1956-05-28

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the house to extend, I am sure on behalf of every hon. member, most happy and cordial greetings to the hon. lady member for Halton. We are delighted that she has been restored to good health and is now again in her seat in the house. I am sure we all are happy to extend to her our most sincere congratulations and our very best wishes.


Miss Sybil Bennett (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, may I have just a few minutes of the time of the house to thank the Prime Minister for his most kind and gracious words. It is a very warm welcome that is given me today, and I am most happy to be back. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that if it had not been for the indulgence and kindness of my own constituents, the very many messages of good cheer and encouragement that I received from both sides of the house, and the faith and prayers of those around me, I fear I would not be back today. I am very happy to be with you.



COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of special committee on estimates.-Mr. Tucker.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the recent amendments to the immigration regulations, in both the official languages.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he can, without taking too much time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I rephrase my question. I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship
67509-279J
and Immigration if he would be willing, if he considers the matter important enough, to make a short statement as to the effect of the main changes contained in the amendments to the immigration regulations he has just tabled.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe it would be of any advantage to anyone if I did so. I think the language of the regulations is clear. As a layman I would hesitate to interpret them to my learned colleague.


Mr. Rowe:: If the minister cannot interpret them, who can?



STATEMENT ON ADMISSION OF EXPERIENCED TOBACCO WORKERS FROM U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Is the Department of National Health and Welfare being consulted on water supply and sewage disposal requirements for the new Aklavik town-site?\nSupplementary answer by: Hon. Paul Martin\n(Minister of National Health and Welfare):\nYes. This matter is receiving the closest attention by officers of the public health engineering division of the Department of National Health and Welfare. They are attending meetings of the Aklavik subcommittee of the advisory committee on northern development and are assisting in the field during preliminary studies for the collection of data and water quality determinations at the site. Engineering studies and preliminary plans with respect to water supply and sewage disposal, as prepared by the consulting engineers, have been reviewed by the public health engineering division. It is expected that the advice of the technical officers of that division will be sought before a final decision is made on the adoption of the requirements necessary to ensure adequate treatment and control of water and sewage for the protection of health.']
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can comment on the question which was asked of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration last Friday by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand, and on which I have had correspondence with the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Clark) and others, as to the entry of primers and tyers for the tobacco crop this summer.
I have had correspondence with, and a copy of a resolution from, the secretary of the flue-cured tobacco marketing association of Ontario. If I were to quote one paragraph of my reply to the secretary perhaps it would answer the question:
In view of the representations you and others have made we can assure you that should the necessity arise for bringing in more primers and tyers than can be provided in Canada, we will attempt to fill the need from the United States.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and ask him whether there is any foundation for the radio report this morning that Khrushchev and Bulganin were coming to Canada. Has any such invitation been extended, or has there been any indication from the government of the U.S.S.R. in relation thereto?

Questions
6.	What is the mileage, by sea, between Esquimau harbour and Rocky Point?
7.	Can lighters remain at Rocky Point in all weather?
8.	What is the average time required for (a) ammunitioning; (b) de-ammunitioning, direct from
(i)	the jetty; (ii) lighters, for the various types of Royal Canadian naval vessels using the Rocky Point magazine?
9.	On how many occasions during the past six months have the operations of ammunitioning and de-ammunitioning been suspended on account of weather?
Answer by: Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):
1.	Yes.
2.	216'6" long by 50'3" wide.
3.	$234,421.
4.	By lighter.
5.	Two.
6.	Eight miles.
7.	No.
8.	(i) (a) and (b) see answer to part 4;
(ii)	(a) and (b) Bay class, 3 working hours; Bangor, 10 working hours; Frigate, 16 working hours; Destroyer, 20 working hours.
9.	Six.


Mr. Purdy: 1 When was the floor price on butter introduced and what has it cost the treasury since its
inception?	.	_	,
2.	What was the butter production in Canada
during this period?
3.	What was the butter production in the province of Nova Scotia during the same period?
Answer by:	Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner
(Minister of Agriculture):
1.	May 28, 1948. Net expenditure to March 31, 1956, $8,500,000.
2.	2,299,000,000 pounds of creamery butter.
3.	46,000,000 pounds of creamery butter.


Mr. Hardie: Is the Department of National Health and Welfare being consulted on water supply and sewage disposal requirements for the new Aklavik town-site?
Supplementary answer by: Hon. Paul Martin
(Minister of National Health and Welfare):
Yes. This matter is receiving the closest attention by officers of the public health engineering division of the Department of National Health and Welfare. They are attending meetings of the Aklavik subcommittee of the advisory committee on northern development and are assisting in the field during preliminary studies for the collection of data and water quality determinations at the site. Engineering studies and preliminary plans with respect to water supply and sewage disposal, as prepared by the consulting engineers, have been reviewed by the public health engineering division. It is expected that the advice of the technical officers of that division will be sought before a final decision is made on the adoption of the requirements necessary to ensure adequate treatment and control of water and sewage for the protection of health.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Barnett: 1.	Does the United States (a) navy; (b) air force, deduct income tax and make remittances to the Receiver General of Canada from wages and salaries of Canadian civilians employed by' them in Canada?
2.	If not, what is the reason for not making such deductions?
Answer by: Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of
National Revenue):
1.	(a) No; but negotiations are at present under way between Canadian and United States government officials in Washington in an effort to establish proper deductions of income tax at the source from Canadian civilians employed in Canada by the United States navy.
(b) Yes. Deductions at the source for income tax are being made from the wages and salaries of Canadian civilians employed in Canada by the United States air force.
2.	Answered by No. 1 above.



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Thatcher: Has the subsidy on maple sap pails been discontinued?
Answer by:	Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner
(Minister of Agriculture):
Yes.


LOBSTER AND SALMON FISHERIES
Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare): 1.	For the year 1955, what (a) was the total landed value of the lobster catch on the Atlantic coast of Canada; (b) was the number of lobster fishing licenses issued on this coast; (c) were the estimated expenditures by the Department of Fisheries directly related to protection and conservation of lobsters?
2.	For the year 1955, what (a) was the total landed value of the commercial salmon catch on the Pacific coast of Canada; (b) was the number of fishermen engaged in the commercial salmon fishing on this coast; (c) were the estimated expenditures of the Department of Fisheries directly related to protection and conservation of Pacific salmon?
Answer by: Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):
1.	(a) $16,513,000; (b) 17,429; (c) $1,320,710*.
2.	(a) $18,352,000; (b) 8,822 licences to fish for salmon were issued; (c) $1,352,415*.
*It is not possible to segregate costs for a particular species. The figures shown are those expended by the protection branch- operation and maintenance. They include salaries and expenses of fishery officers, fishery guardians, patrolmen and the operation of the department's fleets of patrol vessels. The cost of research is not, however, included.


LOBSTER CATCH, MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare): 1.	For the year 1955, what was the quantity and landed value of the lobster catch in each constituency of (a) Nova Scotia; (b) New Brunswick; (c) Prince Edward Island?
2.	In each of these constituencies, for the year 1955, what was the number of lobster fishing licences issued?
Answer by: Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):
1. The information is not available by constituencies but is given by counties as follows: 67509-279
Questions
Lobsters-landings and landed value for each
county of the maritime		provinces,	1955
			Landed
		Landings	value
		'000 lb.	$'000
Nova Scotia-Total	23,036	9,124Inverness	979	281Victoria 	1,314	384Cape Breton	1,767	530Richmond 	1,152	414Pictou 	2,509	664Antigonish 	923	253Guysborough 	1,931	637Halifax 	1,437	587Lunenburg 	671	324Queens 	515	253Shelburne 	4,212	2,128Yarmouth 	3,189	1,678Digby 	1,065	566Annapolis 	186	91Kings 	27	13Hants 	-	Colchester 	51	13Cumberland 	1,108	308New Brunswick-Total ...	8,947	2,895St. John 	265	98Charlotte	1,248	528Restigouche 	128	35Gloucester 	1,127	313Northumberland ..	878	266Kent 	2,694	872Westmorland 	2,598	782Albert 	9	4Pr. Edward Island-	-Total	8,605	2,359Prince 	3,027	883Queens 	2,062	542Kings 	3,516	9342. Records are not	maintained other than	by provinces.	Nova Scotia ...	New Brunswick	Prince Edward Island .	
2,376	
17,429


ROCKY POINT NAVAL MAGAZINE, ESQUIMALT, B.C.
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 409
Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Has a jetty been constructed at the Rocky Point naval magazine, Esquimalt, British Columbia?
2.	If so, what is the length and width of such jetty?
3.	What was the cost of construction?
4. When Royal Canadian naval vessels are ammunitioning or de-ammunitioning at the Rocky Point magazine, do they do so direct to or from the jetty, or are they loaded or unloaded by lighter?
5.	How many lighters are available for ammunitioning or de-ammunitioning between Esquimalt harbour and Rocky Point?
4406	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
The first pipe-line bill that passed this house was Western Pipe Lines. This concerned a pipe line from Alberta to the United States border for export. It was brought into the house by the president of Osier, Hammond and Nanton Limited. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will remember the circumstances. I think it was through his vigilance that it was the last bill that was designed entirely to cover the export of Alberta gas exclusively into the United States.
Shortly after that two or three other bills were passed by this house, and I think the fourth or fifth bill had to do with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. That bill was sponsored by the Canadian Delhi Gas Company. I had nothing to do with that pipe line. The sponsors merely came to see me, the bill came before the house, it went before a committee of the house and the charter was approved by the house.
It has been said that Clint Murchison is a friend of mine, but I will tell the committee about my contacts with Clint Murchison. Back in 1939 when I was Minister of Transport I was invited to the opening of LaGuardia airfield and was entertained at luncheon by American Airlines. They had their directors there. Clint Murchison was at that time and is today a director of American Airlines, and I met him at that time.
The second time I met him was on an occasion when I was invited along with two or three other Canadians by the president of American Airlines to spend a holiday in going over their routes. In the course of that holiday we stopped off in Mexico and spent a day or two at a ranch owned by Clint Murchison, where we shot turkeys. That was long before Clint Murchison had any interest in pipe lines in Canada, and nothing of that kind was discussed.
I think I have met the gentleman three times since. When he has been in Ottawa he has paid me a call. That is the extent of my acquaintance with Clint Murchison. The fact that I knew him years ago and have seen him from time to time since is being used as an indication that he and I are in conspiracy to rob Canada of its natural resources.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, the right hon. minister has a habit of interjecting something into the record which gets out to the press as though it were a statement by someone on the other side. No one has made a statement such as he has now mentioned. I think it is time to call a halt to the interjection of statements of this nature, which are then left on the record as though someone had used those words.


The Deputy Chairman:: As I heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce I do not think he made any accusations. He said that certain impressions were being given, and I think that statement has been made in several remarks.


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: I might ask my hon. friend why he brought Clint Murchison into this subject and referred to my sinister association with him.


George Alexander Drew: That is typical of the minister's misstatements. I said we should know when the first discussions between Clint Murchison and the minister took place in regard to Trans-Canada. Clint Murchison was the promoter. Clint Murchison had discussions. We have copies of the letters and 1 want to know, and I think the hon. members of this house should know, when those discussions started and ended, and what was the reason for the long delay between that time and the time the government came before the house with its proposals. There was no suggestion of anything sinister; that is something the minister has put on the record himself.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The fact of my visit to that particular ranch was brought up by one of the devoted followers of the Leader of the Opposition. It was brought up entirely in an attempt to smear my reputation. It has been said'-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -that we do not need to worry about 30-inch pipe.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: We shall continue with this tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
it should have been well known to the government that the decision of the federal power commission would not be handed down in time to meet the construction deadline? The reason is this. A serious effort was made to obtain temporary financing for the western section. I am sure it would have been successful had it not been undertaken in a growing period of tight money. As hon. members know, the Bank of Canada has tightened its restrictions on loans of the type that are required. The same is true in the United States.
But I believed until three weeks before the amended resolution was brought into this house that temporary financing would be secured. However, at the last minute the negotiations broke down. They broke down, I think, for reasons that went beyond the bankers who had been dealing with the matter. I think they found that there were objections from the central banking authorities of the countries concerned, and we were faced with that situation.
Now, why are we pressing on; why are we pressing this? Well, I do not know; perhaps I get overenthusiastic about a project. I have been working on sizeable projects all my life, and somehow I reach a point in the development when I think a project is important; and if it is a serious enough project I begin to think it is the most important thing in the world and it does seem to me it is important that we do not lose a year in undertaking this pipe line.
Edmund Davie Fulton: A year after five.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, it is a year, anyway. We are having the greatest possible pressure, as hon. members know, from the province of Alberta, where the situation is becoming almost intolerable. Gas is locked up in the ground; gas is being flared at the refineries, and it is a wasteful and unproductive situation.
We are being pressed by Manitoba, and I may say that Manitoba stands to benefit industrially from low-cost gas to a considerable extent. I come from nothern Ontario. Today northern Ontario is the highest cost fuel area in the world. Through this gas line they will be in the position of having a fuel cost lower than that of industrial Ontario. Well, I know something of the preparations that have been going on there to receive gas. Every community in northern Ontario has made arrangements for the distribution of gas. Industries there are dependent on a supply of natural gas to permit plant expansion. If any area of Canada requires a start on a gas pipe line this year it is northern Ontario.
28, 1956	4405
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Hon. members have seen something of the pressure from industrial Ontario for natural gas as expressed by the government of the province of Ontario. No later than last Saturday night the provincial treasurer of Ontario spoke in the Niagara peninsula, and again asserted the absolute necessity of another type of fuel for industrial Ontario. Well, with these pressures reinforcing my own belief that this is a natural resource project that should be pressed to a conclusion as rapidly as possible, I have perhaps given some leadership in the attempt to get this bill enacted by parliament in the 19 sitting days that were left available when the bill was introduced.
I have asserted that if arrangements made last August for pipe are not carried to their conclusion we might not be able to get 34-inch pipe until the last quarter of 1957 or the first quarter of 1958. I have been told by the Leader of the Opposition that this is absolute nonsense. He said that pipe was tight last October, but that today it is easy.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no, no.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You certainly did.


George Alexander Drew: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What did you
say?


George Alexander Drew: I said steel was tight last October.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is plenty of capacity to roll pipe. When we talk about a tight situation in pipe we mean a tight situation in the material from which pipe is made. There are only about three mills on this continent which can roll steel plate of a width that can be rolled into 34-inch pipe.
I think there is also one in England and one in Germany. I believe those are the five mills in the world today capable of rolling plate from which 34-inch pipe can be rolled.
The Leader of the Opposition said there is no other place for this 34-inch pipe in North America. That is true enough, but there is a tremendous demand for it in the Middle East. If we released our option on that pipe it would be out of the United States just as quickly as it could be loaded on ships for that destination. If the Leader of the Opposition doubts that I will be glad to get him affidavits to that effect. We are fortunate in having that pipe.
I see it is getting on to ten o'clock and I shall not pursue that any further, but there is one subject I should like to discuss, the theory that I invented Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, that I was the man who brought it into being. I probably had as little to do with it in its first two or three years of existence as any man in this house.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation days of this week in all sorts of shenanigans in order to block the passage of the bill rather than argue against it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Harkness:: More closure.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -I have spoken three times in this debate, and my purpose in rising now is to attempt to make this a committee where questions that are asked can be answered.
The Leader of the Opposition has asked some questions that should be answered. In the first place, there is a provision which started as a gentleman's agreement and was converted, when three new interests joined the groups sponsoring the pipe line, into an agreement within the group that 51 per cent of all common stock would be offered in Canada and to Canadians. "To Canadians" is not in the draft, but it has to be offered by three very reliable banking houses in this country, and I feel sure that an offer will be made to place that stock of Trans-Canada.
What was the purpose of that? It has been said a good many times I said that through it Canadians would have control. I said just the opposite. I said you could not guarantee control in that way; for there is no way by which you can prevent a purchaser of stock from selling his stock, and there is no guarantee that he will sell his stock to another Canadian.
I made it quite clear that the control of the pipe line would remain in Canada because the pipe line is located in Canada and subject to Canadian law. The province of Alberta has complete control over the gas that will enter the pipe line. The provinces of Canada have complete control over the conditions under which that gas may be sold within the borders of those provinces. The board of transport commissioners have overriding authority concerning the operation of the pipe line, and the government of Canada has complete authority over the export of any gas that may pass through the pipe line and move across an international border.
The reason I have been concerned to see that 51 per cent of the stock would be offered in Canada to Canadians is that if that can be brought about it will be the only pipe line ever built in Canada where that condition has obtained. We have had two pipe lines built in this country and a third is being built today. Well, I hesitate to estimate how much of the common stock of those pipeline companies has been offered in Canada, but I would think that 10 per cent would be a very high proportion of the common stock of any company.
[Mr. Hansell.l
Why is it important to have stock offered in Canada? The Leader of the Opposition-I forget his exact words-said the common stock was the gravy of the enterprise.


