose (Mr. Beyer-stein) mentioned some of the possible developments that could follow in the wake of this gas pipe line. I have heard questions about the industries that could be developed, so I was pleased when he placed a list of them on the record. I should like to read what he said:

Visible in the west are the materials for every type of plastic, for virtually all the major industrial chemicals and electro-chemical products. There is, here, the material for rayon, for nylon, synthetic rubber, phenolic and cellulose plastics, carborundum, graphite, cyanamide, acetylene and its host of relatives.

He could very well have added other industries to the list. British Columbia has not only those raw materials, but many more and base metals that could be used if the power were available. I am thinking of a cheap power such as natural gas. Cheap power is one of the essential elements, if a modern industry is to produce for the competitive markets of the world. It is for that reason we are anxious to get this type of power in British Columbia. To the south of us, they are fully conscious of this fact. If one goes to Texas, or some of the other southern cities in which industries have been developed as a result of natural gas or oil, you will find enthusiastic, prosperous cities. I have in mind Houston, Texas. Recently I was talking with an engineer, and he pointed out that no Canadian university offers a course in petroleum engineering. I do not know of a single Canadian petroleum engineer. Most of them are Americans and work in the United States oil fields or overseas. This means that Canadians are entirely dependent upon information and technical instruments obtained from the United States in the development of our natural

Alberta Natural Gas Company resources. All this is the result of the fact there are no facilities for training petroleum engineers in Canada.

In the city of Houston there are 280 industries which owe their existence directly to the fact that natural gas was piped into the city. Each of those industries is large. I could mention several of them, such as explosives, chemicals, dyes, and so on, but anyone conversant with what is possible with natural gas and oil will know what I mean. I should like to read to you what an expert has to say about the possibilities. This expert, by the way, was speaking of the areas in the United States that are likely to benefit by the exportation of our natural gas over the border. He is W. Frank Prendergast, assistant to the president, public relations, Imperial Oil Limited, Denver, Colorado. He made the statement in October of last year, and I will quote it in part:

It Is impossible to predict at this time just how much the oil developments in Alberta will mean to your member areas, jointly and severally, as time goes on. Already they have meant a great deal to Alberta, to the prairies and to Canada and will mean more and more as the years pass. So far as you here in the United States are concerned it must be to your advantage to have a neighbour- that is a friendly neighbour-who is strong, and what country can call itself strong today if it is grievously deficient, as Canada has been, in petroleum?

Again, it should be encouraging to all of us to know that there are large new supplies of petroleum close at hand for many of us and accessible to all if required.

Then there are the enormous reserves of gas that I referred to-some 6,000 million cubic feet and much more in prospect. This might well become an available raw material for new industries in some of your member states as well as in Canada, or you may have materials south of the border which could be exported for manufacture or processing in a region so rich in gas.

That is one suggestion I should like to make, that we offer to our United States cousins facilities in this country to utilize the gas in the area in which it is produced rather than pipe the bulk of it out. The statement goes on as follows:

In that event Canada's improved exchange situation resulting from her lessened dependence on U.S. dollar oil might be of consequence.

Then he goes on to point out to this committee:

The area which you collectively represent is a continental area without the advantage of low-cost water carriage for its trade and commerce and so it faces more complex problems than areas which had the advantages of low-cost transportation from sources of raw materials and to major markets. Consequently its development-and I believe that in the next score of years it will be an enormous development-will set a pattern new in many important respects. It is a pattern that will evolve from the application of individual and collective imagination and initiative to the many problems and manifold opportunities. Of these opportunities

it seems to me that none today holds out a greater promise than the enormous new resources that are being found and developed in Alberta.

Some time ago those reserves were estimated at 5 billion barrels of oil and 6 billion cubic feet of gas, enough to carry on for many years if properly developed and conserved.

I have here another statement that I should like to read into the record, as to the approximate reserve that is available, because I am satisfied that we in this parliament are not conscious of it; otherwise we would not be hastily trying to get this bill through, knowing what will happen in the future. The statement, which by the way was written for this month's issue of Canadian National magazine, reads as follows:

With an estimated oil reserve of some 1,100 million barrels and reserves of 6,000 million cubic feet of natural gas in the province of Alberta, Canada is in the midst of the greatest oil and natural gas development in her history, according to S. W. Fairweather, vice-president of research and development. Edmonton, in one of the most active areas of oil exploration in the western hemisphere, is "oil capital" of North America.

In a concise, chronological report on the Canadian oil development, complete with maps and charts, Mr. Fairweather traces the development from the first oil discovery in the Turner valley in 1914 up to the present unprecedented activities.

The discovering of light oil near Leduc, 18 miles south of Edmonton, in 1947, is shown as the beginning of the present Canadian oil "boom." In less than a year, developments proved the presence of a major oil field extending from Leduc across the north Saskatchewan river to the Woodbend district. Up to the end of 1949, drilling in this field alone has indicated a reserve of 250 million barrels of oil and 500 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

Since the Leduc discovery, the railway economist declares, oil of a similar quality has been found "almost all around Edmonton;" at Joseph lake, Whitemud, Golden Spike, Barrhead, Bon Accord and Redwater. The Golden Spike discovery well is remarkable for a thickness of oil-bearing formation that exceeds 500 feet. The Redwater field, with an indicated reserve of 500 million barrels, is the largest oil pool yet discovered in Canada.

Fincher Creek, south of Calgary, has the deepest successful well ever drilled in Canada. It was recently brought into production at 12,500 feet with a record potential of 83 million cubic feet of wet gas per day.

The Lloydminster field, situated astride the Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary, which came into production in 1943, still constitutes the largest known reserve of heavy oil in Canada.

Exploration is now spreading into the sedimentary areas of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and northern Alberta, Mr. Fairweather says. Oil in quantity was recently discovered by Imperial Oil, Limited, at Normandville, thirty miles south of Peace river and 210 miles north of Edmonton.

I have tried, Mr. Speaker, to indicate to you that this is a long-term proposition because of the vast known and potential reserves. I have tried to point out to you that here we have an asset which is equalled by no other that we know of in Canada today. While possibly wheat and timber have built up our

country up to the present time, this age is becoming more mechanized day by day; and day by day there is a greater demand for the products of Alberta oil and natural gas. Yet instead of conserving them and developing them to our interest and benefit, we are deliberately allowing them to be taken south of the border to be exploited by people whose interests are merely commercial ones for profit and are not those of Canadians. I feel that we should not only be looking forward now to replacing some of the spent wealth we have had-and we have spent it possibly recklessly-in timber, mines and so on; I believe we should be looking for some other source of wealth that would' be steady, and that we should profit by the experience we have had with regard to exploitation, and should conserve it and make it do its utmost to build up Canada. By proper conservation and development this very thing could be done, bringing a balanced economy particularly to us in British Columbia, in the interior, where we are dependent entirely on mining, lumbering and agriculture, and especially in the district from which I come where we depend mostly on fruit. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we badly need that balance to our economy and we see here-and that is why I am fighting so hard-the very thing that would bring that balance and bring to our industries secure prosperity for years to come.

I understand that some objection has been made to the routes. Some say that it is too dangerous to have the pipe line alongside a railway on account of slides. I should like to point out that obviously the pipe would be on that side nearest the cliff; and the side nearest the cliff is usually the best protected from slides because they generally cross over. If the corner is protected

and the corner is protected, it is true-it slides over and takes the railway away. So the safest part for the pipe line obviously is not at the edge where it could be washed away but hugging the cliff where it is to a certain extent protected. But we are not entirely dependent on following the railway anyway. I do not believe that the route of the trans-Canada highway will have any very steep grades along any of its mileage through British Columbia. For all practical purposes it does not matter which one you decide on, the northern, the southern or the middle route. The three routes are of such a nature, so far as grade is concerned, that a pipe line could very well be put alongside the road through to Vancouver.

I hold in my hand a report which I should like to read if I had the time. It was made by Ford, Bacon and Davis for the Westcoast Transmission people. In this report they point 55946-48a

14, 1950 747

Alberta Natural Gas Company out that an ideal route lies between Edmonton and Vancouver, through the Yellowhead pass. These people are experts on that kind of thing. It is their declared and published opinion that that is an excellent and feasible route through which to reach Vancouver. I suggest that we could possibly ignore both roads and railways, if necessary, because I understand passes are now known, through which it would be possible to lay a pipe line, but I am not going into that. Suffice it to say that the engineers are on record as saying that they have a feasible route, a cheaper route than through the United States, to reach the coast.

Personally I would favour the government taking over the pipe line and controlling it, but I know that is dreaming. I know that the present government would not consider it; therefore I suggest the next best thing is for Canadians to control it by Canadian capital. Surely we in Canada can capitalize a pipe line. Why go to the United States for the capital? What is wrong with our banking system that it will not take a chance? What is wrong with our Canadian people that they will not take a chance? I am sure that if they studied the history of the United States pipe lines and found out what an excellent investment is has proved to be they would not have to go to the United States for one cent of capital for Canadian natural gas pipe lines.

Naturally money is available. I understand they can get all the money they want provided they get a charter and provided the route goes through U.S.A. territory. I know it is a good investment. It would be a good investment for the government. It would be a good method of control for the government. It would be definitely in the government's interest to have Canadians owning the line, paying their income tax and living in Canada, rather than have that immense wealth going to the United States, as it will.

This is not sentiment; this is business. I believe the government is anxious to look after its own business, and the pipe line is its own business. It is something that we as Canadians have inherited. It is something that we own now, that once taken away from us or given away, piped away or siphoned away, is lost forever. Our only chance of maintaining a hold on our own wealth is by withholding this bill or insisting that the nature of the bill be changed for our protection by saying that the route must be through British Columbia.

The other point that I would bring to the attention of the house is a very simple one. Just think what a development of this kind would mean in revenue to the people of

748 HOUSE OF

Alberta Natural Gas Company Canada. I saw the history of one pipe line in the United States that cost $180 million. But it started many industries in the territory that it served, amounting to over one billion dollars over a period of two or three years. That shows that the pipe line of itself is not where the wealth or the potential wealth is. It is in the industries that are created by the pipe line coming into the territory. It is that phase of the problem that worries me. It is true, we are worried about the pipe line itself. It is not so much the worry as the fact that we are wilfully, childishly and foolishly giving away such tremendous wealth through our ignorance of what it is possible to do in developing industries.

The government should take notice and if possible get this bill changed. After all, they are the trustees of the people. The people own these resources. The government as trustees have a duty toward the people. They have a duty to protect the wealth that is owned by all who are called Canadians. No other body but the government can do it. It would be in the best interests of the government of Canada and of the people to have this done. It would mean that we could start in British Columbia industries that could not possibly be started in this district or on the prairies. They could be started in British Columbia because we have a fine climate, an all the year round climate, where industries could flourish both summer and winter without the usual shutdown because of extremely cold weather.

While we on this side of the house are possibly taking a more active part in fighting this bill than those on the other side, it is not a political issue. It is not a political bill. It is a bill that is basically sound except for the fact that it has not a clause containing protection for Canada. We know we want development. We do not want to stop the pipe line being built. No. That is what the bill is going to do. I would like hon. members on the other side of the house to note that this is not a political issue, but I do think that the best interest of my province can be served by voting against this bill. Therefore I challenge them to do so in the interests of the people who have written to me from more than my own riding, calling on me to get others to help to kill this bill.

I could carry on but my time is nearly exhausted. I leave this thought with hon. members. Fifty years from now the economic history of this period will be written. Historians will talk of this period. If through neglect, or through indifference, we allow this wealth to cross the border they will look back on this particular parliament and this

particular period in our economic development and say, "What stupid people they were; they did not know what they were doing." To avoid that stigma in the future we can, before it is too late, insist that this company insert a clause in the bill promising faithfully to take the route through British Columbia, and give us first access to our own natural wealth.

Topic:   ALBERTA NATURAL GAS COMPANY
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to incorporate certain named individuals under the name of Alberta Natural Gas Company. The bill gives that company various powers, including the power to construct and operate pipe lines both for natural gas and for oil within and outside Canada. In other words, there is no restriction on the area in which this company can construct these pipe lines.

Of course, as we all know, the incorporation is sought in order that the incorporators, and their associates, may pipe natural gas, and also crude oil, from the province of Alberta to the Pacific coast. The great question the bill raises is this. Should these pipe lines serve Canadians first, or Americans? Or, putting it another way, shall the export of gas and oil to the United States be limited to the surplus after Canadians have been supplied? That question cannot be evaded by parliament. It must be faced; and the only opportunity to do so is when this or the other bill with a similar object is brought before us.

