Mr. Dupuis:

Mr. Chairman, I speak loud, but I keep calm and I am in a particularly good humour. We must, as I say, revert to logic.

Mr. Dufresne:

True you had wandered far from it.

Mr. Dupuis:

Are the opposition members sincere? Are they? Do they or do they not wish merely to have time to discuss this matter? Then, as pointed out a while ago by the leader of the Social Credit party, here is excellent opportunity to prove it. In a democratic gesture the Prime Minister tells the opposition: "You complain of not having enough time to discuss this question. We will give you the opportunity to debate it further, though you have spent your time interrupting the work which could otherwise have been done. We offer you the opportunity of further debate, by way of three extra sittings. We offer you the opportunity to make your point." But what, the opposition refuses this democratic offer.

How do they expect the people to believe them when they will say that we have gagged them, while we have followed the course of wisdom in adopting the bill within a prescribed time.

Mr. Chairman, before concluding my remarks, and in case there is a misunderstanding as to the closure rule to which my hon. friend from Quebec West referred a moment ago, I would like to state-

(Text):

An hon. member tells me that I have three minutes left. I believe I have six minutes, but I will leave that to the chairman to decide.

(Translation):

The hon. member for Quebec West cried out that, contrary to all democratic principles, we are refusing them the freedom of speech we cherish and which has been conquered by our forefathers and our great Canadian heroes who have died on the battlefields. We have used the right conferred upon us by the rules, which were imposed and referred to by the Conservative party. Well, we are using it to good purpose, and the difference between the decisions of the Speaker and the lack of freedom of speech in the Quebec parliament, and what is happening in this federal parliament, is that here it is not the prime minister who rules on points of order, but the Speaker himself, whose authority is adequate to maintain order and1 who, in support of his rulings, brings in recognized authorities on parliamentary procedure.

Moreover, if he happens to make a mistake, which is very seldom, he immediately corrects his error. That is why I wonder what would have happened to the Speaker of the legislature of Quebec if, like the Speaker of this house, he had made a decision not approved by the prime minister. What would have happened to the chairman of the legislature if he had called the prime minister of the province to order? That is the difference between the application of the closure rule which is in force in the federal parliament and the prevention of the freedom of speech in the parliament of Quebec.

In closing my remarks, may I say this: You want to discuss this matter, you do not want to waste time, then take the opportunity offered you by a democratic prime minister and show that you are not mere jokers.

(Text):

Mr. Siewart (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Chairman, I think the committee appreciated your suggestion that the debate should come back to an area somewhere between the Saskatchewan border and Quebec. Even though there are elections pending in those extremities, perhaps it would be advisable to stress the matter now before us more than has been the case in some instances. I for one am quite happy to bring it back from the somewhat exotic and extraordinary happenings which take place during an election in Quebec to the equally exotic and extraordinary legislation which is before us.

The Prime Minister, during the course of this debate, has occupied his seat in the house for practically the full time. He has been most assiduous in his attention, and one would have thought he might have acquired during these many hours an appreciation of the feeling of the house, and indeed of this committee.

But unfortunately, if we are to judge from the statement he made today, he has lost touch completely with what is the feeling in this committee. He suggested to us that if we really want to discuss this legislation we should meet tonight and on Saturday.

On the face of it that was an offer which was perhaps reasonable. But what was the reason for it? The government had decided that this legislation had to go through by June 7. Why June 7 was chosen I do not know, but June 7, as far as the government is concerned now, is merely a date which affects its prestige and its pride. I am quite sure that were this legislation not passed until the 8th, 9th, 10th or 15th of June it would not affect the future of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines one iota.

30, 1956 4481

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation

We on this side might have listened to the Prime Minister when he suggested that we meet tonight and on Saturday, were it not for the unhappy fact that he bungled his opportunity. Behind his offer he had a threat. In one instance he asks us to bail his government out of the mistakes and bungling they have committed, and then he threatens us with closure if we do not assist them.

We are not prepared to negotiate with a club hanging over our heads, because we are not the sort of docile group which the Prime Minister has been in the habit of leading. We are not prepared to yield to threats. What my leader said today holds good. If we can stop this legislation in any way whatsoever within the rules of the house we intend to do so, and every time an error such as was made by the Prime Minister today is perpetrated again it will be of further assistance to us.