George Alexander Drew: No, I did not use any such expression.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What did you say, or do you remember?


George Alexander Drew: You make your own speech.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You at least said-


George Alexander Drew: Don't use terms I did not use.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -that is where the profits lie, in the common stock. All right; I hope he is right. But I would prefer to say that the common stock is where the gamble lies. If the pipe lines turns out to be profitable the common stock is the chief beneficiary. If it turns out to be unprofitable the common stock equity suffers most. In other words, it is at the lowest priority in the securities of the company, and it takes more than its share of the good and it also takes more than its share of the misfortune.
However, I know that Canadians have resented the fact that they could not acquire larger equities in the pipe-line financing that has been carried on to date. I believe it is desirable that Canadians have an opportunity to take as much of the common stock in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines as they wish to take. I want to make it quite clear that I am not advising anyone to buy it; nevertheless a great many people believe that it will be profitable investment, and if they do believe that I think they should have an opportunity to make that investment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister know that the Canadian Liberal quotes him as saying that 51 per cent of the voting stock will be owned by Canadians?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If they say it will be held by Canadians they are making promises that they cannot carry out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Canadian Liberal magazine under the minister's picture says that 51 per cent of the voting stock will be owned by Canadians.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The minister sat for the picture but he was not responsible for what was underneath it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is propaganda your party is putting out.


Mr. Sinclair:: You are lapping it up.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The question has been asked, why was the bill delayed when

that I did not like the principle of closure and my leader said, "Oh, yes, you do; otherwise you would not have it in the rules." There is a thought there, and it is worth something. We do believe in closure. We do not believe it should be applied except as a last resort. We believe there were extenuating circumstances which meant that this bill must be passed by a certain deadline. We are in favour of hearing every possible argument against the bill, but we are not in favour of blocking tactics.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is a fourth reason why I am tying these boys in with the communists. I know this is something that will be received with some protest, but the fourth reason is that the communists are great on character assassination.


Mr, Ellis:: You are past masters at that.


Mr. Hansell:: Listen to that jackass braying.


An hon. Member:: Carried unanimously.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Chairman, gets up with something he thinks is going to get some publicity; it is going to get him in the newspapers. He begins an attack on the hon. member for Calgary South, brings his name into the debate, and declares the hon. member has a financial interest in this pipe line. We know he is an oil man, but he got up and vindicated himself. "I own no shares in any company," he said, "that has any contract with Trans-Canada. I do not own one share in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines."


Mr. Knowles:: He did not say that.


Ernest George Hansell: Then the next day the hon.
member for Calgary South turned around and asked that the whole matter be aired before the appropriate committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then he went home.


Ernest George Hansell: All I say is this. I am not
saying the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre intended to do it, but I am saying he followed the communist line of character assassination.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You got applause from the Minister of National Revenue.


Ernest George Hansell: One other point, and I am
through. The fifth communist line is-


Mr. Caslleden:: Charlie McCarthy.


Ernest George Hansell: -despising authority. I want to say something about this, because it is very important. We ourselves voted for the dismissal of a member from this house for a period of time.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
28, 1956	4403
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Ernest George Hansell: I am not ashamed of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Character assassination if there ever was any.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think it is my duty to draw to the attention of the hon. member who has the floor that the question to which he has just referred is a closed incident, and I do not consider it is a subject for debate at this time on this clause.


Ernest George Hansell: I believe I have about five minutes more, Mr. Chairman. I was only going to take this opportunity of explaining why we voted for that motion. Since you have ruled, I am not one who is going to despise authority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: I will consider it, if you wish, a closed incident. I will say this, however, in connection with that incident, that the general tenor of the newspaper reports I have been able to read, except one by Doug Leiterman in the Citizen of last Saturday which gives a pretty good account, a truthful report, is that this man was fighting for the freedom of parliament to express itself. That is not the reason we voted for that-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My point of order is that a few moments ago you indicated that the incident of last Friday was a closed incident and should not be discussed further. The hon. member who says he does not defy your authority is doing that right now.


Ernest George Hansell: I would say, Mr. Chairman, we would be the first people in Canada to fight for the rights of parliament.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You never showed it in Alberta.


Ernest George Hansell: We have never had any contrary opinion. I will say this. This group respects parliamentary authority. I will digress no further. I should like to whittle somebody down to peanut size. Objection has been taken, and I shall not take up the point.
Now, Mr. Chairman, my time has gone and I say that we are going to support the pipeline bill. We will vote against any tactics of blocking. We do wish that members may have the opportunity of presenting arguments contrariwise if they wish, but let them present their arguments and not waste the remaining
4402	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation resources to a United States company? We are not giving anything away.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The foreign exchange control board went out of existence several years ago.


Ernest George Hansell: I may have used the wrong term. The government can control foreign exchange.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. McGregor:: Are you going to give the people $25 a month?


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, we are not giving any natural resources away any more-


Robert Henry McGregor: Are you going to give the people $25 a month?


Ernest George Hansell: -any more than the agricultural industry gives wheat away when it sells to a foreign country; not any more.
Mr. Pallet!: Can you replace gas as you replace wheat year after year?


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend asks whether we can replace gas. What I am saying is this. There is gas being blown into the air-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Henry McGregor: There surely is.


Mr. Hees:: Pipe it down to Montreal.


Ernest George Hansell: I will enjoy the humour of the situation. I will enjoy the joke that my hon. friends are having at my expense.


An hon. Member:: A lot of gas.


Ernest George Hansell: I will enjoy it too. The only satisfaction I get out of it is that the gas I am blowing is pure instead of the rotten, stinking gas, such as we have been listening to for the past week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh. oh.


Ernest George Hansell: The third line the communists would use, and they are using it at the highest levels of diplomacy in the universe-


Mr. Ellis:: McCarthy rides again!


Ernest George Hansell: -is their delaying tactics. They say, "Let us play for time and in the process let us sow the seeds of confusion". That is what is being done here by the Conservative and C.C.F. opposition. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that a cold war is going on right here in this chamber.


An hon. Member:: A hot war.


Ernest George Hansell: The basis for the cold war is the pipe line, but the tactics that are used are no different from those that are used by the


communists in high level conferences throughout the world. Mr. Chairman, we are not in favour of closure, and we voted against closure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: Just hold onto yourselves.


George Harris Hees: You voted for it at every stage.


Ernest George Hansell: Just hold onto yourselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You voted both ways. That is the trouble with you fellows.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes; we voted both ways. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce first introduced his motion for closure at the resolution stage, we thought he was premature. We thought further time should be given to discussion of the resolution and we voted against closure; and maybe we would still vote against it if those who have spoken in the opposition had advanced arguments one after another against the pipe line. That is not what they have done. We sat here until almost five o'clock one morning, and what was it that took up the time of the house then from one o'clock until five? Did they discuss anything but points of order in order to delay progress on this bill?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Did we have the chance?


Ernest George Hansell: Was the pipe line under discussion then? No, of course it was not. What happened? The bells rang and the members were called in. They challenged the Speaker's rulings-


Edmund Davie Fulton: And we disturbed your sleep.


Ernest George Hansell: -bells rang and the Speaker would rise and say, "may I conclude that members have already been called in?" "No, you must not do that" they said; and the bells would ring again. We would sit down, and we waited until five o'clock in the morning. What was it all for? It was delaying tactics; school-boy stuff.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: We said right away, Mr. Chairman, if that is what we are going to experience when we vote against closure, then we are not going to vote against closure any more; that is the reason we have followed the government in voting for closure since that time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Where does that leave you?


George Harris Hees: Start that one over again; you got mixed up.


Ernest George Hansell: We do not like closure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Better ring the bells again.


Ernest George Hansell: We do not like closure. Nobody likes closure. I was arguing one time


Ernest George Hansell: Listen to the next paragraph, Mr. Chairman:
You seem resolved to gag parliament and defy public opinion. . . .
Have we heard that before in this house?


Some hon. Members:: And how!


Ernest George Hansell: We hear it also outside from the communists. Again we find this:
. . . call a general election . . .
Have we heard that by the Conservatives on this side of the house?


Some hon. Members:: And how!


Ernest George Hansell: So we hear it outside from the communists parading this afternoon. I say those who oppose this bill are following the communist line. I may say that this document is signed by Tim Buck, national leader; Stewart Smith, for the Ontario committee; Gui Caron, for the Quebec committee, of the labour progressive party.
Talking of elections, Mr. Chairman, I wonder what would happen if the Prime Minister should rise in his place some time and accept the challenge of the Conservative party to call an election?


An hon. Member:: He would be beaten.


Ernest George Hansell: I am going to say that there would be no more dejected looking people in this country than these same gentlemen if he did that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You talk for yourself.


Ernest George Hansell: They would look like dying ducks in a thunderstorm.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are fairly close to the Prime Minister. Why don't you suggest it?


Ernest George Hansell: There is no party in Canada that is less prepared for an election than are my hon. friends.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why don't you want one?


Ernest George Hansell: You don't want one; of course you don't. Be that as it may, my time is fast running on.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not as fast as your tongue.


Ernest George Hansell: The second reason they are following the line of the communists is this. They talk a great deal about United States investment. They all know this. They know that the communists from Bulganin and Khrushchev right down to the office boy want to see the destruction of United States economic power, and they use the same arguments with respect to United States investment in Canada. Let me also say this. My leader this afternoon was telling me that
28, 1956	4401
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation recent surveys showed-and this may be a remarkable piece of information for hon. members-that there is less United States per capita investment in Canada than there is Canadian per capita investment in the United States.


Robert Henry McGregor: So what?


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, they talk about the Americans coming over and controlling our natural resources.
Mr. Pallet!: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Here is democracy for you.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I shall be willing to answer any questions if I have time to do so when my 30 minutes have expired.


Mr. Palletl:: Just keep the record straight on those per capita figures.


Ernest George Hansell: They talk about control of our natural resources, or handing over control of our natural resources to some United States company. The Leader of the Opposition said it tonight. It has been repeated over and over again.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Prime Minister cannot stand his new ally.


Ernest George Hansell: That is a false statement pure and simple. The hon. member for Calgary South the other day, in a speech he gave, went through the whole gamut of controls that can be exercised on this company from the time the gas leaves Alberta until the time it reaches the homes or the industries of this country. He told you how, from the very start, the Alberta petroleum and natural gas conservation board can control the amount of gas that is to be exported from the province of Alberta. That is the first control.
He told how the various public utilities of the provinces could control the price of gas within those provinces. That is the second control. He told how the federal government, through its transport board, has control of the transportation of that gas. That is the third control. He told also how the federal government has control of export permits. That is the fourth control.
He did not mention the fifth which I am going to mention tonight. The foreign exchange control board has control of how much money may leave Canada. If you want any more controls on the thing than that, I should like to know where you will get them. I might say this now, Mr. Chairman. In the light of those controls, how can it be said that we are giving away our natural
4400	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Ernest George Hansell: I have five reasons to believe they are following the communist line. The first is that there is not a communist in the country who wants this pipe line.


Robert Henry McGregor: That is a great statement.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend says that is a great statement. I say there is not a communist in the country who wants the pipe line built. Why? Because they do not want Canada to become great. Furthermore, they do not want the solidarity of the North American continent, because if we have solidarity of the North American continent then with the great economic power that lies to the south plus our tremendous natural resources we can defy the world. The communists do not want Canada to become great.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition say in the course of the debate some days ago that this pipe-line measure was fantastic. I know the connotation he put on the word "fantastic". I am going to use the same word but with a different connotation. The pipe line is a big thing. It is tantamount to building a railroad. It is a big thing, and any government or any company that has vision enough and faith enough in Canada to build a pipe line of this kind is attempting a job that will make Canada great. We cannot lag behind any other nation in the world so far as our efforts are concerned in trying to make Canada what it ought to be. The communists do not want Canada to become great. May I say that the following of blocking tactics that would result in the defeat of the bill will mean that a pipe line may never be built in Canada.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Is that the best argument you can put up?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member forgets that Canada never built a railway for the benefit of the United States.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I know you do not like it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not forget anything. I do not forget what the hon. member for Kamloops has been saying over the past few days and what he has been trying to do. I do not forget that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have been trying to defeat this bill.


Mr. Pearson:: Trying to become a martyr.


Ernest George Hansell: What did I see in the Ottawa Journal of May 24?


An hon. Member:: Closure.


Ernest George Hansell: I saw a picture under which was a caption.
[The Deputy Chairman.!


Edmund Davie Fulton: A comic?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, it is a comic. I will tell you what it is. It is a picture of the attitude of the Conservatives and the C.C.F. in this house. That is what makes it comical. It is a picture of a truck. The truck has a sign on it, "Keep the gas pipe line all-Canadian". Then there are a number of other signs on it that are not too distinguishable.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: Every time the hon. member for Regina City interrupts I feel like saying, "Foghorn Ellis blows again." Under the picture, Mr. Chairman, there is a caption reading as follows:
Pipe line in effigy-The united electrical, radio and machine workers union of America, with a Canadian membership of 25,000, dislikes the government's Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited proposal. To show their displeasure, U.E. representatives drove this truck around Ottawa. Petitions and telegrams have been sent to members of parliament. The union wants the pipe line built by the Canadian government to "do away-
Listen to this and see if you cannot read in here something of the same flavour found in the tactics pursued by the members of the Conservative and C.C.F. parties in this debate.
-"with the subsidy to a private corporation and the United States give-away."
Anyone who knows the history of the leaders of the united electrical, radio and machine workers union will know where they are headed. Some of us know that these leaders are communists. That is their line. Here is another example. As we came up to or left the building at noon what did we find outside this house?


Edmund Davie Fulton: More sense than we have heard in it from you.


An hon. Member:: Oh, keep quiet.


Ernest George Hansell: We found a parade put on by the communists, and they were handing out leaflets. The title of the leaflet is, "Stop, Look, Listen, Premier St. Laurent!" The pamphlet continues:
Open letter to the government of Canada
Brought to Ottawa by a motor cavalcade from Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Kitchener, Windsor, Sudbury and other cities, May 28, 1956.
How does it read? I am not going to take the time to read it all but I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to note some of the phrases. To the Prime Minister they say:
So far you have turned a deaf ear to the patriotic outcry of Canadians.
Who were these people who were parading outside here today to talk about patriotic Canadians?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tory photographers.

vested in the name of Her Majesty or in the name of the corporation.
What corporation? Again unnamed.
Actions, suits or other legal proceedings in respect of any right or obligation acquired or incurred by the corporation, whether in its name or in the name of Her Majesty, may be brought or taken by or against the corporation, in the name of the corporation, in any court that would have jurisdiction if the corporation were not an agent of Her Majesty.
What corporation? This is where we start. What corporation? I say that no opposition, no group of members of parliament in the history of parliament, have had to begin the discussion of an important measure like this-


Edmund Davie Fulton: No parliament.
Mr. Cold well: No parliament has had to discuss an important measure like this in the middle of a bill concerning an unnamed corporation. I cannot for the life of me understand why the government has allowed itself to be reduced to this stage. Of course I quite believe that the only reason we are discussing this clause tonight, instead of having it moved again that further consideration be postponed, is because of the public outcry from one end of this country to the other. This will not in any way allay that public outcry, nor will it reduce the efforts of those of us on this side of the house in opposing it, regardless of our party affiliations. It will not reduce the opposition that we have been carrying on against this particular measure. I very sincerely hope, because it is not in the best interests of Canada, that the opposition will be strong enough to prevent this bill from going through before the deadline. I see some on the other side of the house laughing. There is a powerful majority in this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not so powerful.


Mr. Coldwell:: It is so powerful it has become arrogant. It thinks that whatever it wishes to do it can do. Perhaps a demonstration can be given that it is not quite as powerful as it considers itself to be. We shall see.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Ernest George Hansell: I am very glad that the opportunity at last has been given to this group to express its views in respect to the present bill.


An hon. Member:: Turn on the closure now.


Ernest George Hansell: We have taken very little of the time of this house in the past week, as we have not been too much interested in the blocking tactics.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You were trying to railroad it through.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I only have half an hour in which to speak-


Mr. Brooks:: Too long.


