They looked after themselves first.
Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):
I live on the international border line. Down there I know that the oil allocated to Canadians along that border was more liberal in supply than to the citizens of the state of Maine. The pipe line going through the United States is the economical procedure to take. Why try to pipe oil from Alberta to Ontario and Quebec or the maritime provinces when it can go across the border at some point within a reasonable distance, and the oil we require in this section could come back across the border from the United States? I fail to understand why there is all this great worry about Canadian oil going to our friends to the south of us, when they have supplied 90 per cent of the oil brought to this country for years and years.
I have a friendly feeling toward the people down there, because they have done much to help us. Were it not for our neighbour to the south of us, we could not dispose of anything from the section of Canada in which I live. No one in central Canada wishes to buy the commodities or natural products of the maritimes. We are obliged to go to these people to sell what we have to offer. They have been very kind and considerate. If at this moment we are in the fortunate position where we could let some of our oil go south, it would only in some small way repay for some of the good things those people have done for us.
My name has been
brought into this discussion. I happen to have had the privilege, which my hon. friend did not have, of being born in the United States. Let me tell my hon. friend however that we do not owe the United States any more than they owe us.
The argument advanced by the hon. member is not as good as the delicious lobsters served in his district. They are good, but his argument is ridiculous. We have been the best customer of the United States. I well remember a brilliant young friend of mine in British Columbia, whose name I shall not mention, stating that our fish should be canned here, and our logs processed-and I know my hon. friend from the maritime provinces is particularly interested in fish and would like to have them canned in the maritimes. Why should not our oil be used within the province? I do not care which company is concerned, I submit that that
should be done. Last year I sponsored a bill for a certain company, but I repeat that I do not care which company is concerned. This pipe line should go through Canada and serve the best part of Alberta and northern and central British Columbia and then the remainder of the oil could be sent to the United States. Is there anything unreasonable about that?
Which is the best part of Alberta?
I do not know, but I know which is the best part of British Columbia. The hon. member from a small district in the maritimes which is close to the United States border where the poor mounted police are working day and night to see that cigarettes and other things are not smuggled should not be talking to me about the development of Canada. All I am asking is that these pipe lines should go through Canada, no matter what company it is, so that this country may be developed. I know the premier of British Columbia has told us that there are immense resources in northern British Columbia still undeveloped.
Mr. Siuart (Charlotte):
The hon. member says that this pipe line should go through Canada, but what if the people in the United States had used that same argument about the pipe line coming up to Montreal? What if during the war the United States people had said that they wanted that pipe line to go through United States territory instead of going through to serve Montreal?
The Deputy Chairman:
I would remind the committee that we are dealing with item 454, board of transport commissioners for Canada, administration, maintenance and operation. Because of the relationship of pipe lines to the board of transport commissioners some hon. members have taken the opportunity to ask the minister some questions. However, I am afraid that hon. members are now anticipating a bill that is to come before the house. I would ask hon. members to co-operate with the Chair and confine their discussion to the item now before the committee.
I shall be glad to bow to your ruling but Imperial Oil will hear from me in the future.
I agree with what you have just said. I think the time for this discussion was during the last session when seven or eight bills to incorporate these different companies were up for consideration. That is when these arguments should have been advanced. I remember standing in my place to protest against those bills and using practically all the arguments that are being used
tonight. When the bill to incorporate Alberta Natural Gas Company is up for consideration the arguments that are now being advanced can be used to hold up the bill.
For the last eleven years we have been bringing up this business of piping gas and oil to the United States. The arguments tonight are about twenty years late. The same thing can be said about our iron ore rights. We have remote control over our oil by Standard Oil through its subsidiary, Imperial Oil Limited. All those rights have been voted away. I agree with the hon. member for Fraser Valley that the pipe line should be a Canadian pipe line, with feeder lines to the United States if necessary.
The Deputy Chairman:
The hon. member has been kind enough to agree with me, but the remarks he has been making are out of order. However, I think I should be just as generous with him as I have been with the other hon. members.
I did not think I would be remiss if I was out of order for a few minutes, when we have been out of order all night. As I listened to the arguments tonight I could not help but remember the discussion of last session. When the bill to incorporate Alberta Natural Gas Company is before the house my radical friend from Fraser Valley can back me up in demanding that Canadian resources be developed in Canada.
Mr. Black (Cumberland):
I want to comply with your ruling, but as we are dealing with an item having to do with the board of transport commissioners I should like to ask the minister what authority that board has to determine whether the natural resources of this country, such as oil or gas, shall be transported by pipe line to the United States? Does this board provide adequate safeguards that these great natural resources are first made available to the people of western, central and eastern Canada?
I think I have answered that on at least two occasions, but in order to make the record clear perhaps I should read subsection 3 of section 12 of the Pipe Lines Act, as follows:
(3) Upon the application, the board shall have regard to all considerations that appear to it to be relevant and in particular to the objection of any party interested, a public interest that in the board's opinion may be affected by the granting or the refusing of the application, and to the financial responsibility of the applicant.
I think that is the governing section in connection with these applications. Relative to these applications which so far have been dealt with, the board has had regard to a number of matters. First, it has had regard
to the capacity of the proposed line, to how much oil or gas it will be able to carry. Next it has given consideration to the availability for transmission of a sufficient quantity of oil and particularly as to whether or not the construction of the pipe line will extend the market for the oil to be transmitted. I presume that latter item resulted in the discussion that took place here the other evening as well as some of the discussion that is taking place here this evening. It considers whether there is a market in the immediate locality where the oil is likely to be conveyed.
Next is considered the length and the estimated cost of the pipe line and the ability of the applicant to obtain sufficient funds to construct the pipe line. Consideration is given also to the attitude of the government of Alberta to the export of oil from that province by the proposed pipe line. Here I should like to state that under the Oil and Gas Resources Conservation Act of Alberta, as amended in 1949, the petroleum and natural gas conservation board may exercise wide powers, subject to the approval of the lieutenant governor in council, in respect to restricting, prorating or prohibiting the production of oil and gas. Under the Gas Resources Preservation Act, being chapter 2 of the statutes of Alberta, 1949, permission from the board is required before gas can be removed from Alberta for use elsewhere. I think in so far as gas is concerned the picture is quite clear.
Is there anything about gasoline and oil?
I was referring to the part dealing with gas and oil. I understand that there is objection to gas, but not to oil. Then the board may consider petitions by interested parties and finally it may limit the time during which the pipe line may be constructed. Those are the various considerations that the board takes under advisement with reference to subsection 3 of section 12 of the act.
I want to ask a question. The minister has quoted certain sections of the act. I was told before that we were somewhat out or order, but the minister has quoted certain sections of the act. Will we have the privilege of putting in the sections which the minister omitted?
I was quoting from subsection 3 of section 12 of the Pipe Lines Act. The Pipe Lines Act was passed by this parliament. The hon. member can get it at any time.
The minister has quoted certain sections. I should like the privilege of putting them all in at some time.
My hon. friend knows he can put in any section he wants at any time.
There are several things I should like to tell the minister about the board of transport commissioners.