When I last spoke in this debate I dealt with other errors. I dealt not only with errors but with misstatements of fact, with broken promises and, indeed, with the lies of those who had been the sponsors of this pipe line and who made these misstatements and these lies to a committee of this house and to the board of transport commissioners. At the conclusion of my talk I was dealing with the financial situation of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, and that is what I want to deal with now.

Before I go further, let me point out that there is not too much validity in the objections of the government to our statements that there is a subsidy involved in this. There is no subsidy in the loan to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, but there is a partial subsidy to this foreign-owned corporation. We realize that the creature of this government, the industrial development bank, lends money to Canadian industrialists only at 6 per cent, yet the government are prepared to lend money to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines at 3i per cent in one area and 5 per cent in another. It has been remarked on other occasions in this house that they are prepared to charge 5J per cent to anybody who wants to build a home under the National Housing Act, but this company is being given money at 3J per cent or 5 per cent. Were Trans-Canada to borrow money on the market it could not possibly do so at these rates. The differential, therefore, is the amount of subsidy.

There have been several financial statements presented, some to the board of transport commissioners, and those which I have in my hand to the minister last year. One of the documents is Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited's preliminary financial report dated September 22, 1955, which was produced as

4482 HOUSE OF

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation an order for return. I want to comment on certain aspects of this proposed company.

First of all let me deal with the proposed capitalization. The total is $376 million, made up of first mortgage and other bonds of some $282 million, subordinated debentures of $47 million and common stock of $47 million. The financing of this corporation is following along completely parallel lines the financing of similar corporations in the United States. The reason for that is very simple. The smaller the amount of equity capital, the greater the profits which can be distributed to the holders of that equity capital. These gas pipe lines in the United States have been notoriously successful financially. Large bond issues have been floated, the bonds have been paid off and those who held the equity stock, the common stock, the risk capital-call it what you will-have made really fantastic profits out of their venture.

There is a rather interesting aspect to this business of common stock. As I have said, it is going to be $47 million, or precisely 12J per cent of what this company calls its proposed capitalization. This is made up of 750,000 shares at $8 a share to the founders. That is a total of $6 million. There are 4,208,800 shares at $10 to the public, but at only $9 to the company, which represents $37,879,200. Then we have a third type of share, and rather an interesting one. The company proposes to float what it calls subordinated debentures, and these debentures are going to cost those who can buy them $53.32. The debentures will cost $50, and attached to each debenture there will be a share of common stock in this company, which will be sold at $3.32. I am sure that there are not many Canadians who will be able to buy subordinated debentures with the privilege of buying shares at $3.32.

Now let us find out from the estimates given by the company just what sort of financial return is going to accrue to those who will invest their money in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. At the back of this document there is a series of exhibits or schedules, and they are worth some examination. The first schedule I want to examine is that which projects income on the basis of sales of 183 billion cubic feet a year, which amounts to approximately 500 million cubic feet a day. We know that as of now Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has contracts for 340 million cubic feet per day: 200 million cubic feet south of the border and, on the minister's word which I accept, 140 million cubic feet already in Canada. If the need for gas in eastern Canada is as great as it is said to be, and I believe it to be so, then within a very few years, perhaps a matter of months, this discrepancy between

140 million cubic feet and the 300 million cubic feet which would be necessary to bring the total flow up to 500 million cubic feet a day will disappear. Within a matter of a year or so, I submit, this company will be carrying 500 million cubic feet a day, which is the equivalent of 183 billion cubic feet a year.

On that basis we have a projected financial statement. In 1960, on the basis of 183 billion cubic feet, the company expects to pay to the ordinary shareholders who invested $10 each, 5 per cent per annum, and to the founder shareholders 6 plus something per cent per annum, and to the preferred shareholders who bought their shares at $3.32 about 15 per cent per annum.

