April 27, 1949 (20th Parliament, 5th Session)

CCF

John Oliver Probe

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

Mr. Probe:

In this section as it now reads it is optional with the board to declare a pipe line company a common carrier. I have certain reservations with respect to pipe lines. I would certainly have preferred to see the development of pipe lines under some form of public ownership. But in view of the fact that the government accepts the responsibility

Pipe Lines Act
for granting these charters to private pipe lines for the carrying of oil and gas, it seems to me that we should at the same time make it mandatory rather than optional that where investments of this type are permitted, and where the work that it being done is of a public transportation variety, it should not be optional whether oil line companies carry the products of small or large producers, or the production of their own affiliated companies to the exclusion of others in proximity to the field, or to say whether or not the consumers can acquire the products subject to the wish of the carrier companies.
In my own city of Regina, which is affected by one of the proposed oil lines, we have two refineries, of which one is privately owned and the other a co-operative refinery. The pipe line we are likely to get will be owned by the private company. As the bill now stands, there is nothing mandatory on that company to cause it to carry the products of the other company from the field or from any other source from which it may purchase the products it wishes to refine.
I understand that certain technical objections were raised in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to declaring the pipe lines to be common carriers. I listened carefully to the hon. member for Calgary West when about an hour ago he explained the procedure by which oil fractions of various types can be sent along one pipe line almost simultaneously. I have personal knowledge of the variety of oil products that were carried in the pipe line constructed by the military forces overseas to run from Cherbourg to Rouen. I am sure many hon. members are familiar with that pipe line. For the reasons I have just given, the objections put forward to a pipe line being considered a common carrier do not impress me. Therefore, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley:
That section 39 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"39. A company to which this part applies is hereby declared to be a common carrier."

Topic:   PIPE LINES ACT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL OIL OR GAS PIPE LINES
Full View