March 6, 1953

Bill No. 192, for the relief of Mary Rose Anne Rihel Kowalski.-Mr. Winkler. . Bill No. 193, for the relief of Walter Critch.-Mr. Winkler.' Bill No. 194, for the relief of Edwin George Godden.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 195, for the relief of Lottie Men-delman Brand.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 196, for the relief of Jacob Titsch.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 197, for the relief of Andrew Percy Bell.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 198, for the relief of Eileen Doris Martin Martin.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 199, for the relief of Annie Moulard Cumming Wright.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 200, for the relief of William James Dunn.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 201-, for the relief of Jean Marion Oickle Joudrey.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 202, for the relief of Alena Estella Welch Ball.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 203, for the relief of Elizabeth Rogers Guerin.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 204, for the relief of Richard Alfred Sutton.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 205, for the relief of Doris Edgar Choquette.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 206, for the relief of Jessie Hazel Kerr Coolon.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 207, for the relief of Laurence Christopher Bell.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 208, for the relief of Valorie Leslie Hylda Carson Wallis.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 209, for the relief of Jessie Allan Purdie McCulloch.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 210, for the relief of Alice Mary Barakett Zion.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 211, for the relief of Marcel Clark.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 212, for the relief of Sender Mines-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 213, for the relief of Robert Joseph Albert Pratte-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 214, for the relief of Leonard James Chadwick.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 215, for the relief of Merle Minnie Esther Hoffman Nevard.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 216, for the relief of Doris Ethel Taylor.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 217, for the relief of Gordon Earl Page.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 218, for the relief of Yaroslava Glucka Levandosky.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 219, for the relief of Adelard Gilbert.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 220, for the relief of Celia Tarnofsky Edgar.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 221, for the relief of William Flookes.-Mr. Winkler. Bill No. 222, for the relief of Kathleen Ada Styles Labonte.-Mr. Winkler.


The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Larson for the second reading of Bill No. 189, to incorporate Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited.


Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, when the hour for private bills expired on Tuesday last I had finished pointing out benefits to the various parts of Canada which would follow the construction of a natural gas pipe line from the gas fields of Alberta to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I had just begun to deal with one other feature, namely the fact that one of the great weaknesses in the Canadian economy is the dependence of Ontario and Quebec on United States coal. I gave the figure for the importation of coal from the United States during the calendar year 1952, which was in excess of 24J million tons.

Hon. members will recall that along with shortages of oil, iron, steel and cotton, the shortage of coal in Canada was one of the main factors in bringing about our adverse exchange position in the year 1947. That exchange position forced the government to bring in what was known as an austerity program. Now, fortunately, the situation has changed to a large extent with regard to oil and iron ore because of the discoveries that have been made since that time. It has also been changed to a degree with regard to steel, and here in 1953 we have an opportunity with western Canadian natural gas to do something about this bad feature of having to import so much coal into Ontario and Quebec from the United States.

Dr. G. S. Hume, who I believe is the leading expert on oil and natural gas in Canada, made a speech in 1951, to which I referred the other day. It was entitled: "The Utilization of Natural Gas in Canada". In that speech he dealt with the effect that bringing

Private Bills

natural gas to Ontario would have on the amount of coal required. These were his words:

Thus, Trans-Canada pipelines-

As hon. members know, this is the one company which thus far has a plan to instal a pipe line from the west to Ontario and Quebec by an all-Canadian route. I continue:

Thus Trans-Canada pipelines, transporting 365 million to 500 million cubic feet a day, would deliver natural gas which, to the consumer, would represent a very large sales value and if efficiency in burning is considered, the pipe line, when operating at full capacity 500 million cubic feet a day, would replace the equivalent of about 25,000 tons of good grade coal a day.

That works out to over 9 million tons of coal a year which would be replaced by natural gas from the western prairies.

