March 20, 1950

PC

Arthur Leroy Smith

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Smith (Calgary West):

That is $125 a year.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   ALBERTA NATURAL GAS COMPANY
Permalink
PC

Julian Harcourt Ferguson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Ferguson:

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

machines because we have a small market in which to sell them as compared with the United States price of $80. We all know of railroad men travelling across this country and coming to the border and handing their train over to United States engineers who receive far better remuneration than our [DOT]engineers do. That applies to freight or passenger trains. I know that in my own town of Collingwood there are capable seamen who travel across the great lakes in boats of tonnage identical with that of boats which sail from Duluth, and carry the same commodities; yet our sailors receive far less money than the United States sailors. How much longer must that go on? Our resources are as great as those of the United States. Our work is as hard and our burden as heavy to carry, but our remuneration is far less than is received for the same work in the United States. I as a Canadian, and as a member of the House of Commons, must protest against the continual giving away of Canada's resources.

This afternoon I heard the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) speak in a flippant manner regarding the assets of this country. He does not seem to realize what this resource means not only to Alberta but to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and the remainder of our ten provinces. How delighted we were when Newfoundland became our tenth province. Do we want to have anything to give these people to work with? The desire seems to be to get the gas across the line as quickly as possible over the shortest possible route. I say to the members of the Liberal party from all over Canada, cease being rubber stamps and look into this situation. If we object to this, it is called a filibuster. When I as a Canadian born of three generations endeavour to save the resources of the Dominion of Canada it is called a filibuster. What are we sent here for? So far as this bill is concerned, 90 per cent of the men who fill the Liberal benches do not know what they are here for. Numbers of them have never voiced an opinion. Just a scant handful have said anything. Some person must have said to them, this is what you are going to do and nothing else. We have all heard the old saying that 50,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong, that there is a sucker born every minute, as Barnum said, and that the organ-grinder has more than one monkey on his string.

Do hon. members realize that natural gas is the. greatest selling commodity now known to the industrial world? Do hon. members know that it is being transported 2,000 miles from its source in the United States? Do the Liberal members realize that this $100 million which is being spent on this pipe line

20, 1950

Alberta Natural Gas Company is infinitesimal compared with the amounts being spent by pipe-line companies in the United States? Why, this is just a bagatelle. Do they realize that 13,500,000 people in the United States are now enjoying natural gas? And yet they want to put this pipe line down in the United States to feed the only part of that country which is not now enjoying natural gas. Why not put this pipe line into British Columbia? Why not let it serve Saskatchewan, that great and wonderful province? Why not let it serve Manitoba and Ontario? The distance from Fort William to the source of supply in Alberta is far less than from Houston, Texas, to New York.

We need it in Ontario not for selfish reasons but for the advancement of the people of this province so that Ontario can become more densely populated and its people will not have to go to the United States to receive better pay than they are now receiving. Let us build up this country of Canada in the way in which it can be built up. Let us stop giving away our resources as we have been doing. This is no filibuster. We are facing one of the most serious problems that has ever confronted the members of this House of Commons.

It is beyond belief when I hear a large industrialist from eastern Canada, who sits to the right in the House of Commons and who has made a few hundred thousand dollars out of industry, laugh loudly when the suggestion is made that our resources should be preserved for Canada. It is a pity that he could not see fit to get on his feet and urge this parliament to use a sane method in exercising its power to say, "No, we are responsible to the people for the protection of the resources and we will not grant this charter with the information we have before us."

What have we to vote on? We have lots not to vote on. We have simply an application whereby some barristers and solicitors of the Dominion of Canada ask for a charter to build a pipe line. Do we know what quantities of natural gas we will require in Canada? How thoroughly has the government studied the needs of this country, not five years from now but ten or twenty years from now? Have they considered it in the light of a proper program-something they have not thought of -of immigration to swell our population, a program that would permit people to come here and earn a living rather than to receive Marshall plan aid and the free gifts of Canada?

No, they will wait until we have lost our markets. They will wait until our farmers are back where they were in 1930 looking for some place to sell their products. They will

Alberta Natural Gas Company do that rather than encourage immigration which would help to use up our resources. We hear that $100 million is going to be spent in the United States to manufacture this steel pipe line. Surely there is some person in the government with a vestige of vision, with enough soul to say, "I am a Canadian and I am going to build up this country. We are not going to keep on being subservient to the United States and saying, 'Please, Mister, you put up $100 million and we will lend you a few workmen, we will garner in a few shekels and we will give you our birthright.' " Is there no man in the party to the right of the Speaker who feels as I feel, that this is important to Canada irrespective of what province you come from?