Ernest George Hansell: -and I would ask that I at least be given the floor without too much interruption. If I should be interrupted I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will take notice of it and give me some credit as far as time is concerned.
As I say, we have had very little to say on the pipe-line bill. We spoke on it when the first resolution was introduced in the house some weeks ago. Since that time we have had little to say. We have not joined in what we would call the blocking tactics of the Conservatives and the C.C.F. in the house. We have remained silent all the way through. We wish, however, to state our position on the bill. We support the pipe-line bill because we want the pipe line and at the earliest possible time.
But, Mr. Chairman, there is another reason why we support this measure, and it may sound strange when I indicate to you what that reason is. You know, very often I have the habit of making a decision on the basis of what the enemies of democracy want, and if I determine what the enemies of democracy want then I do not want it. If I can determine what the enemies of democracy do not want, then I want it. I am on fairly safe ground in taking that as a barometer.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to say this. With respect to the present pipe-line bill I ask this question: What do the communists want? I say to you, Mr. Chairman-


William Earl Rowe: Closure.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Dictatorship.


Ernest George Hansell: -that the Conservatives and the C.C.F. are following the same line the communists want followed.


Alfred Claude Ellis: They have closure in Russia.


Ernest George Hansell: In saying that I am not implying in any way that any of our friends who sit on the opposition side are themselves communists.


An hon. Member:: That is very decent of you.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are not even anti-Semitic.


Ernest George Hansell: I am saying they are following the communist line and are playing into the hands of the communists.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are not even anti-Semitic.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Who is?


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are.


Charles Edward Johnston: You are a liar.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of this whole thing is the debate which is going on in the province of Quebec where the Liberal leader in that province, if I read his speeches right, is criticizing Duplessis for giving away the natural resources of the country to United States corporations.


An hon. Member:: That is right; giving away.


Major James William Coldwell: Giving away resources to United States corporations. May I ask my hon. friend what this government are doing-


An hon. Member:: Giving away.


Major James William Coldwell: -if they are not entering into a plan which is a give-away-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Major James William Coldwell: -of a great Canadian resource? Mr. Duplessis gets some revenue by way of royalty from that resource in Quebec. The province of Alberta will get a royalty from the gas in that province. The analogy is just the same. And what are we doing?


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


An hon. Member:: We cannot give away what we do not own.


Major James William Coldwell: We cannot give away what we do not own, but I say that what we are doing is financing the project for them. The minister shakes his head, but there is $130 million; $80 million.


An hon. Member:: What's a million?


Mr. McCann:: To build a transportation system.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, to build a private transportation system.


James Joseph McCann: You have been so used to getting everything for Saskatchewan that you deny anything for eastern and central Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: I am very glad to know that the government of Saskatchewan has been getting everything for Saskatchewan.


James Joseph McCann: Millions of dollars worth.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, that is a very interesting statement from the minister. I am very glad to hear it, but may I say this to the minister-


Edmund Davie Fulton: He has been taking everything away from Saskatchewan for so long.


Major James William Coldwell: -that the government, which can find approximately $200 million to assist in the financing of a United States-controlled project in this country, cannot find the money to build the South Saskatchewan dam-


James Joseph McCann: The same old story.
[Mr. Coldwell.l


Major James William Coldwell: -to safeguard the people of that province from the recurrent drought. Unless I am provoked into doing it I am not at this point going to enter into the Saskatchewan provincial election in this chamber.
I am not going to do it, but if I am provoked into it you will get a speech in which, I think, every criticism that has been made can be answered in full in this house. I am not afraid to do so, but I have always taken the view that this chamber is not the place in which to fight provincial elections and, unless I am provoked into it, I am not going to do so. But provoke me into it, mind, and I assure you I can and shall do it.
I have just been in the mood over the past week to be provoked. I have never felt quite as down in the mouth since I have been in the House of Commons as I have during the past week, when I have seen this overthrow of democratic procedures in this parliament. I have never felt as depressed about anything as I have felt about this during the past week in the House of Commons. My hon. friend says, "Some of you people have been blocking the discussion of this." Not at all. What we have been fighting for is the right of this house to discuss this measure in a proper manner.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have not got that right yet.


Major James William Coldwell: No, we have not got that right yet. This afternoon when the Prime Minister rose on a question of privilege, I hoped he was going back to start this discussion at the proper place, on clause 1. When my good friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) rose in his place, against all the advice he has had over the past several months, to make a speech this afternoon, and made an excellent speech-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: -I was hoping that when he stepped down the Prime Minister would cooperate with at least those of us who want to discuss things properly in this house and say, "We shall now go back and pick up the clauses that have been so-I shall use my own words-"improperly postponed". However, that has not been done, and the result is that we have only clause 4 of this bill before us. It states:
The corporation-
-unnamed-
-is for all purposes an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada and its powers under this act may be exercised by it only as such agent.
What corporation? It is unnamed.
Property acquired by the corporation is the property of Her Majesty and title thereto may be

people of Canada should understand exactly the manner in which this project is being financed and undertaken.
I should like to draw further attention to the bill passed in the Ontario legislature. I shall not read the preamble, as I do not think that is necessary, but here is the operative part of the bill:
Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the legislative assembly of the province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
1. For the purpose of implementing the arrangements made or to be made-
I want to get that on the record because that is the language of this particular bill in clause 7, which we shall discuss more fully when we come to it.
-between the government of Canada and the government of Ontario to facilitate the construction of a connecting link through northern Ontario of a pipe line to transport natural gas from Alberta into central Ontario, the treasurer of Ontario is hereby authorized to loan from time to time out of the consolidated revenue fund any sum of money, but not more than $35 million, to a corporation constituted or to be constituted on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada and having as a purpose the construction aforesaid.
There we have the Ontario act; there we have the reason the wording of that act is in the manner indicated. That is clearly set out in the Hansard of the province of Ontario.
I want to say that we are opposing this measure, not because we think there is another Canadian company which could undertake this construction but because we believe that this gigantic project which will have so much to do with the future welfare of this country should be a public utility, controlled, owned and operated by the people of Canada, particularly as the people of Canada are financing it to the extent I have already indicated.
We are told that we cannot get the pipe. I know nothing about the availability of steel, but I do know that when one of our provincial governments was about to enter into an arrangement with a European firm to establish a plant for the manufacture of pipe for the conveyance of gas the Steel Company of Canada, I believe it was, immediately placed before the tariff board of this country a demand for an increase in the tariff on steel plate or skelp for the making of steel pipe.
I can tell you the result. In spite of assurances which were given that this would take a long time on the part of the tariff board to examine, and even then it would have to be taken up with our co-operators in the general agreements on tariff and trade, or GATT, that European company was frightened and withdrew its consent to the building of that plant. I have the particulars in my office upstairs, and I know that what
28, 195G	4397
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation I am saying is quite correct. In spite of the fact that they were told authoritatively that they need not worry for at least a couple of years, that company did worry and the negotiations for the construction of that plant to manufacture steel pipe ended at that stage.
As I say, I do not know about the availability of steel pipe, but I do know that there are very powerful interests in this country which are determined to keep the natural resources and everything else they can put their hands on under their own control. I say that the Canadian people will never be free of those interests until those monopolies, for such they are, are made public utilities and taken out of private hands.
The other day when he was being pressed regarding Canadian control of this measure and the sale of stock to people in Canada, not necessarily to Canadians, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said there was no way short of public ownership to guarantee complete control of this project to the Canadian people.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I said majority ownership. I said rather that control by Canada did not rest in stock ownership but in the fact that the line is located in Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: I think I can pick up the words of the minister which will support what I have said, rather than the explanation given. The minister has said several things several times, and I am not quite clear as to what he has said; but I am pretty clear regarding this. May I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this project should have been publicly owned. However, when we moved that we stood alone in that regard in the house. I am convinced that the day will come when the Canadian people will see that what we suggested at that time was in the best interests of our country.
I do not say that the distribution of the gas in the provinces could not be undertaken, if a province desired, by private enterprise.
I think sometimes private enterprise has a role to play in the economy, but I am certain that it has not a role to play when we are dealing with a gigantic project of this description, with a great public utility of this sort.
So I am standing here tonight and saying that if members of this House of Commons approve of this particular proposal they will be doing something which I believe will have repercussions in the future which will not be in the best interests of this country. Over the years most of us in this house have seen our natural resources slipping away from us.
I think one of the most incongruous features
4396	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of Commons; and with the introduction of that resolution closure was foreshadowed, closure moved.
Then when the bill comes before us, on the first clause of a bill such as I have in my hand it has always been the right of the members of this House of Commons to discuss the objectives and implications of the measure. What did the Minister of Trade and Commerce do? He moved not that consideration be postponed but that further consideration be postponed, putting on the record of this house something that was entirely false; for there had been no consideration. Further discussion postponed!
Clause 1 is the most important clause of this bill, but we were not allowed to discuss it. Clause 2 received the same treatment; clause 3 received the same treatment; and because of the outcry in the country, because of the violent criticism in the press as well as the criticism in this house, the Prime Minister rose this afternoon on a point of privilege and said that we were going to be allowed to discuss clause 4.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Privilege which he denied to other members over here.


Major James William Coldwell: Privilege he was going to grant the house.


William Earl Rowe: Just until Friday, though.


Major James William Coldwell: To what have we come in this chamber when we are told that we are going to be permitted to begin a discussion of clause 4? Discussion of clauses 1, 2 and 3, a knowledge of which is required to understand clause 4, is denied to us. Clause 4 says that the corporation is a body corporate having capacity to contract and to sue and be sued in the name of the corporation.


Mr. Knight:: What corporation?


Major James William Coldwell: What corporation? An unnamed corporation, just as we have in another part of this bill an unnamed company to carry out a very important part of this entire project.
The other day the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said this bill contained a joker, a joker that would enable this government, if it wished, to make another agreement. The Prime Minister said, and I have his words here as reported at page 4173 of Hansard:
With respect to the statement made by the hon. gentleman that there is a joker in the bill because it refers to contracts which have been made or which may be made. I would refer him to the first clause of the act which was passed by the legislature of Ontario.
Had the Prime Minister read not only the first clause of that act of the Ontario legislature, but had he read what was said on


that clause when it was introduced into the legislature of Ontario? This is what was said. I am quoting from page 382 of the Hansard of the Ontario legislature for Tuesday, February 21, 1956:
The federal government have made their decision as to the most practical method of action under the present circumstances. That is their responsibility.
This is what Mr. Porter said; I continue:
We believe that we are fully justified in giving the fullest co-operation and support financially and otherwise.
This is the purpose of the bill, but on the other hand, the bill is couched in flexible terms. If, for any reason the present plan does not go through in its present form or if it fails entirely,-
And these are the significant words:
-the bill will permit the government to consider alternatives and advance moneys within the stated limits to further any other arrangement that may be adopted.
In other words, the Ontario bill clearly indicated that in the event of any other agreement to be made by the federal government, their bill was flexible enough to enable them to come under it. That is why the words in the Ontario bill that the Prime Minister drew attention to were put in that bill. Is the same flexibility in the bill now before us? Was that the intention? We do not know.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition completely when he says that this bill should be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons where we could hear witnesses and go into all the aspects of the matter. I do not agree with the hon. gentlemen to my right that there is a possibility of a Canadian company undertaking this plan at the present time. Of course I believe that it should have been undertaken as a public enterprise, since we are putting up these large sums of money. I know that when I said we are financing this measure to the extent of approximately $200 million that statement was contradicted, but that is exactly what we are doing. We are appropriating $130 million in this bill and we are saying, "You can temporarily use $80 million of that to finance the prairie section of this project". In other words we are financing both the prairie section and the northern Ontario bridge section.
In other words the people of this country are financing-maybe some of the same money is used-some $200 million of this project, as the Leader of the Opposition has said and I repeat, for a United States corporation which is controlled 83 [DOT] 4 per cent by powerful gas and oil companies in the United States. I say this is a scandalous thing; it is an outrageous thing, and the

Canada. We do not want to see this government use its power to put up Canadian taxpayers' money to finance an operation which will place the profits in the hands of a company 83 per cent owned in the United States, which has failed in its undertaking to finance this operation.
If that company is to be given permission to proceed with this, then let the government take the appropriate steps to demand the delivery of the equity stock which is not now outstanding. Let this government assure, by the steps it can take, that control of this company will really be kept in the hands of Canadians in the years ahead.
This is a great venture, an important venture, but not by any manner of means the largest that has been undertaken by Canadians. I still believe that if this government would only open this up and explore other channels, without any delay this could be a venture undertaken in the interests of Canada and under the control of Canadians in the years ahead.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult indeed to discuss this bill at the present time because we are on clause 4. Clause 4 speaks of a corporation, and that corporation is not defined in the clause. We have postponed the passage of clauses 1, 2 and 3 of this bill under what amounted to the most pernicious form of closure I have ever seen. I want to say at once, Mr. Chairman, that to my mind over the past week or so we have been witnessing in this house what is really a travesty of parliamentary procedure. I think you could search the records of any parliament within the commonwealth and you would find nothing similar to the travesty that we have witnessed in this chamber over the past week or ten days.
I want to say to hon. gentlemen opposite that they have been where they are for 21 years. Inevitably the time will come when the Canadian people will put another government in office and they will have to change sides. When they change sides and sit in the opposition they may find themselves faced with the precedents created in this debate. I want to say that no political party in Canadian history has ever made a rod as firm and effective as the rod that has been created in this house to frustrate an opposition in the days to come.
I am not going to criticize the chairman tonight. I am not going to join in the criticism of the Speaker of this house which is so prevalent in the newspapers of the country. But I am going to point this out to the house generally, that the rules of this house which have been formulated over the centuries were formulated not to preserve
28. 1956	4395
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the power of governments but to protect the rights of those who criticize the government.
Just over a year ago I happened to be driving through the United Kingdom. One evening I stayed at a small hotel at a place called Burford in the Cotswolds. In the evening I met a gentleman whom I took to be an Anglican clergyman. He proved to be a Roman Catholic priest. He said to me, "If you are interested in things of the past, before you leave this town go down and see the Methodist chapel." I thought that was rather strange advice from a Roman Catholic priest. He said, "The Methodist chapel was the home of a man who did much to preserve the rights of democracy. I do not know what you do or where you come from." I said, "I happen to come from Canada, and I happen to be a member of the House of Commons there." He said, "Go down and see that house, the home of Mr. Speaker Lenthall who, when the government in the person of King Charles I went to the House of Commons to arrest five members whom he disliked, refused to bow to the power of that government, which was the king himself; and when Charles demanded that Mr. Speaker deliver those five members, Lenthall stood firm and established a sound democratic principle when he said this: 'May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the house is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am.' "
A servant of the House of Commons! In this past week or ten days we have seen a powerful government wreak its will on this institution. A week or so ago in the debate I interjected the remark that the actions of the government were worse than the actions of Guy Fawkes, who plotted the blowing up of the House of Commons in Britain over three and one-half centuries ago; for all Guy Fawkes was doing was plotting to set a match to a fuse to blow up a building, to blow up bricks and mortar, but what has been done in this house over the last week or 10 days was not a plot but an achievement to blow up the democratic rights of parliament itself.
I have been one of those who have said over and over again that I thought parliament was the finest institution that man had ever devised for his own self-government; but I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that over this last week I have sat here sick at heart at what has been done in this chamber to this institution of parliament in this country. Debate! A resolution was introduced in this house foreshadowing one of the most important bills that we have had to deal with since I have been a member of the House
4394	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation that is the only thing he has not done. He has placed it under control in the United States. The only thing he has not done is to say that it will be governed by the company laws of the United States.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I hear the usual thoughtful comments of "nonsense". These comments are typical of the extent to which members opposite take part in this debate. I hear one hon. member opposite say that is the finest word that has been said on this side. That word "nonsense" is just about the most intelligent remark that could be made on the other side, because everything that is being said on the other side is nonsense when they talk about the rights of Canadians being protected and when the Minister of Trade and Commerce talks about a declaration of independence-I hope that was not emotionalism, which the Minister of Trade and Commerce does not like-that places the control of this great resource at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer in a company that is 83 per cent American owned. If you want to describe that as nonsense, then applaud now and you will be showing some sense. Yes, that is really where this government is showing exactly what it is prepared to do.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this government has still some opportunity to keep this whole operation under Canadian control. An attempt was made to suggest that this is similar to the Canadian Pacific venture. I would point out that in the case of the Canadian Pacific it was not a case of the majority of the directors, practically all of whom are one-share directors, being Canadians. In the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway, right from the beginning the act itself has provided that the president and the majority of the board of directors must be citizens of Canada.


Mr. Lesage:: No, not for the Canadian Pacific.


George Alexander Drew: Must be citizens of Canada and British subjects.


Jean Lesage: British subjects.


George Alexander Drew: Must be citizens of Canada and British subjects.


Mr. Boisvert:: British subjects residing in Canada.


George Alexander Drew: One of the hon. members opposite in the back row shows that he knows more about it than the minister who has intervened. He points out that they must reside in Canada. Of course, at that time any British subject who resided in Canada


was a citizen of Canada, because at that time there were no separate citizens.


Jean Lesage: There is nothing about residing in Canada.


George Alexander Drew: Well, the minister can enter into an argument over that with the hon. member in the back row who has corrected him.


William Earl Rowe: You were too young to understand that.


George Alexander Drew: At the very beginning-


Mr. Hunter:: I can read the section to the Leader of the Opposition if he wishes to relieve his ignorance. It is right here.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I should point out the Leader of the Opposition cannot and must not be interrupted except with his consent.


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member will have plenty of time to make his speech, that is until closure falls again.
We have not been permitted to obtain the information that could be obtained because of the procedure that has been followed. I still hope the Prime Minister will demonstrate some respect for parliamentary procedure by giving the appropriate directions, which all of us know will be accepted by hon. members opposite and supported, that we revert to section 1 of this measure so questions can be asked and information obtained.
We want to get certain information from the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to where the first discussions took place with Mr. Clint Murchison in regard to this deal we now have before us. We want to find out from the Minister of Finance what the actual reason was for presenting this, because it was not the reason given by the minister in his statement to the house. We want to find out from the Prime Minister why he is now supporting a measure of which he said last July he did not approve. We want to find out from the government generally why they waited right until the last minute without opening up any possibility of allowing anyone else to have an opportunity of building this pipe line and showing that this could be done by Canadian financing and kept under Canadian control.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is the wish of the people of Canada, and I would hope it would be the wish of the members of this house, that the great natural resource which we are told is needed so much in Winnipeg, in northern Ontario, in southern Ontario and in Quebec, will be made available to us under a company that is operated under the direction of Canadians and in the interests of

company was well able to finance this whole venture. It was upon that basis that the committee passed this application. Then the next stage was before the board of transport commissioners, that judicial body which hears applications of this kind. Before that board evidence was presented that, without any export, a line from Alberta, through Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, to Montreal could be built and financed by this company without any government assistance of any kind.
We have heard not one word of evidence to the contrary before any committee of this house or before the board of transport commissioners from the people who obtained their charter and franchise on that solemn undertaking. Yet we now have before us, first of all, the suggestion that a crown corporation should be set up to use the money of the Canadian taxpayers to build this line through northern Ontario. Then, finding they cannot proceed with that, the government proposes that $80 million of the $130 million to be financed through the crown corporation will be handed over to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to pay 90 per cent of the cost of the line from Alberta to the vicinity of Winnipeg. We are not allowed to have produced before a committee information as to why this is necessary or why this should be done.
The taxpayers of Canada are going to provide the capital. Do not let anyone on the other side talk about the advantage of bringing United States investment in here. They are not bringing United States investment in. This company is not doing it. This government is asking parliament to take the Canadian taxpayers' money to finance a venture which is 83 per cent United States controlled, and in that way to hand over the control of one of our greatest resources to that United States company. This is precisely the opposite of what was presented to us in the speech from the throne on January 10. This is precisely the opposite of what was presented to us on March 15 when the Minister of Trade and Commerce brought before us the motion which has now been abandoned.
Mr. Chairman, this is on the part of this government the abandonment of all responsibility to the people of Canada. We are told that Canadians cannot finance this venture. We are told they cannot put up the money. They are going to put up the money; and unless hon. members opposite assert their rights and do something about this matter, this government is going to conduct one of the most outrageous sell-outs there has ever been of Canadian rights and Canadian interests. There is going to be a sell-out of the major portion of our gas resources to a company
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation which is 83 per cent United States controlled, and Canadians are going to be asked to finance that sell-out. They are going to hand over this resource.
Why is not this government asking for some compensating advantage? This company still retains its voting stock. It still retains its equity stock. If any private interests were putting up money in this way, they would demand delivery of most of the remaining equity stock in consideration for their efforts. Why does not the government demand that the remaining equity stock be handed over? That is not the stock that is going to finance the construction. That is the stock where the profit is going to be made. If this government really means that it has an interest in the welfare of the Canadian taxpayer, then let it get control of this company by getting over 50 per cent of the stock under the control of the government itself.
That, of course, is something which the government is showing no signs of doing. From the very beginning this government has been extremely solicitous, first of Clint Murchison, who had such ready access to this government. Then though Mr. Clint Murchison still holds one of the two largest blocks of shares in this company, it has now been handed over to the real and effective control of Mr. Gardiner Symonds of New York.
We have heard a great deal about the fact that there are a majority of Canadian directors of this company. You would almost think there was something virtuous about this fact. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has gone to some trouble to read into the record the names of these directors. Surely the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been informed that a company formed under the dominion Companies Act must have a majority of directors who are Canadians. I see an hon. member opposite shaking his head. Let him look up his Companies Act and he will find that this charter must comply with the dominion Companies Act, and that calls for a majority of the directors to be Canadian.
Mr. Chairman, I hear all the applause opposite. For what? For nothing; for the fact that this company is doing what every company must do which carries on similar operations under a Canadian charter. That is all; nothing else. I hear further applause from the opposite side. If ever there was applause for an extraordinary point of view, it is the present; because obviously hon. members opposite are applauding the minister's statement that he has not actually made this company subject to the company laws of the United States as well, because
4392	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
But I think it might be well also to examine some of the documents that were filed in the house. One of the documents filed in the house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce just last week was a letter dated November 8, 1955, addressed to Mr. Gardiner Symonds of New York and signed by Mr. H. J. Wallace, vice-president of National Tube in the United States. Perhaps this paragraph of the letter would make interesting reading:
This will confirm our agreement to extend to you such privilege in consideration of your commitment to us concerning the Winnipeg to Toronto section of the proposed trans-Canada pipe line. Such commitment is that if and when this section is constructed, Tennessee Gas Transmission will order a substantial portion of the pipe requirements from National Tube division, or, in the event Tennessee Gas Transmission is not the buyer of the pipe, you will use your best efforts to see to it that a substantial portion of the pipe is ordered from National Tube division. Please confirm that the above is your understanding by signing and returning the enclosed copy of this letter.
That was accepted on November 15, 1955, by Tennessee Gas Transmission Company and signed by the president of Tennessee Gas. Therefore we have Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, which now is the directing influence in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, assuring its favours to National Tube division in the construction of pipe. When we talk about the construction of pipe I am not in any doubt that when two experienced and highly efficient companies like Page-Hersey Tubes, Limited and the Steel Company of Canada build a plant and decide in partnership to proceed with the construction of pipe, they have made arrangements for the steel to produce that pipe, and I most earnestly hope that in every way possible the government will make sure that it will be this Canadian company that will roll the pipe for the Canadian gas pipe line when that pipe line is being constructed.


James Joseph McCann: I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman but the vice president of Page-Hersey, who is a resident of the town where I live, told me within the last week, and also one of the officers of the Steel Company of Canada, that they do not intend to make pipe larger than 30 inches-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman-


James Joseph McCann: -because there is no place to roll it.


George Alexander Drew: In that case may I suggest to
the Minister of National Revenue that he speak to the vice-president with whom he was in conversation and point out to him that it would be advisable to correct the statement they gave to the press in which


they told the press that they intended to roll pipe up to the largest sizes that would be needed in Canada.


James Joseph McCann: What size was that?


George Alexander Drew: They said they would be ready to roll pipe up to 36 inches, which is two inches larger than the pipe now under discussion.


James Joseph McCann: There is no company in Canada that rolls up to 36 inches.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the statement that has been made can well be corrected if it is wrong, but this company, which is in a partnership with the Steel Company of Canada and our most experienced pipe company, has indicated that it is prepared to roll pipe up to the largest sizes required, and I repeat the statement that I would hope that in every way it can the government will assure that the pipe that goes into the trans-Canada pipe line, whatever may be the name of the company or organization that constructs the pipe line, will be Canadian pipe rolled here in Canada.
We have heard a good deal about the possibility of delay. Any delay that has taken place is delay for which this government is responsible. This government has had the whole subject under consideration for well over five years, and now it comes before the house just before a June deadline and says, "We have taken all this time to reach any conclusion and now you must abandon all the ordinary requirements, all the ordinary demands for information, and pass the measure that is before you or there will be delay." In this way, as has been said very appropriately, procrastination could be used as the thief of parliamentary rights and parliamentary procedures.
That is exactly what is being proposed here. What is being proposed is that because the government itself has procrastinated, we must abandon our rights of inquiry and examination. Under this proposal Canadians are going to be asked to do the financing that we were told this company could do on its own. Most of the hon. members in this house were here in the spring of 1951 when we were assured without reservation that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines could build this line in Canada, without any export, through to Montreal and could finance the whole thing.
The same statement was made and supported by evidence before the committee which sat to hear this application, the committee to which this bill had been referred. That committee, namely the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, was told without any qualification that this

be long delay, into the years 1958 and 1959, if we do not proceed now to use the pipe that is available.
We should ask ourselves when this pipe was ordered. This particular 34-inch pipe was ordered only last October, and it was understood that manufacturing would begin by February of this year. Is there any reason to suppose that when a company could proceed with the production of pipe in five months, there is some insuperable reason why it would not be possible for other orders to be filled in a similar length of time?
There is, of course, another angle. There is no gas pipe line in the United States using 34-inch pipe. No gas pipe line now contemplated in the United States has any thought of using 34-inch pipe. The 34-inch pipe that is manufactured will be available to anyone who undertakes the building of this line. The people who built the pipe built it for a particular construction, and that was from the Alberta border to the vicinity of Winnipeg. This government, any private organization that could go ahead, or any other body that was anxious to build this pipe line and had the authority to do so could pick up that 34-inch pipe. To suggest otherwise is simply trying to bluff this parliament. It was ordered for that purpose; it will be available for that purpose. Again, even, if it were not, what about delay? If it were ordered now, only five months would pass until the pipe would be available.
I hope every hon. member is well aware of the fact that, while there was a very real steel shortage last October when the order was placed for this 34-inch pipe in the United States, the situation is very different today. Because of the very sharp and very great reduction in the output of automobiles in the United States, steel is no longer in short supply.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: As a matter of fact, steel is no longer in short supply.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my
hon. friend a question?


George Alexander Drew: I see that some of the hon. members opposite seem to think that steel is in short supply.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have been trying to pick up some similar steel in the United States for some time. Can my hon. friend tell me a mill where I can perhaps get it?


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Trade and Commerce knows perfectly well that some of these people who were selling steel to the automobile companies are now out on the
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation road trying to get orders for the steel they were going to sell to the automobile companies before they cut back production. He knows that perfectly well.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon. friend ask one of these salesmen to call on me?


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Trade and Commerce knows perfectly well what the figures are. He knows perfectly well that there has been a tremendous cut-back in the demand for steel in the United States, and that steel would be available for the production of pipe. What a remarkable thing it is that this company was able to place an order last October to start production in five months and now, when there is a great cut in the demand for steel, it should be more difficult to get that production. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is simply bluffing, as he does so often; as he does in other statements to the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend is not bluffing, perhaps tomorrow he will tell me of someone who will take an order for steel plate.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has already told us about the extraordinary delay that would take place, yet he knows perfectly well that this particular company has made pipe that is available, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows that the 34-inch pipe would be available to whoever is going to construct the pipe line from Alberta to the vicinity of Winnipeg.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He knows no such thing.


George Alexander Drew: Then, of course, there is another thing that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should have in mind. He is well aware, because he has spoken about it in the house, that Page-Hersey Tubes, Limited, of Welland, in co-operation with the Steel Company of Canada, have recently announced that they are building a new pipe mill in Welland in partnership for the purpose of rolling pipe in sizes up to those which would be needed here in Canada, in the very largest size and any other size that would be required. This new mill is to be completed in December, 1956.
I should think the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be greatly interested in what is going to happen to that new mill, and would be greatly interested in the opportunity that the mill will give for the construction of pipe in Canada. Do not let it be pretended for one moment that it is not possible to proceed with the construction of the broad reaches of this pipe line in sections in different parts of Canada at the same time. Let them consider the possibility of using this pipe made in Canada.
4390	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation 14. The presentation of evidence and the questioning in relation to that evidence concluded on April 19. All these were dates that indicated a perfectly normal procedure before the federal power commission. Those hearings are now adjourned, as I assume most hon. members know, to give an opportunity to prepare direct evidence in reply.
Today the Prime Minister indicated that he did not know whether or not there is any Canadian observer who has been attending those hearings. In view of the interest of this government, I submit that there should be a representative of the Canadian government there. I submit, furthermore, that the Prime Minister should know what the facts are because, no matter who may put forward any motion or take the responsibility of letting any measure stand in his name, it is the Prime Minister as head of the government who must share the primary responsibility for what has been described as one of the greatest ventures undertaken in Canada.
It is hardly in keeping with that description of the importance of the Trans-Canada pipe-line development that the Prime Minister should be kept unaware of many of the developments that have taken place. He did not even know, during the period they were considering substitution of a new agreement with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, that there had been another offer. Whether they had on their offer the words "private and confidential" or otherwise is unimportant. The Prime Minister was uninformed. The Prime Minister was uninformed in regard to other discussions that have taken place, and now the Prime Minister is uninformed as to whether or not we have a representative at these hearings. I submit that this is not the business of the Minister of Trade and Commerce alone. I submit that we have had enough of this one-man operation of government.
Before any hon. members opposite raise the slightest suggestion of objection to the time that we are taking to try to ascertain the facts, let them recall how little the Prime Minister was informed with regard to the essential facts while the renewal of the contract of Trans-Canada was in fact before the government itself for some considerable time. There was no reason why any aspect of the proceedings at Washington should have been a secret to the government, and there was certainly no reason for any surprise that there should have been this delay in obtaining permission. In fact it was stated definitely in the most responsible publications dealing with problems of this kind, many months before the end of last year, that there was not the slightest chance of permission being
[Mr. Drew.l

obtained for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to export natural gas to the United States.
I go further. The discussion proceeds as though it were merely a question of how long it would be before Trans-Canada Pipe Lines gets permission from Washington. It may well be a question of how long it is going to be before Washington refuses entirely the application of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. The reason for that is clear. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has chosen to make arrangements with Tennessee Gas, which is in a gas war in the United States. The government has taken its part in entering that gas war. We should not be in that at all. Our main concern should be to get gas to eastern Canada. The government, on the other hand, persists in following a course which involves us in a struggle between great organizations in the United States for the control of certain fields of distribution.
I wish it were possible to place on Hansard a copy of the map showing the vast network of pipe lines in the United States. The whole of the United States is criss-crossed with gas pipe lines. There is the great gas pipe line, comparable in length with the ones we are discussing in Canada, which extends from the southwestern part of the United States right up to New York. Other gas pipe lines carry gas far into the northeastern part of the United States. The whole of that heavily populated territory is criss-crossed with pipe lines. The struggle that is taking place before the federal power commission is a struggle for markets.
That is one of the reasons the federal power commission holds these hearings. It is not merely a question of waiting until it hears evidence to give permission. It gives permission only upon evidence that it is desirable that a particular organization have the right to handle the gas in a particular area. What is happening in this case is that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has made arrangements for export to an organization that is in very keen competition with a number of other organizations in the United States. Not only may there be long delay in reaching a decision but, when that decision comes, it may well be an adverse decision for the very reason that hearings are held before that organization.
Another matter that I would like to raise, and that has been brought before this house by the government, is the suggestion that there would be such great delay if we did not unquestionably accede to the proposal that, no matter how bad this proposition is, it must go ahead because there is only one place from which 34-inch pipe can be obtained. We are even told that there might

What happens then? The Minister of Trade and Commerce left us with the impression that if it came to that point, unattractive though the proposition might be to the government, they would then be called upon to consider public ownership. We have the right to know exactly what the government has in mind. It has not stated yet what it really does intend to do. When the Prime Minister rose to deal with the statement I had made about the extraordinary effect of clause 7 he made it clear that this government did contemplate the possibility that there might be some agreement between Trans-Canada and the government after this bill goes into effect which would vary the existing agreement now placed before us. He made that abundantly clear. Therefore we are asked to pass this and other sections of the bill without knowing what the government intends to do next April if by that time Trans-Canada has not been able to get permission from the federal power commission at Washington to export gas to the United States.
The Prime Minister was asked the straight question:	Does the government intend to
take over this line at that time? The Prime Minister has made it clear that the government is not yet prepared to say definitely what it will or will not do at that time. I think we have the right to know. If the government says definitely that it intends to take over that western section in April of next year if Trans-Canada Pipe Lines have not been able to carry out their financing by March and repay whatever part of the $80 million has been put into the construction of this western section, it should tell us. We should know. So should Trans-Canada. So should the public of Canada. So should everyone. If the odds are that this is to be a public venture in any event by next April, let us know it now so we can discuss the whole subject with a recognition of that fact. That is the least we have the right to know.
I had certainly hoped that in the discussion of clause 1, long before we got to clause 4, we should have insisted upon a clear and unqualified answer to that proposal. I find it difficult to believe that there is not some private undertaking between the government and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines at this time which has not been disclosed to us. I find it difficult to believe that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines would be prepared to put up this additional money unless they had an unqualified secret agreement with the government that when next April comes there will be some new arrangement which has not been disclosed to us.
It is true that they are putting up only 10 per cent, but how many people would
28, 1956	4389
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation like to have a chance of that kind? They are putting up only 10 per cent of the cost of construction, but it does not make sense that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines would put up the number of millions of dollars they are called upon to put up, even though it is only one-tenth of what the Canadian taxpayer is going to put up; it does not make sense that they would put up that money unless there is right now an unqualified agreement that if permission has not been granted by the federal power commission to import gas into the United States by March of next year there will be some new arrangement entered into under which Trans-Canada Pipe Lines may well still be the favoured and chosen instrument of this government. This is another thing which should have been fully explained to us.
Do not let anyone on the side of the government suggest that we are putting forward questions which create uncertainty. We are putting forward the only obvious alternatives. Let them tell us which it is. Is there an agreement clearly understood between the government and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, or does the government intend to take this over if Trans-Canada Pipe Lines have not been able to repay whatever part of the $80 million has been put up when the time comes for repayment at the beginning of April next year?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
George Alexander Drew: The discussions that have taken place this afternoon have all related to the bill now before us and the clause we have under consideration, but I want to speak about some of the statements that were made by the government in the earlier stages of this discussion. I particularly want to refer to the suggestion that the government has been caught by surprise by the fact that the federal power commission has not granted permission to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to export gas to the United States through the instrument that will be handling it on the other side of the border.
The fact is that the federal power commission has moved at its ordinary pace. The government knew perfectly well what has been the ordinary method of handling business by the federal power commission. This application was filed on October 10, 1955. The order for hearing before the federal power commission was issued in January of 1956, and the hearings began on February
4388	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Canadian taxpayers' money to the extent of $130 million should be put up at the request of this government and with the support of parliament to make it possible for a company, which had said it could do it without any assistance, and which was 83 per cent owned outside of Canada, to build the line. The original motion was in conformity with that statement. Then this subject came forward for discussion on March 15. At that point apparently the government came to the realization that the company could not carry out any of its undertakings, and therefore it examined the possibility of some alternative plan.
When hon. members opposite object to our discussion of this measure let us remember that this government had been considering this subject not only for the nearly five months that have elapsed since the speech from the throne was presented, but it has been discussing it for months longer than that, and it did not come to a decision until the last three weeks as to the kind of proposal it was going to put before us. Why should hon. members opposite be so impatient if we seek to have some opportunity to examine, to consider and to discuss a proposal of this kind when the government itself found it impossible to reach a final decision until after all those many months?
Now we have before us something entirely different. The main purpose of the measure now before us is not the construction of the northern Ontario bridge. The primary purpose of what is before us is to siphon off money to be given to a crown corporation ostensibly formed for the purpose of building the northern Ontario bridge, and then use that public money for the construction of the pipe line from the Alberta boundary to the vicinity of Winnipeg. Surely that is one of the strangest devices ever put before parliament. Create a crown corporation to build the northern Ontario section of the pipe line, and then siphon off the funds made available to that corporation for the purpose of the construction of an entirely different segment of the whole pipe line.
Why, Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why we should have been permitted to discuss the earlier sections-and I trust we can mention this much of the earlier part-is that this is called an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. That is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about now is a plan to advance money for the construction of a pipe line from western Canada. Why not call it that? Why not have two measures? If the government is determined to go through with this other measure, then bring in a bill to deal with that section and set aside whatever money is


necessary for that. We do not believe it should be done, but that at least would be dealing with this frankly.
We have heard a good deal in the past days of not doing by indirection what cannot be done direcily. Well, let us not do by indirection something in this case which has no direct relationship to the declared purpose of the bill now under consideration.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the corporation which we are now discussing is a corporation for the nominal purpose of building the northern Ontario section. Just let us see exactly what strange result flows from what is placed before us. One hundred and thirty million dollars-and of course on this we can rely on the statements made in Hansard-is to be advanced from the public treasury to a crown corporation set up for the declared purpose of building that 675-mile section through northern Ontario from the Manitoba boundary to Kapuskasing. Out of that $130 million the corporation set up only for the purpose of building the northern Ontario section is to be permitted to advance to a private company, from money belonging to the Canadian taxpayers, up to $80 million. Surely that is one of the strangest devices ever put before this parliament. This crown corporation, set up for another purpose, is to advance 90 per cent of the cost of the construction of the western section of this pipe line. Control of that construction, the handling of the money, is to be in the hands of the private company.
What results from this remarkable beneficence of this government? What results from this strange diversion of funds? What results from this strange misapplication of the taxpayers' money? The pipe line will be built from Alberta to the vicinity of Winnipeg. The pipe line will be of a size which will assure the possibility of the export of gas at Emerson if permission can be obtained from the federal power commission at Washington.
What happens after that? Can Trans-Canada go ahead and place orders for the remaining part of the pipe line? We have been told that they cannot finance this portion until they get permission from the federal power commission. Every person who has had any contact with what is taking place at Washington is fully convinced that there is not a chance that permission will be granted by the federal power commission by the end of March of next year for the export at Emerson to the Midwestern gas company, which will be the designated company to handle the gas that would be carried by this pipe line.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my
hon. friend a question?


George Alexander Drew: Certainly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What about the words "issued or to be issued"?


George Alexander Drew: It says:
-will include a public offering in Canada of Common shares of Trans-Canada's presently unissued capital stock in an amount not less than 51 per cent of the total number of common shares of Trans-Canada to be outstanding after such offering has been made including the shares covered by such offering-
It does not say anything about any offering from time to time. It is one offer; and whatever the intention may be, a single offering of 2,006,884 shares would fully
28, 1956	4387
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation comply with this agreement. This would mean there would be 3,935,067 shares outstanding altogether, and this agreement will have been fully complied with. That would leave a total of 6,064,933 treasury shares still in the treasury to be disposed of and to be handled by the majority holders as they see fit.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have said before and I repeat that all this calls for, and all that needs to be done, in order to comply with section VI is that approximately 20 per cent of the voting stock of this company be sold to the public in Canada, and that agreement will have been fully complied with in its exact terms.


William Earl Rowe: Not necessarily to Canadians.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out that this does not mean a sale to Canadians; it means a sale in Canada. I think we can very definitely take it for granted that those who hold those shares are not going to give over their control which they now exercise to the extent of 83 per cent. That is the percentage of the shares of this company now outstanding which is held by investors in the United States.
I would like to make another point clear. It is not with these shares that this company is going to be financed in its construction. If all these 10 million shares were sold they would not begin to have enough money to construct this pipe line. This pipe line is going to be financed by other types of securities, and this is where the profit comes; this is where the control is exercised in the United States.
One of the reasons given for extending such an extraordinary concession to this company in the first instance was that it was able to finance this whole venture without the intervention of the government. If United States investment had come in here and had built this line, then the original undertaking, whether or not it was desirable in its original form, would at least have been carried out in conformity with the representations made to this House of Commons, to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and to the board of transport commissioners.
Here before us now we have the remarkable proposal that a company, 83 per cent owned in the United States, is to be financed by the Canadian taxpayer through the intervention of this government. First, on January 10, in the speech from the throne, we were told that a measure would be placed before us to create a crown corporation that would construct that part of the pipe line through the 675 miles of northern Ontario from the Manitoba boundary to Kapuskasing.
Well, that in itself seemed an extraordinary plan. It seemed an extraordinary thing that
4386	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Mr. Fleming: It might have been amended.


George Alexander Drew: It might have been amended to embrace two separate corporations. It might have been amended to embrace an entirely different type of corporation from that which is actually described in the words that have not yet been dealt with.
There are many reasons why this matter should have been dealt with in an orderly way. Intentionally or unintentionally, the government has been far from frank with this house in the explanation of why it was following this course. Let us take the explanation given by the Minister of Finance as to the reason it was suggested that this government undertake the construction of a pipe line through northern Ontario. I read from Hansard for Monday, May 21, at page 4140, from the statement of the Minister of Finance. These are his words:
Mr. Speaker, the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company found last year that this government and indeed the government of Ontario as well were insisting that the pipe line go through not the shortest northern Ontario route but a northern Ontario route which is longer than they normally would survey, and the result was they expected the government of Ontario and Canada to contribute in some way to the construction of that line which would be at an extra cost because of its length and direction.
Mr. Chairman, that is the only explanation that has been given for this course that is being followed, other than the statement that it is difficult country through which to build a pipe line. It was explained that the government had asked that a longer line be followed and the result was that they expected the government of Canada to contribute in some way to the construction of that line because there would be extra cost.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that simply is not so. If the Minister of Finance did not know what the facts were, then he made a very careless statement in such emphatic terms. After all, he was giving the explanation of the government for this course. The fact is quite the contrary, that the longer line will not cost more but will cost less. Let me read from the judgment of the board of transport commissioners, at page 379, following the hearing on August 18, 1955. This is what the judgment says, and just recall when I read this that the explanation that has been given for the government undertaking this strange device is that it would cost more:
The route suggested by the company-
That is this longer route.
-would cost approximately $1,500,000 less to construct than the alternative, and also the portion of the route along the gravelled country road will be less difficult of access than the alternative north of lake Nipissing where the line would have to leave the highway to avoid the muskeg swamp. There would also be a saving in operating costs 

This building, in fact, is a building which shows the nature of this parliament. It is divided down the middle, showing the separation between the government and the opposition. The Speaker's chair is at the end of this hall in the centre. At the moment the chairman sits at the table which is in front of the Speaker's chair. Here in this house, to the right and to the left, are the two sides of parliament, a fact which indicates the balance between the statements and the actions of the government in power, and the right and, even more, the duty of the opposition to examine with the greatest care and to oppose with the utmost vigour where they believe opposition is wise and desirable.


An hon. Member:: Obstruction.	.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend even to put into the record the word I just heard uttered on the other side. However, I want to say I would hope that an hon. member who uses the kind of remark I just heard -and I imagine it probably was not heard by Hansard-is completely out of touch with the traditions of this institution and the solemnity with which we should regard anything that diminishes its strength and its responsibility.


An hon. Member:: Obstruction.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I would hope the hon. member who is making these offensive interjections would rise and identify himself, because it would be appropriate that Hansard should know by whom statements of this kind are made.


Mr. Habel:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on the invitation of the Leader of the Opposition in order to say that I feel that the hon. member is absolutely out of order and is not speaking on the bill.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, we have not yet reached the point where it is out of order to talk about the rights of parliament and the rights of the members of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not yet.


George Alexander Drew: I am, however, inclined to think there are some in this house who think it is out of order to talk about the rights of parliament. The interjection that has just been made is one which correctly interprets the attitude that has been expressed by the government and supported by its followers in these past few days. I would hope that even yet-


An hon. Member:: Do we have to listen to more of this lecture?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I just heard from the opposite side the remark "We have to listen to more of this lecture". If they are not
28, 1956	4385
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation getting from their own side, in caucus or elsewhere, any lectures on the rights of parliament, perhaps it is appropriate that some of the hon. members who find it so objectionable might listen to what is being said about parliament and its traditions, particularly about this parliament of our own.
When this building was damaged by fire and this new House of Commons was rebuilt and constructed in the way it now stands, it was constructed with a full recognition of the place of the opposition as well the place of the government and its followers. It is to that thought that I would direct the attention of hon. members; and even now at this stage I would ask the Prime Minister and his associates in the government to consider the position they have created by postponing the first three clauses and then bringing us to clause 4 without any of the defining clauses having been passed.
The Prime Minister by his words makes it quite clear that it was not the intention of the government' to revert to clauses 1, 2 and 3 but rather that it is the intention to proceed to the termination of the consideration of this bill in its remaining stages. Mr. Chairman, this procedure destroys the effectiveness of our parliamentary system. In propriety, I cannot at this point deal with the contents of clause 1, clause 2 and clause 3; yet it is in clause 3 that we find defined all the terms which give the subsequent clauses any meaning. Then also clause 3 has been passed under this particularly-


Major James William Coldwell: Obnoxious.


George Alexander Drew: -obnoxious form of closure, and clause 3 is the one that would bring the corporation into existence. It has not done so. The corporation has not yet been dealt with. If the government recognizes any rights of the opposition, then it recognizes the possibility that clause 3 might have varied the form of that corporation and that, when we came to clause 4, we would be discussing a different type of corporation from that which was contemplated in the original stages.
There are many reasons why that should have been the case. When we read the words "the corporation" in clause 4, why are we to assume that we are not dealing with a separate corporation to deal with the construction of the pipe line from the Alberta boundary to the vicinity of Winnipeg? In fact it would be much more sensible if that were so. I would point out that, far from our debate being narrowed by this situation, it has been extended because I have the right to assume that this corporation embraces any type of corporation that could have been created by the judgment of this house in the earlier clauses.
4384	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation other occasions it may have been Liberals expressing criticism of a course of action followed by Conservatives in no way changes the nature of the sentiments that were expressed nor the cogency of the remarks. On the contrary they gain more weight by virtue of the fact that they were directed to proceedings much less objectionable than these. They were directed to the closing of debate by closure even after there had been substantial discussion of every section. Discussion on the earlier occasions when closure was first applied and on the succeeding occasions occupied weeks.
In the case, for instance, of the debate on the naval bill every section was discussed at great length. When objection was taken to the closing of debate in committee it was after the debate had been continuously before the house for three weeks in the committee stage alone. Never before was anything of this kind attempted. Therefore it is worth while to go back to what was said on August 28, 1917, by Hon. Ernest Lapointe, as found at page 5039 of Hansard:
I contend that this house has neither the mandate nor the authority to pass such a measure. Now, this action on the part of the government becomes even more arbitrary when it is accompanied by the rigorous application of the rules of this house which are actually imposed upon us. It is assuredly tyrannical-I believe the word is still within the limits of moderation-to employ the gag in order to have such a measure passed by a parliament such as we constitute just now.
I go back to that point, and I wish to refer to this subject before I pass on to the general remarks I propose to make, because I do not think it is sufficiently understood that what the Prime Minister has placed before us this afternoon is no concession of any kind. Even if the government had kept to its planned schedule of postponing each clause as it came before the committee and then applying a blanket closure after 24 hours' notice there would not have been a closure of the debate in committee in any event until Wednesday night. Then with respect to third reading, under the rules the earliest that closure could have taken place would have been after 24 hours' notice, which would mean that in any event Friday would have been the earliest time the subsequent proceeding could have been brought to an end.
Therefore it is in that light that we must examine what the Prime Minister has said today when he tells us, and I use his words: "I want to state emphatically that as soon as the motion before the committee is disposed of, further debate on the bill can begin and there will be all this week for it to be continued in its remaining stages." We had all
IMr. Drew.]

the balance of this week in any event, Mr. Chairman, to discuss the bill in its remaining stages, so this is no concession whatever. It is no concession of any kind, and I think it is regrettable that the Prime Minister should come before us and, in an attempt to meet the criticism that has been made public that this is an effort to prevent discussion of the bill, make what appears to be an offer when as a matter of fact there is no offer at all.
I said immediately that if the Prime Minister were to make any offer on this occasion it certainly should be an offer to revert to the first clause of the bill and then to proceed through the bill in an orderly way. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that if that course had been adopted we probably would have been further on in the bill now than we actually are, and with all the debate having taken place that would be appropriate under the circumstances.
I wish to repeat that while I have used a colloquial comparison that indicates something of the extent to which we feel the rights of parliament are being destroyed, we want no thought in anybody's mind that because we use such a colloquial comparison we do not mean exactly what we say when we place before the house that the precedent that is now being established, if it becomes accepted practice, ends for all practical purposes the existence of an effective opposition in this house. It is just as serious as that. I think every hon. member of the house who still recalls the great traditions of this institution will accept the proposition that it is the existence of an opposition which is in fact the hallmarks of our parliamentary democracy.
After a bomb had fallen through the roof of the building at Westminster during the war and the ensuing fire had gutted the House of Commons, a committee was appointed by Right Hon. Winston Churchill to consider the reconstruction of the House of Commons. I do not have his speech before me, but in making a short quotation from that speech I believe my words are accurate; in any event they are an accurate interpretation of words that were used by Sir Winston Churchill at that time. In going back through the history of the House of Commons and speaking of its traditions he said he hoped that it would be the decision of the committee to retain all the earlier characteristics of the ancient House of Commons. Then he used these words: "We shape our buildings, and then in time our buildings shape us".