One would think that for a public utility that was an adequate and fair return. There is nothing at all wrong with this projection from the point of view of the safety of the whole proposition. After all, Trans-Canada will be a monopoly, and if it goes through it is going to be extraordinarily profitable-but even much more profitable than this projection would suggest, because there is still another projection, this time on the basis of 235 billion cubic feet a year. That would mean that approximately some 650 million cubic feet per day would be flowing through the pipe. We will have a pipe line in western Canada which can carry at least 720 million cubic feet.

Two hundred million cubic feet will disappear at Emerson. The other five hundred million will be used to service Canada. It might well be within the bounds of possibility, if the need is as great as we are told it is, that the sales of this company will be close to 235 billion cubic feet within a very short number of years. But in that case what happens to the profit and loss situation of this corporation on the company's own projection of income?

By 1962 they anticipate that the government will have been paid back and that after all depreciation has been charged, after all bond interest has been paid and after income tax has been paid, the sum of almost $10 million will be available to those who have invested their money in equity capital in this company. Those who were responsible for this projection suggest that the dividends in these years would be in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent to the person who paid $10 a share; almost 20 per cent to the founders; and to those inordinately fortunate people who bought the shares at $3.32 the dividend would be equivalent to 45 per cent.

Are we entitled to think those figures are correct? On the say-so of the Minister of Finance the other night I think we can accept them, because the minister was very optimis-

tic about the future of this company. As reported at page 4141 of Hansard he said in part:

Bless your soul, if this project gets going we will have enough money for all the things you have asked for.

He was dealing with the amount of revenue which the government would derive from taxation. When this undoubted exaggeration was checked up he said this:

I shall enter my little caveat to say I was quite right; literally, we would have enough money for all the projects . . .

He was referring to all the projects which he had in mind at that particular time. Therefore the Minister of Finance thinks this is going to be an extraordinarily profitable operation. The only people who do not think it is going to be extraordinarily profitable are those who are behind it; those who have the capacity to put up the money but who refuse to do it; those who come to this house and to this government and, as indigent millionaires, ask the taxpayers of Canada to lend money to Trans-Canada which is going to be in a position to pay an average of almost 20 per cent on its share capital.

What is the catch in it? Where is the catch? One would think there must be something very wrong. There is not much catch. The answer is that these foreign corporations are playing Canadians for suckers. They are taking the government for a ride, and the government is trying to pass that ride on to the Canadian people.

Let us consider the assets of just two of the companies which are financially interested in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. They own almost one-third of the shares in that corporation. I am not dealing now with actual Canadian creatures. I am dealing with the parent corporations in the United States, one of the parent corporations being Gulf Oil and the other being Continental. The total assets of these two companies combined, according to the last figures I have-and they are two years out of date-are almost $24 billion. The earned surplus of Gulf Oil two years ago was $658 million alone. The earned surplus of Continental was $204 million. Here we have a total earned surplus of two of the companies which own one-third of the shares in Trans-Canada of $862 million. Yet they cannot find $80 million with which to finance even the western leg of this pipe line.

What about their cash and securities? Gulf Oil had $379 million in cash and securities; Continental had $70 million in cash and securities. That is a total of $449 million which could be almost instantaneously translated into cash. Yet they cannot find $80 million with which to finance the western leg

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of this company in which they have a 33 per cent interest. There is something more than rotten in the state of Denmark.

We are told that Canadians cannot finance this venture. I doubt whether Canadians have been given much opportunity to finance this venture, but willy-nilly Canadians are going to finance it; because the government have said, "We are prepared to put up the capital and we are prepared to subsidize this company from the point of view of interest".

Many arguments have been raised by the other side about national ownership, and the position of the government is legitimate from their point of view. We regard ours to be equally legitimate from our point of view. But we have been told that it will be difficult to secure permits for the export of this gas from Alberta.

Let us consider the situation. We have seen the Social Credit party weeping tears about the trillions of cubic feet of gas which are in Alberta just waiting to be sold. From what Mr. Manning has said and from what the hon. member for Peace River has said are we to infer that Alberta is not willing to sell gas to a nationally-owned pipe line? Is that the position that Social Crediters take? If it is, obviously Canadians may be Social Crediters but Social Crediters are not always Canadians. It would be quite close to treachery not only with respect to the interests of the province but with respect to those of the people of Canada as a whole to deny the sale of gas to a pipe line merely because it was publicly-owned. It would be an act so infamous that I do not think the premier of Alberta would dare to do it. Yet we have the hon. member for Peace River implying that such may be the case here.

