July 1, 1952

?

Some hon. Members:

Four o'clock.

At four o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION
Subtopic:   READJUSTMENT OF REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink

AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS

BOUNDARY PIPELINE CORPORATION


The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. 62, to incorporate Boundary Pipeline Corporation-Mr. Larson-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair. On section 1-Incorporation.


LIB

Frederick Hugo Larson

Liberal

Mr. Larson:

Mr. Chairman, I have heard from several quarters that the pressing of this bill is impeding the progress of the business of the house which all hon. members want to complete. I feel that the bill has had ample discussion. I do not think anything can be clarified more than it has been clarified. I submit that we should go ahead and pass this bill. We could do it in ten minutes, and the business of the house would be completed that much more quickly.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   BOUNDARY PIPELINE CORPORATION
Permalink
PC

Gordon Knapman Fraser

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fraser:

Right or wrong, pass it! That is not good business.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   BOUNDARY PIPELINE CORPORATION
Permalink
PC

Alfred Johnson Brooks

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Brooks:

Mr. Chairman, fortunately there is not unanimous opinion on that matter in the house.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   BOUNDARY PIPELINE CORPORATION
Permalink
LIB

Edward Turney Applewhaite

Liberal

Mr. Applewhaite:

Let us take a vote.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   BOUNDARY PIPELINE CORPORATION
Permalink
PC

Alfred Johnson Brooks

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Brooks:

I was discussing this bill at nine o'clock on June 24. It is really so long ago that I have almost forgotten. Before I continue with my remarks may I say that I have been asked by the hon. member for Lambton West to make for him a correction in his remarks here some time ago when he was discussing the Boundary Pipeline Corporation bill. At that time he said that about 2J billion cubic feet a year were coming back into Canada from the United States, and that was coming in through the province of Ontario. This was a mistake as far as the number of cubic feet were concerned. During the calendar year 1950 3 billion cubic feet came into the province of Ontario. In the calendar year 1951 3-3 billion cubic feet were received. At the present time the Union Gas Company are receiving at a daily rate which will ensure receipt of the 5J billion cubic feet this calendar year which is covered by their contract and the export permit granted by the federal power commission in the United States. The hon. member for Lamb-ton West wished me to make that correction for him.

When I was discussing this matter the other evening I stated what I thought was in the interests of the people in my part of the dominion. While we do not expect to obtain any great benefit from this great natural resource in the province of Alberta, we are nevertheless concerned that it be preserved for the people of Canada. That is the chief reason I am speaking tonight. Also at this time I should like to commend the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra for the great interest he has taken in this matter. I know that the only interest the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has in trying to protect this great natural resource for the people of Canada is the interest he has in the future of this country.

At 9 o'clock last Tuesday night I was discussing the policy of the United States. At that time I was comparing the policy there with what I thought should be the policy here in Canada. In the United States the government protects its people in the exportation of gas; that is, if they consider there is not sufficient gas for exportation and for the use of their own people in the United States, then they prohibit the export of gas to Canada. In that connection I had read a paragraph from the decision in the Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company case re the application of the Union Gas Company of the city of Toronto. If further evidence is necessary-and I think perhaps it would do no harm to produce further evidence-

Boundary Pipeline Corporation I should like to read section 3 of the Natural Gas Act of the United States:

After six months from June 21, 1938, no person shall export any natural gas from the United States to a foreign country or import any natural gas from a foreign country without first having secured an order of the commission authorizing it to do so. The commission shall issue such order upon application, unless, after opportunity for hearing, it finds that the proposed exportation or importation will not be consistent with the public interest.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the first consideration of the government of the United States is their own public interest. To continue:

The commission may by its order grant such application, in whole or in part, with such modification and upon such terms and conditions as the commission may find necessary or appropriate, and may from time to time, after opportunity for hearing, and for good cause shown, make such supplemental order in the premises as it may find necessary or appropriate.