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. Clause 4. The Leader of the Opposition.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I have already made certain remarks in regard to clause 4 which I shall not repeat because they will appear in Hansard in the same record. I did so thinking that a point of order had been disposed of, and the remarks I was making earlier were based upon the assumption that we were now dealing with clause 4 and for the first time, therefore, in a position to debate directly upon the bill since it came to the committee stage.
I would point out that to many of the hon. members opposite it must seem that some of the statements that have been made are very extreme in their nature. I want to make it clear that no statement that has been made is more extreme than the sentiment we feel about what is being done to the regular proceedings in parliament on this occasion. I would have hoped that we might have gone back to clause 1 either by the voluntary action of the Prime Minister or in acceptance of a motion which was made, because of the difficulties that are presented in dealing with this clause as it now stands.
I want to point out that it is not on this occasion alone that hon. members of this house have held very strong views about procedure of this nature. The fact that on

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, in order that we may test what the Prime Minister's offer means, and so that we may have an orderly debate on the bill in committee, I move:
That the consideration of this clause be postponed in order that the committee may revert to the consideration of clause 1.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It has been moved by Mr. Fulton:
That the consideration of this clause-
I interpolate that is clause 4.
-be postponed in order that the committee may revert to the consideration of clause 1.
Standing order 78(1) reads:
In proceedings in committee of the whole house upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order; the preamble and title to be last considered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Under my reading of standing order 78(1) it would not be possible to revert to clause 1 until we had once gone through the clauses in their proper order; that is, in their chronological order. On that basis-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before you make your ruling may I say just a word? Citation 691 of Beauchesne's third edition, at page 235, reads as follows:
The consideration of a clause may, on motion made, be postponed, but the motion may not be made if the clause has been amended. A postponed clause is, in the absence of an order to the contrary, considered after the other clauses of the bill have been disposed of and before new clauses, if any, are brought up.
My motion gives the committee the opportunity to make a motion to the contrary. The citation clearly shows it is contemplated that it may be ordered by the committee that they revert to a postponed clause before considering the remainder. Mr. Chairman, I hardly think that you would press strongly the argument that standing order 78(1) precludes us from going back since 78(1) has been relied upon by the government in the past as the basis for their contention that the clauses may be taken up out of their proper order.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Therefore, I think the government is hoist on its own petard in this case and the motion is in order on that basis and on the basis of citation 691, which clearly contemplates, if the committee so desires, it may revert to a postponed clause.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Despite the rather persuasive argument just introduced by the hon. member for Kamloops, I am of the opinion that so far we have not taken the
[The Deputy Chairman.]
clauses in their improper-that is, not in their chronological-order. Although 1 have no citation to quote, it is my reading of citation 691, which says:
A postponed clause Is, in the absence of an order to the contrary, considered after the other clauses of the bill have been disposed of ... .
I think that would imply of necessity that an order to the contrary would be made at the time the clause was postponed and therefore with regret I rule the motion of the hon. member for Kamloops out of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appeal your ruling.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. May I at this time make it clear to the committee that the reduction of the appeal to writing is entirely the responsibility of the chairman. However, for the information of the hon. member who has appealed I would advise him I propose to submit, after the preliminaries, that I ruled that the motion was out of order on the ground that it was not in order to revert to a postponed clause until all clauses of the bill had been called in their proper order.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
Mr. Speaker, in committee of the whole, when it was considering clause 4 of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Fulton moved that the consideration of this clause be postponed in order that the committee may revert to the consideration of clause 1. I ruled that the motion was out of order on the ground that it was not in order to revert to a postponed clause until all clauses of the bill had been called in their proper order.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
Mr. Applewhaite of the committee of the whole reports that when in committee of the whole on clause 4 of Bill No. 298, Mr. Fulton moved that the consideration of clause 4 be postponed in order that the committee may revert to the consideration of clause 1. The chairman ruled that the motion was out of order on the ground that it was not in order to revert to postponed clauses until all clauses of the bill had been called in their proper order. Whereupon Mr. Fulton appealed to the house from the ruling of the chairman.
Those who are in favour of sustaining the ruling of the chairman please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed to sustaining the ruling of the chairman will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.

Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
In committee of the whole, when it was considering clause 4 of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Knowles raised a point of order to the effect that the committee was not properly on clause 4 of the bill on the ground that the house had had no opportunity to discuss clauses 1, 2 and 3. The chairman ruled that the committee was regularly on clause 4, since clause 3 was duly and regularly postponed by motion this day. Whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Just before I put the question, I may say how pleased we all are to see the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman) back with us. We have all missed him, and I want to assure him we are all very happy to see him back with us.
The question is the following one:
In committee of the whole Mr. Knowles raised a point of order to the effect that the committee was not properly on clause 4 of the bill on the ground that the house had had no opportunity to discuss clauses 1, 2 and 3. The chairman ruled that the committee was regularly on clause 4 since clause 3 was duly and regularly postponed by motion this day. Whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed to the house from the ruling of the chairman.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. The Leader of the Opposition.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question? I trust he has not forgotten that there is before the Chair a point of order which I raised?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I concede immediately that when the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was speaking I had assumed that the point of order of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had been brushed aside and that we were debating on the measure. If that is not so, I immediately give way to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to proceed with his point of order, but I admit quite frankly that I had assumed that when the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway made his eloquent, impassioned and great contribution to this debate he was in fact speaking in the debate on the bill itself. I give way to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for his gesture. It is true that when the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway concluded his remarks I did not rise immediately. I waited a few seconds because I thought that in response to that appeal the Prime Minister would suggest that we revert to clause 1. When, in the speech he made in reply to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, he indicated his unwillingness to do so, I realized that it left me no alternative but to press my point of order that we are not properly on clause 4.
In pressing that point of order may I point out once again that what has been offered to us today by the Prime Minister, and I say this after giving it a great deal of thought, is literally nothing.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a sop.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He tells us that we are to be allowed all this week to debate the bill, and I think these were his words-if I am incorrect he can correct me-"on its remaining stages". I point out, Mr. Chairman, that it is fairly obvious that the committee would take at least today and tomorrow from the way we have been going to get as far as clause 7. That means that if the Prime Minister had not made that offer today it would be some time tomorrow before the government could give notice of closure at the committee stage which would mean that closure could not be brought into effect with respect to the committee stage until Wednesday night.
That being the case, the earliest time that notice of closure could be given with respect to third reading would be Thursday and the

earliest it could come into effect would be Friday night or Saturday morning at one o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I think I should point out to him that it was he who reminded the Leader of the Opposition that we were supposed to be discussing a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The point is well taken, Mr. Chairman. I got carried away with the reply made by the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister. I think I have made my point that we have not been given a thing this afternoon by the Prime Minister. Therefore we have to stand by strict adherence to the rules and I insist that you make a ruling whether or not we are properly on clause 4. It is my submission that because we have not discussed clauses 1, 2 or 3 you should rule that we are not properly on clause 4 but that we should revert to clause 1.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It is suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the committee is not properly on clause 4, the preceding clauses not having been properly considered. I think that is a fair summary of his position.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the same contention that the other Mr. Knowles made in 1913.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The decisions made by this committee and confirmed by the house by vote on the 24th of May, as found at page 617 of Votes and Proceedings, and on the 25th of May, as found at page 634 of Votes and Proceedings, are the same proposition in reverse, namely, that we could not proceed away from these clauses because they had not been properly considered. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says that we are not properly on the next clause because they were not properly considered. I rule that the committee is properly on clause 4, clauses 1, 2 and 3 having been called and considered within the terms of the standing order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then, Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have already stated and because the Prime Minister refuses to let the committee revert to clause 1, I appeal your ruling.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The appeal will be put in writing, and I trust that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who has raised this question, will be satisfied if the report is in exactly the same terms as in the incident on which he based his point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Chairman, you can take it almost exactly from column 9377 of Hansard for May 8, 1913.

out that the consideration of a bill in committee is the very core of parliamentary democracy, the very core of our whole parliamentary procedure in relation to bills that are brought before this house. There in the committee stage there is an opportunity for members to examine the words of the bill; there in the committee stage there is an opportunity for members opposite, as well as on the government side, to make suggestions as to the way in which the bill can be improved. On other and happier occasions when this government recognized parliamentary procedure, there have been occasions when bills have been greatly improved by the acceptance on the part of the government of suggestions that have come from members of the opposition. Who knows that in this case, in the consideration of clause 1, of clause 2, of clause 3, there might not have been changes made which would have a very considerable bearing on the whole application of this act and a better understanding of what the problem is that is now before us?
When was this arbitrary suppression of free discussion first planned? Do not let the Prime Minister tell us that it was parliament that decided this. It was his followers, who obeyed the crack of the whip. That was the way that the right of discussion was denied.


Mr. Fleming:: Shame on them.


George Alexander Drew: That was the reason why there has been all this discussion taking place on points of order. That is the reason why there has been in this house a series of discussions which all members doubtless regret in their impact on the orderly business of this house. But let one thing be said to those who speak about procedure and privilege: that the government bears 100 per cent of the responsibility for any disorder that has occurred in this house. For any diminution of respect for the Chair or for the position of other officers of this house, the government bears full responsibility.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


George Alexander Drew: I hear the comment "Carried" from the other side. This is not carried. We have now our first democratic right in this present hour to discuss in the committee stage this bill which is before us, and then we hear shouts of "Carried" from those who have given their unthinking subservience to this government, which has sought to throttle parliament. Even the apparent concession made by the Prime Minister this afternoon is no real concession at all, because all it says is, "We now have come to the conclusion that we should permit
28, 1956	4379
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation some appearance of debate, and therefore, for the present week, you may go ahead and discuss these clauses." That gives us no assurance that we go back to our real discussion of the earlier and operative clauses which bring this corporation into existence and define its names and purposes.
This procedure that we have seen in the past few days is something that it has not been possible to discuss in the way we can now discuss it, in a debate. We have seen here a barefaced attempt to render parliament ineffective, and what single explanation has been given for that? The only explanation offered was the explanation given by the Minister of Finance when he referred to a statement that had been made on an earlier occasion that there was going to be vigorous opposition to this bill. Therefore this government repudiates all the ordinary traditions of debate, all the ordinary procedure upheld by Liberals of the past with whose names no member of this government has any right to be associated. Do we hear from them the suggestion that there has been delay, that there has been an assurance that there would be opposition to this bill and, therefore, there must be no debate? That is the only explanation.
If we were to accept that explanation, it would be the end of the existence of an opposition in anything but name. We are standing here today, not speaking alone on this bobtailed debate with a truncated consideration of the bill. We are not here speaking on clause 4 or the succeeding clauses alone. We are speaking here for the right of the existence of an opposition in this House of Commons. Concede for one moment the validity of the argument put forward by the Minister of Finance in this discussion which has already taken place; concede for a moment the validity of the statement put forward by the Prime Minister today; and you will concede that the opposition has no place in this House of Commons. It is nothing less than that. This can only be described in terms that I thought would never be used here in Canada to describe the system under which we would carry on our public affairs. Guy Fawkes was a mere piker compared with the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: He worked from outside then.


George Alexander Drew: Guy Fawkes at least went into the cellar when he tried to destroy parliament. We had to wait for this government to try to destroy parliament in the broad light of day in the way it has in these past few days.
4378	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation deal. When I made a statement at the opening of the house I did not attempt to say what might be debated according to my will or what might not be debated. I was conscious that two clauses had been postponed by decision, not my decision but of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -And that there was a third clause in connection with which there was a motion of postponement that was before the chair for decision; but that as soon as that motion was disposed of I hoped hon. gentlemen would attempt to discuss the bill instead of discussing questions of procedure.


William Earl Rowe: How can you proceed without procedure?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, what has happened today has only served to emphasize the seriousness of the situation with which this house is confronted. The words which the Prime Minister has just uttered have not in any way explained what has taken place, nor have they in any way minimized the menace of the proposal placed before us today. The Prime Minister says that he did not attempt to say what might be done, that it was not his decision but the decision of the house.
I assume that the Prime Minister knew what the Minister of Trade and Commerce was going to do. I assume that the Prime Minister knew what the Minister of Finance was going to do. I assume that the Prime Minister knew that the most vicious type of closure was going to be introduced when this bill came into committee stage. What he has just said now has only aggravated the situation which has just been discussed in such eloquent and moving terms by the member who has just taken his seat.
The Prime Minister rose on a question of privilege when the house opened today. He was forced to do that because the closure imposed by his colleague prevented him from speaking, just as it has prevented all the rest of us from speaking until this time. When we hear that he would like to hear us talking in debate instead of on questions of privilege, who does he think, and who do the Liberals who applaud that statement think, forced these discussions on privilege? We have been denied one word of debate on this bill in the committee stage until right now. We have been denied that right by the government, which I assume the Prime Minister still claims to lead. Unless he repudiates publicly his leadership of that government


he as Prime Minister must accept responsibility for all the dangerous things which have happened in this past week.
When the Prime Minister rose on a question of privilege today he said:
The procedure followed by the government has been represented as an effort to prevent debate on the pipe line bill, and I want to state emphatically that as soon as the motion before the committee is disposed of further debate on the bill can continue and there will be all this week for it to be continued on its remaining stages.
What further debate on the bill? There has been no debate until now. There has been no debate on this bill in the committee stage; none whatever, not one word.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: The derisive shouts of the Liberal members opposite indicate the extent to which they have apparently deluded themselves as to what has been taking place. Not one word have we been allowed. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, rising at the calling of the bill and rising twice after at least one other member who already standing, was recognized and, after a few words that meant little, then moved the adjournment of the consideration of that section.
Where do we find ourselves at this time? We find ourselves in the position where we are called upon to discuss clause 4 without clauses 1, 2 or 3 having been discussed. Let us see what the first subclause of clause 4 says:
The corporation is a body corporate having capacity to contract and to sue and be sued in the name of the corporation.
What corporation, Mr. Prime Minister? You cannot tell us. You cannot tell us because you have no right to say it is printed in the bill which is in the hands of the members and that is what it is going to be. You must at least give sufficient lip service to the procedure of this house to admit that the definition of the corporation and the name of the corporation and the other details could be changed if there were consideration of the earlier clauses. This corporation has not yet been defined. We are asked to debate on a clause which refers to an undefined corporation. That merely indicates what a vicious and improper procedure has been imposed upon us by this statement for which the Prime Minister claims some consideration.
Do not let anyone say that this has not been foreclosure. This has been foreclosure of a kind that goes to the very root of our whole parliamentary system. Already there have been placed on record, in the discussions that have taken place under the rules in an attempt to obtain proper parliamentary consideration of this subject, the words of great leaders of the past who have pointed


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, I am in a somewhat similar position to that of the hon. member for Vancouver East. This is the first word that I have uttered in this debate, and I would not have risen now if it had not been for what has happened since this house opened today. At the opening of the house the Prime Minister made a statement that after we had disposed of the motion before us, then we could proceed with debating the bill. Now, in view of the fact that the decision has been taken that the postponing of the sections of the bill already postponed was out of order unless we go back to section 1, I declare that the statement made by the Prime Minister is an insult to this house. It is intolerable that free men should come here and be told what they may or may not discuss on the word of the Prime Minister or anyone else. Mr. Chairman, we have got into a sort of tailspin in this matter. I am quite sure that every member of this house who has any responsibility at all, or any sense of responsibility, feels that something should be done; that we should get back to the ordinary dignity and decorum of this house. I do not know, sir, how it is to be done but it cannot be done by putting our stamp of approval on wrongs already done.
I think the initial issue in this debate is the question of closure. May I tell hon. members, government members, official opposition members, C.C.F. members and Social Credit members, that I favour closure. The government has a perfect right-not only a right but a duty-to invoke closure at the right time; that is, when it has been demonstrated that the business of the house cannot be carried on in any other way but by closure. I said I am in favour of closure. I am in favour of closure, old style. I am not in favour of closure, new style. I do not believe that the members of this house, I do not believe that the members of the government understand, indeed I cannot believe that the Prime Minister understands what has happened. If he had understood it, it is my humble opinion that he is too much of a democrat, too much of a gentleman, too much of a believer in parliamentary institutions to continue this any further.
What has happened, and this was the initial mistake that was made, was that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce introduced the resolution preceding this bill he also made a motion that closure would be applied. Closure would be applied, why? Because the debate had been obstructed? No, closure was to be applied because the government had set a time limit to the debate and because it was anticipated that there would be obstruction. We do not carry on business 67509-277J
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation in this house on the basis of anticipation. I have been here for over a quarter of a century and I have never yet seen a Speaker who would make a ruling on an anticipated situation.
However, rulings and decisions have been made and the decisions made today will be the precedents for tomorrow. I suggest to my hon. friends on the Liberal side of the house that they read the speech which their former leader, the late W. L. Mackenzie King, made when he was leader of the opposition in connection with a motion for closure moved in 1932. In all of the illustrations he gave to show the effect the action of the Prime Minister and government was likely to have in the future, he referred to things that might happen should a socialist government take office. The things which the late Mackenzie King said were going to happen have happened, and they have happened in a worse form than Mr. Bennett ever thought or conceived of. They have all happened under a Liberal government.
What has happened is that from now on any time the government introduces a resolution preceding a bill and there is some talk that the opposition is opposed to it-that is why the opposition is here; it is their duty to obstruct from time to time; that is their right. I have seen my friends over here put on a filibuster.


Mr. Blackmore:: On a high principle.


Donald MacInnis: I think we all remember when the premier of British Columbia wanted to give away the resources of British Columbia and the Minister of Trade and Commerce succeeded in stopping it. That is their right, but from now on we will have no right because whoever introduces a resolution may also introduce a notice of closure. Freedom of debate has died in this house during the last two or three weeks.
I do not know what can be done, but I do know that you cannot say that these things have not happened. I would suggest that we try to find a way out of this situation. An opposition can be irresponsible because they are not in positions of responsibility. But in this case the government has been irresponsible and it is in a position of responsibility. I submit that the government and opposition leaders should get together to see if we cannot wipe the slate clean of what has happened and get back to sanity, get back again to parliamentary procedure, get back to rules of order that cannot be changed from day to day according to the wishes of those sitting on the other side of the house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, there is just one point in the hon. gentleman's speech with which I wish to
4376	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation refer the matter to His Honour the Speaker for direction and advice; but, of course, if you refuse to do that, notwithstanding that there is precedent for it, then I have no alternative but to appeal your ruling to the house.
1	request you to give consideration to the question of whether you should not refer it to His Honour the Speaker for consideration and direction.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I regret, because I would very much like to have the position clarified for my own personal satisfaction, that there is nothing that I can refer to the house at the moment. The question as to whether or not the motion made by Mr. Howe was debatable was appealed to the house and decided on two or three occasions. Therefore, I am bound by that decision. As Chairman of this committee I have not the right to ask the house immediately to reverse itself. The decision will be found on page 4285 of Hansard. Therefore, the only matter that is before the committee, as I understand it, is that the hon. member for Kamloops is raising the question as to whether or not the vote of the committee was properly taken. I put the question. Members on both sides of the house stood and were recorded. As far as I am concerned I regret that I must close the incident on clause 3 for the moment. Clause 4 is before the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that you, sir, as chairman, should not call clause 4 at this time. I base my point of order on a similar incident that occurred in this house on May 8, 1913. On that occasion the naval aid bill was before the house and in column 9372 of Hansard for May 8, 1913, appear the words:


The Chairman:: Clause 4.
It may come as a bit of a surprise to some hon. members if I tell them that at that point a member by the name of Mr. Knowles rose and contended that clause 4 had been improperly called. The Mr. Knowles of that day gave as his reasons why it was improper for the chair to call clause 4 the fact that clauses
2	and 3 had not been discussed. He admitted that it would have been possible to call clause 2 because there had been some discussion on clause 1. He argued his point I think very effectively as recorded on several pages of Hansard. He was interrupted in due course by Mr. Arthur Meighen, the member for Portage la Prairie, and as a result of the interruption the chairman of the day cut off that Mr. Knowles from any further discussion on the point of order, and Mr. Knowles of that day objected to the gag being put in his mouth and as a result he appealed the chairman's ruling. I point out, Mr. Chairman, that


when the Mr. Knowles of 1913, who was a Liberal member for Moose Jaw, argued as he did and appealed the chairman's ruling he was supported as being correct in his position by every Liberal member in the house. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Liberal members of 1956 will support the Mr. Knowles of 1956 in making precisely the same point, namely that it is improper for you to call clause 4 when we have not had a discussion on clauses 1, 2 and 3. I raise this as a point of order.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Will the hon. member assist me by giving me the decision of the house on that occasion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The decision of the house, with the Conservatives in the majority, was against Mr. Knowles.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends, the Liberals in this house, are laughing at the decision; they are laughing boisterously at the Liberals of 1913; laughing indeed at the vote cast on that occasion by their revered former leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I suggest that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. W. E. Knowles of Moose Jaw, Mr. Lapointe and the other Liberals who voted on that occasion were correct in their insistence that it was improper to discuss clause 4 when clauses 2 and 3 had not been discussed. You, sir, sought to ascertain what the decision of the house was on that occasion. You, sir, know that across the years there are many instances when decisions have been reversed in succeeding parliaments and I submit that the Liberals were right in supporting Mr. Knowles in 1913 and I call on the Liberals to be consistent and take the same position when Mr. Knowles raises the same point of order again in 1956.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, may I point out that it is the very same point of order that was raised on the preceding clauses though the hon. member has now carefully avoided citing any particular rule as he did on previous occasions. So far as our laughing is concerned, I shall begin laughing soon if we do not get down to debating the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I tell the Minister of Finance that the only reason I did not read the rule that I read before was that it is already on the pages of Hansard; but I might point out that Mr. Knowles in 1913 put on the record as part of his argument the very same rule which is now 78 (1), which Mr. Knowles in 1956 has been doing his best to get this house to adhere to strictly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; I challenge the vote and I challenge the right to declare the motion carried on the ground that before you put the motion I rose to my feet to move an amendment. You ruled the amendment out of order and I raised a point of order, again before you put the question. You refused to hear me. In my submission, the question should not have been put until the amendment was considered and disposed of. You refused that right, and I therefore challenge your right to declare this motion carried and I request a ruling on the point of order.


Mr. Winch:: If I could ever get the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, I should like to rise on a point of privilege. My question of privilege, sir, and no one can say I have taken up the time of this house, is this. On the last vote I rose immediately you put the question, and I was on my feet continuously until the vote was taken. It was not my desire to rise to a point of order, or a question of privilege. It was my desire to be recognized and to speak on the motion before this committee. I was on my feet, and I know that was recognized by the other side, continuously until the motion was put, but I was not recognized or granted the right to speak to the motion before the house. I say, sir, that is a gag and I am not going to sit here and take it. I raise it as a question of privilege, being denied the right to speak to the motion.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I have heard both the point of order and the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Vancouver East. They are both exactly the same as the point which was decided two or three times in the debate on this particular bill, that is, they wish to speak or to amend a motion that further consideration of a clause be postponed. It has been ruled, appealed and confirmed on at least two occasions that these motions are neither debatable nor amendable. I, therefore, found myself in the position, as soon as I took the chair, that a motion be put to the house. As to whether or not it was in order, that had been appealed and the chairman's ruling had been upheld. I therefore was in the position, as soon as I took my seat, that the first and only business I had was to put that motion and that, in accordance with my duty, I did. Clause 4?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appeal your ruling and I wish to appeal your ruling not to the house but I wish you, sir, to refer this matter to Mr. Speaker for his advice, consideration



S7509-277

[Stage Direction]
28, 1956	4375
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation and recommendation in accordance with previously established practice in this committee.
In connection with the point which I asked you to state for His Honour's consideration I refer you to standing order 44 which says:
When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it: to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; or for the adjournment of the house.
What we had under consideration was a motion to postpone consideration. I wished to move as an amendment or superseding order, had I had a moment to make myself clear, that the purpose of the postponement was in order that we might revert to consideration of clause 1. Whether you choose to regard that as a superseding motion or an amendment is immaterial, but I maintain it is in order, if not under one heading, then under the other. You having refused to entertain the motion, I appeal from your right to declare the minister's motion carried and I appeal your refusal and I wish you to refer it to the Speaker for his consideration and advice.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: If I understand the point raised by the hon. member for Kamloops, he wants to appeal the decision of the committee. I am unable to learn of any procedure, whereby I can submit that decision to the house until such time as the committee rises and reports. He has also requested a reference as to certain matters to the Speaker of the house. I take it he means a personal reference to Mr. Speaker, as an individual. I have not the power, as chairman of this committee, to do that. I decide points of order, subject to an appeal to the house. I have not just decided a point of order in connection with the last point raised. I have announced the decision of a vote taken by this committee. Clause 4 is now before the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise on a point of order. You cannot dispose of this matter in that manner. I rose on a point of order, and challenged your right to put the vote. I challenged your right to put the question at the point when you did, and I asked you to rule upon the point. As you have ruled apparently that you had the right to put the question, I have challenged your ruling on a point of order.
What I have challenged is your right to put the question when you did and to declare the result on a question improperly placed before the committee at that time. I raise that as a point of order. I understand you have ruled upon it. I have said that I appeal your ruling. I have requested you first to
4374	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to say a word, just in order to avoid any misinterpretation of what I said, may I point out that I said "just as soon as the motion now before the committee has been disposed of".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I continue on my point of privilege.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: No. You were heard once.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question of privilege is this. The offer made by the Prime Minister carries with it the implication that parliament is to have freedom to discuss this legislation. In support of my question of privilege I quote just a few words uttered on April 16, 1913, by the former member for Quebec East, then the member for Kamouraska, namely Ernest Lapointe. As reported in column 7872 of Hansard of April 16, 1913, he said this:
Freedom of speech will be reserved exclusively to the men in power, and subject at all times to be denied to others. Freedom which is granted only by way of sufferance is really not freedom. We will then have a parody and a sham of the parliamentary system.
My question of privilege is this. If we are to be free to discuss matters only when the Prime Minister says so,-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that is not freedom to
discuss at all.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I have heard the
hon. member and, as I suspected, I do not consider the question he raised was a question of privilege but one as to the advisability or not of passing the motion. I repeat that whatever my personal views may be it is my considered opinion that at this stage of the committee it is my duty to put the question on the motion moved by Mr. Howe (Port Arthur).


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, before you put the motion, I have a motion.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Those against the
motion please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I ask to be given the opportunity to put my motion before the motion is put.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am on my
feet putting a motion and I was on my feet


to put the motion before you put the question. The motion I make is that the motion of the minister be amended by adding thereto the following words:
In order that the committee may revert to the consideration of clause 1.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I have heard the
hon. member for Kamloops. I would point out to him that it has been decided two or three times in this debate that this is a superseding or procedural motion, not debatable and therefore not amendable.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I direct your
attention-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Those in favour
of the motion will please rise. 1


Edmund Davie Fulton: I direct your attention to the provisions of standing order 44 which clearly provide for an amendment to this motion. Mr. Chairman, I direct your attention to the provisions of the standing order. Mr. Chairman, what kind of farce are you trying to make out of this House of Commons? Standing order 44-


James Joseph McCann: Whom are you talking to?
Talk to the clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: First row please
be seated.
During the taking of the vote:


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am on my feet to raise a point of order which I raised before you put the question.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Will those opposed to the motion please rise?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am on my feet in the course of raising a point of order which I raised before you put the question.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: May I say this to the committee, although I am sure they know it. Even though points of privilege or points of order are always in order, there are certain times that cannot be included in the word "always", such as a taking of the division,-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I raised this point before you put the question.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: -whether the chairman is in the chair or the Speaker is in the chair. Will those opposed to the motion please rise?
After the taking of the vote:
Motion (Mr. Howe, Port Arthur) agreed to: Yeas, 124; nays, 53.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare the motion carried.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it is a time- On clause 3-Establishment and consti-honoured rule of this house that government tution. policy is not announced in reply to questions
on orders of the day.	Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Was it in order for the former minister of transport to fly an R.C.A.F. plane into my riding to a general meeting in the last election?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I have all I can do to look after my own actions.



PETAWAWA-INQUIRY AS TO CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 25, the hon. member, for Renfrew North (Mr. Forgie) asked me a question about further housing developments at Petawawa.
The situation is that the Department of National Defence requested Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to plan, design and build an additional 350 housing units. The proposed project is divided into two phases. The planning of the first phase involving approximately 175 housing units is advanced to the point where we expect to call tenders for ground services during the month of June. Tenders for the houses will be called shortly following this. The planning for the balance of the houses is currently under way.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 25, consideration in committee of Bill No. 298, to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) -Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
The Depuly Chairman: The position is that clause 3 was called and it was moved by Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) that further consideration of this clause be postponed. The question is on the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur).
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a question of order arising out of the discussion the other day?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I might inform the hon. member for Prince Albert and others who are speaking, that the question as to whether this motion is or is not in order was referred to the house and an appeal from the chairman's ruling was taken. A vote was held in the house and the vote was that the motion was not out of order. In other words, the chairman's ruling that the motion was not out of order was confirmed by the house. Therefore, in so far as this particular motion is concerned, I regret that I have no other alternative at this moment than to put the question. As to whether or not this particular motion is in order is a matter that was decided at the last sitting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege under standing order 17.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: May I just point this out. I realize the difficulties that we are in. A question of general privilege could, of course, be raised only with Mr. Speaker in the chair. A question of privilege arising out of debate held in this committee could, I am afraid, hardly have arisen this afternoon because there has been no debate. I am not endeavouring to make it impossible for members of the opposition to be heard. I am stating that it is my opinion that it is my duty to put this motion first. Then if there is any question of privilege, of course, one will have to hear it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I can put my
question of privilege very briefly and I leave it to Your Honour to decide whether or not it is a proper question of privilege to be raised under standing order 17 which reads as follows:
17. Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
My point of privilege is this. Since the last time we were in committee of the whole on this motion which you are now seeking to put, Mr. Chairman, a statement has been made by the Prime Minister to the effect that the house is to be free this week to discuss this legislation. In view of that statement my question of privilege is this. Should not the government withdraw the motion to postpone consideration of clause 3 which was made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and let us revert to clause 1?
4372	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry yet to be able to give the house some information on the question I asked him last Thursday regarding the importation of 10,000 cases of Polish eggs into Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Throughout many years certain eggs have been exported from Canada and certain eggs have been imported into Canada. It is a two-way trade. In 1951 195,000 cases were exported from Canada and 95,000 cases were imported into Canada. In 1953 232,000 cases were exported and 4,000 cases were imported. In the year 1954 191,000 cases were exported and 4,000 cases were imported. In the year 1955 126,000 cases were exported and 21,000 cases were imported.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. As the Minister of Finance has a reported surplus in the first month of the fiscal year three times greater than last year, would the Prime Minister consider affording some relief to the taxpayers this year instead of waiting for an election year to do so?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I think those who have made the payments that figure in the increase reported for the first month of this fiscal year have discharged what would otherwise have been an indebtedness they would have had to discharge at other seasons in the year and that the surplus cannot be an indication of what the revenue will be in the course of the year.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister tell the house whether an agreement has yet been reached between the fishermen's union and the fishing companies in British Columbia on the price to be paid for dogfish?


James Sinclair: They are still in the process of negotiation.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the plight of some 78 men at Magog employed by the Fraser-Brace Company who have been thrown out of work by reason of a strike in another plant with which they have no contractual connection, and will he see that their applications for unemployment insurance are processed as quickly as possible?


Milton Fowler Gregg: My attention was drawn to the matter this morning and I have asked the commission to give me a report on it.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a report in the Winnipeg Tribune of May 24 to the effect that the government contemplates an amendment to the Indian Act which will have the effect of allowing Indians equality of opportunity for the consumption of alcoholic beverages? If so, does this foreshadow the establishment of beer parlours and liquor stores on Indian reservations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Winnipeg Tribune happens to be a newspaper I never read if I can possibly avoid it, for reasons which I am sure are obvious to all hon. members.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question in view of his last answer? I wonder whether he has given up reading the Winnipeg Free Press and the Toronto Star?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.


Owen C. Trainor: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for a comment on the answer given by the minister? I am not particularly interested in his reading habits, but would he kindly answer my question?

a way that I can perceive that there may be doubt as to whether I am performing my duty in an impartial manner.
No doubt something will have to be done. It was my intention, after careful consideration, to let matters go for the time being, because the climate is not such as that which can study the position of the Speaker at the moment. Some hon. members have interjected remarks which I confess I did not hear at the moment. Of those I have heard, I immediately asked clarification. But there were remarks that I did not hear; they are on the record, and it may be a little late now to ask hon. members to do anything about them.
My request to the house-and this is a request I am going to address to all hon. members-is that at the first opportunity the question of my leadership as far as the Speakership is concerned-as a matter of fact, you can go throughout my term of office-be placed before the committee on privileges and elections, and that committee be composed exclusively of members of the opposition- and I would suggest that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre be made the chairman-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would deny me the right to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: -and that before that committee be called gentlemen like Mr. MacGregor Dawson who have written books on procedure, and Dr. Beauchesne, who was a clerk of this house for over 30 years, and that it go thoroughly into my own dealings with the rulings I have had to make in the past few weeks, and I myself shall abide by the report of that committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would suggest that the government put the bill before the committee.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the minister travelled in government private car No. 104 on train 504 to Montreal on May 14 and immediately following his arrival attended as a principal speaker a provincial Liberal party banquet and later returned to Ottawa that evening on the same car, will he explain his statement of Friday that he did not know that government private railway cars were being used to carry members of the government to Quebec to participate in the provincial election campaign?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman well knew, of course, that I went to Montreal on May 14 on that particular train because I had the opportunity of conveying him from the House of Commons to the station.


William Earl Rowe: Not to Montreal, though.


George Carlyle Marler: But, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that although my attendance at a Liberal meeting that evening was one of the purposes of my going to Montreal I did not return on my private car that evening but stayed over until the following day to attend to departmental matters. I was unable to return on the car that night and had not planned to do so. I hope that will satisfy the hon. gentleman. I assure him that the next time I am going to Montreal in my private car I shall think of him and perhaps I might ask him to go with me.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's statement that he stayed in Montreal to do business the following day would he explain how it was that he voted in the house the next afternoon?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I am flattered by the interest of the hon. gentleman opposite. I may say it is not reciprocated. I do not wish to create a precedent with regard to saying what my movements are outside of this house but I should like to say that I returned on the "Canadian", leaving Montreal at 2.05 p.m. and arriving here shortly after four o'clock. I at once came to the House of Commons and I voted soon after.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister in a position yet to answer my question of Friday respecting when he is going to ask the house for interim supply so he will have some money in June? In the meantime, can he assure civil servants that the present interim supply he has will make it possible for him to pay salaries on the 31st of May?


Walter Edward Harris: am not in a position to answer the question, but I will make inquiries.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position
4370	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has his notice been directed to a statement by Mr. Marshall A. Johnson of Vancouver, representative of the East West Export Import Company, who is in Peking, China, representing 14 Canadian firms with a view to opening up trade in China? What is the attitude of the government toward this matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have already referred to the East West trading company in this house. Perhaps my hon. friend was not present. I have said that it has been a channel through which efforts have been made to break down the NATO list of strategic materials. The firm has been investigated by a number of men who have been invited to visit China under the auspices of the firm, and I may say that the reports are not good.
The position of China, as regards purchasing goods from abroad, has been examined carefully by our officers, who have questioned men who have been in China. The chairman of the wheat board was recently in the Orient. In Hong Kong he had the opportunity to question a number of people who I think were in a position to give an accurate version. A representative of Australia visited China officially a short time ago and he reported that he was advised that the government is not interested in the purchase of any foodstuffs or of wool or cotton. I think that we must assume that the reports being sent out by the gentleman referred to are not accurate reports.


John George Diefenbaker: In further reference to Mr. Marshall A. Johnson who is now in Peking, the representative of these companies, would the Prime Minister consider that it would be a proper course to have Mr. Johnson while there try to collect something on the $12 million on the Ming Sung ships that pass in the night? He is there now.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker; I do not think that procedure would be very effective.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of privilege. I hold in my hand a copy of the Montreal
[Mr. Diefenbaker.!

Gazette dated Monday, May 28, in which there is an editorial containing the following paragraph:
Nor was this all. To make matters worse, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his deputies, were inevitably dragged into the struggle on behalf of the government. Instead of playing an impartial role, they were required, whatever their own opinions may have been, to play their parts in chipping and chopping at parliament rights and privileges-all in the interests of stifling the voice of the house and getting the bill through.
Mr. Speaker, that is a reflection upon yourself and your deputies and also, therefore, a reflection on every hon. member of this house, and I suggest to you that, if it is not true, then some action should be taken with regard to the publishers of this particular newspaper. If, on the other hand, it should be true, then some action should be taken with regard to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very glad that the hon. member brought that up. During the week end I reread all the rulings that I have made since the beginning of this pipe-line legislation. I have checked and rechecked them. I have found this: that in the case of the motion of the Leader of the Opposition to divide the bill in two, which I accepted, I should have ruled it out of order because notice had to be given for a motion of that kind. Secondly, I accepted a motion to adjourn the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and later, while discussing other matters, I did express the view that, although standing order 25 says that a motion to adjourn the house shall always be in order, I was coming to the view that if a motion is not debatable it would be difficult for anyone to stand up and say even, "I move that the house be now adjourned."
On that score I was wrong. I think that a motion to adjourn the house is always in order, and I have rallied myself, and I am glad to have an opportunity, in case this motion is desired to be used, to say now that, even on a non-debatable motion, a motion to adjourn the house is in order.
Except for those two instances, I stand by all the rulings that I have made. Now, I do not like what has happened and what has appeared in the press any more than any hon. members do. I want to tell this to hon. members, that my record since I have occupied the chair-and that is since 1949- is there to prove it. Furthermore, I will say this. I have a family and I have children who are old enough to understand what the word "impartial" means, and I do not want my children, when I go home, after they have read the newspaper, to look at me in such

Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister indicate what information he has as to when it may be expected the federal power commission in Washington is going to render a decision on the application by Midwestern pipe line company to import gas from Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited into the United States? When is that decision expected? Is there any observer there for the Canadian government? What is the position in general with regard to that application?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give the hon. member any information. I shall inquire whether there is a Canadian observer there. I am not in a position at the moment to state if the proceedings are being followed by a Canadian observer.



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF AMOUNT OF SALES CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is he in a position yet to answer the question I asked last week about the sales contracts of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited? The minister will remember that I asked whether he had any information about the total amount of sales contracts in terms of millions of cubic feet per annum. ,


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have only an approximation. I had our files searched, and I find an approximation made three or four weeks ago that the quantity is about 140 million cubic feet.



RYE-REQUEST FOR HANDLING BY WHEAT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a statement attributed to Mr. Zyto, Poland's commercial attache at Ottawa, which appeared in the Leader-Post of May 22, that "if rye had been under the control of the Canadian wheat board Poland would have purchased considerable quantities of that grain"?
Would the government, in view of this statement, give consideration to including the handling of rye by the Canadian wheat board for the next crop year?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of the question. I have not seen the newspaper dispatch. However, the position regarding rye is that there has not been any difficulty whatever in selling rye as quickly as it has been delivered to the country elevators, and selling it at favourable prices. Whether Poland would or would not have bought rye is a question that I doubt is relevant, since all the rye has been sold as it has been delivered. There are strong reasons why the government does not believe that the handling of rye by the Canadian wheat board is desirable. I see nothing in the Polish situation that would change its views in that direction.



CHURCHILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister state if any consideration has been given by the government to reducing shipping rates through the port of Churchill? If so, what decision has been arrived at?


George Carlyle Marler: I think I should explain to the hon. gentleman that the shipping rates through the port of Churchill are not regulated by the government. As he is probably aware, they are set more or less by agreement among the shipping companies. The government has no part in the setting of the rates so it is not a matter over which the government has control or to which it has given consideration.


Edward George McCullough: Has
any consideration been given by the government to the extension of the normal shipping season through the port of Churchill?


George Carlyle Marler: We have taken some action by way of providing information by means of an aerial patrol as to ice in the Hudson strait. We have taken one or two other steps at Churchill itself. However, I do not think that the length of the shipping season depends on actions that we take but rather on the presence of ice in Hudson atrait and the rate at which insurance on shipping is set for service to Churchill.



CHINA-NEGOTIATIONS BY EAST WEST EXPORT IMPORT COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the
4368	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry by the standing orders which are affected by the disappearance of this notice of motion, as was decided last year. There is a distinction. The one that we are talking about now is not a private member's notice of motion under standing order 48. We are talking about a very serious type of motion which is a preferred one, which is of a privileged character, and that is to challenge the conduct of an officer of this house. I say that this is the course to follow and I do undertake now, unless I die in the meantime, to rule that whenever that motion comes up it will be debatable under routine proceedings. If that motion is put on the order paper I undertake to instruct the Clerk to put it under motions and routine proceedings in the same manner as we decided last year to put other routine proceedings such as motions for concurrence in reports of committees. We would be only 48 hours away, if hon. members wished to take that course, for discussing in a proper manner the conduct of the chairman of the committee of the whole. So it is with regret that I cannot accept the motion.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Owen C. Trainor: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether it is the intention of Canadian National Railways to reconstruct the Fort Rouge shops recently aestroyed by fire on the present site? In any event will he give the house the assurance that before any final action is taken in this regard the wishes of the employees concerned will be considered.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked a similar question about the Fort Rouge shop. I am informed by the management of Canadian National Railways that fire destroyed one building, the main freight car shop. The wood mill, power plant and other ancillary buildings were not destroyed. Plans are under study as to the handling of the work formerly produced by the shop and almost all of the employees involved have been absorbed in the Fort Rouge or Transcona areas and the remainder will be placed shortly. While the management has no plans to rebuild the facility at the present location it is the intention to continue general repairs to freight cars in


the Winnipeg area. I think that answers the questions asked just a moment ago.


Owen C. Trainor: A supplementary question. Is the minister aware that there is a very strong opinion among the employees that the facilities at Fort Rouge ought to be continued in that area and not transferred to Transcona?


George Carlyle Marler: I think when the hon. gentleman reads my reply in Hansard he will see that management has no plans to rebuild the facilities at the present location but that it is the intention to continue general repairs to freight cars in the Winnipeg area.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he will ask the management of the Canadian National Railways to hear representations from the employees concerned in connection with this matter. May I not have an answer?


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think I could give any such assurance as the hon. gentleman requests, but I shall be glad to transmit to management the views which he has expressed.



CHIBOUGAMAU-ST. FELICIEN BRANCH LINE   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF LORD'S DAY ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister's attention been directed to a press report that appeared in the Gazette of Friday, May 25, to the effect that the construction companies engaged in the construction of the Chibougamau-St. Felicien railroad are violating the law respecting observance of the Lord's day and that workers who refuse to work on Sundays are gradually liquidated by these companies? If so, what is the minister's department going to do about it?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the hon. gentleman that I did read the report in the Gazette. It seems to me this is a matter for the contractors and also a matter for the provincial authorities to enforce the Lord's Day Act. So far as I am concerned, I have directed inquiries through Canadian National Railways to ascertain what are the facts.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the

a matter of urgent public importance, namely the subordination by the government of the office of chairman, and that raises the position of the government as the primary issue in this motion. It is drawn expressly for that purpose because our opinion is that it is the government that has offended in this case and that position is not met by the reference which Your Honour has made.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when we are called upon to carry forward debate, even under the very limited extension of the right of debate that has been implied by the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon, we would be doing so without disposing by an orderly discussion of an issue which is of concern to every hon. member here. The role of Speaker and the role of chairman of the committee is of just as much concern to me and to every private member as it is to those who occupy that office. This is part of the whole procedure of parliament. What we are complaining about is the extent to which this government has shamelessly subordinated the office of chairman to its personal interests. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the motion by notice is one which is limited expressly to the condemnation of the chairman as its primary purpose, whereas our motion is clearly drawn to deal with a situation in which the government has exercised its authority to damage an office which is of immense importance not only to the members of this house but to all the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Notwithstanding what may be the purpose of the Leader of the Opposition's motion, he has not convinced me that the person himself, that is the chairman of committees, would not, in the course of the debate on this motion, have his conduct criticized and I still say that it is not possible to divorce the two. If certain hon. members want to blame the government for the conduct of the chairman, well, that is their privilege; but if, in the motion in which they want to do that, the chairman of committees is to be involved, he has the right to have his own conduct properly debated in a separate and distinct motion, and that is the procedure I outlined a moment ago. Now, I would hope that hon. members would rally themselves to that procedure rather than to follow the indirect course which is submitted in this motion. In any event-


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I raise one point, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do so with deference, but I ask you to realize the implication of the ruling which I understand you are about to make; that is, when the conduct of a private
House of Commons
member is brought into question it is apparently to be disposed of without debate, as was done on Friday afternoon in accordance with the ruling which you made; yet you say, sir, or I understand you are about to say, that when the conduct of the Deputy Speaker is brought into question there must be notice and debate. I fail to see why there should be any distinction between the two and I suggest to you-


Some hon. Members:: Rules of the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that the reasons which you have given do not actually apply. In fact, we have been told by Speakers on numerous occasions that notwithstanding the provision that motions must be brought up after notice there is no way in which a private member can give notice, and it is for that reason that this matter is brought forward in this manner today, in the only way in which we can get it before the house. My main reason for rising was to point out the implication of the ruling which I understand you are about to make, that there is one course of procedure which should prevail with respect to the conduct of a private member and another one for the Deputy Speaker, which is a proposition we cannot accept.


James Sinclair: It is according to the rules of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I have listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops and in making his submission how he can indicate that there is on my part a ruling for one case and another one for another case I really cannot see.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was pointing out the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to take the case of last Friday in point he is forgetting that before the motion was made there was discussion as to the type of motion that would be moved. If at that moment instead of three or four hon. members only rising there had been 264 I would have had to see them all. From the moment the motion is made it is not debatable. There is the distinction.
In this case the hon. member for Kamloops insists, after I have indicated to the house: that a motion such as the one that is contemplated by citation 225 is one that must come up under routine proceedings, I say that it is debatable and do undertake to rule so, as I am positive that that is the way under standing order 32 (m), he still insists that there is no way that he can bring this about because there is no way a private member can give a notice of motion at this time. There is a distinction between a private member's notice of motion contemplated
436S

House of Commons


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the time for private members' motions has expired.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does not come
under that heading, may I submit with respect, because this is a matter which is covered by standing order 32, paragraph (m), which reads as follows:
32.	(1)	(m) such other motion, made upon
routine proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the house, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, . . .
I submit that the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and chairman of committees and the deputy chairman of committees are officers of the house. There is therefore no doubt in my mind that the proper course to be followed is for notice to be given of a substantive motion. Once the notice time has elapsed for the motion on the order paper, it is placed upon the routine proceedings, namely under "motions". By virtue of standing order 32 (1) (m) it is debatable and must be taken up when it comes up.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say a word, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes,


Major James William Coldwell: I certainly think it would be an ill-advised move to turn down this proposal on a technical question. There is no doubt about it that there is in the house a feeling with regard to the Chair-and I am using the word "Chair"-in this debate which I think is most unfortunate. I have been one of those, I think, who have respected the Chair generally and who have respected this institution and I think it would be well to have this matter cleared up before we proceed any further with the debate that is under way. From the point of view of the house and from the point of view of Your Honour I think it would be a mistake to refuse to accept this motion on the ground that the proper thing to do is to introduce a substantive motion which could be debated only after this debate is over.


Mr. Speaker:: No. I want to make the matter clear. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) seems to be under the impression that the motion could be debated only after this debate is concluded. Of course I do not know how long it will take to conclude this debate, but the debate could take place 48 hours from now.


Major James William Coldwell: I am wondering whether the government would allow that, having in mind what has occurred on this pipe-line bill. The government brooks no delay, no discussion and no debate. It invokes closure at every stage.


Mr. Speaker:: May I submit to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that it is not a matter for the government or for the opposition to decide. It is a motion which, as the standing orders provide, must follow its course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Except that the government may move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that not so with regard to any substantive motion? There is no question that the mover, in making his motion, or in taking up his order, has the right to make a speech. Just to go a little bit further-of course we are anticipating what may happen, but I do so just in order to elucidate the position as I see it-I submit that the person concerned in the motion, namely the chairman of committees, should be heard as soon as the motion is made and the speech of the mover is heard. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar says it would be a mistake to turn down this motion; there may be something in what he says. But I submit that, if the course that he suggests- that of accepting the motion-is to be followed, it is one that should be adopted by the house itself. So far as I am concerned, as Speaker, I am interested in only one thing, and that is to give the proper ruling, and I stand by that statement.
So far as this motion is concerned, in my opinion the right ruling to give, since it is a motion in which the conduct of the deputy chairman is necessarily involved-I do not think anyone will construe this motion otherwise-under our rules and under our practice is that there is a procedure provided with which to deal with this matter. I think I have tried to clear up the apprehensions of hon. members as to whether or not this motion is debatable when it comes up, and what happens to it. The motion goes on the notice paper, and after it has served its 48 hours' time as determined by standing order 41, the motion comes up during routine proceedings under "motions". By virtue of standing order 32 (m), I am advising the house immediately that in my humble opinion the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, and deputy chairman of committees are officers of the house. At that moment, when the motion comes up, the same as a motion for concurrence in a committee report, it is taken up and the mover has the floor. What happens to the motion after that is the same as what happens to any substantive motion.


George Alexander Drew: I had not completed my remarks, but I sat down when you rose. What I would point out is this. 1 submit there is a distinct difference between this motion and the manner in which it has been interpreted. What we are asking is permission to debate

Monday, May 28, 1356