He has done some odd things in recent weeks. I remember not long ago he told everybody who would listen to him that there was no connection whatsoever between his party and the union des electeurs in Quebec. Yet when the union des electeurs enters into an alliance with the Liberal party the hon. member for Peace River reads the riot act and condemns them for wrongful doing. What difference is there between what the union des electeurs is doing in Quebec and what the "socred" sycophants are doing in their support of the government here? They are bedded down with the Liberals in Ottawa just as they are bedded down in Quebec.

Mr. Hahn:

Did you quote the hon. member for Peace River?

Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):

I have quoted the hon. member for Peace River. I told you what he said.

Mr. Hahn:

What page?

4484 HOUSE OF

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation

Mr. Siewari (Winnipeg North):

There is another aspect of this matter. We were told last year that Gulf Oil-this United States owned, this United States dominated company, would not sell gas to a government-owned pipe line. I should like to know just how much truth there is in this statement. I should like to know in what way the government has genuflected toward this corporation and accepted their word for it. If the government wanted to go ahead and get the gas there is no question in my mind that they would be able to do so, despite the denial of these Americans of the sale of gas to a government-owned pipe line.

We have been told it would be difficult to get a permit from the board of transport commissioners, and that sort of argument is really reducing absurdity to the nth degree. The board of transport commissioners is another creature of this government. All that need be done would be for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to send one of his men down to the chairman and tell him to call a meeting of the board and approve the permit, and it would be passed.

There is another argument which has been advanced. We have been told that only Trans-Canada has the pipe. It is true that Trans-Canada has an option on the pipe. We are told that no other company can get this peculiar size, 34-inch pipe. But if Trans-Canada has an option on that pipe, I suggest that if the government are interested in public ownership-and unfortunately they are not interested-all they have to do is take over Trans-Canada Pipe Lines in the same way Eldorado was taken over during the war; buy out the shareholders, and then we have the pipe. The pipe is available to build that system under public ownership. There can be no question about that. The pipe may not be available to private entrepreneurs who wish to build their own pipe line, but to say the pipe is not available as an argument against public ownership is merely arguing against the facts of the situation.

We were told by the minister that a pipe line which was nationally owned would be difficult to operate, that there would be conflict between the producers and the consumers. Yet if the government were to take over Trans-Canada Pipe Lines it would take over its present contracts. This company has contracts with producers starting at 14 cents per thousand cubic feet and working up gradually by a quarter of a cent every few years. The contracts are already there. There might be some difficulty with contracts at the other end, with the distributors, but we also know there are already about 140 million cubic feet per day in contracts. We also know that demand in this province of Ontario is very

great. I cannot see any great difficulty in finding other distributors who would be only too happy to sell that gas and pay for it. There would be no question about the price, because the price to the producer has already been settled. The only duty would be to see that the price to the consumer was not too inflated so that the majority of people would get the benefit of the gas. This could be done to some extent, in fact appreciably, through government ownership.

Then there is another aspect which has not been brought up in this house, and that is the inflationary nature of this legislation. We are told that we are in an inflationary period. The government has become somewhat alarmed about it and so, through the Bank of Canada, interest rates have been increased. The chartered banks' reserves have been cut down so that they, in turn, have reduced their loans to even the most legitimate borrowers on the Canadian scene. I have had case after case of house builders coming to me and saying, "I cannot get a loan from the bank, and I am finding it even more difficult to get loans from insurance companies to finance the housing which is needed in this country."

There is an inflationary spiral it is true, possibly to some extent under control. Does one imagine for a moment, if we accept the word of the Minister of Finance that the creation of this pipe line will lead to a capital expenditure of a billion dollars, that this will not add appreciably to the inflationary spiral in this country? Yet we have newspapers like the Winnipeg Free Press, whose economics are still somewhere in the dark ages, arguing that it may be inflationary in eastern Canada but it could not possibly be inflationary in the west. It is a fatuous argument to use in a closed economy. As a matter of fact, the income of farmers in the west may be much lower than it has been in other years, but the cost of those things which they have to buy is still as inflated as ever.