Objections have been raised to an allCanadian natural gas pipe line. One of them is that the distance is too great. It would be about 1,780 miles from Alberta to the city of Toronto, and another 325 miles from Toronto to Montreal, making the estimated total length of the pipe line to Montreal 2,105 miles. That does seem a long distance; but on the west coast the Fish Engineering Corporation are speaking of a line of about 1,400 or 1,500 miles, with which they hope to prevent us from getting our natural gas from the Peace river into the states of Washington and Oregon.

Hon. members may be interested to know that the Bechtel Corporation, which is one of the great pipe-line building firms of the world, and which incidentally is building the oil pipe line to the Pacific coast at the present time, has plans for a gas pipe line from Iraq to Paris, and eventually to London. I hold in my hand the issue of The Oil Forum for January of this year. It contains an article on this proposed pipe line. The distance to Paris would be 2,500 miles. The pipe line would have a capacity of 500 million cubic feet a day, which is the same capacity as is planned for the all-Canadian pipe line to Ontario and Quebec; and it would cost $425 million. There you have a much larger gas pipe line proposal by a thoroughly responsible company. I submit that one cannot question the plan for an all-Canadian pipe line on the basis that the distance is too great.

Another objection is that it would be preferable to have a system of exchange in gas; for example, that we should pipe our gas which comes east from Alberta down into the state of Minnesota, and then let Ontario and Quebec depend on natural gas being piped in from Texas or other parts of the United States. That of course would

Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited require an agreement between the governments. Pipe lines are installed by private companies, not by governments, both in the United States and in Canada; therefore it will be realized how difficult it would be to work out an agreement between the governments. We seem to be having a great deal of trouble getting an agreement between governments concerning the St. Lawrence waterway, and how much more difficult it would be to have an agreement with regard to natural gas pipe lines.

Then if there is an exchange agreement the result will be that Ontario and Quebec will be subject to the federal power commission of the United States. Under the natural gas act of the United States that commission must apply the test of public interest. It has been clearly defined on several applications to permit the piping of United States gas into Canada. I hold in my hand one of the decisions which gives the picture very clearly. It is a decision by the federal power commission of the United States on an application for leave to export gas to Ontario, and reads as follows:

Delivery of natural gas to Union-

That is the Union Gas Company of Canada, Limited.

Delivery of natural gas to Union shall be curtailed or interrupted whenever, and to the extent, required for the protection of deliveries of natural gas, either for immediate consumption or for storage, to any and all of applicant's customers in the United States. The authorization hereby granted shall not constitute ground or justification for any refusal by applicant to transport or sell natural gas to any person or municipality at any time during the term hereof, either for consumption in the United States by such person or municipality or for storage, or for resale for ultimate public consumption in the United States for domestic, commercial, industrial, or any other use, it being the intent of this authorization that at all times, persons and municipalities in the United States are to receive preferential service over that to Union.

And counsel of the federal power commission in this brief points out that by virtue of that decision the federal power commission has set its policy in the matter of export to Canada, giving priority to customers in the United States and in effect providing that deliveries of gas to Canada are inconsistent with the public interest unless it can be shown that there is no need for gas for resale or for direct use in the United States.

The province of Ontario has had the experience of being unable to get even the gas for which a permit had been given by the federal power commission. The governments of Ontario and Quebec know too that if they have to depend on gas from Texas, then there will be none available for the great northern portions of the two provinces. The premiers

of those provinces went on record last year as being in favour of getting Alberta gas, rather than being forced to depend upon United States gas.

I suggest that an exchange agreement is completely impracticable, particularly as there is a time element involved. We believe that 1953 is the crucial year. Just today we see a news dispatch from Alberta to the effect that Premier Manning stated yesterday in the Alberta legislature that his government favours export at the earliest possible date, and will do all it possibly can to facilitate the establishment of an adequate market.

There is the picture. In conclusion may I say that I believe it will be a great tragedy if this western gas is not used to supply Canada first. If there is a surplus beyond the requirements of Canada, then there is no reason why that surplus should not go to Minnesota. But certainly Canada should be supplied first. I believe that bringing gas east by an all-Canadian route is one of the most vital steps that could be taken at this time to strengthen Canada. Dr. Hume, in the speech to which I referred before, summed it up in these words:

The building of an all-Canadian natural gas pipe line from western to eastern Canada could be as important a national asset as was the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway across the preCambrian area.