Surely there must be some of you who will say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), "Wait a minute, I do not know enough about this. There must be something in what these fellows are saying." I venture to say that eighty per cent of the members of the Liberal party do not know what a natural gas well looks like, or what an oil well looks like. I will bet you that they have not spent five minutes in studying the great potentialities of the natural resources of Alberta.

The Progressive Conservative party, the C.C.F. and other members are questioning this charter. They want to know what the charter is going to give and what it is going to take away. They want to know what we are going to receive. They want to know what this will mean to the people of Alberta and Canada. When this pipe line is completed and gas is flowing down to the United States it will give those people an opportunity to operate their industries and produce at less than we can produce in Canada. What will be the loss to the government and the people of Alberta? It will be nothing compared with the gains of the people living in the United States who will be operating the industrial enterprises with the assistance of this gas. It will only strengthen their arm to continue to operate against Canada in producing at prices we cannot compete with. They will be paying their labour while our men will be walking the streets in a short time from now.

There are no signs on the part of the government of a slackening up in the granting of this charter. For some reason or other they want to push it through. No one here representing any group, apart from the chosen few of the Liberal party, has any right to read, study or worry on behalf of his constituents if they get up to voice their opinions. I am sure that there are members of the Liberal party who, if they were questioned about this situation and asked what they knew about it, would have to reply that they had made absolutely no study whatever. It is simply a case

of, "Let us get it through because some person in our party has told us to rubber stamp it and that is what we are here for."

That is not what you are here for, gentlemen. You are here for the same purpose that I am here for. Irrespective of party you are here to watch the resources of your country. We are ten united provinces who should work as one. I want some information as to what is going to happen under this charter. This is the last rope by which I can hang on to our natural resources. This is the last rope by which you gentlemen can control this.

If this charter is granted, these people will go before a commission not made up of members of the House of Commons. When people vote for a candidate on election day they say, "I believe that man is honest; I believe that is the man I want at Ottawa. I do not think he will let them take any undiscovered or recently discovered natural resources away from the people of Canada. I think he will go down to Ottawa to look after our interests."

We have seen our pulpwood being sent to the United States to be manufactured into newsprint. For years newsprint produced in United States mills has been coming back to this country to be used in putting out our newspapers. We were printing our newspapers on United States paper manufactured by United States labour from the natural resources of Canada. Then thanks to a certain premier of Ontario this practice was stopped. He put his foot down and said, "That is as far as you can go; this pulp must be made into paper in the province of Ontario: If you want this paper, you

Americans whom we love and respect, put up your paper plants in Ontario, employ Ontario labour and keep them off the breadline. We will give you all the pulp you want and you can sell the finished product back to your beloved United States."

The net result is that there are paper mills across northern Ontario and the rest of Canada that we are all exceedingly proud of. As we go through those mills we see pulp from our forests being churned up, manufactured into paper, rolled up and being tagged for the Chicago Tribune, the New York Herald and other newspapers. All this being made by Canadian labour.

This is a filibuster being put on by this side of the house, with few exceptions such as the hon. Liberal member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). He has every right to be proud of the fact that he got to his feet to speak. He is a veteran of the first war. He is a man who thinks of his people. Are there not some others who are men enough to get up and say, "I cannot vote by standing

on my feet for the passage of a charter when I know absolutely nothing of the way in which this charter is going to be used?" Who is going to use it? What is Canada going to get out of it? Surely members of the Liberal party coming from Ontario, as I do, can understand the plea of the members of the legislature of the province of British Columbia. Surely they can understand their point of view when they ask to have the pipe line go through their province, and then if there is anything left over by all means sell it south of the border. Surely members of the House of Commons of Canada must hearken to the pleas of the provincial government of British Columbia, the unanimous vote of their legislature, and the municipalities of that province.

I do not live there. In fact I almost froze there last August. You are here as members of the House of Commons of Canada but surely some small part of your hearing must be able to catch the voice of British Columbia. Members of their government and legislature have made a more thorough study of the question than ninety per cent of the Liberal members here tonight, during the day or at any other time. Do not be so generous with the other fellow's money when you vote, because it is really your money to protect also. Let me say that if any Liberal member of the House of Commons owned these resources he would be a little more careful about how he was going to use them and where they were going to be sent. He would want to know more about the future. That is your duty, and that is what you are here for. Make no bones about it.

The speeches of some Liberal members who have taken part in this debate will make lovely reading at the next election. Let me assure you that I intend to take the speech of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Apple-whaite) and simply comment on it, and I will certainly be re-elected because my people will not stand for anybody giving away the resources of Canada as he wants to. I will be back for sure. We are just ordinary everyday businessmen with various vocations in life. Surely it would be an easy matter for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to say that it is possible for him to produce further facts regarding this charter. Surely it would be easy for him in has capacity to enlighten even the Conservatives as to what additional cost would be involved if the pipe line went through the province of British Columbia rather than through the United States. At various times in the House of Commons he has referred so casually to millions of dollars as being a mere nothing. In fact he called them peanuts once. Surely

Alberta Natural Gas Company he could say: Even if it does cost three or

four million peanuts, let the boys in British Columbia have it their way. It is their natural resource, it is their province and it is their Canada.

If the founders of the Canadian Pacific Railway had listened in the early days to some of those who were advocating railroads in the west, you would never have had the Canadian Pacific Railway today running from coast to coast. There are members of the house who do not realize that. We stand back and point with pride to our two railroads paralleling one another from coast to coast, but when the idea of a transcontinental line was first conceived, there were members of parliament who said: Why not run the

C.P.R. from the western provinces due south to the United States? Thus they would have isolated that section of Canada and impeded the growth which has certainly been fundamental in making the Canada we have today. The pioneers of the Canadian Pacific Railway have made it possible for us to say that as Canadians we are proud of the fact we are citizens of this great country and that we have inestimable natural resources.

At this time the people of the United States find that certain resources are becoming exhausted, and they are scratching their heads wondering where they will find the ore necessary to produce steel. They are willing to come to Canada, to Labrador, and to spend millions of dollars. It was announced in our papers recently that United States industrialists are going to spend millions of dollars on the development of Canadian resources. The development of Canada has only been made possible by men with vision, people who are now dead but who have given us the Canada that we have today. I make a solemn plea to the members of the Liberal party. They would do well to go to the minister and ask him to give them time to look into the situation. They need time because it will take a long while for some Liberals to get it through their heads what they are giving away. From their actions in the debate on this measure, undoubtedly they will have to go to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask his permission. There is no doubt about that.

No matter when the bill comes to a vote, let us hope that the slate is a little clearer and cleaner. Let us hope that the parliament of Canada will not grant such charters without any more thought than the bill received from many Liberal members who called for a vote before very many had had an opportunity to express their views on a matter which I believe is of the utmost importance and of the greatest value to the Dominion of Canada. I plead with them not to vote until

Alberta Natural Gas Company they know that history will not prove that they have given away a resource to the United States which at the present time is one of the greatest industries in that country. It has proven to be one of the greatest investments for investors.

Life insurance companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars of their policyholders' money on the purchase of stock in gas pipe-line enterprises. Surely we should give the people of Canada a better opportunity and more time to learn about what is going on in Alberta. The average citizen of Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland or Nova Scotia does not realize, any more than the Liberal members of the house, what a great new resource has been discovered in Alberta. Fortunately I was able to go out there last summer, and I had my eyes opened as to the tremendous potentialities of the new-found wealth of the Dominion of Canada. Each year we pay hundreds of millions of dollars for United States coal and oil.

What does it cost the people of Ontario to heat their homes with United States coal and oil? Do we know whether or not they can pipe oil and gas from Alberta and deliver it in Ontario at one-quarter the cost? We do not. It is the duty of this government, in looking after the welfare of the people of Canada, to ascertain those costs and find out what are the possibilities. If that cannot be done let them prove it to us, and show the people of Ontario that they must continue to spend millions of dollars for United States fuel and then watch it go up in smoke, while our people go on unemployment relief or go to the United States for jobs.

Let us stop somewhere. Let us populate the country. Let us build up this nation of ours. We are all very keen in saying we are a great nation. We were through the war. We made munitions, and did a great job. We promised our soldiers the world with a fence around it when they came back; and in some cases that has turned out to be the breadline. Here in this country, which is the last great undeveloped source of wealth, what great vision is the Liberal government showing in the development of Canada? They cannot take credit for the discovery of oil and gas in Alberta, though no doubt they will try, as they have tried to take credit for everything worth while in Canada. We must face the facts. United States capital owns the oil and gas developments in Alberta. The federal government simply toddled along behind; and when those developing these resources asked for a charter which would mean giving our heritage away our government said, "Bring

it into parliament and we will sign it as-quickly as possible. Do what you like with our resources."

There will be no doubt about my vote on this matter. Liberal members to the right and left of Mr. Speaker should think pretty seriously about how they will vote if they dare face their electors again.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   ALBERTA NATURAL GAS COMPANY
Permalink
CCF

Robert Ross (Roy) Knight

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

Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot share the hope of the hon. member who has just spoken that he may somehow, by his eloquence, influence the backbenchers on the government side to oppose this bill. One of the criticisms I think that can be levelled with some justification against the party system of government is that backbenchers will condone a great deal they do not think is right or they do not think is justified on the part of their government rather than cause that government embarrassment. After all, as they look at it, while a certain piece of legislation proposed may be bad, the embarrassment, or more particularly the fall, of the government to which they owe allegiance would be to them the ultimate disaster.

We have heard a number of fine speeches in this debate. If it has served no other purpose it has at least produced some eloquence in the house this afternoon and evening. I envy the hon. member who just spoke his forcefulness, though I must disagree with him in regard to the speech of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite), whom I envy for his facility in the use of the English language.

I might agree with the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) that the hon. member for Skeena rather spoiled his remarks at one point by flippancy, but on the whole I thought it was a very good speech, and carried away by his eloquence I felt for a moment that almost I was persuaded; but it was only almost. I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member did not point out that under this legislation the company may build its pipe line within certain provinces, and then the wording is "and outside Canada."

It is that provision in this bill to which I have some objection, like many other hon. members. This objection is founded on several reasons. I do not expect to be able to say anything that has not been said already, but it is still my glorious privilege to say it; and in doing so I shall not delay the legislation very much. In my mind the question arises as to the extent to which one is justified in delaying legislation which is quite evidently popular with the majority of hon. members here. The argument against that, of course,

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

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   ALBERTA NATURAL GAS COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe:

You have fixed that since then.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   ALBERTA NATURAL GAS COMPANY
Permalink
CCF

Robert Ross (Roy) Knight

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

Mr. Knight:

Right; and as far as we were concerned our opposition last session was not directed so much at the subject matter of those bills as to the challenge laid down by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to us as private members and the fact that, no doubt justifiably in his own mind but unjustifiably in the minds of most of us, he interfered with the procedure of this house in order to give those bills a certain priority. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), no doubt inspired by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, did that very thing by moving a resolution which extended the time for consideration of private bills.

I was going to state the reasons for my opposition. I shall do so as concisely as possible and without taking up too much time, lest I too should be accused of holding up legislation. In the first place, in my opinion a pipe line is or should be a common carrier. It is part of a transportation system and as such, according to the political philosophy I hold, it should be under public ownership and control. As it is I am afraid it will go the way of so many other things. United States capital will build and own it, and the dividends will go across the line into the United States instead of being distributed as they should be among the rightful owners of the gas or oil, the people of Canada.

That is the first thing. We are simply carrying on to completion a process of economic absorption into the United States by the alienation of our great natural resources. Look at what has happened to our timber in British Columbia. When I was out there a short time ago they were burning sawdust as fuel. They had some bad weather, as hon. members from British Columbia know, and in a few days the mills shut down because it was not economically profitable to produce lumber under those conditions. Within three days Vancouver was out of sawdust, and I saw a woman wheeling a fifty-pound sack of coal in a baby carriage. Those are the conditions with respect to fuel that can exist today in the great cities of British Columbia; yet we

20. 1950

Alberta Natural Gas Company are going to take our gas down to the United States and give it to the people of Seattle, letting the mothers in British Columbia push coal instead of babies in their baby carriages.

I am opposed to this bill because it proposes to take that gas down into the United States before taking it to the city of Vancouver. I do not know whether anyone has mentioned the matter of the employment the construction of a pipe line would afford, but in view of our unemployment situation it is an important consideration. Apparently Canadian industry is not geared to manufacture these pipes. I do not know why, but we have been told that there are 780,000 tons of this pipe being loaded on flat cars to supply the material for the construction of the pipe line under construction between Edmonton and Superior. I do not know whether the pipe for the construction of the line envisaged in this bill would come from the same source, but I am only speaking of what I do know.

The next thing I would draw to the attention of this house is that the granting of a franchise by the passage of this bill would be no guarantee that the line would be built. There is a story about that, which occurred in my own constituency. In the year 1940, it was the wish of the mayor and council of the city of Saskatoon to bring natural gas to that city for heating purposes. It was during the war, of course, but a contract was entered into with a firm called the Northern Natural Gas Company. I do not know anything about it, about its reliability, or whether it has any funds behind it which would enable it to carry out its commitments. The company obtained the franchise in 1940 but did nothing further about the matter. I suppose the minister will tell me that was due to the lack of material during the war years, and I grant him that. The point is, however, that nothing has been done since then. The company put up a deposit, and I presume that, because of the tortuous manipulations of the law, the council is somewhat reluctant to try to possess itself of the money which has been left in its hands. I do not know the law of the situation, but I do know we are interested in getting the gas. The other day representatives of that particular company met with the city council and had the audacity or pure cheek to apply for a further extension of the franchise for 20 years, while Saskatoon waits for that source of heat.

In short, those are the reasons why I am opposed to this bill. Again I say my opposition is chiefly because this pipe line is not going to be built by and for Canadians.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   ALBERTA NATURAL GAS COMPANY
Permalink

S28 HOUSE OF COMMONS


Alberta Natural Gas Company Canadians will not get the full benefit of the product which, in my opinion, belongs to them. If I wanted to be somewhat flippant, as the member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) sometimes is, I might suppose the government is anxious to put this pipe line down through United States territory to keep it out of the way of the bulldozers of the next military operation staged by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). Let the sponsors of the bill declare the route they intend to use. Then let parliament make its decision, in the light of that information.


?

Mr. W. Chester S. McLure@Queens

Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to oppose this bill, as many other speakers have done. I am not prepared to make a lengthy speech on the legal aspects of this bill. Those legal arguments have been well presented to this house by other speakers, who are opposed to the bill as it is now worded. It is supposed to be a private bill, but when you look at it, and when you listen to the attitude expressed by some members of this house, one finds it is a private bill closely cuddled by the government of the day.

I was asked to speak on this bill by my constituents, who have written asking me to state my position on the bill because it is not in the interests of Canada first. I shall not make any lengthy reference to those things that have already been mentioned. I am only speaking in the interests of our sister province, because we in the maritime provinces of Canada know what it is to be discriminated against, and neglected by this government. What is this so-called private bill before us? It amounts to discrimination against our sister province of British Columbia. The members from that province are speaking in opposition to the bill to ensure their province cheap power from the wonderful oil and gas fields of Alberta.

We have no information as to where this bill came from and, as the sponsor of the bill has admitted, he does not know where it is going. I believe all members of this house, when it comes to a vote, should send this bill to limbo immediately. I should like to say a word about the opportunities that will exist under this measure, if properly handled, from the point of view of British Columbia. It will give that great province on the Pacific coast the opportunity of developing her industries with the cheap power for which she is longing. Why then should this pipe line, as the promoters of it have almost admitted, go down through the United States, instead of first serving that part of Canada which is the gateway to the whole of Canada, namely, British Columbia?

A short time ago we had an example of the principle contained in this bill. Canada's great railway line was short of fuel. Why was there a shortage? It was due to the fact we had not developed the coal fields of Alberta. Properly developed, those coal fields could have supplied the necessary fuel, and there would not have been any shortage. If the principle of "Canada first" had been adhered to, the Canadian National Railways would have had a supply of fuel. Owing to the fact that this principle was not adhered to, there was a shortage of coal in the midst of abundance. If the mines had been properly developed, the coal could have been brought from the west to the east.

I do not intend to develop any phase of the arguments which have already been advanced, about the work that will be provided if the pipe line is constructed in Canada. It will mean jobs for the jobless, and we all know that subject is uppermost in the minds of the representatives of the people today. Certain industries should be developed in order to take care of the jobless, who are increasing across this country from east to west.

All maritime members know this bill; and I say to them that on this occasion they should declare themselves with reference to the principle of it and that, first of all, they should have in their minds the idea that we, as a young nation, should look to Canada first. The other nations near us can take care of themselves. The natural resources of Canada served this country well during times of war, and in times of peace they should be so developed in the interests of Canada first that this young nation will be made prosperous and the unemployment that exists throughout our country today will be done away with. Oil will aid in bringing this about. Today the spotlight of the world, you might say-or at least of America-is directed to the province of Alberta owing to the great discoveries that have been made and the great development of the oil fields there. This bill is brought in by the promotors with one idea in mind, namely, that the country to the south of us-and it is a great country-must have the first preference with regard to all the power from the province of Alberta. But, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the members of this house, no matter where they reside or with what party they are affiliated, first of all -when they come to vote, if they vote on this bill-will vote in favour of Canada first and to let us develop our own homeland.

In closing let me say just one word more. From time to time we have spoken of our great development in this country. As I said a moment ago, we now have the opportunity to give to the sister province of British

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

Topic:   S28 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
LIB
LIB

James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance)

Liberal

Mr. Sinclair:

Are you going to close the debate?

Topic:   S28 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. Cruickshank:

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

Topic:   S28 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Where do you stand?

Topic:   S28 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. Cruickshank:

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

Topic:   S28 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

The fourth row back.

Topic:   S28 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. Cruickshank:

I hear an interruption, "the fourth row back". May I say that if I have to go against my principles in order to get one row farther forward, I will go one row back. I think if some of my friends will wait a minute they may get a surprise around here, because I want to make it quite clear where I stand. I heard some question about my colleagues on this side of the house today. May I say that no pressure has been brought to bear on me by any member of the government, in any way, shape or form, to change my stand; and so far as I know, no pressure has been brought to bear by any member of the present government on any of my colleagues with regard to their stand. I want that to be perfectly clear.

I have not changed my stand at all. I want to make it clear that I am standing on my own say-so as the member for Fraser Valley. I was told tonight by some of my colleagues that possibly I was aspiring to the leadership of the Conservative party. I know they change their leaders often, and I know that my wife and I have not a house or an apartment; so on that ground alone I might have aspirations to take over the leadership of that party.

Topic:   S28 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
LIB
LIB

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. Cruickshank:

Just a minute. I do not know why I always get involved in controversial measures here in this House of Commons. The last time I was involved in one was during wartime. At that time I had two colleagues from my party who took a stand with me in connection with reinforcements. One of them-and rightly so-through his ability has obtained a high position within the government today; and I believe that on his ability he should go higher. The other 55946-59

20. 1950

Alberta Natural Gas Company member who sat with me was promoted to that other place, and I believe he deserves that recognition as a worthy old government supporter. I have not given up hope. I am apparently swimming the ocean alone at this time, but I have not given up hope. Who knows but that I may yet be appointed ambassador to Tibet or some other country such as that. You never can tell. There is always a hope.

Topic:   S28 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

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

Mr. Knowles:

Viet Nam for you.

Topic:   S28 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. Cruickshank:

I want to make my posi-t'on clear. I have not changed at all. I want to say this. To those from my own province who oppose me, I give full credit for their sincerity in their stand. All I ask of them is that they give me credit for sincerity in my stand, even if I oppose them. I think that is reasonable enough. I know they have their ideas and beliefs, and I have mine. But of course, with regard to the province of British Columbia, I happen at this time to be standing on the right side. Three or four years from now it may be a little bit embarrassing for some of those who are not.

I am just going to read part of a report in one of the papers of British Columbia. Unlike one or two of the other members, I am not staging a filibuster. If I were, I would conduct myself differently. I have forty minutes yet to go, but I do not intend to take it all. If I were staging a filibuster, I would continue until my time expired. But may I say that a filibuster is the only weapon a private member has with which to enforce or to endeavour to enforce what he believes is in the best interests of his riding, of his province and of Canada as well. Although a small paper in Vancouver called the Sun adopted somewhat the same attitude, I will just read you from one of our weekly papers. I read one of the other local papers the other day.

Topic:   S28 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance)

Liberal

Mr. Sinclair:

Is it a weekly or annual?

Topic:   S28 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink

March 20, 1950