There have been arguments put up in favour of this proposition and we have answered them. We are prepared to continue to answer them, but we would like to hear some of the arguments against what we have to say. Instead of that we are faced with this legislation which is completely riddled with anomalies and that, of course, is the end result of a government which is confounded by its own confusion.

Mr. Hahn:

Mr. Chairman, in taking part in this debate I may say I was somewhat surprised, not at the attitude taken by the leader of the official opposition or the C.C.F. in so flatly turning down the Prime Minister's proposal, but that the Prime Minister had not seen the depths to which these great Canadians on this side of the house would sink

in order to deliberately do away with an enterprise that could be to the general advantage of Canada.

In so far as this matter of completely sabotaging the pipe line is concerned, as was proposed by the leader of the C.C.F., I say that he definitely was opposed to any plan which would make it possible to bring the parties together as suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I suppose this was understandable because the C.C.F. are such strong adherents to the socialistic principle of nationalization of everything they can get their hands on.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North who just spoke attributed, in typical C.C.F. style, certain statements to Premier Manning. They were to the effect that Premier Manning would not make gas available to the people of this country if the pipe line were nationalized. I know of no instance in which the premier indicated such an attitude. When I interjected and asked the hon. member to let us have the reference he failed, quite deliberately again to tell us exactly what the reference was, but in typical C.C.F. fashion he did make statements and reiterated them time and again in regular Hitlerian fashion, hoping the people of this country would believe him and the C.C.F. It is the typical smear method.

Now, Mr. Chairman, in reference to the alliance between the Social Credit group in Quebec or the union of electors, with whom we do not associate ourselves, and the Liberals, there is a great deal of difference between two political parties aligning themselves for election purposes and a political party or group supporting a bill in which they have full confidence and which they feel the people of the country actually want.

I have frequently heard the phrase used in this house that an argument has degenerated into a debate. I believe I am right in saying that this particular debate has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers as well have indicated that there is urgency in passing this legislation if the proposal is to become a reality. These realists in the opposition who oppose the bill have indicated they do not believe there is any urgency. They can see no value to it.

On the other hand, provincially speaking, the premier of Ontario, the premier of Manitoba and the premier of Alberta have indicated that they feel there is urgency in having this legislation passed. They feel that natural gas would be a great asset to every province through which that line would be built. Until today apparently the premier

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of Saskatchewan has been silent. I noticed with particular interest that one of the most vocal C.C.F. members, who from time to time has suggested to the members that this thing was going to be filibustered to the greatest extent possible and that we had seen nothing in so far as the defence production bill was concerned, has failed to say anything in this debate. I am referring to the hon. member for Assiniboia. I am wondering now whether the fact that he happens to represent the same area federally that the premier of Saskatchewan represents provincially is an ominous factor in that respect. Possibly the premier has suggested that they want the pipe line but you boys go ahead and fight it on a public ownership basis; the big majority which the Liberals have will put it through anyhow.

The hon. members for Spadina and Peel indicated in their speeches that they know nothing about natural gas. Some of the things they said certainly indicated they have never used it, have never seen how it was run in production and have very little knowledge of what it can do. While I can appreciate that some of the questions were being asked by reason of the fact this is a new substance so far as they are concerned, I could not help but feel that they were talking through a gas line most of the time. They were groping in the dark so far as that matter was concerned.

A suggestion has been made from time to time that this should be a Canadian investment. The Conservatives particularly, and the C.C.F., have said that Canada should build this line. They have said, "We want it for Canadians and Canadians alone." No party in this house is more desirous of seeing every Canadian have the privilege of using natural gas than the group in this corner, for many of us have experienced in our time the joys of having natural gas in our area. I am looking forward to the day when the Westcoast Transmission line will be built through my own district so that I too will enjoy that privilege once again.