Here is the best chance in our generation to further Canada's development into one of the leading nations of the world; and we must not let that chance slip through our fingers.


Owen Lewis Jones

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

Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my protest against this bill on grounds which have been covered before and which, to my mind, are sound; that is, that we should protect our Canadian consumers, and first set aside sufficient gas and oil for our own use.

I am alarmed by the frequency with which these bills appear before us. I do not know what number of them have been presented to the house, or the number that will come before us in the future. But we do know they are appearing with great frequency and that they follow a definite pattern, that the gas is to be exported to the United States. The frequency and the danger of these applications have alarmed a number of people in my constituency, especially those connected with boards of trade, city councils, junior chambers of commerce, the Canadian Legion, and service clubs of all kinds, the members of whom have written to me in protest, asking that I speak out against the exportation of these vital natural resources. They are demanding that they should be given the

first opportunity to utilize those resources, and to develop their own industries.

Cities such as Vernon, Penticton and Kelowna have already expressed their willingness to co-operate with oil companies or gas companies to have the pipe line directed through that area but thus far they have received no effective response. The companies refuse even to consider going through the Okanagan valley. Naturally they are more interested in profits to be derived from larger sales over the border. The only recourse we have left is for the government to step in and direct the flow of these resources in a manner whereby Canadians who require this power will have the first access to it. I believe that is the government's responsibility, not only to Canadians now living but to those unborn Canadians who will look to us for the heritage for which we are now responsible.

We are the guardians of that common heritage; and it seems to me we are poor guardians, because we are selling our heritage for a mess of pottage. This policy will be truly assessed in 20 years' time, when a new generation will be looking in vain for the gas and oil resources of this country. Nothing but rotting derricks and dry oil wells will be left for them; and historians will record that we and the government dissipated those resources without any plan, without any thought of conservation, but just through a process of happy-go-lucky dealings with private companies for purposes of exploitation.

I feel that once a pipe line is built it remains a permanent route, just like a railway. And should it turn out later that the pipe line is not in the right position to give the best service to our people, nothing can be done about it. There would be required either a new pipe line or a network of pipe lines to give full service to our own communities. Therefore now is the proper time to plan. I feel the last persons to do the planning would be the oil companies or the pipeline companies. Their interests are diametrically opposed to ours, because they are after quick and large markets, in any part of the world so far as they are concerned. At the moment the nearest and the greatest market is across the border.

Therefore our interests are totally different. Our interests are to develop our own country first. And I say "our" because it is in the interests of the government as well as those of the opposition to do that. The government should take a hand immediately in planning the proper distribution of this great natural resource, before it is too late. It should do .so as an economic service to Canada, with

Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited a view to finding out the best possible use of our natural resources, and to bringing gas and oil to those areas which could profit and develop most from such service.

I do not blame the pipe-line companies for their point of view. They are putting up large sums of money; they are gambling with it, and gambling in the hope of doubling their investment, or making as much money as they can. So we cannot look to them to use a policy that would not be profitable from the standpoint of making money immediately.

. On the other hand our government has the responsibility to improve our economy and development. This can be done easily by directing cheap power to the right locations.

I have in mind my own riding where we need cheap power if we are to develop industry. At present we have most of our eggs in one basket, in the form of the growing of fruits and vegetables.

In line with the statement made in the house some time ago, I believe industry should be decentralized, and that now would be the time to consider part of that decentralization by locating in interior British Columbia some of those lighter industries which could be located suitably in that area. We have an ideal climate all the year round, which would prove attractive to many industries that are handicapped in the colder parts of Canada through having to close down in the winter months.

