We have met the test. We do our best and when you count the ballots we do not seem to be on that side. We are on this side. If you think the minority should be sitting here without having the support of the people, then I think you are all wrong as to the procedure of the house or the standing orders. Their main purpose is to provide for the regulation of debate. I am speaking from the point of view of the respect of people for the House of Commons. You are turning it into a kind of burlesque by having three votes to adjourn a debate when you know-and if you do not know you are quite ignorant-that the house is going to vote you down. We have done it twice today and you are going to lose this time. You are just repeating it because in your minds you think you are right and everybody else is wrong. I do not think that is a good procedure.
I am not particularly interested in these measures. I did not even vote on the last two motions to adjourn the debate, but it has reached a point where I think it is the responsibility of the one leading the house at this time to point out that as serious men representing the people you are carrying these discussions to the extreme. We know what the members who have spoken on the bill have said. I respect those who have spoken and the views that they hold. What do you want to prove? You have tried to prove it by your speeches and you have tried to prove it by votes. How do you think the business of government can be carried on if you are right in your pretension that you can adjourn the debate twenty times a day? No government or parliament could proceed with the business of the country on that basis. I really plead with the house not to lower itself in the opinion of the public.
Hon. members who have spoken have brought to my attention standing order 48 and standing order 30. I do not need to read them again. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has raised the question whether standing order 30 applies equally to motions to adjourn the house and motions to adjourn a debate. He has read a number of citations from Bourinot and Beauchesne. He has referred me to an instance in the house in 1891-I do not think a ruling was made-when there were two motions to adjourn the debate which followed one another without an intervening proceeding. That is the only instance which has been brought to rqy attention. He has, however, read several citations. He read a citation from Bouriraot's fourth edition, pages 322 and 323, with regard to intermediate proceedings. The last sentence of that reference reads as follows:
The rule applies literally to the adjournment of the house-
I take it that the rule referred to is standing order 30. There can be no doubt as to the procedure under standing order 30. The rule applies literally to motions to adjourn the house. But it does not apply literally to motions to adjourn the debate. Hon. members will note that the word is "literally". The citation continues:
-but it is usual and convenient to make an entry in the journal between two motions of the latter character.
Although a literal interpretation of standing order 30 makes it apply to the adjournment of the house, 1 take it that a broad interpretation would make it also apply to the adjournment of the debate. In any event, we have authority for the words, "it is usual and convenient to make an entry in the Journal between two motions of the latter character".
I might remind the house again that the only instance we have in which there were two motions to adjourn the debate without any intermediate proceeding was in 1891. Since then it occurs to me that we may have established a different practice in this house. No reference has been given to me tonight
wherein a Speaker has ruled that there does not have to be an interim proceeding. The references which were given to the house were not Speakers' rulings. One must give the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) full credit for finding an instance in 1891, when two such motions without intermediate proceedings were allowed. I repeat however that the Speaker did not make a ruling.
Beauchesne, in his third edition, which is the latest work we have On procedure in the Canadian house, in citation 164 states:
The term "Intermediate proceeding" used in standing order 30, means a proceeding that can properly be entered on the Journals. The true test is that if any parliamentary proceeding takes place, the second motion is regular, and the clerk ought to enter the proceedings to show that the motion in question is regular. It is usual to alternate motions for adjournment of the house and debate when a question is under consideration.
Even though it carries forward in part an extract from Bourinot, that is the citation from the latest authority. I realize that this discussion is probably of little effect, because the hon. member could change his motion to a motion for the adjournment of the house. Then, another motion could be moved to adjourn the debate. We are not making much progress. It is customary for the Clerk to make an entry between these motions. I would allow the hon. member who moved this motion to change it to a motion for the adjournment of the house. Perhaps I should not have said that, as I see the hon. member has risen, and perhaps desires to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, and in view of the position in which you find yourself, I will withdraw the motion. I will never withdraw another motion, however, unless those desk thumpers give us more order.
Mr. Speaker, with all respect to you, I cannot help recalling the song, "Carry me back to old Virginie . . . the place where I was born." When I heard the date 1891 mentioned just now, it occurred to me I should like to pay my highest respects to Bourinot, and everything that has transpired during the time I have been privileged to be in this house. I was thinking of something that happened to me a few years ago when I was a young man. There was quite a crowd in the crystal ballroom of the King Edward hotel, and I was quoting Emerson. I quoted him once and got away with it, and when 1 quoted him the second time in a loud voice it awakened someone among the representatives of the press, who said in a loud voice, "Emerson? He is dead." Perhaps some of these statutes might be forgotten,
Alberta Natural Gas Company so that we might have an opportunity of getting on with the business of our country as fast as we possibly can.