I am particularly and genuinely concerned, as I believe hon. members will appreciate, because it is my view that if parliament permits Canadian gas and oil to be piped out to the United States, without requiring that it first be supplied to the people of British Columbia, such action will constitute the worst betrayal of the people of that province since confederation.

May I warn members from some of the other provinces. Let us first take those from Saskatchewan. They may find the next step will be that instead of their towns being supplied with natural gas that gas will be sent down into the United States, to the south. Let me warn members from Quebec and the maritime provinces. They may find that these huge reserves of iron ore which are being developed, and which are now available in northern Quebec, may not be used in their provinces, but may be sent down to the New England states or through the St. Lawrence to the United States steel ports on lake Ontario. At present the people of British Columbia are the ones who are in jeopardy;

but if the principle behind this bill is accepted by parliament, then similar things may very well happen in other parts of Canada.

It is now perfectly clear that there are two alternatives. Before dealing with them, however, let me point out two things: In the first place it is admitted that there will be only one pipe line to the Pacific coast for natural gas. There may be another pipe line for oil; indeed, I believe there will be. But everyone admits that the market will support only one pipe line for gas. Secondly, it is admitted that the route used for the natural gas pipe line is almost certain eventually to have the pipe line for oil. It would be ridiculous to have a completely different pipe line route for crude oil. These two facts must be borne in mind in considering the arguments put forward on this question.

I said there were two choices. The first alternative with which I shall deal is that offered by the people behind this proposed company, the Alberta Natural Gas Company. They have attempted on two former occasions to get incorporation from the Canadian parliament, and on both occasions have failed because they proposed to build their line largely through the United States.

What are their plans? No secret is made of their intentions. Different statements have been made in the press. Three or four years ago promoters told me all about it in this building, and told other members who were here at that time. They have made no secret about what they intend to do. Their route is to be from southern Alberta through the Crowsnest pass into the district of Kootenay East, and then east of Kootenay lake the line will swing south into the state of Washington. It will continue across that state, eventually serving the great cities of Seattle, Tacoma and Portland, and en route serving such cities as Spokane, Wenatchee and other small American cities. Apparently there are to be two stub-lines running north into British Columbia. There may be only one, namely, that serving Vancouver. There is, however, talk of a stub-line running up into Trail.

In other words British Columbia enters into the picture only for a short distance through the Crowsnest pass and East Kootenay, and then by way of two stub-lines running up to the north from the main pipe line. They propose to go direct to the main market which, it is admitted, is in the states of Washington and Oregon. That is the last large district not served at the present time by a natural gas pipe line.

I have here the December issue of Fortune in which hon. members will find an interesting article entitled, "Natural gas, whoosh!".

14, 1950 749

Alberta Natural Gas Company Portions of it were read the other day by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge). I shall not read them again, but I shall refer to one paragraph dealing with the Pacific northwest which states:

The Pacific northwest, which is now entirely on manufactured gas, also provides a large potential market for natural gas, but is left out of this calculation because it will probably pipe in its gas from the newly discovered bonanza fields in Alberta, Canada.

So that this company is proposing to go direct to this American market with this Canadian resource. The people behind the company make no pretence whatever about developing Canada; they aim to sell where there is a market. Then, at the end of the line, they will put in a stub, up to Vancouver. That means that we will pay there the highest price of all, because we are at the end of the line.

Topic:   ALBERTA NATURAL GAS COMPANY
Permalink
LIB
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Yes, if there is any left. It will mean that very little employment will be furnished to Canadians in the construction of the pipe line, because nearly all of it is to be laid in United States ground. It means also that once the pipe line goes over the United States border it is beyond Canadian control. In other words we will get gas in Vancouver subject to the approval of some United States authorities. We will get Canadian gas in Vancouver subject only to the approval of an American authority. No treaty has been negotiated with the United States under the terms of which provision is made that this gas must be piped back into Canada. And if there is a shortage at any time-well, out in Vancouver we are at the end of the line, and we would get what is left. Only the Vancouver area, a small area in East' Kootenay and possibly Trail will be served. The rest of our province will have to go permanently without natural gas and crude oil.

Topic:   ALBERTA NATURAL GAS COMPANY
Permalink
LIB
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Because there is to be only the one pipe line.

Topic:   ALBERTA NATURAL GAS COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe:

The team is working very well tonight, the chorus over here.

Topic:   ALBERTA NATURAL GAS COMPANY
Permalink

March 14, 1950