I am going to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Spadina of yesterday, which is to be found at pages 4448 and 4449 of Hansard. He had this to say with respect to investments:

I have been In the mortgage business for a long time, and I can tell you that the deal before us right now is one with respect to which I can easily understand why these people do not want to put their money in it. No one knows anything at all, and yet the government want us, the people of Canada, to put money into a thing like this. I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Now, Mr. Chairman, here we have an honourable Canadian who says he would not

4486 HOUSE OF

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation touch this thing with a 10-foot pole. On the one hand he clamours and clamours for Canadians to invest, or to have the privilege of investing, in a pipe line in Canada. On the other hand he says we have not the money in this country for it. Let us have investment. That is the picture. Let us invest. What for? For political purposes only.

That is all we have had from this side of the house in opposition to this bill. The great Conservative party, or the once great Conservative party-probably I should modify it -stands up in this house day after day and for political purposes states that it is for Canadians. They say, "We want this for Canadians and for Canadians only." They have the chance to invest up to 51 per cent, and it has been said up to 60 per cent, in this line; yet those who have the money are not willing to come forward and invest a 10-eent piece in it. They, the great emancipators of the Canadian way of life, the great parliamentarians, deliberately went out of their way time and time again to try to get kicked out of the house for defying the chairman.

There is no man who enjoys freedom and who wishes for it more than I do, but at the same time I feel there is a time and a place for everything. At the beginning of the discussion of this bill we opposed closure, and we would do it again under similar circumstances. Along with the opposition we would oppose the invoking of closure if they had continued to devote their time to discussing this particular bill. Oh, no; we spent two full days discussing nothing but procedure.

I am satisfied that it is up to the opposition to protect our rights. I am also satisfied that I must make up my mind on one of two things. We want this bill for the people of the country. Possibly we can show our good faith by not supporting closure, as we did at the beginning. Perhaps we should give the government the opportunity to bring in this legislation and discusss the merits of the bill, and then go back to the people and let them know what an arrogant government we have and that they should reduce the majority or eliminate it altogether. Certainly we should not use the method that has been used here day after day, particularly after the Prime Minister has been good enough to suggest that those of us who are prepared to support the bill are willing to sit here Wednesday night and all day Saturday.

It will be noticed that none of the Social Crediters spoke yesterday. Why? Because we wanted to give the opposition a chance to talk about the bill. What did they do? They talked about closure and procedure for most of the time. In so far as we are concerned

the matter now rests on this base. The opposition do not want the natural gas line built. We have heard time and time again foolish utterances from children on this side who say, "Oh, this pipe-line bill could wait a couple of years; it does not mean very much to the people of Canada."

Well, let me read to them-perhaps they are not listening and will not be able to understand if one does read-the report of the royal commission on the metropolitan development of Calgary and Edmonton. Their findings are found in chapter 10 at pages 14 and 15. I do not intend to devote the whole of my time to reading this report, but I think it is important that they understand that this report is based on the development of the oil industry in the province of Alberta. It tells us something about what its effect might be upon the rest of the people of this country. Section 7 says in part, in dealing with resource development and urban growth:

What is forgotten however, is that every great development of natural resources causes the cities and towns to grow much more than the farming, forest, and mining frontiers which are being developed.

There we have the matter of indirect growth. I am satisfied that those areas in which farm implements are manufactured realize there would not be any farm implement industry if there were no agricultural west. Reading on we find that the same thing is going to apply and does apply in the oil industry. I continue:

In the post-war oil and construction boom in Alberta too, the bulk of the population increase so generated has been elsewhere, especially in the United States and eastern Canada.

The province of Alberta has not enjoyed the great increase in population, although it has enjoyed some of it. Its effect has been elsewhere, especially in the United States and in eastern Canada. Do not let anyone here tell us that the oil industry does not affect the rest of Canada, and particularly the eastern part of Canada.

In the last paragraph on page 15 we read this:

Again, out of the oil investment in 1952 in the province, of some $360 million (excluding payments to the government) only some $44 million appears to have been spent directly within the province.

Where do you suppose the rest of it was spent, in Timbuktu or in some place like that? It was spent right here in the eastern part of Canada and in the United States. Let us not be so childish in our attitude toward this thing. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway suggested that they were challenged, and I am satisfied he did so in good faith. He came back to this house and tried

to talk us into some sense of sane reasonableness instead of childish bickering over procedure. At this time we have a job to do in this country, and I am saying it should be done and it must be done now, not 40 years from now after the atomic age has come into effect, at a time when Alberta sits, as it does, on one-seventh of the world's coal and still has a 50-year supply of gas in the ground.