Mr. Speaker, to help these desk thumpers to realize the magnitude of the business that confronts them, I am going to make another suggestion, and a simple one. On the table here, sir, or on the floor in front of us, there should be a globe showing the oil potentialities of the world; the gas potentialities of the world; the wheat potentialities, and all the other features of our civilized economy.
Someone mentions butter, and I could talk about that too. Instead of having to look across the floor all the time, we might look at that globe and dream about what we have in this Canada of ours. We might even visualize our responsibilities in regard to these natural resources that we have. I say to the hon. members of this house, through you, sir, that we all have great responsibilities in regard to the natural resources of this country. Look at the two maps which we have before us. We know that gas and oil were discovered before, but they have been discovered to a greater extent in the last few years.
According to the sponsor of this bill, 85 per cent of the cost is going to be paid for in United States dollars. We are hungry for United States dollars, and we' are going to be paid in those United States dollars. If the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) will remain in his seat, I have something to say to him. When I see not only gas but oil going, I say, let us be sensible members of parliament. Where the gas goes, oil will go, perhaps not for a decade but later on. When it goes, Mr. Speaker, it does not come back. Be sensible. You know that. To my friends from Vancouver I say this. I hope you will live a few years yet, most of you. In looking over to my right I see the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson); he is still here.
To them I would say: In your day and generation, if this bill goes through, you will not see much gas or oil coming back; not nearly enough to satisfy the desires and wishes of that sparsely populated, wonderful and marvellous province of ours known as British Columbia, which, as many of you know, has gripped the imagination of the world. But while it has gripped the imagination of the world, it has not gripped the imagination of immigrants sufficiently or attracted a sufficient number of
Alberta Natural Gas Company them to fill it up; and it has not gripped investments sufficiently to develop it to the extent that it will be developed.
As I sit here and see in my mind's eye the map of the world, and contemplate the world's potentialities, I realize what a privilege I have had in going round the world and seeing what has happened to oil in other places, and what oil and gas will do for a community. Glendavis in Australia, and the state of New South Wales, a few years ago put up 666,000 Australian pounds, matched by the Commonwealth of Australia; and some of my associates whom I learned to love and admire put up a like amount to make 2 million Australian pounds sterling in 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944. For what purpose? They lacked in Australia, and this is true of New Zealand as well, oil and gas with which to develop the country and to defend themselves in the last great war. They depended entirely on the United States of America. So those three organizations banded themselves together and what did they do?
When they found the predicament they were in, they checked the whole Commonwealth of Australia and found some shale deposits which had a bearing of oil, not to the same degree as has been found in Estonia, now behind the iron curtain, but still a certain bearing of oil. They banded themselves together because there was a war on and oil 'was vital to their existence. They were not sure whether the United States-Texas and the other states-could provide them with sufficient fuel to protect themselves.
I do not know whether my next sentence should be uttered, but now that the war is over I think I may say it is common knowledge that, finding themselves in that predicament, without oil and without gasoline, and without gas to propel their protective devices of one kind and another, they drew their defence lines back from the north part of Australia to a point close to the centre line of the country, with a view to making a last stand when that was necessary. But, thank God, the United States and the allied nations were able to keep pumping oil and fuel into that country of theirs and they were able in that remote part of the world to defend themselves.
When the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) rises in his place and says that, for our self-preservation and protection, we should not give away this natural resource which Providence has given us, I have no hesitancy in endorsing his statement. When the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) says the same thing, I have no reason to say that I am opposed to the idea. But,
let there be no mistake whatsoever, I am absolutely opposed to the method being used to put this bill through. When I said in a few words this afternoon that I thought this was a government-sponsored private bill, I was hearing the voice of experience. I believed everything I said at that time, whether you did or not, Mr. Speaker; and I am surprised that public opinion is not aroused in this country at the suggestion that this great natural resource should be-and I am going to use tl)e word-exploited. That is what you are going to do. Rarely, if ever, Mr. Speaker, will you find me reading a speech or a quotation to Canada's House of Commons; but I have here a clipping which makes me feel that I could talk on all through the night against this particular bill and its twin brother, the one which was postponed for a little while, when I find that pipe line bonds jumped from $100 in share value to $300. The heading of the article is "Without Precedent in Market History, Pipe Lines at $300." Must I read that whole article? No, I do not read anything in the House of Commons if I can avoid it. But here are a group of men sitting behind mahogany desks, in mahogany chairs, going to exploit this proposition. I will give you the reference. You can read it for yourselves and draw your own conclusions. It is dated March 25, published in a Toronto paper, under the heading "Trends and Prospects in Field of Enterprise, in Oil". I will not mention the name. Get the quotation yourselves. They are a responsible firm. What a clean-up they are going to make on these pipe line securities. I have not time to put it all on the record. Somebody else can do it. I have a great deal more I want to say. It reads in part:
Bond trading during the past week was marked by fractional easing in prices of a number of Dominion of Canada high-grade issues ... A total of $29,500,000 . . . the largest of these, $20 million.