This act was passed on June 21, 1938. As I stated before, that is the practice in the United States with regard to the exportation of gas. There must be an order from the federal power commission. This order is subject to cancellation upon proof of an unsatisfied need for gas in territories adjacent to the pipe line in the United States. As far as we are concerned, Mr. Chairman, I think that is sufficient evidence that the United States does not intend to export this great natural resource to Canada. Naturally they could not export it to any other country, unless it would be Mexico or South America because, as we know, the only way in which gas can be exported is by pipe line. It is not like gasoline, as one of the hon. members here mentioned the other night. Gasoline or oil can be exported by boats, by tank cars and in many different ways. And besides protecting their own interests as far as their export of gas is concerned, the large gas pipe line companies in the United States also wish to protect their own market against imported gas from other countries. We might almost say that they want it both ways.

The Pacific Northwest Pipe Line Company, which is controlled by the Fish Engineering Corporation in the United States, as is the Boundary Pipeline company, is opposing the export of gas from Canada through the province of British Columbia. The other evening the hon. member for Kindersley mentioned the fact that we are already exporting gas. Well, it is a fact that we have already arranged to export and hope to arrange for the further export of gas to Seattle and Portland, but this large United States company is trying to prevent the export of Canadian gas to the United States at the present

4064 HOUSE OF

Boundary Pipeline Corporation time because, as I say, they want to reserve that splendid market for themselves.

It is well known that we export gas at the present time, some 10 billion cubic feet a year, to Montana to be used by the Anaconda Company there.

I should like to read a quotation from the Sunday Sun of Vancouver, dated June 14, which says:

Gas reserves key to pipe-line permit

This article mentions the fact that it is hoped gas will be exported from the Peace river area through British Columbia and into the western United States. It is practically the only market we would have for the gas from the Peace river area, besides serving local needs.

The article goes on:

Big rival of Westcoast in securing the necessary United States Pacific northwest markets is Pacific Northwest Pipelines Incorporated, a company affiliated with the Fish Engineering Corporation, Houston, Texas, well known in the gas transmission industry. It wants to pipe Texas gas to Portland and Seattle.

Pacific Northwest Pipelines have secured the allegiance of Henry Gellert, president of the Seattle Gas Company, who has declined to give Westcoast even a letter of intent to purchase Canadian gas.

These forces will oppose Westcoast before the FPC.

At the board hearings in the past three days they were represented by S. Bruce Smith, Q.C. of Edmonton, who battled long and hard with cross examinations to prove that Peace river gas reserves are not sufficient, that Westcoast is not financially sound in its backing, that it should have firm commitments from gas suppliers and distributors before any permit is granted by the board.

The board was satisfied in all requirements excepting that of the problem of gas reserves.

I quote that to show to what ends the gas companies in the United States will go to try to retain their own markets. I quoted the former references to show just how difficult it is for us to obtain gas from the United States, if they consider their own people are not being fully served.

I do not wish to repeat what I said on a former occasion, but it has been shown to this committee that both Ontario and Quebec are well acquainted with the fact that it is very difficult indeed to secure gas from the United States. They realize that the government of the United States is averse to shipping gas into Canada unless, as I said a moment ago, all their people are served along the different pipe lines that have already been constructed. Evidence was adduced in this committee to show that along most of the pipe lines from Texas to the Canadian border there is still a great demand in the United States for gas. The gas companies of Ontario realize this, and they also realize that if they are to have in the

future a permanent supply of gas they cannot depend on the United States for it. They must depend on the gas which comes from the province of Alberta. This has been stated definitely by the officials in the government of the province of Ontario and very emphatically by the premier of Quebec, who said that if his province is to obtain gas anywhere he is determined that it shall be from an Alberta source, because he believes it is the only sure source from which a guaranteed supply for the future can be drawn.

I want to commend also the Alberta resources board. I believe they are anxious to supply the Canadian market. They are anxious to supply the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, but before doing so they are investigating the supply of natural gas in their own province. That is a very wise decision. The Trans-Canada company already has a charter to build a pipe line across Canada which would supply both Ontario and Quebec. In connection with the Trans-Canada pipe line I should like to read a quotation from the Globe and Mail of January 22, 1952, which gives the attitude of Mr. Gem-mell, who is the minister of mines of the province of Ontario. This article has been quoted before in this house. After mentioning why they wish Alberta gas the article goes on:

For these reasons, the Alberta petroleum resources board is giving long consideration to the Delhi application for permission to pipe gas to Ontario and Quebec. Some experts say Alberta has plenty of gas and to spare but the board is investigating. And when and if the Alberta board gives the pipe line the nod, its promoters must next get permission from the board of transport commissioners here to build the line. It is thought, however, that if the Alberta board agrees, the transport commissioners will not make any difficulties.

An alternative suggestion, Mr. Gemmell said, is that if Alberta would allow gas to be piped into the western United States, Ontario might draw an equal volume from the Texas wells. Gas is now being piped north from Texas to Detroit and thence into Windsor and western Ontario.

Mr. Gemmell declared the provincial government was wholly opposed to any deal of this kind. In the first place, he said, it was very doubtful that the United States authorities would agree to supply Ontario with a firm uninterrupted volume of gas.

That is the situation as far as these great provinces of Ontario and Quebec are concerned. It is not necessary for me to point out the great need of this natural resource in the large provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

Those who are in favour of this Boundary Pipeline bill state that they are to supply gas to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Evidence and arguments have been produced to show that this line would not be feasible. The chief argument against it is its size. It would be only a 16-inch pipe line whereas Trans-Canada pipe line would be 30 inches. The

difference in capacity between a 16-inch pipe line and a 30-inch line is in the ratio of one to three and a half. It would be impossible for Boundary Pipeline to supply Ontario and Quebec, as well as Manitoba and other places, even if it were not the intention of the company- and we submit it is the intention- to pipe this gas into the United States. As I say, even if that were not the intention of the company, we contend that a line of this size would not supply Ontario and Quebec. Another line would have to be built, thus greatly increasing the cost of gas not only to the people this line proposes to supply but to the people purchasing gas in Ontario and Quebec.

As far as I am concerned, personally I hold no brief for any company; but I do believe that Trans-Canada has the right idea in that already they have provided themselves with large areas in Alberta capable of producing gas. Boundary Pipeline has no gas areas of its own. Trans-Canada has undertaken to build a pipe line in this country at a cost of about $350 million, and this would give a tremendous amount of work to the people of this country. It would also mean that in those great areas at the head of the lakes the pulp companies would have the opportunity to use this natural gas.

I was deeply impressed by the speech of the hon. member for Calgary West on May 2 of this year. I do not suppose there is anyone in the house who knows more than he does about this situation. He has made a thorough study of the production of gas in his own province, so when he speaks he speaks with authority. I am not going to read what he said, but hon. members will see that at page 1836 of Hansard he pointed out that Boundary Pipeline is condemned first of all on account of its limited size, to which I have already made reference.

He pointed out further that it opened up only a limited market. If there are the great quantities of gas in Alberta which we think there are, then it is not a limited market we want. We want opened up the great markets of Ontario and Quebec, and other parts of Canada. He also pointed out it would cost the consumers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba more because of the small size of the pipe. He added the irrefutable argument that the building of this small pipe line might delay for years the building of a larger one capable of serving Ontario and Quebec.

I have said that, as opposed to the Boundary pipe line, there is the Trans-Canada with three and a half times the capacity. Trans-Canada is a company which to a great extent has already made provision for

Boundary Pipeline Corporation the transportation of the gas, and has the financial backing to carry it through.

Another phase brought very much to the fore by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra not only in the consideration of this pipe line but also in that of others, is our Canada first policy. I can see nothing wrong with a Canada first policy. We in Canada have great natural resources. I do not suppose there is any country in the world with resources to equal ours, and there seems to be no reason why we should not try to conserve those resources for our own people. In the early days when Canada was a new country we did not have the financial institutions we have today. There was not available the great financial backing we now find in this country. At that time we did allow our natural resources to be exported to a much greater extent than they should have been. I believe that today there should be more manufacturing in this country of our own raw materials. If we conserve our resources and manufacture our raw materials we will build up our own industry and, better than that, we will build up our country.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   BOUNDARY PIPELINE CORPORATION
Permalink
LIB
PC

Alfred Johnson Brooks

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Brooks:

The hon. member makes what he thinks is a very smart remark, arid then walks out of the house.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   BOUNDARY PIPELINE CORPORATION
Permalink
LIB

Pierre Gauthier

Liberal

Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):

He is just

interested in your speech.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   BOUNDARY PIPELINE CORPORATION
Permalink
PC

Alfred Johnson Brooks

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Brooks:

The thirties have nothing to do with it. When we talk about our natural resources we must go back to the time the country was settled. It is our duty as Canadian citizens to conserve those resources not only for ourselves but for future generations. Unless we do so we can never be the great country we were intended to be.

In the early days of the United States when they did not have the financial backing to build their own industry, the New England colonies and other states shipped their natural resources to England. The United States did not become a great country until she began to manufacture. The same is true of the southern United States. We have heard how in days gone by they exported their cotton to other parts of the world so that the southern United States remained the poor section of that country. But that condition did not continue when they began manufacturing their cotton.

In common with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, I do not think any apology should be made in the house or anywhere else in Canada for advocating a Canada first policy so far as our natural resources are concerned.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   BOUNDARY PIPELINE CORPORATION
Permalink
LIB

Arthur Laing

Liberal

Mr. Laing:

How would the hon. member relate the theory he is now expounding to the

Boundary Pipeline Corporation importation of bauxite, upon which our aluminum industry is one hundred per cent dependent?

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   BOUNDARY PIPELINE CORPORATION
Permalink
?

Mr, Brooks:

I am not saying Canada should not import bauxite or any other raw material from any other country. If another country wishes to export its raw material to Canada, that is perfectly all right so far as I am concerned. But the fact that some other country wishes to export its raw material is no logical reason for stating that we should do the same. I know the hon. member comes from British Columbia, and that out there they are developing a great aluminum industry. I congratulate the hon. member and his province upon having that great industry there. But, so far as I can see, that is no reason why we should export all our raw materials such as pulpwood, iron ore and other products out of this country in order that some other country might become prosperous.

I see that my time is practically up but, as I said a moment ago, I do not believe it is in the best interests of this country that this bill should pass and a franchise be granted to the Boundary Pipeline Corporation to build a pipe line from the Alberta oil fields to the province of Manitoba.

(Translation):

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   BOUNDARY PIPELINE CORPORATION
Permalink
PC

Henri Courtemanche

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Courlemanche:

Mr. Chairman, it is with pleasure that the province of Quebec, which is at present experiencing the most phenomenal industrial development in her history, if not in the whole history of Canada, finds that a sister province, the province of Alberta, is also going through a period of prosperity and progress.

In Alberta, oil and gas may be considered as the two main factors of this new and truly prodigious era. In the province of Quebec, the causes appear to be more diversified and more numerous. There is obviously the Ungava iron ore, but one must not forget our copper, zinc and lead mines, our gold, titanium and asbestos mines, our pulp and paper production, our almost inexhaustible hydroelectric resources. One must not forget either another very important factor, namely, a very active, progressive, judicious and far-sighted provincial administration.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   BOUNDARY PIPELINE CORPORATION
Permalink
LIB
LIB

Paul-Émile Côté (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):

Do not go too far!

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   BOUNDARY PIPELINE CORPORATION
Permalink
PC

Henri Courtemanche

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Courtemanche:

Obviously, talk such as this may not please some of my hon. friends opposite, but truth has rights and it is a pleasure for me to make that truth known!

As far as the industrial development of Quebec as well as of Alberta is concerned, there is a fact which we should never forget; this development benefits the whole country. A more prosperous Quebec province means a more prosperous Canada and a richer province of Alberta means, also, a richer Canada.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   BOUNDARY PIPELINE CORPORATION
Permalink

July 1, 1952