I have referred to my own riding because there is one familiar aspect with respect to it. It is roughly 200 miles in length by 50 in width, or just the same size as my native Wales. In Wales there are over 2 million people living in a rugged area, much of which is uninhabitable; and I have in mind particularly the Snowdon range. It is very similar to the Okanagan valley except that we have more resources, as our timber limits are still fairly intact and our minerals have not been developed to their fullest extent. In addition we have a very fine climate. At the present time we are supporting roughly

100,000 people, merely a handful compared to what the same area in Wales supports. We could support a quarter of a million people quite easily if we had the stabilizing influence of industry. That cannot be done until we have cheap power. These industries could be operated under ideal conditions.

When adverse conditions arose in the coal mines in Wales and production began to slow down the government became interested, just the same as this government should become interested in our valley. They found that the Irish boats were considering stopping their service to Holyhead because of


Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited the embargo on sheep and cattle. They realized that they had to look after those people and see that they did not suffer from the embargo. They promptly started a watch and clock factory in Holyhead. Those people had had no experience in that sort of work, but I happened to be in the town when they were celebrating the turning out of the one millionth clock.

That is now a prosperous industry and the people who have been rehabilitated are quite happy. The same thing happened in South Wales where new industries were developed in areas where the coal mines were beginning to peter out. Some of the brightest spots in South Wales today would have been depressed areas if the government had not stepped in and brought new industries into that area.

I feel that what was done in Wales could be done in Canada. Here we have a source of cheap power which would be the magic key to bring about a transformation. As I pointed out before, the private pipe-line companies are not at all interested. We tried to sell them this picture and we tried to place on the record of the house what we are trying to do, but to no avail.

I suggest that the government is the logical body to take over the direction of the flow of gas, and it could be done in conjunction with the other transportation company that we now own, the Canadian National Railways. This new form of transportation is the ideal thing to be operated by the same group who operate the Canadian National Railways. -I am satisfied that the profits from the pipe line would pay the deficit on the Canadian National Railways.

The stock 'of some of these pipe-line companies has been traded on the stock market. I have in mind the stock of one company which was placed on the market at $10 per share. This company has not yet transported one cubic foot of gas, but such are the prospects of profits that people all over the country are buying these shares at around $59. That should not be. I believe the government should have stepped in at the very beginning and taken over this form of transportation to be administered along with the Canadian National Railways.

If that had been done there would have been a ready-made route for the pipe line especially in British Columbia where the Canadian National runs through a pass which is much better than any other in the province. The pipe line could have been laid on the railroad right of way. Their experts and trained men could have looked after both the railway and the pipe line at the same time, thus reducing costs.

While this particular pipe line will not run through British Columbia, I submit that the principle is the same. The question is, are we going to build up the United States economy at the expense of our own? I would point out that the United States have already exploited their own resources; they have denuded their forests and depleted other natural resources, and now they would do the same to ours. Naturally the United States are not interested in the conservation of Canadian natural resources; that is our problem. They are not going to go out of their way to help conserve what does not interest them beyond the profits to be made out of their use as quickly as possible.

We are the ones concerned, and it is for that reason that I appeal to the government to announce a policy under which no natural gas would be permitted to leave this country until every avenue had been explored to provide for its use in the development of our own country.

By developing new industries we will keep our youth happy in industry in this country instead of following the gas to the newly-created industries south of the border. I appeal to the government to really consider this aspect of this pipe-line bill and take over this means of transportation so they can direct the flow of gas and have our own economy the first in mind.


George Alexander Cruickshank


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two in connection with this particular pipe-line bill. One point that interested me was brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), that exactly the same Fish interests who introduced a similar bill under a different name last year are introducing this MidContinent Pipelines Limited bill.

It is rather peculiar to realize that this company is doing its utmost to prevent the development of industries in British Columbia to utilize our own power and that being produced by the neighbouring province of Alberta.

You may have noticed in the papers of the day before yesterday that Fish interests behind this bill have instructed their lawyers to take a new line of protest to prevent the movement of gas from Alberta and the northern part of our own province. They instructed their lawyers at Washington to see that under no consideration was any of this great natural resource being produced in Canada to be utilized for the development of Canada.

As may be known, we on the Pacific coast-I shall come to the eastern coast later-have enough gas within our own.

boundaries to supply the province. There are many fields in northern British Columbia, and there are other wells which the experts say can be brought in at any time. It is not practical to bring them in until such time as there is a market for the gas. Then our good neighbours in Alberta would give us gas if we needed it.

It is an expensive business to build a pipe line, and the market available on the Pacific coast of Canada at the present time is not sufficient to warrant such an expenditure. Therefore these selfish interests-heartily supported, I am sorry to say, by parts of Saskatchewan-would deprive us of gas in British Columbia to develop our province.

I do not need to go into the details of the feasibility of building a pipe line. It is ridiculous to advance the argument that it is not feasible. The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra has referred to the pipe lines that have been built, and their mileage. I wonder where Canada would be today if we had allowed such people as the Fish interests to come to this country and tell the great pioneers that they could not build either the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian National railway.

Possibly some of those who advocate and pursue a policy of development for our good neighbours in the United States to the south prior to the development of Canada have never had the privilege of visiting the Pacific coast. Possibly they have never seen the territory that the two great transcontinental railways run through, and I am perfectly sure they have never watched a pipe line under construction. We have been privileged in the province of British Columbia this year to watch them constructing the Trans Mountain pipe line. If anybody thinks it is too difficult they should watch such experienced experts as those in the Bechtel Company, with all the engineering ability and equipment they have. Mr. Speaker, in two hours they could put a pipe line over the dome of the library if they wished. When I hear these arguments that it is not practical and it is not possible to build a pipe line to serve Ontario or Quebec, it just does not make sense.

I do not want to take up too much time on this particular bill; and one reason I do not want to take up too much time, Mr. Speaker, is that I realize or I presume that the house will not go on sitting until July or August, and that we will probably be out of here before then. There are only so many private members' hours before July. I do not want to give away the exact date on which the house is going to adjourn; my friends across from me would think I had

6, 1953 2707

Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited inside information. But there are only so many private members' hours and I will just give you some of the members, Mr. Speaker, who I am sure will want to speak on this particular matter, as representing their own districts.

Last year a few of us-and I am sorry to say that I was alone on this side of the house at that time-could envision the future of our province with this cheap form of power. We knew that they were going to develop it in northern British Columbia and we had been assured by the premier of Alberta, whom I will quote if necessary later, that as far as it lay within his power the people of Canada would be served with gas produced in Alberta before anyone else was served.

We had a fight, Mr. Speaker, to get that all-Canadian route in the bill. When one of the ministers' estimates are up I will have something to say about that particular oil pipe line, but I do not think we from western Canada will get an opportunity, possibly after today, to speak on this particular bill. I am just going to go down the list and mention some of the reasons we will not.

Algoma West has a population of 52,051 people. I do not know much about Algoma West, but I do know of one industry they have in that great riding; and I know that the genial member who sits to my right will not appreciate it if I do not give him an opportunity on behalf of his people to take many times 40 minutes to insist that gas come to his riding.

I will just skip on down the list to one of my hon. friends who is sitting here, or was a moment ago, the member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson). Kenora-Rainy River has a population of 55,008. Even if the 55,000 people did not object, I am sure the 8 would. Possibly some of you from the far east have never seen Kenora, that beautiful little town in Kenora-Rainy River so ably represented in this house. I know that the representative of that district would not permit me to take up my full time speaking in connection with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, coming from the province of British Columbia we are not inclined to boast, and we very seldom speak of our province. I certainly never mention the name "Fraser Valley" unless I am bound to do so. Those of you who have travelled on the railway going through Kenora-Rainy River on the route across Canada, Mr. Speaker, will be impressed, as you are impressed with the ability of its member. I know he wants to speak on this particular issue on behalf of his district. Kenora, Mr. Speaker, has the most beautiful garden at its railway station,

Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited more beautiful than at any station across Canada. Of course the member for Kenora-Rainy River will want to speak on behalf of his district, to see that industry is brought there and employment created.

I go back to the list. There is no hon. member who should be more revered in this house-because he happens to be the senior in age and the youngest in heart-than the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). Now, we have heard of the head of the lakes, Mr. Speaker. We in the west want to build Fort William to even greater heights. So far we have built it through the great grain elevators. We all know of the beauty of Fort William; but we also know that the industry of Fort William depends entirely on the grain from western Canada to keep it where it is. In the usual generous western way we want to see that Fort William gets gas from the province of Alberta to create further industry for our good friends in Fort William.

There is another town quite near Fort William, equally well represented. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I know of no riding, with the exception of Quebec city, that is as well known for the leadership given there. That town is Port Arthur, a magnificent little town. Oh, I should not say "little town". They even have controversies oetween Fort William and Port Arthur over hockey. I am not going to say which team should win or which is the greater town; but I also know that Port Arthur was built by grain from western Canada passing through the elevators that were designed and engineered as they could have been by no other man in Canada. Naturally that riding will resent it if we from western Canada alone protect the people of that district.

Now I will just come a little closer, Mr. Speaker. According to the press I have had something to say of late about the capital of Canada. When I first came here, Mr. Speaker, I admit that I did disagree with the capital of Canada getting the grant they did to beautify it. I had a selfish viewpoint at that time; but since then I have realized that it is not the capital of the immediate district but it is the capital of Canada. I am proud of it and I want to see the rest of Canada, including my own district, bear their fair share of beautifying this magnificent capital and providing the necessary funds.

I do not believe that any district should depend entirely on civil servants for the wherewithal to keep a town going. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to point this out to you. While we do not want industry within the confines of Ottawa, Ottawa East

has a population of 56,127 and Ottawa West has a population of 74,667. I for one do not want to see industry brought into the beautiful city, but I want the people to be warned, Mr. Speaker.

Two weeks ago I had to telephone my landlord-I am fortunate for the first time in seven years in having an apartment-and say: "I realize that we have gas and heat in the west, and as yet we do not have it here". I told him that with only two people in the apartment, one frigidaire was enough; that we did not need three refrigerated rooms as well. That is one reason I want to bring this gas to the people of Ottawa. We have here all the civil servants, who have many worries on their shoulders, working long hours, five hours every day and five days every week, and I want them to have plenty of heat. I want gas to be brought here for that purpose.

Mr. Speaker, in greater Ottawa we have Carleton, the magnificent district of Carleton, very handsomely represented. Carleton has a population of 71,974.

Mr. Speaker, it will in one way interfere with the beauty of the metropolitan area if one or two industries are placed out there by bringing cheap gas from western Canada. Among other things, we have large government buildings being erected in the district. Not far from here we have Hull, very ably represented here, and I know the representative of that district will want to have a word to say in connection with getting this gas. Actually they have one industry in Hull already. It has a population of 67,677 people, and merely for the selfish interests of Mr. Fish, should we deprive Hull of the power for developing that district? I am coming down now to another district, Nipissing.


George Alexander Cruickshank


Mr. Cruickshank:

I have a column here from tonight's newspaper which I could read.


Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Graydon:

If she were with you, the two of you would make a good team.


George Alexander Cruickshank


Mr. Cruickshank:

The only difference is that I happen to be on the winning side, and she would have to sit on that side. Mr. Speaker, Nipissing would be on the route of the pipe line. It has a population of 53,906, and is so well and largely represented by my good friend from North Bay. They need industry in North Bay, and it is right on the route of the pipe line. I know the member for that district will want to speak on this matter because he wants gas, if for no other reason than that it would be so much cheaper to produce soft drinks. In order to produce soft drinks you have to

have heat and power. There will be a lot of representatives demanding the right to speak on this particular matter so that we can get this western gas.

Now we come to Stormont, with a population of 48,458. The people of Canada are being asked, and probably rightly so, to dig a bigger ditch along the St. Lawrence. Probably we will be able to get the United States to agree at some date in the future. Already there are thousands of acres available for industry in the Cornwall district. No district in this house is better represented than Cornwall. I know the member for that district will insist on speaking in this house in order that they may get power for the development of industries along the St. Lawrence. When you have the gas you can build factories, and the boats will be able to come up there so you can ship by way of the St. Lawrence.

Renfrew is another district so capably represented here. I am sure the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) will feel it is his duty to get up here and say that he is doing his very best to get this gas for his riding so there can be more woollen mills and more factories at Renfrew. It has a population of 39,572.

Then we go to Timmins. Well, Timmins has a population of 45,924. I have never been in Timmins, but I understand that everybody there is either a millionaire or hopes to be, according to the press reports about the Toronto stock exchange. If they could get to the point where they could mine gold so much cheaper, why would they have to worry about the stock? The member for Timmins (Mr. Eyre) will insist on speaking on behalf of the people in his riding. I know that when the people in these ridings read in Hansard that their member is insisting on speaking on this matter, they will write and tell him that they want industries in their riding and do not want to be left out.

Now I want to go to another town, genially represented, and that is Sudbury with a population of 94,629. Next to Trail in my own province, Sudbury is the best individual customer for natural gas because of her line of industries. I say that the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gauthier)-and I say this very sincerely-would not be doing his duty for that great town, one of the best developers of natural wealth, if he did not speak on this matter. No town, other than Trail in my own province, could use this natural gas in the way Sudbury could. I am sure the mayor of Sudbury will have something to say about being bypassed.

We can even go down to Leeds, that beautiful little district, which is principally

Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited famous for two things. I shall only name one of them, Jersey cattle. I shall not name the other; but knowing the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford) as well as I do-I wish he were here today-


George Alexander Cruickshank


Mr. Cruickshank:

I knew that. I am going to Leeds, incidentally, about a week from tonight. As a matter of fact I hope that the Rotary club, the Kiwanis club and the Lions club there have a combined meeting-I hope it is a luncheon, as I prefer a luncheon-and I can address them, demanding that this gas from the west go to their beautiful town of Brockville.


George Taylor Fulford


Mr. Fulford:

If I cannot get a better speaker, I will see what we can do about the Rotary club.


George Alexander Cruickshank


Mr. Cruickshank:

That is fine. I was

hoping for that, because even if he cannot get a better speaker all I want the member for Leeds to do is to get up here and speak for his riding, for his province, just as we from the west are compelled to do.

I do not think we should leave out this other riding of Pontiac-Timiskaming, with a population of 41,899 and a lot of splendid trotting horses which are in that district. The member for this riding will be certain to insist on speaking on this matter, if for no other reason than that they are going to have more direct communications now. This generous government, through the more than generous Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), is going to build a bridge up there. When you get the bridge you have been requesting for 40 years, and will not need for the next 40, you ought to be happy. Unless we bring in this gas for industries, what are they going to use this bridge for, anyway?

I do not want to leave out any of these districts. There is the Gatineau. You know the Gatineau, a beautiful little place on the other side of the river. I am sure that some day the Quebec government is going to build a highway up there. Now they do not have a highway. Look at the indirect benefits that will come to the riding of Hull when the Gatineau has power up there. They will not be confined to one little cement plant. They will expand that plant. They will bring other industries in there because the town of Hull is adjacent to them. As I have already explained, Hull is well represented. I am sure that the 38,841 people in the Gatineau will insist on their member speaking and insisting that they get gas in their riding.

Well, I was almost leaving out another riding, that of Russell. We do not want this

Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited industry right within the confines of the city *of Ottawa, we want the industry around us. Russell is not very far away, and has a population of 56,945. Mr. Speaker, the member representing that riding is not only a capable member, but next Tuesday afternoon he is quite capable of speaking for 40 minutes in this connection on behalf of his district. I am sure he will. I will see that he gets a marked copy of Hansard. I might even send it to the mayor of Rockland. When I was younger and more foolish than I am now, I went to Rockland one night to play broomball. I took the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), and he was a little more foolish than I was. He fell down, and it cost $92 for a doctor and hospital because he was playing broomball. I know the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Gour) wants to speak about it. They would have had a larger hospital in Russell with the revenue coming in. They would have treated the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) right there, and I would not have had him following me about for the next ten days in the office we shared. He is bound to want to speak on this matter. I could go on through all the other districts, but it would not be fair if we from the west took up all the time. I have mentioned just a few of the ridings. I am sure those who represent them will all want to speak.

I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to each and every one of these ridings, that it will be a million and one years before they ever get any gas if it goes into the United States, from Winnipeg to Minneapolis. I wonder what the city of Montreal would say. Montreal is the largest city in Canada at the present time. I cannot single out any one member from Montreal, as there are so many brilliant members from that city. For instance, there is Verdun, across from Montreal. Montreal is a magnificent city. Within fifteen years I know that members from Montreal will say, "We congratulate you, Vancouver, for having passed us. Possibly the reason you passed us in population and in industry was that western members fought to get this power in the city of Vancouver." I know, Mr. Speaker, that by next Tuesday the members from the city of Montreal will be insisting that they get this natural gas for their city.

There is also Toronto. Having visited Toronto several times I thought at first, from the environment around there, that it had natural gas; but I discovered that it had not. I know that the members from Toronto will want to speak about this matter. For instance, there is the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). He will want to speak on it.

He will not want us westerners to monopolize the advancement and development of Canada, but will want, by utilizing our natural resources first before they go to some other country, to build a greater Ontario. Coming from Toronto, he knows that if the gas ever gets to the United States it will be a million and one years before it will come around on the circular trip back to Toronto or to Brampton with the great flower shops there. It will never get there if it has to come back from the United States.

I could give you an instance of these international deals. They built a pipe line from Detroit to Windsor in order to pipe gas across. Then, sir, the United States interests said, "No; we have not enough for a surplus" and the pipe line lay idle with no gas going through it. Do you people in Ontario and Quebec want that sort of thing to happen again? Do you want it to happen so you will never be given that gas from the west?

Mr. Speaker, it may be a far cry from domestic oil to natural gas, but I well remember in the last four or five years asking hon. members from the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario in particular to support me in preventing the use of these synthetic oils-and any hon. member can verify this in Hansard-in order that we might maintain and build up the great dairy industry. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, this session, within the past three weeks, is the first time a member from Ontario or Quebec, according to Hansard, has answered my plea that we protect our dairy industry by barring-by provincial or any other legislation-the use of these synthetic oils to the detriment of a great resource, namely the dairy industry. Are those members from Ontario and Quebec going to sit idle now and let this gas be diverted at Winnipeg, never to return, so as to advance and develop the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec?

As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra pointed out, once it gets across the line, it is an international matter. To bring it back into Canada entails international complications. It will require treaties. The other day we heard the Minister of Fisheries speak about a halibut treaty. Mr. Speaker, I should like hon. members from the ridings I have mentioned just to note the length of time that was required for negotiations on an international basis in order to bring about that halibut treaty. I want them to realize the international complications that will arise if this gas goes down to the United States before it reaches its rightful place within Canada.

Mr. Speaker, knowing that these members from these districts I have mentioned will

want the great privilege of protecting their ridings-not of protecting us in the west but of protecting their own ridings-may I call it six o'clock and move the adjournment of the debate?

On motion of Mr. Cruickshank the debate was adjourned.


Louis-René Beaudoin (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:

As it is six o'clock, and the time devoted to private and public bills having expired, at eight o'clock the house will resume consideration of the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

At six o'clock the house took recess.


AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock.



The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.


William Duncan McKay Wylie

Social Credit

Mr. W. D. Wylie (Medicine Hat):

Mr. Speaker, I intend to make my remarks on the budget rather brief, although I could talk for 40 minutes or maybe an hour and still feel quite at home.

During this budget debate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has been called many names. While I am about the sixtieth speaker, I think the best name the minister was called is to be found in the word used by the parliamentary assistant to the minister when he referred to the minister as a wizard, the wizard of Ottawa.


March 6, 1953