Then it goes on:
An issue of Canadian Western Natural Gas Company ?8 million 3J per cent debentures due April 1, 1971, will early next week be offered at par . . .
And in the heading it is stated that the price has moved up to $300. You will always have that sort of trading, Mr. Speaker. You will always have people who will live by their wits. That group is perhaps only one out of a hundred. The rest of us will plow a lonely furrow or we shall earn our money so that it makes it easy for us to sleep at nights. It is my high privilege to be doing that now in Alberta, in Calgary, burning natural gas. I was privileged to start two enterprises there. Neither of them has made a dollar yet but they will for the future generations that my good friend the hon. member from Victoria, Ontario (Mr. Hodgson) was
talking about. In the meantime we have a vision of what Alberta and British Columbia mean to the Anglo-Saxon race.
Sitting with me in the Savoy hotel some three or four years ago were some Englishmen. We decided that we would start these enterprises. One of the reasons was that fuel was cheap and that we could get help there.
I have in front of me the financial statement of the Canadian Organic Development Limited. It is my high honour to be the president of it and its subsidiaries. I find that the judgment which was used some four years ago in London, England, may not have been as sound as it might be. I notice here a red figure of $271,683.52 for one organization; $111,592.22 in red figures in the other; and $29,768 in red in the third. There is a credit balance of $13,945 in Edmonton. But that does not matter. We have faith in Alberta; we have faith in British Columbia.
I know what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker. There is no place in the world where fuel is as cheap. As you who are in business know, fuel comprises anywhere from 20 per cent to 40 per cent of the cost of production. There is no other place in the world where fuel can be found which is as cheap as in Alberta. I plead with the house. I use the words of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). He pleaded with the house. Let some of the rest of us plead with the house that we keep these natural resources in this country, and bring here people who will develop them. How are they going to do it? It was my privilege to ride by plane over the pipe lines of Iraq and Iran, to see the sand, the desert and what not; and in the same period to see what pumping water on the sand accomplishes. I saw that it would grow almost anything. Let me give you one example. I saw it in Mildura, Australia, where water was brought to the sand. As soon as it was brought from the Thomson river, the area which was irrigated supplied half the world with raisins and currants. I saw the camels in Nigeria go round and round. They brought buckets and buckets of water. I saw the grapes and tasted the wine made from the grapes that were produced on that soil. I am thinking of British Columbia. I am thinking of those irrigated areas such as we have seen in the Kootenay valley. I am thinking of the other irrigation schemes that some hon. members have in the backs of their minds.
I am thinking of the dreams of the previous member for Davenport, who visualized what might be done for western Canada if water were brought to those areas where the sand blows so often, and how it might be irrigated. I am thinking of the oil and gas so close to
Alberta Natural Gas Company Lethbridge, which might be used for pumping water to irrigate that area, for generations to come. I am thinking of the sandstorm over which I flew over Lethbridge a couple of years ago. We had to go so high to get away from that sandstorm, and finally we had to land in Calgary and go back by train. I am thinking of the oil in Calgary. I am thinking of the oil and gas which might be used not only for irrigation of those provinces but to pump water to irrigate Kelowna and Penticton. I can remember most of them, but I am not going to take the time to repeat them to the house. There are a lot of them out there that need water for irrigation, but they need gas and oil to pump the water to where they want it when they cannot get enough from the mountainside. I am thinking that one and all should pause before we give away our birthright for a mess of pottage.
Someone chuckles. I am very serious in what I say. My hon. friend from Ontario has not got a monopoly on things even if he happens to have nine children. A grandchild of mine was born yesterday, and I am thinking of our youth when they come along.