I say the opposition are holding up this bill for political purposes. From time to time they have read political extracts from great newspapers across this country. I find that a newspaper editorial is the opinion of one man only, and I am going to read the opinion of another editor. It is true he comes from the province of Alberta; he publishes his newspaper there. Fortunately-I almost said "unfortunately"- both in British Columbia and in Alberta we have been blessed with not having the newspapermen support the Social Credit party, so no one can accuse me of reading a Social Credit version of this thing. This comes from the Camrose Canadian. and is dated May 23, 1956. It deals specifically with this problem. The editor of a small paper said this. He is just a small home-town man and knows the views of every householder in his area. The editorial reads in part:

We do not profess to know the whole story, but we do know that if Alberta gas is to be transported to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec without the tragic delay of some three or four years, the federal government must come to the rescue. While nominally conservative in our political thinking, we cannot subscribe to opposition leader Drew's opposition to the legislation.

Mr. Ellis:

You took time to find it.

Mr. Hahn:

No, I did not. It was sent to me. The hon. member quoted the Regina Leader-Post the other night, and read an editorial about Saskatchewan socialism and its gas policy and compared the price of 90 cents paid in Rosetown-Biggar for natural gas. Ask the people of Maple Creek about their natural gas situation.

You, the hon. member for Regina City, do not have to tell me anything about Saskatchewan. I lived there for a few years, and I know the gas situation there as well as in Alberta, and that is a great deal more than I can say for you because you are going to enjoy it for the first time while I enjoyed it for many years past.

I read again:

While nominally conservative in our political thinking, we cannot subscribe to opposition leader Drew's opposition to the legislation. We think it is well for the opposition to stand out for all the facts and figures to be laid upon the table for all parties to investigate,-

That is the reason we are in committee. I think that is the reason the Prime Minister

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation today suggested we should have four days left as a committee to discuss this bill, but that has been turned down.

There is no chance to discuss the first three clauses.

Mr. Hahn:

No, not so long as we continue in this ridiculous fashion and will not permit the whips of the parties to meet and come to some determinate action so we can get in and ask questions about this thing, instead of continuing in this foolish fashion.

Mr. Ellis:

You voted to postpone the clauses.

Mr. Hahn:

Not at all. I continue:

-but to obstruct the progress of the legislation for apparently political reasons alone, we cannot endorse at all. If it were practical at the moment, we think the C.C.F. approach is preferable to that of the Conservatives.

Here is a Conservative who feels that the C.C.F. approach would be more practical than is the present approach of the Conservatives. I can understand the editor's feeling in that respect, as I am sure any truly honest Conservative in this house today can. What is their policy? They endorse the McMahon proposal which will take 400 million cubic feet of gas into the United States instead of 200 million.

I am told that the hon. member for Broadway-or rather Broadview, although possibly he comes from Broadway-says that his party endorses the McMahon proposal. The hon. member for Prince Albert early in the debate said they wanted this gas for Canadians but their endorsation is to send 400 million cubic feet of gas to the United States and to retain 100 million cubic feet for Canadians. That was the McMahon proposal, as I understood it.

Continuing with this editorial:

The main thing to be considered is to get a Canadian fuel to the doors of millions of Canadian consumers. Alberta has the natural gas in sufficient quantities to last for fifty to sixty years, even if no further fields were tapped than are now known. By that time scientists will have solved the problem of converting Alberta's abundance of coal into gases that can be transported by pipe line.

Mr. MacDougall:

Attaboy.

Mr. Hahn:

It has been suggested from time to time, Mr. Chairman, that the matter of getting the pipe line built is not important and that we can wait for two or three years. Why not wait for 40 years? We did with the shipment of Albert coal out here, with the result that they still have it in that province.

Mr. Ellis:

You waited five years for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.

Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):

Down, Wimpy.

Mr. MacDougall:

Quiet, Wimpy.

4488 HOUSE OF

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation