1956-05-22

[Stage Direction]
Seventh and eighth reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. -Mr. Henderson.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: I move:
That the debate on the motion for the second reading of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, and on any amendments thereto, shall not be further adjourned.


Mr. Drew:: Shame.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: I see three hon. members on their feet but not saying anything. The hon. member for Perth did not say, "Mr. Speaker".


Mr. J. W. Monleilh (Perth):: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; I did not hear him. Perhaps it may be because my attention was concentrated on the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would like to ask the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question on the basis of information appearing in the London Free Press, concerning which I have sent him the clipping. Has the minister any comment or explanation to offer with regard to the alleged actions of an officer of his department at Stratford, Ontario, in fleecing recent immigrants of money on the ground that he would use his influence with the department on their behalf?


Mr. Speaker:: Before the minister answers, may I state to the house what I understand to be the position? Just before the orders of the day for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of the bill, the minister was in order in moving his motion that has just been carried by the house. I do not think that it was the intention to cut off the period of oral questions, but if it is to take place I want it to be understood that there cannot be any intervening motions during that period. As long as this position is protected, I think hon. members can have their questions, if that is the wish of hon. members.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The person
referred to in the item in the London Free Press to which the hon. gentleman drew attention is an employee of my department against whom certain allegations of irregularities were received some little time ago. A preliminary investigation was launched immediately, and some two weeks ago the employee was suspended, and the investigation is continuing. In view of those circumstances, I do not think there is anything else it would be proper for me to say.


Jay Waldo Monteith: A supplementary question.
[Mr. Drew.l


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the hon. gentleman wishes to ask a supplementary question.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, I do. I wonder whether the minister would inquire into how many of these unfortunate people have been victimized, how much money is involved, and what action has been contemplated by the department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said that an investigation had been launched some considerable time ago, and I do not think I should be a party to any trial of any person in the newspapers.



PIPE LINES


[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. During the course of the pipe-line debate can the minister table in the house the total amount of Trans-Canada's sales contracts in terms of millions of cubic feet per annum excluding those contracts which, of course, are dependent on federal power commission approval?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I do not have that information in my possession. I will make inquiries and find out if it is in the possession of the government. If not, I will not be able to table it.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is it true that the nephew of an Asian prime minister was deported, as is reported in the Globe and Mail today?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, that statement is entirely false. I must say I was shocked that a member of the bar, for whom I have always had great personal respect, should have taken the affairs of one of his clients and used them apparently to make rather cheap politics. Practically every statement that appears in the story of the Globe and Mail is incorrect, and I have found that the Globe and Mail is generally very accurate in its news reports, whatever one may think of what appears in its editorial columns.


Mr. Fulton:: Could the minister give us the correct version in view of the widespread interest this report has aroused?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, sir, I hate to take the time on a day like this-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -but very briefly the situation is this. The young man referred to was admitted as a student. He failed in his examinations at the end of the first term. In fact, he came last in a very large class. Instead of going on with his studies, he then applied for permanent landing. To have landed him would have meant the denial of landing to someone else under our agreement with Pakistan. Under the law he was very properly ordered deported, and at the request of his solicitor ample time was provided for him to take voluntary departure, in fact, more than ample time.
He did take voluntary departure and he was assured that the fact that a deportation order had been issued against him would not be held against him if he applied for subsequent admission under the quota under the agreement we have with Pakistan. I do not think anyone could have been more fairly treated considering the law as it is, and I am all the more astonished, therefore, at what appears in the newspaper.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The situation then is that his deportation from Canada was, in the minister's view, made obligatory because of the quota arrangement now prevailing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: His deportation was ordered because he had come here as a non-immigrant and had ceased to be a non-immigrant under the terms of the act.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister attempt to have my question, No. 470, dealing with lighthouse keepers' appointments answered as soon as possible? I understand it was an order for return.


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: I can only say to the hon. gentleman that I shall look into the matter and see when the information can be given that he is seeking to obtain.



CHURCHILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has his attention been drawn
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Canadian Press story from Winnipeg in this morning's Globe and Mail that the elevator space at Churchill might be increased by 50 per cent this year?


George Carlyle Marler: I can answer the first part of the hon. member's question by saying that he drew my attention to the article in question earlier in the day, but I should like to reply more fully by telling him that though the grain facilities at Churchill are constantly under consideration by the national harbours board there are no plans for any immediate increase in the storage capacity at Churchill.
(Translation) :



QUEBEC PROVINCIAL ELECTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that federal ministers and Liberal members have been taking part in the present Quebec provincial election campaign, would he tell us whether he intends taking part himself?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I hardly think this is a matter for the federal House of Commons. I am a voter in the province of Quebec, as are also members who sit here for federal constituencies from that province, including those who sit on the government side, and every Quebec elector is free to act as he chooses as a citizen of that province.


Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question?
Could he tell us from whom those who are now taking part in the provincial elections in Quebec have received their orders?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the members from the province of Quebec, including those who are ministers, receive no orders from anyone in this connection.
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I
should like to direct a question to either the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of National Defence. Since the new site for

Inquiries of the Ministry H.M.C.S. Prevost has been acquired in London, Ontario, why the delay in the commencement of construction and when will construction begin?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I think the completion of the transfer of the property took a good deal longer than was expected and has just recently been completed. At the moment I cannot tell the hon. member when construction will start but I understand the site has now been cleared legally so we can proceed.


Harry Oliver White: Will construction begin before September?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am sorry, but I cannot answer as to the date.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On Friday of last week in response to a question I put to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on three occasions regarding Trans-Canada's option to purchase pipe in the United States the minister stated, as recorded on page 4068 of Hansard for May 18, that the option had been translated into a firm contract and that he would table a copy of that contract either Friday or Monday. Yesterday, his parliamentary assistant tabled a document which had been labelled as sessional paper No. 174-S, which I presume is the contract referred to by the minister on Friday.
My point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that since the minister said this was a firm contract there must be something missing from this voluminous sessional paper, for in at least three places in this sessional paper it says clearly that Trans-Canada's option to purchase the pipe is still contingent upon Tennessee letting Trans-Canada know that it has obtained all the necessary licences and permits to import gas into the United States. Therefore, I should like to know from the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether there are any other documents or any portions of this agreement which he has not tabled, in view of his statement last Friday that what he would table would be a firm contract.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My reference to a firm contract-a contract involving payments from a non-existent company cannot be a firm contract. If the hon. member will look

at the correct document he will see that as soon as assurance can be given that the necessary legislation has been obtained on or before June 7 of this year, an indication of that fact will make the document a firm contract. Naturally, you just cannot get a firm contract until the government can do its part. By whom would the firm contract be implemented?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister aware that the agreement itself which is at the beginning of this document tabled yesterday says that, in addition to the passing of the bill now before parliament, the conditions set out in exhibit A to exhibits I and II of this document must be met? Is he aware of the fact that in at least two covering letters it is stated by Tennessee, Hudson Bay and Canadian Gulf that clause 2 of the stock option agreement is still in force, and that that clause 2 of the stock option agreement which appears twice in this document says that, and I quote from clause 2:
Tennessee shall assign such purchase orders to Trans-Canada within sixty (60) days after Tennessee has notified Trans-Canada that there have been obtained all certificates, licences and permits which, in the judgment of Tennessee, are necessary and sufficient to authorize Midwestern Gas Transmission Company, a Delaware corporation affiliated with Tennessee, to construct and operate a natural gas transmission pipe line system extending from the international boundary near Emerson, Manitoba, to connect in the state of Tennessee with the pipe line system of Tennessee and to take gas from Trans-Canada at Emerson, Manitoba.
Is the minister not aware that his whole case, which is based on getting this pipe, falls to the ground, since this is not a firm contract?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the contract can be firm the day after the legislation is passed.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you say that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said it was to be put in the form of a firm contract. In any event, I suggest this is a discussion which should take place in committee. We can hardly discuss the contents of a contract now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the minister's words on Friday were these:
In the meantime, the option has been translated into a firm contract, and the contract has attached to it certain mill orders and other documents which are now being examined, and I hope to be able to table the contract either today or Monday.
I am prepared to submit this document to any impartial examiner and I am sure he will agree with me it is not a firm contract but is a contract that is still conditional

upon Tennessee being satisfied that it has what it regards as the appropriate permits and licences.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Alberi):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him what is the present position with regard to the request of the Israeli government for the shipment from Canada of Sabre aircraft and the like. Has a decision been made as yet by the Canadian government? If not, when is it expected?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the
matter is still under consideration and I am unable at this time to say when that consideration will be completed.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport to ascertain whether any changes in location or design are being considered for the new air terminal at Dorval.


George Carlyle Marler: I think none are being contemplated, but I would have to make inquiries in order to make certain.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Restigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Where have you been?


Ralph Byron Horner: I was attending the funeral of the Liberal party in New Brunswick. I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Why is approval by Canadian National Railways, already specified before the Liberal convention in Mada-waska county, now being held up for the building of a bridge in Edmundston by the province of New Brunswick?


George Carlyle Marler: I think the hon. gentleman should realize that the actions of Canadian National Railways have nothing to do with his friends
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation in New Brunswick, and that when a proposal is made by the province of New Brunswick in connection with the matter to which he has just referred it will be given every consideration.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 298, to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in the 20 minutes now allowed to us under the shadow of the axe I shall not be able to cover many of the subjects that I would have liked to discuss. I do wish to refer briefly once again to this extraordinary procedure in regard to which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has not had a word to say. We have had here the unprecedented use, and I should say "abuse", of closure, and I would like to bring the memories of some hon. members back to the objections that were raised on two earlier occasions to a procedure which followed an extended debate. On August 29, 1917, as reported at page 5121 of Hansard for that day, Sir Wilfrid Laurier had this to say, and I suggest that the words perhaps have an almost reminiscent sound:
The Minister of Finance has said that the debate upon this bill has lasted two weeks. I do not know that it should have lasted any shorter time than that. The question is one of the most important that we have ever had before us; it is full of complications; it is full of figures.
On this occasion, Mr. Speaker, the debate on the bill lasted two days before closure was moved, not two weeks, and when we had a motion before us for the introduction of this bill closure was moved before there had been any debate at all and before the minister introducing the measure had even heard a word of what the opposition had to say on this bill. Precedents have a habit of becoming established customs. This is a dangerous precedent, indeed. In the past, offensive though it may have been to many of the hon. members, closure followed extended debate and was employed at least with some colour of justification. Here closure is simply a bald threat to the opposition that they are not going
4170	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation to be permitted to place their case before parliament and above all before the people of Canada so that the opinion of the people of Canada can express itself.
These are dangerous precedents. This puts parliament in chains and, therefore, if carried a stage farther, would make parliament ineffective as a place for the conduct of the business of the people of Canada. What have we before us now? Something that the government knew about for a long time. When we heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) yesterday one would have thought that this was a perfectly obvious course which everyone would follow naturally. Why, the government itself did not know two weeks ago what it was going to do. The backbenchers opposite did not know until last week what the government had decided to do. For four months and more we have been waiting for word of what would be done, and it was only after long and painful discussion within the cabinet itself that a decision was reached, and now we are told that everybody should follow this course simply because it comes from this omniscient government. They say it is right and therefore it must be. That is as far as the argument goes. There was not one word from the Minister of Finance, and certainly not a word from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), as to why this mongrel bill has been placed before us in this manner.
We have two distinct measures incorporated in one bill, the one that they originally intended to present and the one that now really is the nub of the discussion before us. The bill that was announced on January 10 was an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, and that was to build the difficult stretch through northern Ontario. Now, we have something entirely different. Now we have the construction of the easiest part of all from the Alberta boundary to the vicinity of Winnipeg. This separate part is to be found on page 6 of Bill 298 as printed and handed out. It is headed "Part II. Western Section." Western section of what? Western section of the northern Ontario pipe line, to be built by the crown corporation. Well, it is just as fantastic as that because the earlier part of the bill deals entirely with the construction of the northern Ontario bridge with money provided by the government to the crown corporation. That is what it is, an outrageous transaction for which Canadian money is used to hand over the control of one of our greatest resources to a company that is 83 per cent owned by United States investors. Then, so that this transaction will look slightly palatable, an arrangement is made for the approximately 575 miles to be


financed by the government by granting to the crown corporation $80 million which may be advanced by the crown corporation to the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines for the construction of this western section.
This mongrel bill has not been explained. There has been no attempt to tell us why we have not a single bill before us to incorporate the whole of this, or why we are not dealing with a single bill under which the government would frankly and honestly place before us its purpose today, and that is to advance the money to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines for the construction of that western section, because, Mr. Speaker, the northern Ontario bridge cannot be built as long as the transaction set out in part II stands. As long as that money is outstanding, the northern Ontario bridge cannot be built because there will not be the money in the treasury of the crown corporation to construct any substantial part of it.
On the face of it this bill is a fraud. Let the government honestly bring in a bill and, bad though the proposition may be, put that proposition frankly before us and ask for permission to advance money directly to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines for that western section and not pretend that that has anything whatever to do with the construction by a crown corporation, which is an agency of the government, of what has been described by the minister as the difficult northern Ontario bridge.
There is more than that in it, Mr. Speaker. There is also a joker clause in part II. In section 7, subsection (1), we find this at the very beginning:
Pursuant to an agreement in that behalf made, with the approval of the governor in council, before or after the coming into force of this act . . .
Now, Mr. Speaker, that means that any measure coming in after this act would be covered by this act. We do not know whether the agreement tabled is the agreement that is binding upon the government. Any new agreement under this act brought in afterwards to amend that earlier act would be effective under the terms of this act. This is bad in every respect. It lacks frankness; it lacks candor and it provides a joker clause which makes it possible for this government once more to vary the transaction without parliament knowing what it is doing.
Then, in so far as the sessional paper that was tabled yesterday is concerned, to which reference has been made, there again is lack of frankness. That sessional paper makes it perfectly clear that the options on the pipe are not transferred by Tennessee Gas to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines until there is approval of the importation of gas into the

United States by the agency of the government of the United States, namely, the federal power commission in Washington.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is not true.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You have not read your own
agreement.


George Alexander Drew: Actually, there is one provision in this that will call for a lot of explanation and one reason why this should go before the committee. There is a great deal of doubt as to whether Tennessee Gas would give up the ownership of that pipe line at any time under this agreement which has been tabled until the federal power commission has actually given the permission that is sought. That is the reason we have asked that this whole matter go before a committee. On May 17 we moved that this be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. A sub-amendment was moved to the effect that these words be added:
So that consideration might be given to the advisability of recommending the constructing and operating of a trans-Canada natural gas pipe line under public ownership.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that our amendment referring this whole matter to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines embraces the subject matter of this sub-amendment, and on the other hand the sub-amendment would have the effect of limiting what could go before that committee. As this would read, it would be that this would be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines so that consideration might be given to the advisability of recommending the constructing and operating of a trans-Canada natural gas pipe line under public ownership. We do not intend to support a proposal that would strangle the committee which we have asked to have set up. The committee we have asked to have this referred to would have full power to inquire into the subject matter but it would also have power to inquire into some of the statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).


Clarence Decatur Howe: Another coalition ended.


George Alexander Drew: It would have the power to find out what threat the Minister of Trade and Commerce made to get Mr. McMahon out of the way. It would make it possible to find out what Mr. McMahon's proposals really were, and if we could get answers we would find out from the Minister of Trade and Commerce what his replies were to these proposals which we have not seen yet and what suggestions he made. We would
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation also know what the suggestion was with regard to the Gairdner proposals. Both of these proposals were put forward by highly reputable Canadian citizens who perhaps suffer from the disability that both are Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: It hurts, eh?


George Alexander Drew: As far as that is concerned we would also be able to find out whether there are other proposals, as there likely are, and we would be able to find out what the possibility would be of using part of the rights of way of the railway, as has been done in other jurisdictions in constructing pipe lines of this kind. These are all matters that should go before a committee for inquiry. We are certainly anxious to have this committee conduct the widest possible inquiries. Our proposal would provide for no delay. Our proposal would simply mean that a standing committee could be set up on 24 hours' notice-when I say it could be set up on 24 hours' notice I mean it could be called upon to deal with this matter in 24 hours because the committee has actually been sitting. That committee could deal with this subject and we could have before us these people, who would give us the facts which we should really have.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the record of the Conservative party in regard to public ownership is perfectly clear and our record in regard to what is now before the house has been stated and I would repeat it again. I said this on March 15, as reported at page 2182 of Hansard:
First, refer the whole question immediately to a committee of this house to obtain the facts and make appropriate recommendations. Second, insist upon the reorganization of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines as an all-Canadian company which can proceed immediately and under Canadian control. Third, if Trans-Canada cannot carry out its undertaking, then open the whole matter and permit new interests to make their proposals for an allCanadian line, Canadian controlled. Fourth, if it can be shown, and I doubt that it is so, that part of the pipe line must be built as the government asserts on this occasion, then instead of building a part which could become an orphan under certain circumstances in the future, let them build the whole pipe line and lease it for operation under Canadian control.
Mr. Speaker, those words are clear; they are not open to mistake. We have asked that this procedure be followed and we ask that it be followed now. I ask the Prime Minister even at this stage of the debate to enter the debate to tell us why he has changed his mind; to tell us why he is now prepared to support something which last July he thought was not a good proposal; to

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation tell us why he is prepared to support something that is infinitely worse than what he had before him last July. Let him also consider whether it would not be wise in the interests of Canada to refer this to the committee immediately and to give this House of Commons and the people of Canada a chance to really know the facts.
Surely the Prime Minister knows of the widespread objection from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Surely he knows of what the press in this country is saying about this. Hon. members opposite laugh, but let us recall the fact that a paper which is right in the heart of the oil and gas industry had this to say on May 10:
On the pipe line, the government now proposes not only to turn over a vital natural resource to foreign control, permanently, but is actually prepared to finance this ill-conceived project with public money, the benefit to go mainly to the United States, and the profits to go to private United States interests.
It is a most strange kind of "declaration of independence" to sell out part of our national heritage to private foreign interests and force the Canadian taxpayer to finance the sell-out.
The Trans-Canada Pipe Lines deal is a bad dream of Mr. Howe's.
To liken it to the seaway project is a hideous nightmare.
That appeared in the Calgary Herald on May 10; a responsible publication right in the very heart of the area from which this gas would be coming.
Let us go to Vancouver where on May 8 the Vancouver Province carried an editorial headed "All Canadian pipe line by force". Right across the country similar editorials are appearing particularly since the government used the gag. Particularly since that time, the strongest Liberal papers in this country have been criticizing the government's action in this respect.
It is not too late for the Prime Minister to restore some measure of parliamentary authority by stating that the gag will not be reimposed and by stating also that this will be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines so that we may get at the facts and the truth may know the light of day. It is the only way we will get the truth because we certainly have not been able to get the facts yet.
We have had the situation where during this vitally important debate the Prime Minister is still silent and the Minister of Trade and Commerce is still secretive-


An hon. Member:: And wrong.


George Alexander Drew: -and wrong.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce once again repeated the misstatement that the agreement between the companies who now

have effective control of this operation provides that there will be an issue of 51 per cent of this stock to Canadians. That statement is absolutely inaccurate and without any foundation whatever. Section 6 of that agreement provides, not that there will be an issue to Canadians but that there will be an issue in Canada. It does not provide that there will be 51 per cent of the voting stock issued even in Canada, where all of it or portions of it could be sold to United States interests if they so desired. It does not say that at all. Actually under section 6 of the agreement all that needs to be issued in order to comply with that provision is 2,006,884 shares, or just over 20 per cent of the voting shares. That is actually what is called for by section 6 of the agreement. There is no question about the fact that such an issue would satisfy the requirements of section 6 if the company so desired. That is all they are compelled to do.
This is once again an opportunity for parliament to reassert itself. This is once again an opportunity for hon. members to show that they insist upon parliament having the right to debate. I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in all earnestness to reconsider the course which has been followed. Let him hear, let him read, let him follow the advice of public opinion across this country. Let us make a new start. It will not prevent the construction of the trans-Canada pipe line. I am indebted to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) for emphasizing the fact by quotations yesterday that I have been doing my utmost, as well as other hon. members on this side, to persuade the government to proceed with the construction of this gas pipe line for well over two years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: If hon. members opposite want to laugh, let them laugh at the hon. member for Rosthern because he quoted my words yesterday to that effect.
I have stated our position. Let us have a committee; let us get the facts. I would hope that hon. members to our left will support that motion and will recognize that the subamendment they have moved would not permit a wide open inquiry, but that on the other hand we would be prevented from conducting the type of inquiry which we all desire.


Mr. Coldwell:: How?


George Alexander Drew: Because it is specifically stated that the committee shall be set up for a particular purpose. May I point out also that the amendment which we have now moved for reference to a committee clearly

refers the whole subject, including the subject of probable construction and of the alternatives which have been placed before the committee. We want that inquiry. We want to know the facts. We want this great natural resource brought under the control of Canadians for the benefit of the people of Canada in the years ahead.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects of the matters involved in this debate about which I wish to speak. One has to do with the bill itself and the other has to do with the responsibility which the government has assumed to use the proceedings provided by the standing orders of this house to make it possible for this house to reach a decision in time for that decision to be effective if it is an affirmative decision.
As to the first point, I agree completely with the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat. All of us want this to be an all-Canadian pipe line, to be a pipe line controlled under Canadian law and to be operated for the benefit of the development of Canada at large.
With respect to the ownership of shares, I have just looked at clause 6 to which the hon. member has referred. I cannot agree with him that the stipulation made there would be complied with by the issue or offering in Canada of 2,006,884 shares. I submit that it covers 51 per cent of all stock which will be issued by this company. This is not a country where the government, even if it were headed by the hon. gentleman, would control the actions of those who purchased shares in investment companies nor the time they held and retained ownership of such shares. That would be a totalitarian attitude which I am convinced the hon. gentleman himself would not contemplate.
Before going on with the rest, there is another matter I should like to dispose of immediately, that is that there would be a joker in the contract which has been made with respect to the transfer to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited of the options for the shares. I have that document before me and it says, in addition to what was read a few moments ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
2. In addition to the provisions of exhibit A to exhibits I and II hereto, in the event the Canadian government bill providing for the construction of the natural gas pipe line from the Manitoba-Ontario boundary to Kapuskasing, Ontario, together with the supplement providing for Trans-Canada's interim financing covering the construction of Trans-Canada's natural gas pipe line from the Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary to Winnipeg, Manitoba is passed and becomes law and Trans-Canada has received written notice pursuant to clause 1 of the agreement dated 8th day of May, 1956 made between Her Majesty the Queen
22. 1956	4173
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation in right of Canada and Trans-Canada that the loans therein referred to have been authorized and can be made as therein provided, Hudson's Bay, Canadian Gulf and Tennessee hereby agree to and shall assign to Trans-Canada all such parties' interest and obligations in purchase orders covering pipe ordered for Trans-Canada's requirements as described in exhibits I and II hereof and will deliver to Trans-Canada pipe received prior thereto for Trans-Canada's requirements pursuant to such orders and on hand at the time. Trans-Canada will, upon assignment of such orders assume the obligations thereunder and pay the vendor thereunder directly for all pipe received thereafter against such orders.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that not make it clear that the second condition is in addition to-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: 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 and which is cited in the letter addressed by Mr. Porter to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). This letter was read into the record of this house on May 17. The second to the last paragraph of the letter reads:
In any matter of such complexity and magnitude, we recognize that it may become necessary to consider changes in arrangements from time to time. At the last session of the legislature an act was passed, by the unanimous recorded vote of the house, giving authority to enter into such arrangements. The act allows for certain flexibility so as to meet changing situations as they may arise. Section 1 of the act is as follows:
"1. For the purpose of implementing the arrangements made or to be made 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-''
Why is this bill before the house? We submit that it is the first proper and necessary step to implement what has been Canadian policy for the last half century, a policy which was sanctioned by legislation introduced and recommended to this parliament in 1907, that is to say to preserve for Canadians energy and power produced in Canada to the full extent required by actual or future probable requirements of Canadians. That policy has been followed and has been approved-I think it is still approved-by every hon. member of this house and by the public generally.
A fact that cannot be denied is that there are tremendous amounts of gas being produced in Alberta beyond the requirements of that province, gas which those who produce it wish to dispose of and which people in other parts of Canada can use and wish to use, and which will in being properly used
4174	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation within Canada continue to promote and stimulate this era of extraordinary development that has been going on in this country for the last several years.
That requires the construction of the pipe line from Alberta to central Canada. That is the longest pipe line ever undertaken for the transmission of gas. It is a considerable undertaking. It is an undertaking which we and many others, including the prime minister of Manitoba, the government of Ontario and the prime minister of Alberta, felt should be started at the earliest possible moment. This bill is before the house because, after carefully considering all possibilities, we came to the conclusion that this was the only practicable way to get the construction of this line started this summer and completed from the Alberta boundary to Winnipeg before the end of this construction season.
I know that our socialist friends pretend that that is not the way to do it, that it should be done as a public enterprise owned and administered by a public authority in Canada. That has been carefully considered, and the reasons for the objections-they are not insuperable objections, but the reasons for objecting to that-as the most desirable course to be followed, are grave reasons, reasons that have impressed the government of Ontario, which gave them consideration too, as they have impressed us. The prime minister of Ontario has said-and his words have been read into the record here-that, if private industry can do the job, it is in the interests of Ontario and in the interests of all Canada that private enterprise do the job, but that, if it fails, if it cannot be done otherwise, it is a matter of such importance that the serious difficulties involved in public ownership would have to be faced and have to be overcome.
That line should be built and it will be built, and the future generations of Canadians will be glad that it will have been built. It is an important factor in maintaining the impetus of the Canadian economy that has been so gratifying during these last years. There have been suggestions that there were many other things that should be done. All those other things may be very desirable things, but they cannot all be done at once. I am sure all members of the house were impressed yesterday by the statement made by the Minister of Finance on the serious consideration his department gave-and it is not an attractive proposal to any Minister of Finance to make loans of public funds, even for a short term and even at the ordinary commercial rates of interest-but after examining the whole situation he came to the conclusion- and he stated that conclusion to the house


yesterday-that it was a good thing for the economy of Canada generally and, incidentally, that it would be a very good thing for the public treasury because of the participation of the public treasury in the profits that are made out of any of the industries that are being established and exploited in the Canadian economy.
The hon. gentleman caused some amusement when he said that that would provide money with which all these other things could be done. He was then asked if that was a promise, that as soon as this was completed all those other things would be done. Well, that is something which no one could undertake, because careful consideration has to be given to all these enterprises that are all good and that all contribute to the welfare of the Canadian nation but that cannot all be accomplished at the same time.
Why did we come to the conclusion that Trans-Canada was the instrument that could and should be used to bring about the start of this line this season? It is because it appeared to us that it was the only practicable way in which work could be started this season and proceeded with in a manner that would make for completion of the leg from the Alberta boundary to Winnipeg before the close of this season. I think that that is a fact that cannot be disputed.
Why was it the only agency? It was the only agency that had the permits; the only agency that had the plans; the only agency that had the organization; the only agency that had the pipe, under these arrangements, which are covered by the agreements that have now been tabled in the house.


An hon. Member:: And was broke.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hear the
hon. gentleman say, "And was broke". The company did not yet have the whole of the money required for the large expenditure that would be involved even in that preliminary leg, and that is the only justification for asking parliament to authorize the loan. It is something that is necessary, but it is a short-term loan made under conditions that can involve no possible loss to the Canadian taxpayer.
If it is returned, as it is undertaken to be returned, on April 2, 1957, what will have been gained? Well, there will have been a substantial portion of the pipe line built and put into operation, and the money will have been returned to the treasury with interest that represents some slight profit over the cost of money to the federal treasury. If not, it is security for the loan and can be taken over and the line proceeded with. And the taxpayers of Canada will

have obtained that leg at 90 per cent of its cost instead of 100 per cent of its cost-and at the costs which prevail at this time, instead of the higher costs that were referred to in some of the speeches made from the other side yesterday, which are probable in view of what we expect with respect to the cost of steel.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will it be taken over if there is default?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We shall
come to that, and we shall endeavour to make the best possible decision in the light of our responsibility to the Canadian people. We shall cross all those bridges when we come to them, and we shall cross them in the expectation that they will still, when we come to an election, enable us to face the Canadian public and get the response we have been getting over the past years every time we faced them.


Mr. Rowe:: Try that now.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: But I do
want to say something about the reasons why the government took the responsibility of recommending the use of standing rules of this house to give this house an opportunity to make a decision upon this important matter in time for the decision to have some effect.
Hon. members opposite realize that, if they can succeed in preventing a decision on this matter from being made in this house in time for that decision to be effective, they will have achieved the same result as if they got a majority voting it down in the house. That is not a part of the ordinary regular procedure of parliamentary institutions. I confess quite freely that it is always distasteful to have to resort to measures of that kind, and I am sure that it was distasteful to every government that had to recommend to the house the adoption and application of these rules. But if we believe, as we do, that this is something that should be done now in the interests of the Canadian people, can we shirk whatever distasteful responsibility we have to take in order to get the matter before parliament in time for it to make a proper decision, a decision that can be implemented?
I have more than once had to face disagreeable duties that I felt were duties to be fulfilled in the discharge of my responsibilities, and I have never yet shirked any duty that appeared to me to be a duty that was imposed upon me by the responsibilities I had taken by my oaths of office. In my view the question turned upon whether or not we did believe that this was a good thing in the interests of the Canadian people. If we did
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation believe that it was a good thing in the interests of the Canadian people, it was our duty to try to bring it to a decision in the house in time to make it possible for that decision to be executed. If we are wrong in our feeling that it is a good thing for the Canadian people it should be defeated in the house, and I would hope that any member of this house who felt that it was a wrong decision to be made in the interests of the Canadian people would vote against the implementing of such a decision.


An hon. Member:: And speak against it.


Mr. SI. Laurent (Quebec East):: And speak against it, and do as some other hon. members of other parties in the house have found it was their responsibility to do, get up and honestly and frankly state their views even though they regretted that their views were not shared by the other members of the party with which they had been associated.
Having taken the responsibility of rising first to vote on the motion which brings into application this rule of the house, I must be prepared to obey fully the consequences of that motion and I am told that the consequences are such that I must now take my seat.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, we have at last heard from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in this debate.


An hon. Member:: You certainly have.


An hon. Member:: And "Howe".


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have heard from Howe before, unfortunately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And what we have heard from the Prime Minister is that he puts himself on record as being on the side of those who are in favour of using the Canadian taxpayers' money to hand over control of a Canadian resource to American interests-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and that the Prime Minister is amongst the ranks of those who not only will subscribe to that policy but will resort to the unjustified use of the gag and closure to force this measure through the house notwithstanding the fact that that course is not in the least necessary.
4176	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In what I have to say this afternoon I want to deal mainly with the two points chosen by the right hon. gentleman himself as the main subjects of his remarks. The first is the question of the abuse of this house and thus the/abuse of the country by the methods resorted to and, second, the extent to which this is a surrender to American interests, a surrender supported, in fact, encouraged, by the Prime Minister of Canada.
We have heard from the right hon. gentleman and from his cohorts in the cabinet that closure is necessary, because the members of the opposition have brought it upon themselves. Sir, I refer you to the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in this house on May 18. He says that the opposition has invited the government to use closure. He says that we have brought it on ourselves and that we could have discussed the matter for 15 days if we had not followed the procedure we have been following of avoiding discussing it at every opportunity that we could. Let us see what the facts are.


An hon. Member:: Just as you are doing now.


Walter Edward Harris: Starting with the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Edmund Davie Fulton: First of all, in the course of this matter since the 9th of May there have been seven points of order raised. I am talking about substantial points of order.


Mr. Hellyer:: Why do you not talk about the bill?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, be quiet. Another
closure!


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of these only two were raised during the time when otherwise debate on the measure itself might have been proceeding. The others were raised either before the resolution reached the order paper, that is at a time before it could possibly be debated, [DOT] or else they were raised after one o'clock in the morning of last Wednesday after the time for debate on that particular stage had gone by.
The fact of the matter is therefore that every proper measure we took that was provided for under the rules to prevent this motion reaching the order paper in an improper form did not in fact delay the debate itself by one day, not by one hour, because the fact that the resolution did not come on for debate until a week ago last Monday was due exclusively and entirely to the fact that the government did not put it on the order paper before Thursday of the


week before, and did not call it until Monday. That was a matter exclusively within the control of the government.
The matter could not have been debated before Monday of last week and yet the government has the effrontery to parliament, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture have the effrontery to parliament, to say that if we had wanted we could have been debating this matter for a great many more days than we did. Debate could not start until Monday of last week and since that time, as I say, there have been only two points of order of any substance raised during time that would otherwise have been available for debate.
Then, what about the votes? It is true there have been 18 votes since May 9, since the government first improperly gave notice of the resolution in Votes and Proceedings. Of these votes there have only been four in time which otherwise would have been available for debate on the measures, only four votes, including divisions in committee. Only four times have we divided the house or committee during the time when this matter was actually under debate. The other divisions have all been in time when the matter was not under debate and therefore the votes, any more than the points of order, could not interfere with the progress of the measure.
So what are we left with, sir? We are left with the conclusion that what the government resents is not obstruction, not attempts to delay the measure, but opposition and discussion. The Minister of Agriculture makes it quite clear in his remarks that what he resents is not delay, not the fact that we have tried to prevent this measure from being brought on improperly, but the fact that we have used the time available to debate it and to oppose it effectively in the only manner left open to us. Therefore we are left in the position that closure, invoked for the first time in the history of this or any other parliament at the outset of a debate before a word has been said in debate, is justified by the ministers opposite and today by the Prime Minister on grounds which leave no room for any other conclusion than that what they are concerned about, what they resent, what they regard as improper, is not obstruction but opposition. If the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues would have their way they would do away with all rights of opposition in this parliament under the guise of this false front, this false cover, of trying to say that what we have been doing is attempting to obstruct rather than to oppose.

We have the matter reduced to the cynical farce which was perpetrated on this house by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) only last Wednesday, May 16, when I asked the right hon. gentleman, as reported at page 3990 of Hansard for that day:
. . . what was the tremendous and compelling urgency to bring the debate to a close yesterday by the application of the closure rule, in view of the fact the government is not prepared to go on with the debate today . . .
The Prime Minister gave this answer, which is the all time high for cynicism and effrontery to parliament:
I will tell him that the reason it was not suggested we should go on today with the second reading of the bill was so that hon. members would have an opportunity to consider it before second reading was called.
What a cynical reply-so we would have opportunity to consider the bill! I ask you Mr. Speaker, and I ask the Prime Minister, and I challenge him to reply, of what avail is time to consider before second reading if you are not going to have time to discuss it on second reading? They have introduced closure now before there has been time for discussion, and they introduced it on the occasion of the debate on the resolution, when of course closure is most damaging to discussion.
1 say to you, sir, and I challenge any hon. member over there to deny it, that the effect of closure at the resolution stage, and the reason for closure at the resolution stage, was that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Prime Minister knew, and all the others sitting over there knew that once they had introduced closure at the resolution stage they had precluded members of the opposition from asking questions and enforcing answers; that is the most damaging stage at which closure could be introduced. By virtue of the closure rule, you cannot insist upon an answer to questions, and the hon. gentlemen did not dare be placed in the position where they would have to answer questions, so closure was imposed right at the outset. It was imposed because hon. gentlemen opposite were afraid to be placed in a position where they would have to answer questions.
Mark my words, closure will be applied in the committee stage because otherwise the hon. gentlemen would be in a position where they have to answer questions and once again they will not dare answer questions about this measure. Then, they have the effrontery to tell parliament and the country they are applying it because the opposition is obstructing. We have only had four votes which have taken time which would otherwise have been available for debate. The Prime Minister
22.	1956	4177
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation pretends to be so concerned about the rights of this house, but he had better get a better explanation for applying closure than this before he will satisfy either this house or the people of Canada.
So much for that myth as to why closure is imposed. We have heard a certain amount about fables and one of the fables the government is trying to put up is that the reason for closure is the opposition is trying to obstruct. The reason for closure is because they resent opposition and they are afraid to answer questions.
I shall deal now with another of the chief fables which the government is trying to put up, and that is this question of Canadian control of the pipe line. They tell us first that it is necessary to pass this bill by means of closure before June 7 because it is urgent to get gas to Ontario. Sir, I say to you that while there may be urgency I do not accept the urgency which the government has attempted to ascribe to it, that it must be done by a deadline of June 7, because they have put on a self-imposed deadline to which they are now attempting to make parliament conform by the use of the gag or closure.
Delay would be most undesirable, but I put it to you, to the house and to the country, that while delay would be undesirable it would be better to have enough delay to make sure that the project is a taxable private enterprise than it be a burden on the taxpayers now and for all time to come. That is what the rush which the government is trying to impose upon the house and the country is going to lead to. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) speaks of the tremendous benefits which will follow the construction. These benefits, sir, will follow construction at any time. Would it not be better to have those benefits follow on the basis that it is a private enterprise taxable corporation rather than that the taxpayers' money, on which tax has already been paid, be used to hand it over to a United States enterprise where the primary benefits are going to flow across the border? For that reason, sir, any reasonable measure of delay calculated to lead to a better result would be well worthwhile in the national interest.
Now, let us look at this question of Canadian control. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says, in that sweeping manner of disregard for the facts for which he is so justly famous, that the present arrangement ensures Canadian control. Today the Prime Minister reads the agreement, without any word of detailed argument, and says that of course it means control by Canada. I say to you, sir, that not only does the agreement not mean control by Canadians it does not even mean that the majority of the voting
4178	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation stock must be offered to Canadians. It only covers one issue of stock, and in spite of the Prime Minister's words, he cannot read any other meaning into that agreement. It covers one issue of stock, and of that issue of stock it does not even say the majority must be offered to Canadians. It says it has to be offered in Canada. If they meant what they said-that they were concerned that Canadians should have the opportunity to buy this stock, why did they not say it must be offered to Canadians?
My hon. friends know quite well the arrangements that are made so often in these matters where control of the issue is under United States companies and it is arranged in advance that, although it is offered in Canada and through Canadian financial houses, it will be sold to friends of the promoters. Offered in Canada, yes, but to whom? Offered to American friends of the United States promoters. If he means what he says that this is designed to assure Canadians will have the opportunity to purchase, why does he not insist on that provision being written into the agreement? When it is said that you cannot get any more firm arrangements than they have got to assure control by Canadians, that is to mislead the house. What about Mr. McMahon's proposal?
The hon. gentleman who has misled the house in the past with respect to this and other matters said just the other day that he had never said he had no documents from McMahon. The other day when the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) was speaking, the minister said, as reported at page 4090 for Hansard May 18, 1956:
We might as well be accurate. I never said that. I said I had never received a proposal from Mr. McMahon.
Here is what the minister said. There were two occasions, but I shall read only one. On April 16th, a motion was presented calling for the production of "all letters and other documents received by .... any minister,.... from Mr. Frank McMahon," and the minister said he had tabled them. Then the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) as reported at page 2940 of Hansard for that day, said that the McMahon documents were not tabled, and the record continues:


Clarence Decatur Howe: There were no
McMahon documents.
But now he says, "Let us be accurate. I never said I had no documents from McMahon." The minister has said so many things that are contradictory he does not know what he said because he, himself, does not believe in the principle of assuring Canadian control of this pipe line. He said that Mr. McMahon could not ensure it, that there is
(Mr. Fulton.]

no way of ensuring it. Well, sir, I was interested to inquire recently about the details of the arrangement made by Mr. McMahon in connection with the Westcoast Transmission Company. It was reported in the press that Mr. McMahon had arranged-although the bulk of his capital was subscribed in the United States-to ensure that control would remain in the hands of Canadians, and so I made inquiries as to just how this would be ensured. I find there is available in the Montreal and Toronto offices of the Montreal Trust Company a voting trust agreement, which anyone who wishes has the opportunity to inspect. I have not time to read out all the details, but it is between the Westcoast Company and four Canadian trustees and two American trustees and the Montreal Trust Company. Under the provisions of that agreement all voting stock is to be deposited with the Montreal Trust Company, the depository, in return for which it issues voting trust certificates. The voting trustees who vote on behalf of the shareholders are comprised of six persons, four Canadians and two Americans, the Canadians being Frank L. McMahon, George L. McMahon, Douglas P. McDonald and Norman R. Whittall. The Americans are Lloyd S. Gilmour and Edward T. Herndon.
In the event of a vacancy occurring amongst any of the Canadian trustees, that trustee must be replaced by a Canadian citizen. In the event of a vacancy occurring amongst the two American trustees he can be replaced by any person, a Canadian or an American. The duration of the agreement is until 1970, and it may be extended beyond 1970.
So here is a case, sir, where a Canadian, a man who was brushed aside by this minister, a man who has been derided and ridiculed by his supporters, made this agreement which ensures control by Canadians. Why was he derided and ridiculed? Because he dared to get in the way of the minister and say: "I can do this trans-Canada proposal also under Canadian control without cost to the government". He has shown that he can do these things. Although a good deal of his capital for them comes from the United States, he is able to make arrangements so that the control of them will remain in Canada under the control of Canadians in a way in which this government neither is able to nor is concerned to do.
Yet we hear from the minister, we hear from the government and we hear from others that the way they are doing it now is the only way to do it, and that control will remain in Canada, and that they do not need any offer from Mr. McMahon, and that Mr. McMahon is not worthy of consideration- that is what the Minister of Agriculture said

the other day. He said: "We would not have considered his offer if it had been presented to us". They would not have considered it even if it had been presented to the rest of the cabinet. Let us remember that on the basis of the record there is only one reason why that attitude is taken, and that is, they do not care whether control of another Canadian resource passes into American hands or not, and they are not concerned to take the simple steps that should be taken to ensure that control of this vital resource be kept in Canada for the benefit of the Canadian people.
Not only, sir, are they not concerned about the future of Canada in this regard, not only are they prepared to use the taxpayers' money to hand over a Canadian resource to Americans, but they are prepared to gag, to bind, to foreclose parliament in order to pursue their iniquitous course. Not only may they destroy and render inoperative for the benefit of Canadians a tremendous Canadian resource, but they may by their policy destroy parliament. I say to you, sir, let them talk about obstruction. It is not obstruction; it is opposition, and it will be exercised until the very last gasp so far as we in this house are concerned; and, sir, if this bill goes through-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -they will know that they have had a fight which they will never forget and over which the Canadian people will turn them out of office.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I wish to offer my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) on the discretion which he exercised in the choice of the subject matter of his speech. After complaining about the small amount of time which the application of the rules of the house has left to him to discuss the bill before the house, he spent about 80 per cent of his time discussing every subject under the sun except this bill in question.
One of the points that he referred to was this old chestnut of the alleged failure to provide control by Canada in the bill which is now before the house. I think perhaps I might say as a Canadian and as a Liberal that there are few statesmen in Canadian history who command the admiration of Canadians-and certainly I would hope the admiration of the Conservatives in Canada- to a greater degree than Sir John A, Macdonald. Of all of the great achievements to which he set his hand, in most cases fairly
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation successfully, there was none that was greater than his effort in extending the transcontinental railway from coast to coast, for the first time to bind this Canada together as one nation.
Now, Sir John A. Macdonald, in those halcyon days when the Conservative party could stay in power for more than one term, and when they achieved a record which I believe that party will never equal and certainly never surpass at any future time, their leader then was no little Canadian who said in relation to the building of this railway that none but Canadians need apply, or that no capital but Canadian capital need apply.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Your government says that no Canadian need apply.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, no, not at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes; you warned McMahon off.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Sir John was prepared to take, and he did take, capital from any place that could offer it. My hon. friends, if they know even the history of the Conservative party let alone that of Canada, must know that the Canadian Pacific shareholders have never, from the time that the company first came into being up until the time that we are discussing this matter in the house today, exceeded 17 per cent. Indeed they never at any time equalled the 17 per cent that my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), complains about in connection with this present pipe-line project. At the present time I suppose the number of Canadian shareholders in the Canadian Pacific Railway is not more than 12 per cent. The great majority of its stock is now held, as it has always been held, by British and United States investors. Does that mean that the Canadian Pacific Railway is under the control of those other countries or of then-shareholders? Is it any the less subject to the Crowsnest pass agreement, for example, than it would be if it had 100 per cent Canadian shareholders?
Now, sir, my purpose in rising today is to examine, as a typical example, how this present arrangement will affect one city and how likewise I think it will affect nearly all of the cities to which it can be extended. The city to which I refer is my own city of Winnipeg. We in Manitoba have, I think, as great an interest in this project as any other province in Canada. Certainly, no metropolis in Canada has a greater interest in it than Winnipeg has. For that reason, I was quite concerned when I saw all of the members representing the constituencies of the city of Winnipeg engaged in bitter opposition

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation to this measure; and I would like to add my words to those of other Manitoba members who have preceded me in stating the reasons why, from our point of view, this is a very excellent measure.
We have been in Winnipeg at the western end of the fuel movement of American coal coming in through the great lakes, and we have likewise paid the highest prices for Alberta coal. We would like to get some cheap fuel for a change. To that end we are very much interested that this project should begin immediately after the passage of this bill with movement of the pipe from the United States to its location of the right of way with the idea that the entrenchment of the pipe shall begin in the early part of July in order that it may be possible to complete the whole project before freeze-up this year. Therefore, when our hon. friends impute all sorts of ulterior motives to us, our simple answer is, as anyone who has given this matter any study at all knows, that unless this beginning is made and unless the work is executed with great vigour it will not be possible before freeze-up next fall to complete the western section of the pipe line. That is the reason and the only reason for the application of the rules of the house.
In order to consider what the effect would be in Winnipeg, I have sought the views of the Winnipeg and Central Gas Company, Mr. W. F. Davey-


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is St. James Street, Montreal. Why did you not write direct to St. James Street and find out?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have not been aware, when it comes to the proper management of utility companies, that the people who are experienced in that field are disqualified from expressing an opinion, and so far as this opinion is concerned, as my hon. friend will see from its text, it indicates the great need for urgency in this construction if each of the places which this pipe line will serve are to achieve that rearrangement of their load factor which will enable them to get at the least possible cost the gas which they are to buy.


Mr. Hodgson:: Why didn't you build it last year then?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: For reasons which have already been explained at great length. I am sorry my hon. friend did not listen to them. This wire reads as follows:
Trans-Canada pipe line project of vital importance to future of Canada. Key industries require natural gas now and every delay of serious import.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-and I will do this very briefly because

of the time limit-I would remind Your Honour of the rule against quoting opinions, telegrams, letters, et cetera from outside the house commenting on matters under discussion in the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman in his own seat?


Edmund Davie Fulton: 1 would only say, if it is to be permitted in this case then I hope you will permit other speakers to do it. I think also it should be clearly on the record that what the minister is reading does not express the views of Winnipeg, but of some of his friends on St. James Street, Montreal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why don't you join the C.C.F. and be done with it?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Yesterday an hon. member wished to raise a similar point of order. The one which I think he wished to raise at that time was under citation 306 of Beauchesne's second edition. I would like to read that citation to hon. members:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
It seems to me the test is whether it reflects on what an hon. member has said within the house or on a proceeding within the house. I did not myself take that impression from the minister's words but I think that is the true test and I will be careful to apply it in that way.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the comments in this wire have to do with the desirability and indeed the necessity for an early start on the construction of the pipe line.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that in response to a wire from yourself?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, it is not. The wire continues:
Key Industries require natural gas now and every delay of serious import. Key industries essential to proper economic distribution of natural gas in Manitoba. All Canadian pipe line requires maximum support from Manitoba. This now available in 1956. Delays in pipe line could lead to destruction of economics arising out of availability of key industries as load balancers making economic distribution of gas to residential consumers extremely difficult if not impossible in reasonable length of time. Large potential industrial expansion awaiting arrival of natural gas. Original Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited plan requires obviously F.P.C. approval. No certainty this will be available in near future and perhaps for some time. Would appear therefore measures required to enable implementation independent of F.P.C. approval now. Should F.P.C. approval be forthcoming pipe line can proceed as originally planned; government leaving this door still open without jeopardizing markets by awaiting same. Should F.P.C. approval not be obtained

government in position to take over project under way with most difficult work done and organization ready made; this is not mean accomplishment to have matter brought to this point. Should government not take this position might lead to many years of delay in implementation of pipe line. This would be disastrous to our company and deal a very serious blow to the future of Manitoba in the form of lost opportunities. Major Manitoba market now geared to major effort in natural gas. Delays possible could destroy years of preliminary effort; same applies to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. Time is of essence and matter should be resolved forthwith. Have commended in light of all relevant factors that government adopt any and all measures essential to this end. This from point of view of Canada with whose interests ours happily coincide. Those who oppose same should weigh very heavily consequences of such action. All parties evidently agree on desirability of all Canadian pipe line. Government adopting only course of action which will realize this in reasonably near future.


John George Diefenbaker: That is all hearsay. Why not call this person as a witness before the committee?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Now, sir, the reason we are particularly interested in the observations I have just quoted is that, as everyone knows, any pipe line company has to take care of three items. First of all the interest upon its debt, which in this case would be the 5 per cent to the government; second, its wages and other operating costs; third, the price of its gas. In that connection it is under the necessity in delivering this gas to take into account not only the distance from the place where the gas originates to the market but the character of the market itself. It is perfectly clear that the cost of the operation of a pipe line does not decrease very much regardless of the quantity of gas which is put through it during the course of a year. That being so, if it will put through, let us say, 1,000 million cubic feet per year at full operation but if the markets which it serves will only take 800 million cubic feet, then because under this 80 per cent load factor the smaller amount of gas is going through, a higher rate must be charged per unit in order to meet the cost of operation of the pipe line. The real significance so far as Winnipeg, Toronto or any other community that can be reached by the pipe line is concerned is the necessity for quick action. The necessity for quick action arises in order to enable those communities served to so arrange their load factors as to secure as fair a price as possible. For example, remarks have been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) in which he cast reflection upon the cost of gas in Winnipeg as compared with the cost of gas going across the border at Emerson. The difference is due entirely to the fact that purchases for export are on a very much
22, 1956	4181
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation higher load factor than that which the city of Winnipeg could provide.
The national interest here can be shown in a number of different ways, but I know of no way which is more impressive than by examining the figures for our fuel imports which over several decades now we have had to bring in from the United States in order to keep our industries supplied with energy and without which our industries could not possibly have survived. In 1955 we imported $103 million worth of coal, $229 million worth of crude oil, $150 million worth of petroleum products, making a total of $482 million. I would point out that in relation to all of these purchases the employment, the wages, the profits and the taxes payable to the state were all in the United States.
As I understand it, the prime purpose of this pipe line is to take gaseous fuels from Alberta to other markets of Canada and to very greatly reduce our dependence upon the United States market for the import of that fuel. As a matter of fact it has been estimated that by the operation of this pipe line, immediately it becomes operative we will save between the gas which we export, 200 million cubic feet per day, and the 300 million cubic feet per day which goes into the Canadian market direct, some $43 million a year in American exchange.
The facts which have already come out in the debate indicate that if this project is delayed for two years, as it must be by this bill not going through and because of the project not being proceeded with at the present time, we shall have lost a reduction in our adverse balance of trade under that one heading alone in the course of two years a total of $86 million. In addition to that we will have lost all the gas which is going to waste each year in Alberta. We will have lost the favourable rates which can be supplied in the various markets served by this gas pipe line, and the particular ones I am thinking of are the cities of Winnipeg and Brandon, Manitoba, which would come about by our being able to utilize the industries and houses under the National Housing Act to the tune in the last two years of about 50,000 each year. If those houses are connected with that gas line the coal which we have had to import from the United States will enable us not only to save the individual people a great deal of money, but-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I was interested a few minutes ago to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) speak of his sense of responsibility in these matters.
4182	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation I rather wished that his sense of responsibility had included giving a more careful perusal to the documents which were so hastily placed in his hands by his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Those documents are the ones that were tabled last night after repeated requests from this side of the house. They contain the agreements made by the various companies which now make up Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.
The Prime Minister in refuting the contention that there was no firm order for pipe quoted one section of the agreement. I was not able, even taking that section alone, to take from it the meaning the Prime Minister took from it, and I was certainly quite unable to get over the first section which he failed to quote to this house. Referring to Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, Hudson Bay and Gulf Oil, that section reads:
1. Each of the parties hereto, to the full extent of each such respective party's rights and obligations thereunder, hereby- confirm, adopt and ratify the provisions of exhibits I and II hereto, specifically including, but not limited to, section 2 of the stock option agreement of November 1, 1955, referred to above, which is attached as exhibit A to exhibits I and II hereto.
What is this exhibit A? Exhibit A is clause 2 of the stock option agreement which reads as follows:
Tennessee shall place purchase orders, substantially in the form set forth as exhibit B, for the 1956 requirements of Trans-Canada for pipe for its natural gas transmission pipe line system from the boundary of the province of Alberta to Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Emerson, Manitoba, and shall maintain such orders so as to facilitate completion in 1956 of the construction of this phase of Trans-Canada's proposed natural gas transmission pipe line system in Canada. Tennessee shall assign such purchase orders to Trans-Canada within sixty (60) days after Tennessee has notified Trans-Canada that there have been obtained all certificates, licences and permits which in the judgment of Tennessee are necessary and sufficient to authorize Midwestern Gas Transmission Company, a Delaware corporation affiliated with Tennessee, to construct and operate a natural gas transmission pipe line system extending from the international boundary near Emerson, Manitoba, to connect in the state of Tennessee with the pipe line system of Tennessee, and to take gas from Trans-Canada at Emerson, Manitoba.
What have we here? We have the fact that this so-called firm contract, of which the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke, is dependent upon Tennessee Gas Transmission Company receiving a favourable judgment from the federal power commission of the United States to import gas into the United States.


Mr. Dickey:: Not at all.


Colin Cameron: The parliamentary assistant says, "Not at all." I am just reading what the agreement says. I might have been persuaded-


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker-


Colin Cameron: I would suggest that if the parliamentary assistant has something to contribute he should take up his own limited time to make that contribution. I might have been persuaded by the Prime Minister that the second clause in this agreement wiped out the first clause if there had not been included in this file a number of letters of transmissal.


John Horace Dickey: It is in addition to.


Colin Cameron: In addition to certain things done by this parliament. In the letters of transmissal dated the same date as this agreement and which include a letter from Canadian Gulf Oil Company, Box 130, Calgary, Alberta, to Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, Houston, Texas, we find this clause:
(2) That all operative provisions of the aforementioned stock option agreement of November 1, 1955, except clause 2 thereof (exhibit A hereto)-
That is what I quoted.
-shall cease to have any further force or effect, but that said clause 2 shall not be affected and shall remain in force.
I do not quite see how even the parliamentary assistant can get around that very definite statement on the letterhead of one of the companies which has signed this agreement. No matter what he may think, no matter what the minister may think, no matter what the Prime Minister may think, quite obviously the companies which signed this agreement believe that clause 2 of. the option agreement will remain in force. Clause 2 of the option agreement states quite clearly that the pipe shall not be delivered until after Tennessee Gas Transmission Company has received its import permit from the federal power commission.


John Horace Dickey: No.


Colin Cameron: The parliamentary assistant can shake his head till it falls off, but it does not alter the words that are written here, and the words are quite conclusive. So I suggest that either these people with whom the minister has been dealing had deluded and deceived him into thinking that Trans-Canada has a firm contract for the delivery of pipe or the minister has been attempting to delude this house. It is one or the other. They can take their choice about the matter.


An hon. Member:: Probably both.


Colin Cameron: Somebody says, "Probably both". I would not know, but I suggest that these documents prove beyond a doubt that one or other of these positions must be the case. A great deal of the minister's case for dealing with Trans-Canada and going through with this preposterous agreement was that they were the only people who had optional contracts for 34-inch pipe. These contracts are conditional upon something over which this parliament has no control, a ruling of the federal power commission. In addition to that I would point out that, as far as can be determined, there is no other place in the world at the present time where a 34-inch gas transmission line is contemplated. There is one market for it, and that of course is in the plains of Canada. If Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited is not able to go ahead because of its unfortunate impecunious condition, then any other organization or body that is prepared to go through with this pipe-line deal would obviously be the only other customer for the makers of this 34-inch pipe.
We are told that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited has run into trouble in financing. The reason why they have run into trouble in financing, we are told, is that they have not yet got the ruling from the federal power commission.
I am glad the minister is back in his seat again. I would like him to explain, some time during this debate perhaps, how he gets around the fact that exhibit A of these documents, which is clause 2 of the stock option agreement and sets forth quite plainly the conditions and terms upon which the Tennessee Gas Transmission Company agrees to deliver its option of pipe to Trans-Canada; and how he gets around the fact that these are dependent on a federal power commission ruling.
I heard the Prime Minister and other ministers suggest that the second section of this agreement quoted by the Prime Minister overrides the first one, but the transmittal letters, as I said before the minister came in, state quite clearly that clause 2 shall remain in effect. The minister tells us that there are firm contracts for pipe, but on the basis of these documents there can be no such firm contracts as far as Trans-Canada is concerned. No doubt there are firm contracts between the Tennessee Gas Transmission Company and the makers of the pipe, but that is a different proposition from a firm contract with Trans-Canada, which certainly was the impression given to this house by the minister.
We are told that these people are not able to finance this and that we must come to their rescue. Possibly they cannot, although 67509-265
22. 1356	4183
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation I would suggest that, if there is any group in the United States of America that should be able to raise $80 million, it would be the group that has combined to form the Trans-Canada company. We have, for instance, the Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, which apparently is the one with the money, as it has total assets of $742 million. Then we have the Delhi Oil Corporation with assets of $59 million, and Gulf Oil with assets of $744 million. Of course, as many people know, the Mellon interests are a very important factor in the Gulf Oil Company, and they were also a very important factor in the aluminum interests with which this government had dealings in the past. I would suggest that the reason why these gentlemen come to us is not inability to raise funds but unwillingness to invest any more in Canada until they get a firm ruling from the federal power commission to permit them to import gas into the United States. It is quite obvious that the minister himself has had somewhat the same idea because on May 14 he had this to say in the house, as recorded on page 3861 of Hansard:
We did not at that time expect extended delay in the approval of that contract by the federal power commission. Perhaps we should have, although I do not believe we could properly have assumed that there would be so long a delay. However, there has been, and there is no end clearly in sight.
That, I think, can be taken as an admission that the ruling of the federal power commission was a very important factor in the considerations of this government, and I suggest that, in the light of these papers tabled last night, it is still a factor of overriding importance, because I am unable to see how, by any interpretation of this agreement, the covering letters and clause 2 of the option agreement, anyone in this house could say that a firm contract for pipe had been made.
The minister had something else to say with regard to the federal power commission as far as back as March 15, as recorded on page 2167 of Hansard:
All the evidence suggests that the responsible United States authorities feel as we do. that dependence upon foreign supplies can be accepted only cautiously and to a limited extent, and that commitments of gas to foreign markets can be entered into only in so far as the gas is clearly surplus to domestic requirements.
That would indicate that on March 15 the minister already had a few doubts as to whether the federal power commission would come through with a favourable ruling. Nevertheless, on the basis of his optimism, he went ahead, as he said on May 14. Perhaps they should have realized that it was a vain hope. Now we are told that we
4184	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation are going to go ahead without waiting for the federal power commission ruling. We are going to lend $80 million to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to construct the western end of the line from Alberta to the city of Winnipeg. It has been suggested that, if the Trans-Canada company is unable to finance the repayment of this money at that time, then the government of Canada will be prepared to go ahead to take over the property and withhold the mortgage from them.


An hon. Member:: Maybe.


Colin Cameron: Yes, definitely "maybe". I noted that in the bill presented to this house there was a reference to any agreement signed before or after this act comes into force. If words have any meaning, this surely must mean that as soon as this bill is passed by the House of Commons and the Senate there is nothing to prevent the Trans-Canada company and the Minister of Trade and Commerce from tearing up this agreement and signing another.


Walter Edward Harris: Except their public responsibility.


Colin Cameron: The minister says "public responsibility".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister undertake that there will be no change in that agreement?


Walter Edward Harris: He was referring to tearing up the agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister undertake that the agreement will not be changed?


Colin Cameron: The fact that the government adopted a rather unusual course in regard to this agreement and did not, as my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre has pointed out, include it as a schedule to the bill, indicates that they wanted to leave some gate open for future negotiations with the Trans-Canada company, and certainly our past experiences with this company would indicate that almost anything might happen.
The other day I noticed that my friend, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) were digging into their scriptural inheritance of interesting texts. It stirred up some of the admittedly very faint scriptural memories of my own, but I thought of something else. I was reminded, Mr. Speaker, of the daughter of the horse leech forever shouting "more", and it occurred to me that the enterprising lady had moved to Texas or perhaps to Ottawa to carry on her operations. Or


we might even have another scriptural reference, Mr. Speaker. We on this side of the house at least are left in the frame of mind of the queen of Sheba when she was confronted with all the glories of Solomon and said, "Behold, not half has been told me".
I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that not half has been told us yet. I suspect that as time goes on and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) continues his entertaining dance of the seven veils and reveals a little bit more with every turn we may find out some other things. In addition to finding out as we did today that there are no firm contracts for pipe, although the minister told us quite definitely there were some, we may also find that there are no firm agreements with respect to the construction of other parts of this line.
There has been what is to my mind a very interesting and rather suspicious silence on the part of the minister and other members of the government with regard to the construction of that part of the line that lies between Winnipeg and the Ontario boundary and that part of the line which lies between Kapus-kasing and the eastern markets for Canadian gas. There may be some agreement. None has been tabled in the house and under the terms of this legislation it would make very little difference if one were tabled in the house because it might last for a week, it might last for a month, it might last for a year, depending, I presume, on the exigencies of this poverty stricken group of American financiers.
I see nothing in the agreement that we have before us which may not be superseded and nothing in the bill which tells me quite plainly, if and when Trans-Canada by some mysterious means gets the pipe before the F.P.C. gives them a ruling and constructs the western part of the line to Winnipeg, I see nothing in the statements of the minister or of the three or four of his colleagues who have spoken, nothing that indicates to me that this government has a firm undertaking from Trans-Canada to continue with the construction of that pipe line. If the company decides it will dig into its quite large resources or the resources of its parent companies and pay back the government loan of $80 million, is there anything to prevent the company deciding that it will then sit tight at Winnipeg and await the decision of the F.P.C. before embarking on the construction of the rest of the line from Winnipeg to the Ontario boundary and from Kapuskasing east? We have had nothing presented to the house to show that there is any firm commitment or agreement with the government signed by the company.
Last night, I think it was, we had a very eloquent speech by the hon. member for

Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). Admittedly it did not have very much to do with the pipe line. It had a great deal to do with Saskatchewan politics. But I remember that in the course of that address he avowed his enthusiasm for a government that had the courage and determination to go ahead in the face of obstacles. Well, it may have. It has a great- deal of courage, I must say, to come before the house with some of the measures it brings before the house. In fact, I have thought sometimes, Mr. Speaker, that people like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leader of this group have perhaps been a little unjust when they have taken these measures so seriously and have perhaps mislaid their sense of humour because to my mind nothing so hilarious as this measure has come before the house. Surely this is another gigantic joke on the Canadian people.
But the hon. member for Rosthern is thrilled by the courage of the government in proceeding with this plan. What alternatives have we before us? As I say, we have no firm commitment that this company will build the rest of the line, and if it chose to reimburse the government for its $80 million it could sit tight at Winnipeg. We have, I think, fairly decisive evidence that the company at least considers that the sale of gas in the United States is an essential feature of its scheme, that otherwise it is not economically sound to bring the pipe line to eastern Canada. That would lead us to suppose that if there is any hold-up in the F.P.C. ruling this company is not going to risk any more of its money. Indeed, it has not risked any yet, but if it should decide to repay the government and risk $80 million there is nothing in their past record to suggest that they would be prepared to go on and risk more until they knew for certain that they were going to get into the United States market.
I suggest to the government, and would suggest to the hon. member for Rosthern if he were here, that if they were really contemplating a bold and courageous action they would do what almost inevitably they are going to be forced to do next year. They would take over the construction of this pipe line under a scheme of their own with an investment of Canadian public funds under public ownership. I think it is much wiser, Mr. Speaker, for people to go face first into a proposition rather than to back into it reluctantly and perhaps find themselves situated in an awkward position when they get there. I would suggest that it is not beyond the capacity of the government to undertake the construction of this pipe line to the eastern Canadian markets, and if it is true-I think it is a debatable point from 67509-2651
Private Bills
all I have been able to read-that eastern Canadian markets will not provide a sound, economic basis for the line then we should make plans ourselves for the export of gas across the border to the important New York area market, usually considered, I believe, the most valuable and profitable market in the United States.
That, I think, would be a bold course for this government to take. The course they are taking now is one of being pushed from pillar to post inch by inch, listening to the advice and to the demands of people whose record, if the matter were not so serious for the Canadian people, would really be sidesplittingly funny because I doubt if ever a company has fallen down so consistently on every one of its agreements. I doubt if there is any company which has been proven so often, time and again, to have miscalculated the propositions that it presented to the government. But our government is extremely benevolent and extremely lenient and is always prepared to give them another chance. Now we are prepared to give them a final and, I hope, last chance, but by all accounts we get from Washington the possibility of the federal power commission bringing in a favourable ruling by April of next year is almost nil. There are enormous and equally powerful interests in the United States who are determined to block that ruling for as long as possible, and even though the federal power commission may in the end permit the Tennessee Gas Transmission Company to import gas from Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, even though they may decide to do so, I cannot see it happening until long after this question of the $80 million and when and how it is to be repaid comes again before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Colin Cameron: I should like to know definitely that there will be no further revision of the terms that are offered to this already badly forsworn company, that we have at last seen the last of the mystery of the trans-Canada pipe line and that the minister has no more surprises up his sleeve because most of us are getting a little tired of finding that something that we had been told was assured and certain has now become uncertain and new arrangements must be made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have come to the hour for private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. G. D. Weaver (Churchill) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 299, respecting Trans-Prairie Pipelines of Canada, Ltd.

Private Bills
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very minor bill involving only a change of name. Hon. members will recall that last session there were several pipe-line bills, I believe three, which sought the incorporation of companies to build pipe lines in the general area of southwestern Manitoba and southeastern Saskatchewan crossing the Manitoba-Saskat-chewan border. One of them was TransPrairie Pipelines of Canada, Ltd.; another one was Saskatchewan and Manitoba Pipeline Limited and the third was Westspur Pipe Line Company. Those three companies got incorporation and applied to the board of transport commissioners for permission to build an interprovincial line.
In this connection, I should like to read an extract from the decision of the board of transport commissioners. It says:
None of the applications with which we are concerned is of a frivolous nature and, on the contrary all of them constitute serious submissions, well presented, and supported by detailed evidence of reputable experts.
Further down on the same page it says:
As intimated in the course of the hearing, the board's ungrateful and peculiarly difficult task is to decide which is the best of three worthy applications.
It so happened that the board in that case finally decided in favour of the Westspur Pipe Line Company, which is a subsidiary of the Imperial Oil Company. Hon. members will also recall that Trans-Prairie Pipelines, the provincially incorporated company, were already in operation within the province of Manitoba. What they obtained was federal incorporation, so there are in existence two companies with practically the same name. The only difference is that Trans-Prairie Pipelines of Canada, Ltd., has federal incorporation. Since this company did not get permission to build into Saskatchewan from southwestern Manitoba, they are interested in building in some other part of western Canada. Since the names of the two companies are the same, they are desirous of changing the name of the company which was incorporated last year, as the bill says, to the Northwest Transmission Company Limited.
This change of name will enable them to take advantage of any opportunity which may develop elsewhere in western Canada for the construction of a pipe line across provincial borders without confusing with their local Manitoba pipe-line company. As hon. members will see, this bill has passed through the Senate and no objection was raised there at the proposed change of name. The powers and objects of the company will remain the same. The amendment, as I pointed out, is of a minor and technical nature. If there are any legitimate objections to the

proposed change of name they can be considered by the committee on railways and telegraph lines, to which I suggest the bill be referred.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lamblon West):: I shall only be a moment, Mr. Speaker. So far as we are concerned we are in agreement with what the hon. member has just said. The only confusion in my mind is with respect to the fact that in the one name the word "pipeline" appears and in the other the word "transmission" appears. However, that can be cleared up in committee. So far as we are concerned, we are in favour of the change of name.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Mr. T. G. W. Ashbourne (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 301, to incorporate Grand Falls Central Railway Company Limited.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to incorporate a railway company under the name of Grand Falls Central Railway Company Limited which will be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Anglo-New-foundland Development Company, generally known in Newfoundland as the A.N.D. Company, which will carry on the existing railway operations of the A.N.D. Company. This company, when originally incorporated under the Newfoundland Act in 1905, was granted at the time of incorporation special rights pertaining to the operation of a railway. It last year celebrated its 50th anniversary.
The railway was constructed to enable the company to carry on its pulp and paper operations, and there are 22 miles of track servicing the towns of Grand Falls, Windsor, Bishop's Falls and Botwood. The railway, which carries the company's products from the Grand Falls paper mill is used also for the transportation of ore concentrate from Buchan's mines as well as the transportation of miscellaneous goods and passengers.
In addition to the railway itself the company maintains storage and wharf facilities at Botwood. The A.N.D. Company has invested in railway equipment a sum in excess of $2 million, and it is employed as a common carrier of goods. However, it is thought desirable that its operations should be in a separate corporation, owing to the magnitude and diversification of the A.N.D. Company operations. The railway company,

servicing as it does four towns in Newfoundland, has an operational character quite distinct from that of the A.N.D. Company itself. One of the main reasons, therefore, for seeking a special bill to incorporate a railroad company is to separate the rail activities from those of the A.N.D. Company.
In addition, after the company is subjected to federal authority in its railway operations it will be a common carrier, and shippers, including not only the A.N.D. Company but all others at present existing or in the future, will be given the benefit of the Maritime Freight Hates Act. The Maritime Freight Rates Act, chapter 174 of the revised statutes of Canada, arbitrarily grants to industries shipping in and out of the maritime provinces a 20 per cent subsidy on rail movement. The statute was enacted to assist the industrial growth of the maritime provinces of Canada, and by section 12 of the act is applicable to the province of Newfoundland. The act was applied to the province in keeping with the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada.
The A. N. D. Company Railway at the present time is a provincial railway, being owned and operated by a company subject only to provincial authority. The operation of the A. N. D. Company railway by a company incorporated by federal act will subject the railway to federal authority in every regard. Principally, the maintenance and operation of the railway will be subject to the provisions of the Railway Act and the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners. The enactment of this act will bring this railway, which is in many regards public in its scope, within the standard pattern of railway operations found throughout Canada.
There exists somewhat similar circumstances where private railways are subject to federal authority, including in the maritimes Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway, Grand Lake and New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, Cumberland Railway and Coal Company, Dominion Atlantic Railway, and Sydney and Louisburg Railway. The bill asks for the incorporation of the railway and touches on the following points: The capital stock will be $100,000. It is proposed initially that the railway company will rent the railway from the A. N. D. Company, and accordingly the capital stock of the company need not be great at first.
Its head office will be at Grand Falls, Newfoundland. The issue of securities will be limited to $50,000 per mile. It is not intended at the present time to issue any securities, but if and when the railway company acquires the railroad it is thought this would provide adequate financing.
Private Bills
Authority is sought to issue preferred stock. It is not intended at the present time to issue preferred stock, but this might be desirable if and when the railway company purchases the railroad. Power is asked to generate and distribute electric energy. This is necessary to maintain the existing railway operations. It is necessary to have vessels, wharves and warehouses to enable the company to carry on its present operation. Hotels and restaurants are required to enable the company to provide for the convenience of passengers using the railway.
I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that about
411.000	tons of products were carried by the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company's railroad during 1955, which included
14.000	tons of coal, 12,000 tons of limestone,
170.000	tons of newsprint, 74,000 tons of oil and 110,000 tons of concentrates, as well as feeds, foodstuffs, firewood, general merchandise, live cattle and fresh vegetables.
I presume the order of the house will be that this bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate the general interest of the official opposition in this piece of legislation. This is a provincial company which has now decided to get federal incorporation of the railway aspect of its operations, and in future it will be governed by the board of transport commissioners.
This bill was considered in the other place and was gone into extensively. Their committee dealt with the various clauses of the bill and saw fit to delete at least the sections which concerned highway legislation. It has been suggested, Mr. Speaker, that one of the main reasons for this incorporation is to enable the company to receive the benefits of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. The benefits of this act are now available to Newfoundland since it joined the union, and we certainly welcome their participation in those benefits, if they are benefits, today.
I hope +he company is not under any great illusions about what the benefits of the Maritime Freight Rates Act may be, because those across the board increases that have been effected in recent years have nullified a great many of the benefits that were seemingly there. This is another story, Mr. Speaker, and I only mention it to warn them that we may need some of their lobbying power in the future.
This is an extensive piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. There are wide powers in it. I notice that in one of the clauses there is even power to construct and maintain a pipe

Private Bills
line. I merely show approval and say that we hope the committee will consider this legislation in the comprehensive way that it does all other such railway operations.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this legislation appears to be to the general advantage of all the people concerned, and on that account this group support the principle of the bill. I want to thank the sponsor for supplying us with some information prior to the debate on second reading. Since the bill is to be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, we shall have an opportunity on that occasion to ask questions and get further details.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Mr. G. T. Purdy (Colchesier-Hanis) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 340, respecting the Maritime Stockbreeders' Association.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to amend the act of incorporation of the maritime stockbreeders' association passed by this house in 1902, and also to add one additional clause. The chief object of the maritime stockbreeders' association, as indicated by the name, is to develop and improve the livestock industry in the maritime provinces, and their chief activity is the holding of the maritime winter fair at Amherst, Cumberland county, each fall, just prior to the Royal winter fair at Toronto. I believe any of the hon. members who have attended the Royal at Toronto will have been rather impressed with the type of livestock shown from the maritime provinces.
The purpose of this bill is briefly to amend one clause of section 2, which reads as follows:
To hold livestock exhibitions.
The amendment cancels that section and introduces a new section which is paragraph (c) of section 1, which reads as follows:
To hold exhibitions of livestock, agricultural produce and any other products, goods or services produced on or for a farm, and also to make available its facilities for the purchase or sale of any such livestock or other such agricultural produce, products, goods or services.
This brings the powers under the bill more in keeping with the type of shows and activities which they have at the present time. I might add, with some degree of pleasure, that although possibly the maritimes are not known as a stockbreeding country, yet for the first time in the history of Canada the president of the shorthorn association comes
'Mr. Bell.]
from my constituency and the town of Truro. He is Mr. W. A. Flemming, who is the breeder of a fine grade of shorthorns.
The second clause, and the new clause, give the association power to borrow money. Previously they did not have this power and they had to finance, when they needed assistance, through the help of the directors. The chief source of income of the association in carrying on the maritime winter fair is, in addition to the entrance tickets, the grants from the three maritime provinces as follows: Nova Scotia, $4,600; New Brunswick, $4,000; Prince Edward Island, $2,500. Up to last year those sums were increased by a grant of $5,500 from the federal government. I am pleased to say, sir, that, owing to representations by the livestock breeders of the maritime provinces, the federal government, in its wisdom, has now agreed to match the amount granted by the three maritime provinces.
For the most part, the purpose of the borrowing power is merely to enable the association to settle its accounts on the dot instead of waiting until the grants are received from the provinces and from the federal government. It may be that some other explanations will be required and I shall be glad to give them when the bill goes to a committee, as I suppose it will.
This bill has also been before the Senate. On behalf of the stockbreeders of the maritime provinces I should like to pay tribute to the senator from Milford-Hants and to the officials of the Senate for the assistance they have given us in getting this legislation in form. I trust that in due course, sir, I will convey similar thanks to the hon. members and the officials of this house at the appropriate time.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, speaking for this party I am glad to say we will support this measure. The bill just reached us a few minutes ago and we have not had much opportunity to study it. However, in view of the explanation given by the hon. member we have no desire to hold it over. It is going before a committee.
I think all the encouragement that can be given to the stock breeders of the maritime provinces should be given to them. As far as I can learn the livestock industry is picking up considerably in the maritime provinces. In my own province of New Brunswick I know it is growing and becoming an extremely important part of the agricultural program. I think the maritime winter fair is an important winter fair. I know we have several breeders in my own constituency who

Private Bills
go down there with livestock. The fair encourages stock breeders throughout the mari-times. For that reason, and without saying anything more, I shall conclude by saying we are very glad to give our support to this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Henderson for the second reading of Bill No. 300, respecting Ogdensburg bridge authority.
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, apparently we cannot talk about the northern Ontario bridge but we are at least being given an opportunity to talk about the Ogdensburg bridge. I have had a chance to read over this very short amending act and I have only a few observations to make because, as in the case of the previous bills, the expectation is that this bill will be going to a committee where I am sure we will be able to get all the answers that are required.
I do not think there is any doubt that the more lines of communication of this type we have to the United States the better off we will be. I notice that in the previous debate in 1952 the attitude was that this bridge represents an opportunity for increasing the flow of tourists to this country, which in the long run will be of great benefit to us. From the standpoint of the exchange of tourists I am sure this bridge will serve a useful purpose. I know that our authority will be most interested in going along with any reasonable suggestion for getting this bridge built.
I notice that in the original incorporating act we again have a case where there are provisional directors. I think there are approximately eight directors from the state of New York and two from Canada. I am not sure whether this is going to be moved from the provisional stage to the permanent stage, but it is one of those frightening things in connection with the administration of anything which is a joint effort to always see the balance to the south of the border.
I might make this observation too, sir. One of the two gentlemen listed as a Canadian provisional director is the ubiquitous Mr. Duncan K. MacTavish, who is connected with almost every effort of this kind. How he manages these jobs along with that big political job of his, I cannot venture to suggest.
I notice too, sir, that in the remarks made by the hon. member for Kingston he indicated that at the end of the redemption period of the bonds which are being provided this
bridge would revert to public ownership. X assume it would be jointly owned in equal proportions by the state of New York and whatever authority is designated here in Canada. I could not tell by the language he used in one place whether the state of New York was actually loaning this money or whether authority was being granted by the legislature of the state of New York to the corporation to borrow this amount of money. At page 4103 of Hansard the hon. member said:
I might mention the fact that the legislature of the state of New York has just approved a bill authorizing the sum of $15 million to be lent to the company to be secured by debentures and to be used in the construction of this particular bridge.
Now, if in fact that wording indicates that the state of New York is going to loan all this money, that of course might indicate why the provisional board of directors is set up on the basis provided in the original act.
In addition I might point out that under section 18(1) of the original act, which is chapter 57 of the statutes of Canada, 1952, there is a provision that authority from the governor in council must be obtained within five years in order for this to be effective and to continue as good legislation. It seems to me that either now or at the committee stage, before authorizing this additional money we should have some indication as to whether this corporation is prepared to go ahead and whether it is now in a position to comply with the original provisions laid down in section 18. It seems to me if we are going to increase the authorization for the debentures and then wind up at a dead end we will have been put to a considerable waste of time. I think in committee the sponsor of the bill should be able to put us in possession of information of that kind.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Boisvert for the second reading of Bill No. 302, respecting the construction of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river near the city of Trois-Rivieres.
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to tell the house that we on this side of the house intend to support this bill.
During the last federal election I became convinced of the need for such a bridge between the riding of the mover, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska, and my riding,

Private Bills
because I had the opportunity to go and speak against him in his riding, unfortunately with no success. I had to sleep overnight on the wharf at Ste. Angele because the ferry had ceased running for the night. I realized then the importance of a bridge between the ridings of Three Rivers and Nicolet-Yamaska.
(Translation) :
Mr. Speaker, since the sponsor of the bill spoke French while explaining to the house the various points which commend this legislation to its attention, I would like to follow suit in offering a few remarks on this point.
First of all it must be noted that this bill represents the final result of a truly magnificent campaign undertaken by the whole population of the district of Three Rivers. This move for the construction of a bridge spanning the St. Lawrence river was sparked by the newspaper Le Nouvelliste which, by keeping at it, aroused public opinion in this connection. While a very large measure of credit must also go to the Three Rivers chamber of commerce, the whole population has expressed its determination to see this bridge built by providing some $35,000 for preliminary survey work. It is because of all this that this house is now being asked to consider this bill.
As is well known, Three Rivers is situated at the very heart of the province of Quebec; it is the largest paper-manufacturing centre in the world, and the development of the whole area is making giant strides. It can be seen that the northern shore of the river, in the centre of Quebec, is above all an industrial area. Indeed, the cities of Three Rivers, Cap de la Madeleine, Shawini-gan, Grand Mere and La Tuque, whose population reaches at least 125,000, are enjoying great prosperity. There can be found diversified industries which were attracted there in the wake of power developments on the St. Maurice river.
Across the river, as pointed out by the mover of the bill, we have the largest agricultural county of the province of Quebec, namely Nicolet county, as well as other equally prosperous cities. Unfortunately there are no means of communication between both shores, except the ferry which has always more than it can carry, at least in the summer months. Therefore, I sincerely believe that hon. members should support the second reading of this bill.
(Text) ;


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 210, to amend the Canada Grain Act (distribution of box cars).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill is to give to the grain producers what I consider to be a fundamental democratic Canadian right, the right to do business with the firm of their own choice. Other Canadians in every walk of life when wishing to make purchases or sales are free to select the firms of their choice.
Because of the very severe congestion in the marketing of grain producers are able to deliver grain only to an elevator which has space, and space is made available in an elevator only when it receives box cars. The proportion by which box cars are allocated to the various elevators constitutes the proportion of deliveries to those elevators.
I have introduced a similar bill on previous occasions and the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said that it would interfere with the wheat board's buying and assembling of grain; if a rigid allocation were made based on the producers' choice, he said the wheat board would not be able to call out the grades and kinds of grain which were required at the time. Thinking there might be some validity in that argument I have placed the following proviso in this bill:
-provided the Canadian wheat board may order cars loaded at any elevator for the purpose of shipping
(i)	out of condition grain or grain in danger of spoilage;
(ii)	grain of a kind and grade that cannot otherwise be acquired for the purpose of meeting Canadian wheat board sales or other requirements.
Apart from that the bill is exactly the same. The bill will allow producers at a given marketing point to allocate their acreage among the elevator companies at that point. After a certain period had elapsed the acreage would be added up and the railway companies would be required to spot box cars in the same proportion that producers had allocated their acreage among the elevator companies.
I might say that the principle of this bill has the support of the main farm organizations in western Canada. We have had a thorough discussion of this subject in the standing committee on agriculture and colonization last year and two years ago and it became clear, particularly last year, that the wheat pool organizations supported a system of box car allocations based upon the producers' choice. It is true that the suggestions they made took a somewhat different form, but the principle of their proposal is

the same, namely that the producers themselves by way of ballot should be entitled to state the allocation of box cars.
Congestion in the west is still very severe at many if not nearly all marketing points. The highest delivery quota in effect today is, I believe, 6 bushels per acre. Of the some
2,000	marketing points, 15 are on a 2-bushel quota; 530 are on a 3-bushel quota; 533 on a 4-bushel quota; 510 on a 5-bushel quota, and 342 on a 6-bushel quota. In other words one-third of the marketing points today are on a low quota of 3 bushels per acre or less. Certainly at the vast majority of marketing points the elevators are plugged. Farmers are able to deliver grain only when box cars are spotted at the elevators.
This is not a situation brought about solely by large crops, or because of difficult marketing conditions, this is something which has been brought about by changed methods of harvesting and delivering grain. With modern methods of harvesting and delivery of grain to the elevators our farmers are able to deliver their whole crop in a very short space of time. That being the case, congestion is almost certain to be with us, at least for given periods during every crop year. With congestion on a semi-permanent basis, it is clear that some different form of allocation of box cars must be arrived at from the one presently in existence.
As I understand it, box cars today are allocated in this way. The wheat board hands out shipping orders to the various elevator companies and at' various marketing points. The transport controller then may or may not discuss with the railway companies the overall total of box cars that' must be made available within a given period of time, but when it comes to the actual number of box cars placed at' a given elevator it is the responsibility of the railway company.
So the railway companies themselves are actually allocating the box cars as among elevators. Some elevator companies may complain of the distribution on the grounds that their company is receiving an unfair allocation of box cars. I am not particularly interested in whether a given elevator company claims it is getting fewer box cars than it is entitled to, but I am interested in establishing the principle that a producer shall have the right to deliver grain to the elevator of his choice.
I see no reason why the railway companies, instead of the producers, should be given the right to allocate box cars and to determine the number of box cars that will go to a given elevator company at a given point. If you have four elevator companies at a given point 67509-266
Canada Grain Act
and it should happen that the railway companies spot box cars on an absolutely equal basis, one car for each elevator, that is precisely the allocation of the grain the farmers must make. If the railway company, for one reason or another, should spot twice as many box cars at one elevator as it does at some other elevator, the farmers must under the circumstances deliver twice as much grain to the elevator getting twice as many box cars.
We heard a great deal of evidence on this subject a year ago. We had some evidence two years ago, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that he was actively considering-and I took it to mean that he was going to establish-a system of box car cycles based on past experiences, with allocation at a given marketing point determined on a certain base period. The car cycle was never established.
Last year, before the agriculture committee, we had representatives from farm organizations, in particular representatives from the farmers' union and the wheat pools, speaking in favour of the principle of giving to the farmers once a year a chance to state where they wished to deliver their grain. On the basis of the statements of the producers, those instructions should go out to the railway companies to so apportion box cars. That has not been adopted. The government has said no.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What did the committee recommend?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not a very important question, because the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows full well that the committee was just an extension of the house and that on every committee of this house-as in committee of the whole-the government has an ample majority to make certain, if necessary, that the wishes of the producers themselves are denied; and the democratic wishes of a large section of Canadians are in fact denied. So the whitewash report that was brought in by the committee last year did not mean anything. It merely asks that consideration be given to the problem. I am not sure what consideration was given to it, but certainly no solution has yet been forthcoming.
The Saskatchewan wheat pool convention, again this past year, passed a resolution asking for this type of box car allocation. They have told me, and I am sure it is correct, that as an elevator system they are getting a somewhat larger percentage of box cars than they did a year ago, and that from the standpoint of the company there has been a slight increase in the allocation of

Canada Grain Act
box cars. I am not at all interested in knowing whether the wheat pool system or the McCabe elevator system or any other elevator company receives more box cars or fewer box cars. That is not the point.
The point is that a producer should have the right to do business with the elevator of his choice. If, when he is given that right, it happens that one elevator company may lose or may gain business, that is neither here nor there. What I am advancing today is the proposition that farmers, like other Canadians, should have the right to do business with the firms of their choice.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: As the hon. member for Assiniboia has already pointed out, this bill is similar to bills he has introduced to the house on previous occasions. On those occasions we always supported the bill.
The principle of this bill has been endorsed by the wheat pools and by farm organizations; and the principle, briefly, is that the box cars should be allocated on the basis of the farmer's choice in order to enable the farmer to deliver his grain to the elevator that he desires. We believe that principle is sound and, therefore, we intend to support the bill.


Mr. Rene N. Juiras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill. I had not intended to get into the debate at this stage, but in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia I think I particularly, as chairman of the agriculture committee, should say a few words on what faced us there.
This is the first time I have heard him refer to the committee report last year as a whitewash of government policy. I realize that the government members have a majority on that committee, but in all fairness I think other members, even from other parties, will agree with me that in our consideration of this matter last year we went to very great lengths and considered all angles of the problem. I am sure that many members of other parties will agree that we came to one conclusion. I am not referring to the report; I am referring to the minds of the members who heard all the evidence that was presented.
I think we will all agree, and we have to admit, that in the circumstances in which the Canadian wheat board and the board of grain commissioners are operating at the present time, and were operating last year, the one over-all and primary consideration that has to be kept in mind is that the grain has to be made available and brought in to a selling position, and that has to override any other consideration. To be able to do that, it was recognized by all that we had to give priority
"Mr. Argue.]
to the Canadian wheat board, and the right to proceed on the basis of shipping orders.
As I say, one of the important things is to get the grain in a position where we shall be able to deliver it when people ask to purchase grain from the Canadian wheat board. If we start from the assumption that shipping orders have a priority over everything else, then there is not much practical point in inserting new sections in the Canada Grain Act or putting in new provisions, because even these will have to take second place to the shipping orders of the Canadian wheat board. In effect you only add a new clause to an act, which clause cannot be operative under the circumstances. We went into this matter at very great length and came to the conclusion, which was an honest one, that in view of this over-all priority the best that could be done in the circumstances was to make sure that box cars would be spotted in the same proportion as the shipping orders issued by the Canadian wheat board.
The hon. member for Assiniboia made the statement a while ago that the railways were allocating the box cars. That statement is not quite accurate. It is true, and it is bound to be true, that the railways spot the cars. I do not think anybody would suggest that people from the Canadian wheat board should go out to all the stations and spot the cars. The spotting is done on instructions of the Canadian wheat board or the transport controller, and it has already been placed on the record that the railways have been instructed to spot the cars in proportion to the shipping orders issued by the Canadian wheat board, as was recommended by the standing committee on agriculture last year. I see the hon. member for Assiniboia shaking his head.


Hazen Robert Argue: They do not do it.


René Jutras: The claim is made by the hon. member that the railways are not doing that. My information is that they are, at least to a great degree. I should add here on this point that all last fall, all last year as a matter of fact, because of the unusual congestion period, possibly the worst, through which we went, I doubt if any wholly satisfactory system could have been devised and put into operation. For several months until winter there was no movement at all with the exception of malting barley, flax and grain in demand by the domestic millers of the country. As we know, Canadian millers, as is the case everywhere else but particularly in Canada, want special grades of grain from particular localities according to the protein content of that grain. Therefore when you have demands affecting special areas and only special areas, there is no system of allocation of box cars you can possibly institute

that will spread box cars all over the three western provinces. These are very exceptional cases.
To try to judge at this time the attempt made last year as the result of the recommendation of the committee is, I think, premature because I do not think there has been sufficient time to put the plan into operation properly. I am informed that within the last few months another attempt has been made. I believe the railway agents have been asked to post the shipping orders of the various companies in their localities. Once they do that they give a clear indication to the various elevator houses at the particular point as to exactly what the Canadian wheat board shipping orders are. Thus the various companies are able to check and see whether this particular instruction about which I am talking, the spotting of box cars in proportion to shipping orders, is being carried out, and will be in a position to state definitely whether or not the railways are complying with the orders.
I have no doubt that once this system is in general use box cars will be spotted in accordance with the instructions issued by the transport controller. As we know, the railway companies as a whole are not there to make the situation more difficult. They are usually quite co-operative. They are quite prepared to do what is feasible and practical from their point of view. The only thing is that they want to know definitely what they are supposed to do before attempting to do it. With this latest development I have no doubt that box cars will be spotted in the same proportion as shipping orders are issued.
But the allocation of box cars and the actual sale of grain are, of course, two different things altogether. No matter what you do by way of allocating box cars it does not add to the number of box cars and does not add to the deliveries that are to be made. I must come back again to the point which was made in another debate. The hon. member for Assiniboia is very insistent with respect to the question of the 3-bushel quota or the 2-bushel quota or the 1 or the 5. I want to submit again that the quota does not tell the whole story. As I said previously, even with a higher quota in Manitoba our wheat deliveries for this crop year are below the average of the last ten years. Therefore the actual quota does not tell the whole story. What tells the whole story is the actual amount of grain that is delivered, and I submit that it is not right merely to take the quota if you want to make a fair comparison between districts or between provinces.
For instance, there may be a 5-bushel quota and not enough grain to deliver more 67509-266J
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation than 2 bushels. That has occurred in many instances. I know of one case at a small point not very far from my home where there are only 25 producers. They already had an elevator and they built two annexes. Naturally with 5 and 8-bushel quotas they have practically enough space to take care of the whole crop. But to point to this situation and say that this is unfair to farmers in Saskatchewan or Alberta is to give an entirely wrong impression.
On motion of Mr. Jutras the debate was adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: At
eight o'clock the house will resume consideration of the business interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 298, to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I propose this evening to deal with one particular aspect of this pipe-line controversy. I should like to discuss public versus private ownership. The C.C.F. group in this debate, in accordance with its principles, has advocated public ownership and has moved an appropriate amendment. I think the house and taxpayers generally should realize that if this amendment carries, the taxpayers of Canada ultimately will probably have to find in the neighbourhood of $1 billion in investment funds.
The government, on the other hand, has suggested that it will build the pipe line by public ownership, only as a last resort. In trying to assess the relative merits of the two methods of ownership, it seems to me that hon. members might benefit from the experience of the Saskatchewan government since 1944 in experimenting with state ownership.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Twelve years ago, in an effort to diversify our economy and provide jobs for Saskatchewan citizens, the C.C.F. government embarked on a program of state ownership. They introduced a program of socialized industry. I think the objectives of the program were laudable. Certainly most people at that time were sympathetic with those objectives.
But in this pipe-line debate, where one of the major issues is public ownership, I suggest that two questions should be posed and considered. First, in Saskatchewan have publicly-owned companies been able to operate efficiently? Second, has the experiment as a whole been successful? I think the answers to those questions should be of value in these deliberations.
Now, Mr. Speaker, since taking office in 1944 the C.C.F. government has either laken over or set up 19 different crown corporations. In those companies it has invested the sum of approximately $130 million. I suggest we take a look at each company individually to see how it has fared. One of the first enterprises set up was a leather tannery. The purpose of the industry was to tan Saskatchewan hides and make them into leather. Unfortunately its activities were ill-fated and short-lived. The company moved from one economic crisis to another until 1952. In that year it was leased to a private company, but only after the venture had cost the taxpayers of my province, in operating deficits, about $260,000.
A shoe factory was set up in 1945 to utilize the leather which was made in the tanning factory. I recall that Premier Douglas, speaking in Brandon, Manitoba, announced, and I quote from his speech:
The tannery and shoe factory, now being operated by the C.C.F., can make shoes for $2.75 a pair and not lose money.
In spite of the premier's optimism on that occasion the shoe factory did lose money. So much so, in fact, that in 1948 it closed down after having accumulated deficits of more than $82,000.
A housing corporation was set up after the war to convert military huts into housing accommodation which could be rented. Despite the fact that its progress in building housing accommodation was extremely limited, after a very few months it was able to accumulate a deficit of $42,400. In 1947 this corporation closed down.
Very early in its first term of office the C.C.F. government set up a fish board and built a number of fish filleting plants in northern Saskatchewan for the purpose of helping northern fishermen. Every commercial fisherman in the province was compelled by law to
(Mr. Thatcher.]
sell his fish to the board. Despite this fact, almost from its inception the board lost money. After accumulating a deficit of roughly $400,000, the government was forced to close it down in 1949. The fish board was then replaced by the fish marketing service which was given annual grants by the government. This new service, up to the end of last year, had accumulated deficits of $180,000.
A woollen mill was set up in my home city of Moose Jaw. It was intended as a method of utilizing Saskatchewan wool. The theory behind it was excellent. This industry, however, was in difficulties from its opening day, and when it finally was forced to close in 1951 it had accumulated deficits of $830,000, and had paid no interest at all on its advances. The mill was transferred to a private company at bargain basement prices. That company finally moved the machinery out of the province, and today the whole operation is defunct.
In 1951 a lumber mill was set up at Big Beaver, Saskatchewan. Within a year and a half the mill had an operating deficit of almost $100,000, and had cost the treasury another $54,000 in interest on its advances. In 1951 the mill was merged with the provincial timber board, and since that time its losses have been concealed and absorbed by the board.
A brick plant was set up in the town of Estevan. From its incorporation that plant has run into engineering difficulties, technical difficulties, selling difficulties, overproduction; and high employee lay-offs. As a matter of fact, in nine years of operation the government sank $900,000 into the venture, which managed to pile up a deficit of $176,000 by the end of last year.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in every one of the cases I have mentioned so far there was competition from private enterprise. It is significant to note that under those circumstances, in virtually every case the crown corporation was unable to compete effectively. Invariably they lost money, and usually they were forced to close their doors completely.
What of the other crown corporations? Superficially some of them have shown substantial profits, but again without exception, closer examination and analysis shows that they were able to do so because they enjoyed either government compulsion or some kind of monopoly privileges. The Saskatchewan telephone company is a very good example. Hon. members will realize that in Saskatchewan the telephone business is a complete monopoly. Since the end of the war the company has increased its rates numerous times, and very steeply. As a result the government

has been able to show a profit of $3-8 million. In other words the crown corporation-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The lowest rates of any.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I will tell the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) that experience is a great teacher, and it is a very foolish man who will not benefit from experience.
Another two crown corporations which were set up were the Saskatchewan government insurance office and Saskatchewan Guarantee and Fidelity Limited. Last year these companies showed a combined profit of $460,000. At first glance this is very gratifying. However, when you examine the companies you find that much of the business has been obtained by compulsion. For instance, every person in Saskatchewan today who wants to licence his car or his truck, must at the same time take out an insurance policy from the government insurance office. There is another law which is equally interesting. This law says that every hospital, every sanatorium, university, every school or every orphanage which receives a grant from the provincial government, must take out its insurance with the Saskatchewan government insurance office. So I say it is small wonder that under those circumstances these companies can show a profit.
A printing company was set up by the provincial government, which over the years has accumulated profits of $470,000. Of course, I am very gratified that it has been able to make these profits. But once again it should be realized that the company enjoys a monopoly of government printing. There is no such thing as competition. It sets its own rates.
A sodium sulphate plant was set up in the town of Chaplin. Several private companies were already operating throughout the province at the time, but the government regulations were passed which either forced these companies out of business, or forced them to sell to the provincial government. One such plant was in my old riding of Moose Jaw at Bishopric. I say that as a result of the un-fairest kind of competition that plant at Chaplin has been able to show a surplus.
The Saskatchewan timber board is one of the most profitable of all crown corporations. Up to the end of last year it had accumulated profits of $2-8 million. How did it do so? Because it has a complete monopoly of all the lumber harvested in the province of Saskatchewan. Every person is forced to sell his lumber to the timber board at relatively low prices. Then the government, in turn, sells the lumber on the high Canadian and United States markets.
The government has a fur marketing board, and at the end of 1955 that fur marketing
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation board had accumulated a surplus of $346,000. Once again the reason is apparent. Every trapper in Saskatchewan, until recently, was forced by law to sell his skins to the fur marketing board.	,
A bus company was set up and it was given a monopoly of all the major routes within the province. Any companies which were then operating in the province were forced to sell out to the provincial monopoly. Despite that monopoly, last year this bus company on an investment of $1,900,000 was only able to make a nominal profit of $12,000, and if proper accounting methods had been used it would have lost money.
Now I wish to say a word about the Saskatchewan power commission, which distributes electricity, but which also has set up a gas monopoly quite recently in my province. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) the other day, and on page 4096 of Hansard he is reported as having made this statement:
I, together with my colleagues in the C.C.F. party, feel it is essential that this be a public undertaking, so the Canadian consumers of gas will not be fleeced by a monopoly in that field.
I suggest that we look at comparative rates for a moment to see what company is doing the fleecing. Today in Edmonton, which is roughly the same distance from the gas field as my home city of Moose Jaw, the domestic rate averages 29 cents. I am told that the Calgary rate is 30 cents, and in all the Alberta cities the rate is roughly comparable.
In Saskatchewan the C.C.F. government is charging 83 cents in the city of Saskatoon and it is proposing to charge a similar price in Moose Jaw and Regina. I say that such a price looks fantastically high to me. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, the company we are discussing today, proposes to deliver gas in the province of Saskatchewan for 21-3 cents per thousand cubic feet, at 100 per cent load factor. In Manitoba they will deliver gas at 26-2 cents.
I admit at once that the cost of distribution would be over and above these figures. But I have discussed this matter with the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle), and he informed me that the average cost of distribution in Alberta cities is 15 cents. In other words, I say that the government monopoly in the gas field in the province of Saskatchewan is charging more than double what private enterprise is charging in the province of Alberta.
I say that if any company is doing any fleecing in the gas industry today, it is the Saskatchewan power commission in my province. I also say, Mr. Speaker, that if such
4196	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation a high price is the main benefit that our people can expect from public ownership, then I think many citizens in my province are going to be very disappointed when they learn the facts.
I say tonight, Mr. Speaker, that the Saskatchewan program of socialization was born in high hopes and with laudable aspirations. But today it is apparent that the program has bogged down in a morass of bungling, red tape, inefficiency and inexperience. I say there is not a single Saskatchewan crown corporation that has operated in the black for a reasonable length of time without special privileges or compulsion of some kind. I say the program has been a tragedy and a very costly fiasco. I think it has been a dismal failure. At one time I believed in public ownership. But after holding office for 14 years I am absolutely convinced that public ownership should only be used under very special circumstances. Generally speaking people simply will not work for the government in business, as efficiently as they will for private enterprise.


Mr. Ellis:: Nonsense.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I firmly believe that passage of the amendment which is before us tonight providing for a publicly-owned pipe line would mean that gas for the consumer in Canada would cost a good deal more money than it would if it were handled through Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. Surely the experience of the Saskatchewan power commission proves this contention. This is one of the main reasons why, tonight, I am supporting the government proposal, Mr. Speaker.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, not finding any necessity to take part in the Saskatchewan election I shall have to assure my hon. friends that I cannot work up the head of steam that I have seen worked up here tonight nor, for that matter, that I saw worked up last night in connection with the Saskatchewan election.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I do feel that there is a great deal of responsibility on the shoulders of anyone who takes part in this debate. I wonder just how we can qualify to take part in it? For my part, sir, I can say that I have read the legislation; I have read the correspondence; I have read the contracts. As a matter of fact, sir, I have been in Alberta very recently and talked to people there, and as a further step I also visited a country where, after exploitation by certain gas companies, those natural resources were taken over by the state, and I saw a situation which I did not like. Whether or not these things qualify me to speak tonight 1 do not know, but it seems


to me what is required in this debate is a true sincerity of approach to the problem we face.
I listened to the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking) who said this would be the most important debate that he would take part in during his lifetime in this house, and I think for the most of us that is very true. At the same time, we honestly come to different conclusions as the result of our feelings.
You know, sir, one of my best friends on the other side of the house said to me that one thing I should avoid is being personal in these debates. But I find that a debate of this kind brings us to the point where even personal friendships are being strained to the limit. Therefore if tonight I break the rule I have followed it is because I feel some things are so important that they must be said.
Sir, I should like to go over what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said today. You know, he appeared to me to be presenting a brief, and I am sure he has had long experience in doing that job. Therefore I would like to take his case point by point. First of all, he said he would divide his address into two parts. He would first of all talk about the bill itself; and, second, he would refer to the problems of the rules as he saw them in connection with this debate.
The first thing he said was that there was an opportunity provided here for Canadians to have a 51 per cent interest in this pipe line. I say, sir. the time is long past when such a provision should have been made. Encouragement should have been given to Canadian investors by this government as it is given to foreign investors at the present time. The Prime Minister knows very well the many methods and subterfuge that may be used in connection with just such a provision as he read to the house this afternoon.
Oh, let us be quite clear about that, sir. There is no eventual guarantee that we shall not have all the straw men and the necessary trustees undisclosed to acquire the necessary stock to leave the control of this company where it is right now.
He mentioned as his second point that there was a problem concerning pipe, and that this company first of all had an option and then it acquired a contract to obtain the necessary pipe for this job. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that is the biggest stick we have seen used in business for a long time. The other night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) took us to task for saying we were dependent on an outside agency of some kind. It may not be a government agency in this case, but it certainly is an agency of American business.

In view of the fact we are having so much trouble obtaining pipe for this job I am wondering if it would not have been wise when we first started to discuss this matter five years ago for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to have devoted some thought to the question of fabricating this kind of pipe in Canada.


Mrs. Shipley:: Why not join the C.C.F.?


John Borden Hamilton: If he had done so I am sure we would not have found ourselves in this position today. Do not let us think there is not a big stick here. Do not let us think there is not a problem in connection with pipe. The government of Ontario found the same thing. If you look at their records you will find they would like to have seen another method of handling this proposition. I must say the Ontario government has worked out a very good deal. It has insured that as far as it is concerned not one dollar of Ontario money is going into the line unless the federal government can prove this job can be done. I say in all sincerity

and I say this to the hon. member for Wellington South-that Mr. Frost will look after himself and he will look after you people, too, as he does regularly every three years.
Why was the bill before the house necessary? That was the question the Prime Minister asked in his fourth point. Well, he said this was to implement a Canadian policy going back as far as 1907 dealing with the development of our natural resources. He was talking about our natural resources; but on the previous day the Minister of Finance was pointing out to us that it had nothing to do with natural resources, that it was only dealing with the pipe line and as far as natural resources were concerned that was a problem for the provinces. Therefore I say before we deal with the next point, perhaps the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance might compare notes before they make their speeches in the house.
The next point, of course, was that we adopted this policy because we had all the information that we required. We had looked the field over very well. I wonder who looked it over? The Prime Minister made the speech, but I say he had not looked all the information over; as a matter of fact, a great deal of it did not get to him.
I have heard a great deal about the problem of cost in connection with this line, and I think the Prime Minister mentioned it as well. There has been a great deal of reference to the fact that unless we get the line built this year then it is going to become too expensive. I suppose it will, sir, if the same people who have the pipe keep it and make a deal with us; they will ensure that they will
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation sell it at a profit, there is no doubt about that. I am asking the Prime Minister if it would not have been possible to make a deal with this company to put up the money for the pipe, to have it delivered in Canada, and then ask them to come before a committee here and state their case and state it properly. If that had been done then I believe the great problem of urgency would have been removed and we would have had an opportunity of hearing all the pros and cons of this particular case.


An hon. Member:: Ask your deskmate.


John Borden Hamilton: Well, I heard the remark about my deskmate. As a matter of fact if anybody has taken the "Nickle" course in this house I would say I have taken it more than anyone else. I remain unconvinced, and I want to say I have never cast a vote in this house because of political expediency and I am not casting one that way in this instance. I would like to ask each of you if you have not taken the "Nickle" course, too?


An hon. Member:: They have taken the "Howe" course.


John Borden Hamilton: 
An hon. Member:: We know all about that.


John Borden Hamilton: He looks after T.C.A.


An hon. Member:: And does it well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member must not be interrupted while he has the floor without his consent.


John Borden Hamilton: That is one of the things he might give to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) so he could look after that job. If that had been done perhaps the brief which he handed today to the Prime Minister might have been a little better prepared. I wonder how the Minister of Transport feels when the T.C.A. statement comes up and he remains seated with the rest of


us while the only available chair is occupied by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Then he runs Polymer as well.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: And runs it very well.


John Borden Hamilton: He runs national research and looks after atomic energy. When we talk about wheat we are apt to think about the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), but no, the Minister of Trade and Commerce looks after wheat as well. When we talk about planes for export we think about the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) or the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney), but no, the minister looks after that as well.


An hon. Member:: We have been over all this.


John Borden Hamilton: Then I find also that he is looking after the manning of the D.E.W. line. The Secretary of State for External Affairs does not seem to know anything about that, and neither does the Minister of National Defence. I think the Prime Minister would perhaps obtain a better brief if we could just make clear to him that one man has been handling too many jobs for too long.
We had some rather big-time people speaking today. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) was talking about the rules of the house, but I should like to read to him a little paragraph which he will probably recognize:
We know that the full political freedom which we enjoy today has come into being only within the most recent history. During that time it has been enjoyed by about only 4 per cent of human beings. We know that its existence is heavily threatened today by powerful nations which disbelieve in it and would destroy it. We know therefore that this freedom is something which we can continue to have and to deserve only by continuously understanding it, continuously cherishing it, and continuously defending it.
You know the ink is hardly dry on that. I wonder how much the Minister of Justice is defending the British institutions of government in this country. He referred to what Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald had done, and pointed out also that there were certain things which he had not been able to accomplish.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) has just stated that he has had a "Nickle" treatment. That "Nickle" treatment must have been good when we realize the words he has used in extolling

the Minister of Trade and Commerce and telling us about what he has been able to do for this country.
The unusual interest shown by the people of my district in Bill No. 298 is an interest which goes back to the very beginning of the century. At that time a member of the Ontario legislature, who later became Senator McCoig, had a great deal to do with the gas which was discovered in southern Ontario. Senator McCoig represented the riding which I now represent from 1908 to 1922, when he was summoned to the Senate. Because of that interest which was created in my district many years ago we find today there is still a great interest in natural gas in that constituency.
A great deal has been said from time to time about press reports which have appeared throughout Canada with regard to Bill No. 298. In my constituency, which is in the heart of the natural gas district of Ontario, there is an independent newspaper, the Chatham Daily News, which published an editorial on Thursday, May 17, which reads as follows:
Pipe Line Filibustering Should Arouse Suspicion
In the squabble over the Trans-Canada pipe line proposal, it should not be forgotten that it was Premier Leslie Frost, who, years ago, took a lead in the proposal to bring Alberta natural gas to eastern Canada, and particularly to his own province of Ontario.
From that beginning, the Trans-Canada project has gradually developed to the stage where, with a reasonable amount of support, the line is apt to be built and Alberta gas is likely to be delivered to Ontario consumers.
It is at this critical stage of the project that we first find public men whose attitude, not so long ago, was one of benevolent neutrality, now vehemently assailing the project.
It is at this critical stage that we begin to hear of rival promoters who are prepared-on paper or over the air-to do this and that.
The suspicion will not down that the purpose of the sudden last minute flurry of political activity, the deluge of propaganda and the alluring "alternative offers" is, not to work out a better policy but to serve political ends-and to keep Alberta gas out of Ontario.
In particular, the proposal the McMahon interests made, or are reported to have made, has all the earmarks of a dog-in-the-manger proposition; perhaps an attempt to delay the Trans-Canada enterprise till the McMahon interests have piped the lion's share of the gas to American markets.
A significant fact is that the Conservative opposition who favour private enterprise and Canadian financing of a project which Canada is not equipped to finance, and the C.C.F. who favour public ownership financed wholly by the taxpayer, are ganging up to attack the one hope we have of bringing Alberta gas to Ontario consumers within the foreseeable future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should rise at this point. This afternoon a similar point of order was brought to my attention and I quoted citation 306 of Beauchesne's second edition. I have listened to the hon. member
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation for Kent (Ont.) very carefully, because in my view the true test of the meaning of citation 306 is whether the statement which is being made in the house, in this case an editorial which is being read, reflects upon something which an hon. member has said in the house or reflects upon some proceeding in the house. Up to the time I rose I do not think the editorial offended, but I am afraid that it began to offend in that moment, applying the test that I applied this afternoon. I therefore felt that I should rise at this time.


Edward Blake Huffman: Mr. Speaker, just one last paragraph, if I may.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. These points seem to rise each day. Yesterday I think one of the hon. members to my right attempted to stop the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) from reading certain editorials. This afternoon the exchange went the opposite way across the chamber, but I feel I have stated the proper test and I would ask the hon. member to co-operate.


Edward Blake Huffman: I was looking through
Hansard and I noted that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), on page 4043, had quoted rather extensively from the Toronto Daily Star. So I was taking my cue from that quotation. Nevertheless there is a great deal to say in regard to Bill No. 298. I note that in my district the whole theme is that a party advantage is less important at this juncture than the national advantage to Canada.
I would just like to commend the action of the Liberal opposition in the province of Ontario who, when the government of the province of Ontario brought forth their bill to provide $35 million to assist with the northern Ontario leg of this pipe line, supported the government. They were very anxious to see this part of the pipe line built so the advantages of bringing Alberta gas to Ontario would accrue to the people living in the province of Ontario. That is what I would commend to the parties opposing this bill in this house.
I would say this as well, that you will find that the policy of Liberals, whether in the province of Ontario, in the province of Manitoba or in this house, is a national policy, and it redounds to the credit of Canadians everywhere when their policy is brought forward.
Yesterday afternoon my hon. friend from Lambton West made a few remarks in this house, and today he made a slight correction in what he had stated, but I was a little concerned about some of the rest of the remarks
4200	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation that were made because there might be some misapprehension as to the meaning of some of the words in his speech. May I refer to page 4126 of Hansard, where he says:
In the meantime, we may be able to develop enough gas for ourselves. I think we will get the most out of it by finding markets close to home, and I hope we shall find a considerable flow of gas in southern Ontario.
I was speaking to the head of the Union Gas Company last night, and they have assured me that they will accept every bit of gas that is found in southern Ontario, and the price our producers will receive in that part of Canada is seven times greater at the wellhead than is received by the producers of gas in Alberta. Because they are receiving that amount and because the Union Gas Company will take every bit that they produce, our people should have no fear as to the disposition of the gas they produce.
Then again, on the following page, page 4127, the hon. member had this to say:
I cannot see where these storage fields are going to be of any use because, after all is said and done, if this gas comes through to western Ontario through the Hamilton gate, in order to serve the most useful purpose it would have to go back there again.
Again, the president of the Union Gas Company assures me that the storage fields which are located in the riding of my colleague from Lambton West will be used very extensively by the Union Gas Company. Another feature is that the hon. member for Lambton West has said that we should not consider the load factor. The load factor is a very important feature in this contract.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I said we should consider the load factor.


Edward Blake Huffman: In this instance the load factor has a very important bearing, because the Union Gas Company has one of the best contracts that has been signed to date. I am very proud to state here tonight that the Union Gas Company was the first company to sign a contract with Trans-Canada for 300 billion cubic feet to be delivered over the next 25 years. Further, to indicate the importance of this contract, they would like to have it revised upward because there is a greater need for gas than they had expected when the contracts were signed. I think it is self-evident why we should proceed as quickly as possible with this pipe line, and I am proud to be associated with this government which is doing everything it can to bring Alberta gas to Ontario and supply the needs of the industries and the needs of homes in Ontario and eastern Canada.
In addition, I have learned from the heating and related industries in my district that
[Mr. Huffman.)

they are today producing the highest amount of heating equipment in their history, and I contend that anything we were to do to delay this bill would provide a vacuum in our industries connected with heating and in the related industries. For that reason we must go forward with this bill, and I am certain there is no question about its outcome.
In addition, the Union Gas Company has an extension program of $25 million to service the areas from London, as my hon. friend from Lambton West said last night, to the Hamilton and Toronto areas. The only reason they cannot go forward with it at this time is that there is no assured supply of gas. Just as soon as the gas line has been indicated, the Union Gas Company will go forward with their plans.
This is just a small part of the whole feature the Minister of Finance related to us yesterday when he said this pipe line and all that is related to it will create an expenditure of somewhere about a billion dollars in the next five years. Surely this is something we should consider favourably, because it means jobs for Canadians. It is a Canadian resource, coming through a Canadian pipe line over an all-Canadian route under Canadian control, and it will help to provide a better future for all it serves and the country in which we live.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I did not rise when the hon. member was speaking because I understand that when I wish to rise on a point of order it must be done after the speaker has concluded his address. I wonder if the hon. member for Kent inquired from the president of the Union Gas Company what price they were going to pay Trans-Canada for the gas. Did he not say 39 cents to the distributor as to the Union Gas Company, as against 35 cents they are now paying on the gas they are now buying? Also, since you brought my name into the question-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but I do not think what the hon. member is raising is a point of order or a question of privilege. In a fixed termination debate a few days ago I recall that I stopped an hon. member from asking a question at this time because I think it is fairer to allow each member his full allotted time.


Joseph Warner Murphy: The reason I rose was that the hon. member was commenting on what I said in my speech yesterday relative to the-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. I think perhaps the hon. member has had an opportunity already to clear up any misapprehensions he may have on that score.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Then I have another score with respect to which I should like to rise on a point of order. I referred yesterday to the non-use of the storage facilities in the county of Lambton, and I am wondering whether the president of the Union Gas Company said they were going to use that storage and if he knows the Minister of Trade and Commerce has indicated the storage in Lambton would not be used.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am afraid that is a matter of debate and not a question of privilege. The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I listened, as I am sure the whole house did, with great interest and some surprise to the unusual vehemence with which the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) expounded his medieval ideas. I should like to say that if he had fought as hard throughout the years for the people of Moose Jaw as he has fought the C.C.F. since he deserted it, the C.C.F. that elected him, I am sure he would have been a more effective member. I am also confident that the members of the government will not thank the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre for criticizing crown corporations, because there is a provision in the back of this legislation for crown corporations should the first efforts fail. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the answer to the wild statements made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre-


An hon. Member:: He was right.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -is simply this, that the majority of the people of Saskatchewan do not agree with him and on June 20 next that fact will be reconfirmed.
Having disposed of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Mr. Speaker, I now proceed to my argument. I rise to support the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, which suggests that this legislation should go to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and that consideration should be given to the question of public ownership of this pipe line. I think, Mr. Speaker, that practically all the meat and gristle have been gnawed off this pipe-line bone, and I shall have to content myself with sucking at the marrow. Some marrow! I must say, though, regardless of the strong opposition of this group to the bill and the method it proposes for the building of the pipe line, that
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation no member of this group questions the integrity, loyalty or capacity of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to get things done. I think it is only fair to say before proceeding with my criticisms that his days in public life are strewn with many accomplishments to the advantage of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Having said that, I must change the direction of my remarks.


An hon. Member:: Keep on. You are doing great.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In my opinion the failure of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to live up to its definite and specific promises has caused the government considerable internal embarrassment and during recent days much external embarrassment, and has caused them to present this most unpalatable legislative nostrum to the house at this time. I have read the speech of the Minister of Finance yesterday carefully, and having watched his manner of delivery and his expression it would indicate to me that the government had not taken the plunge into the ice cold water of nation-wide criticism until after a lot of consideration, and with some hesitation and I believe even some doubts at the present time as to the course they are pursuing.
We oppose the bill, Mr. Speaker, because we believe the public interest would be best served by public ownership of the pipe line as a national transportation utility. Since this question was first mooted in the house some five or six years ago C.C.F. conventions, the C.C.F. national council and C.C.F. members of the house have consistently urged three things in particular in connection with this type of legislation. The first was the public ownership of a trans-Canada pipe line. The second was an all-Canadian route, and the third was the assured protection of Canadian consumers' interests and their future needs. All that is provided by the present pipe-line legislation is an all-Canadian route.
The record of Hansard, the record of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, the debates in the house on various bills and legislation and votes taken on various amendments all indicate the consistent advocacy by this group of the three things I have mentioned. I want to compare that consistent approach throughout the years with the record of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, and I should like to quote now from the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for March 6, 1951, at page 10. This is what I read in the evidence:
The second consideration was that it should be an all-Canadian project, that it would be
4202	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Canadian gas transported over a Canadian line, and that 100 per cent of the consumption would be in Canadian cities.
Who made that statement? That statement was made by Mr. Frank A. Schultz, vicepresident of the parent company. Other expert witnesses testified before the committee that the pipe line could be constructed on this basis, and it was on this basis that parliament finally gave the bill third reading on March 9, 1951.
To indicate how assured the government was in this matter and the government's confidence in the sponsors, on February 27, 1951, as recorded at page 735 of Hansard, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) said:
All consumers will be in Canada. No gas will be exported out of Canada.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, no mention was made by the company that it would need financial assistance from the government. No mention was made of the necessity to export gas to the United States in order to make the operation sound. In the bill now before us the government is presenting an entirely different proposal.
What does it mean to Canada? I think this is a most important piece of legislation. I think there is some indication of what it means to Canada in the attitude and efforts of the opposition on this side of the house to prevent the legislation being passed. Another indication is the comments of editors all across the country. We must remember that these Liberal, Conservative and independent editors of these newspapers are close to the people, and when they write editorials they have their ears to the ground. In many cases they are writing what they think is the opinion of the people of the district in which their papers are published. We find, as I said, that Liberal, Conservative and independent newspapers across the country are criticizing this proposal in no uncertain terms.
I want to refer at this point to some remarks made yesterday by the Minister of Finance. I am glad to see that he is listening. He is a good listener. He held out as another bait the enormous amount of taxation the exchequer would receive. He said that 45 per cent to 50 per cent of the total profits would accrue to the treasury of this country, and he indicated that it would be a very large sum because he hinted it would be possible to do very big things with the money. We in this group believe that when the people provide the risk capital they should get all the profits, and not 45 or 50 per cent of them.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, we maintain that public ownership of the pipe line is to the great advantage of all Canadians, and on
LMr. Herridge.]

this foundation the C.C.F. rests its case in this debate. However, in this connection it is interesting to note that the accounting firm of Clarkson, Gordon and Company of Toronto, appointed by the Ontario government to look into the economics of the whole gas pipe line, declared in their report:
An all government owned pipe line would be economically feasible, even though no sales were made to the United States.
We are not saying that, but that is a prominent economist who says it after making a survey of this pipe line.
What are the advantages of public ownership of this pipe line? From our point of view they are these: The government can raise money cheaper than private enterprise. This was indicated again this afternoon when the Prime Minister was speaking. Second, no income or sales taxes need apply. Third, the government can amortize the scheme for this pipe line over a period of 40 years, whereas under private ownership it is usual to amortize a scheme of this sort over 20 years. Fourth, the annual carrying charges on a publicly-owned line are estimated by economists as from 6 per cent to 7 per cent, whereas on a privately-owned line they are from 13 per cent to 14 per cent. I suggest that the consumers of gas will pay for that difference. The last and very particular reason that there is advantage in public ownership is that the protection of Canadian consumers' interests is guaranteed, for the present and in the future.
In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer particularly to some remarks made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). You will remember that he said that the producers in Alberta, that is the United States corporations, are opposed to public ownership of this pipe line. He indicated in general terms that the reason was that there are far more consumers of gas in Canada than there are producers of gas, and therefore a government-owned pipe line would naturally have to give consideration to the larger number, that is the Canadian consumers. They would have to consider the people first before the interests of the corporation. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent argument in favour of public ownership.
I want to make a few more references, but I find it very difficult to condense a speech. I have been sitting here for the last two or three days with a 30 or 40-minute speech prepared and I have to kiln dry it, as they say in the lumber industry. I want to refer to some remarks made by the hon. member for Calgary South. He said he deeply regretted that some had chosen to

inject various elements of emotionalism. I find that the dictionary definition of emotion is feeling, passion, mental agitation or sentiment. I trust that the Canadian people will never lose emotion, sentiment or feeling. You do not find those things in corporations, you find them in human beings.
Canadian history is replete with examples of Canadians being stirred to action to defend the national interest by emotions, by sentiment and by feeling for this country. In the war of 1812, which I consider as the watershed of our national history, the French Canadians of this country fought valiantly to defend it, and why? Because they had a feeling for Canada. The first shot of the civil war in the United States was fired on April 12, 1861. This first shot created the national emotion, sentiment and feeling that finally brought about confederation in Canada in 1867. In world wars I and II the same emotion, the same sentiment, the same feeling for Canada that the hon. member regrets caused hundreds of thousands of men in this country to volunteer their services in its defence.
In that connection I want to quote briefly from Bruce Hutchison's book "Struggle for the Border", page 489. He said:
A vague but undeniable force called "Canadian-ism" for lack of a better word, bestrides the upper slope of America. Inarticulate, puzzled, amorphous, incalculable in its outcome, with no visible limits to its future.
Then on page 488 he says:
If the twentieth century does not belong to Canada, or indeed to any state or group of states, Canada clearly belongs to Canadians.
We in this group support that sentiment, that feeling and that emotion. Nations are not built in the brokerage shops and counting houses of the oil and gas businesses. They are built in the hearts of the Canadian people whose emotions, feelings and sentiments call us to rise in defence of this country when the occasion requires.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what are our financial resources? Some may say it is not possible for the government to undertake this project. I find on reference to the Bank of Canada statistical summary that in December, 1955, we had $10,848 million in bank deposits by federal and provincial governments, corporations or individuals. Surely we know what Canadians are like. We have the human and we have the financial resources to build this pipe line at this time. We therefore urge the minister to allow this bill to go to a committee. This afternoon a bill was allowed to go to a committee to consider only a change in name, but this important matter is not going to be considered by a committee if the minister can
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation avoid it. The minister should sponsor public ownership and this bill should be sent to the committee.
We in this group suggest this project should be financed by an issue of national development bonds in denominations which would make it possible for all Canadians to participate in public investment to their mutual advantage. Special issues could be floated for the trans-Canada pipe line, Mica creek, the South Saskatchewan dam and power development in the maritimes. We are confident the response to such an appeal would confirm the desire of Canadians for the public ownership of these projects by Canadians. With a hard-working and progressive population, and nearly $11,000 million on deposit in our banks, it is evident we have the human and financial resources to undertake this project satisfactorily. All that is required is the will and the leadership of this government.
This minister who has a great record in war and peace-we give him credit for that-this minister who has developed Trans-Canada Air Lines and the Polymer Corporation and who last year greatly assisted in protecting Canadian rights in international rivers, should send this bill to a committee and sponsor the public ownership of this pipe line as the commencement of a public investment program in this country to meet Canadian needs. I am sure this would receive the support of the majority of Canadians. Let Canadians be partners from sea to sea in building this great nation.


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to deal with something the hon. member for Prince Albert had to say about me when he participated in this debate last Thursday. At page 4032 of Hansard for May 17, 1956, the hon. member referred to three cabinet ministers by saying that they have one kind of speech in parliament and when they go down to the province of Quebec they change their attitude as they campaign in provincial elections. The hon. member then mentioned the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and myself.
I wish to say first of all, sir, that I have not dealt with this question in the house yet in this debate, and second that I have made only two political speeches in the present campaign in Quebec. I have discussed neither foreign investment in Canada nor control over natural resources. My colleagues the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of Transport have assured me that they have not dealt with these questions. It is true
4204	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation that the Liberal leader in Quebec, Mr. La-palme, has criticized the government of the Union Nationale for its policy on the use and control of the natural resources, especially iron ore; but Mr. Lapalme has said publicly also that he favours foreign investment in Canada for the development of the natural resources of Canada and of Quebec in particular. As a matter of fact, when I myself heard the Quebec Liberal leader criticize the administration of the Union Nationale with regard to the exploitation of Ungava iron ore, he gave as an example of the policy he thought Quebec should follow the policy that has been followed in Alberta in the management of the oil and gas resources of that province.
It is clear, sir-it seems clear to me-that the hon. member for Prince Albert, along with other opposition members, and I could mention the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), this afternoon, and the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) tonight, are doing their best to try to blur and confuse the issue which is before this house. There is a clear distinction between foreign investment on the one hand, and on the other hand the use of and control over natural resources in Canada. The fact that a majority of the stock of a Canadian company is held by foreign interests does not transfer to that company the control over the natural resources which it exploits.
In dealing shortly with the question of financial ownership and control, I wish first to refer to the comparison which has been made with the manner in which things were handled in the good old days when the Canadian Pacific Railway was built. I have not been able to find any figures for 1881, the year in which the Canadian Pacific Railway was founded. In 1883, however, 290,000 shares out of a total of 550,000, which means more than half, were held in New York state. It was only somewhat later than this that the large volume of British capital entered the picture.
I could not secure the figures for 1885, the year when the railway was completed. I can, however, give the proportion of voting stock which was held in various countries in 1915. In 1915 Canada held 13-6 per cent; the United Kingdom and other commonwealth countries held 62-9 per cent, and the United States held 10-4 per cent. Other countries held 14-1 per cent.
In 1936 Canada's holding of the voting stock had fallen to 11-4 per cent; the United Kingdom and other commonwealth countries had risen to 65-6 per cent; and the United States holding to 17-6 per cent, leaving 6-4 per cent in the hands of other countries.


From then on there was a strong shift in the holdings as between the United Kingdom and the United States, but Canada's position changed only slightly. In December, 1954, that is a year and a half ago, residents of Canada held 12-2 per cent; residents of the United Kingdom and other British countries held 46-3 per cent; residents of the United States held 34 [DOT] 4 per cent, and other countries held 8-1 per cent. Never, therefore, as far as I can ascertain, have Canadians held more than about one-eighth of the voting stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
I would ask hon. members to compare this situation with the agreement that Trans-Canada has made to offer 51 per cent of its common shares in Canada, and that it intends to effect a wide distribution of those shares throughout Canada. Any amount of sneering at this agreement as a "shallow pretence" does not take away from the fact that it has been made, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said, as a solemn covenant.
What other steps did Sir John A. Macdonald take to see that control of the Canadian Pacific Railway remained in Canada? The only other step was a provision in the railway's articles of incorporation that a majority of the board of directors should be British subjects. There was, of course, no such thing as Canadian citizenship in those days. However, a provision could have been inserted that the majority of the directors should be British subjects residing in Canada; but no such provision was in fact inserted. If we look at the original board of 1881, we find that it consisted of the following people: George Stephen and Duncan McIntyre, president and vice president, both of whom were Canadians; R. B. Angus, a Scotsman who was living in St. Paul, Minnesota when he was appointed but who spent much of his life in Canada; J. J. Hill, Canadian-born, who spent most of his business career in the United States and who was living in St. Paul when appointed; J. S. Kennedy, of New York; Baron J. de Reinach, of Paris; H. S. Northcote, of London, of the Hudson's Bay Company; P. duP. Grenfell, of London; and Sir John Rose, who had been minister of finance in Canada but had returned to London. However, sir, the point I wish to make is that under the law there was nothing at all to prevent all the directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway from being British subjects living in London, who had never set foot in Canada.
How does this situation compare with the requirements in respect of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines? As hon. members know, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was incorporated by special act

of parliament under the Canadian Companies Act. The learned lawyers who sit in front of me now seem to have forgotten section 155 of the Companies Act, which applies to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, and I wish to quote it to hon. members:
No person shall be elected as a director unless he is a shareholder owning shares absolutely in his own right, and not in arrear in respect of any call thereon; and the majority of the directors of the company so chosen shall, at all times, be persons resident in Canada, and subjects of Her Majesty, by birth or naturalization.
Far more effective steps, therefore, are taken in the case of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to ensure that Canadians have a share in the management of the company than was ever done in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Oh, I know, of course, that some of my hon. friends like to maintain that the fact that it was British capital rather than United States capital which built the Canadian Pacific Railway made a great deal of difference. I agree that it might have made a lot of difference, but I am not sure it is in the way they suggest. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, in reply to a question by the Minister of Justice, agreed that the bulk of investment in the Canadian Pacific Railway came from the United Kingdom, but he pointed out that Canada at that time was a dominion within the British commonwealth. He further pointed out that Canada is not now a dominion, nor is it a nation within the North American union of the United States, which is all correct. He implied that it was quite harmless for Canadian resources to be developed by British interests in our colonial days, but that it would be disastrous today for our resources to be developed by United States capital.
To me, sir, it seems that the hon. gentleman's argument should be turned around. It is, as you say, topsy-turvy. In the days when Canada was to a substantial degree under the control of Great Britain, the development of Canadian resources by British interests could entail the risk of both economic and political dependence. But today Canada is an independent nation, and we certainly can accept the foreign capital that we need for the development of our resources without endangering our independence or our sovereignty, just as the United States did 100 years ago.
This brings me to the final point I wish to make. I cannot understand how people can claim that the development of Canadian resources by Canadian companies when financed for the majority of their stock in the United States can represent United States control over Canadian resources. There is a difference between foreign investment and
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation control over resources. In the first place, a Canadian company engaged in developing natural resources in Canada will tend to act in certain ways under certain circumstances, and will act in that fashion irrespective of whether or not the ownership of the company is in the majority Canadian or American. Moreover, natural resources which are developed by private companies are not in any real sense of the word controlled by those companies. The development of these resources is controlled by the whole complex of laws which have been passed by the federal and provincial governments of Canada.
Precisely what this complex of laws comprises depends upon the subject in question but what I have in mind is, for instance, the Companies Act, tax legislation, anti-combine legislation, labour legislation, tariff legislation and specific legislation referring to the development of the natural resource in question,
Surely, sir, Canada's governments, federal and provincial, have reached the stage of development where they can see to it that foreign investment does not develop our natural resources in a manner which is harmful to Canada's interests, and it is to ensure that Alberta natural gas will be used and developed in the interests of Canada first that we are now studying this legislation.
Surely, sir, we have now reached the point in our political development where we can accept all the assistance in developing our natural resources which may be offered by foreign capital, and yet manage without any difficulty whatsoever to keep control of these resources in our own hands.


Mr. Regier:: That is wishful thinking.


Jean Lesage: That is not wishful thinking; it is a fact that we can do that because although Canada has not yet reached the point of economic maturity where she can create sufficient capital to develop her own resources at the optimum rate-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why should she supply capital to these people, then?


Jean Lesage: -Canada has reached the stage of political maturity where she can accept this foreign aid and still prevent any danger whatsoever of foreign economic or political domination.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, a few of the speakers on the government side have said during the present debate that the western provinces and Ontario and Quebec are anxiously waiting for Trans-Canada to start its work on the pipe line as soon as possible. For my part, Mr. Speaker,
4206	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation I have not heard a single person in my province make such a declaration, nor have I read a single newspaper published in the province of Quebec which carried that impression either in its editorials or in any articles.
There is no doubt that a new fuel would be welcome in Quebec, particularly in the Montreal area, but there is no vast urgency about this. I can tell you that after waiting for five years the people in the Montreal area as well as the rest of Canada can wait a few more days to make sure this legislation is studied properly. Also, as far as Quebec is concerned, let us not forget that Quebec has enough potential hydroelectric power to look after its future needs for many years to come, because that province is one of the greatest regions for electricity in the whole world.
The people of Quebec, like all other good Canadians, are interested in the development of the natural resources of this country because they know that prosperity in any corner of our country means prosperity for all. They know this is a good thing for our country.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) tonight told us something which any child knows, that we need capital to develop this country. Nobody argues against that, but what we argue against is that the capital to develop our natural resources should not be subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer, and an even break should be given to Canadian financiers as well as to American financiers. By the same token, the people of Quebec are not interested in the development of our natural resources for the greatest advantage of some American businessmen with the Canadian taxpayer footing all the bills, as is the case in the present bill we are studying tonight.
The people of my riding cannot understand why each taxpayer in Canada will have to pay $30 to help a company which is controlled to the extent of 83 per cent by United States capital. They will have to pay $30 each for a company whose main interest is supplying Chicago, Cleveland and other United States cities with Canadian gas at a cheaper rate than it will be supplied to consumers in Montreal and Toronto.
The Canadian taxpayer will not only pay for that part of the line from the Manitoba border to Kapuskasing; oh, no, the company does not stop there. They think the public of Canada are not generous enough, and now they want to force this house through the action of the government to lend them $80 million to construct the western part of this line which is the easiest part. This fantastic scheme is being forced upon this house by


the government, the same government which sends its cabinet ministers and members to help Mr. Lapalme in Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: We are not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Léon Balcer: Of course I do not blame them, because the Liberal leader in the province of Quebec in every speech attacks the provincial government for its handling of our iron ore. On the other hand you have the Prime Minister of Canada, the leader of the Liberal party in Ottawa, who makes a speech here in the House of Commons to approve 100 per cent of the actions of Mr. Duplessis in this iron ore development. It is small wonder you do not dare say a word about our iron ore in the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: I do.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Who are you?


Léon Balcer: The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources says that Mr. Lapalme would like the iron ore of Quebec to be administered in the same way as the oil and natural gas in Alberta. They are two absolutely different things. Also, what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has not said is that Mr. Lapalme did not only say that the provincial government could administer the iron ore like they administer gas in Alberta. He said that the iron ore in Quebec should be nationalized, just the same as Mossadegh did in Iran.


An hon. Member:: He never said that.


Léon Balcer: These same members of the cabinet and federal Liberal members go down to Quebec to support this man. These same people are the tools of this United States-controlled company which wants to use close to $200 million of the taxpayers' money under the pretext of developing one of our natural resources.
We often read of a system called "lobbyism" which is used in the United States, and we hear of its abuses. In the United States big industrialists and large associations maintain agents in Washington close to the executive and the legislators to look after their respective interests and to make sure they are in an advantageous position as far as the representatives and senators are concerned.
The present legislation is an example of lobbyism at probably its strongest. A small group of United States businessmen come here to obtain a charter under false pretences, or at least under false promises. We all know that before the committee these Texas millionaires practically ridiculed the hon. members who were questioning the possibility of

their being able to finance this scheme. They contended that there was not a single doubt.
What they have succeeded in forcing the government to do in this last month is certainly the masterpiece of lobbyism of all times. Not only has the government forgiven them for having come and made false promises to the committee; the government has decided to make Trans-Canada Pipe Lines its adopted child and is ready to stop at absolutely nothing to make sure that this company, controlled 83 per cent by United States financiers, gets special treatment such as is unknown in the history of this country.
To these people who said to the committee that they did not need public money to build their pipe line, the government first decided to build for them the most difficult part of the whole line with a cool $80 million of the taxpayers' money. You would have thought that with that these financiers would have been satisfied, but no, sir, the government again went out of its way to make sure that this group of Americans could really live off the fat of the taxpayers' money. They decided to lend them 90 per cent of the cost of the western part of the line, which amounts to approximately another $80 million of good Canadian taxpayers' money.
In the meantime the government did everything it could to discourage Canadian financiers from trying to bid for the same project. You would have thought that with this favoured treatment that company would have kept quiet and would have been willing to wait for the representatives of the people of Canada to study at length such an expensive, awkward and unusual bit of financing; but no, again with the complicity of the government, they decided to pull a fast one. They got from the government the promise that the minister would stop at nothing to get all the legislation through by the date chosen by these lobbyists, who set June 7 as the time most suitable to them. These people must be really big operators to scare the government of a democracy into doing that type of railroading.
It is most interesting to compare these actions of the government with the attitude taken by Liberal federal members in the provincial campaign. Just a few days ago the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) was making a speech at a banquet held in the Windsor Hotel in support of the leader, Mr. Lapalme. The Secretary of State was making a grand oration on responsible government and the great fights of Papineau, Lafontaine, Mackenzie and the others. He was so taken up with his subject that he even said the Liberal party in Canada has a mission to accomplish for democracy and responsible government.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
This type of guillotine that we see today is the democratic mission of the Liberal party. I am not surprised that they all sit in silence while the rights of parliament are being smashed in this way. I would be very much surprised if the real heroes of the democratic form of government of the people, by the people and for the people would have approved of a cabinet minister who walked into the chamber with a resolution and during his opening remarks, before any other representative of the people had had a chance to voice a word of opposition, announced that closure would be applied. He got the applause of all so-called Liberals who are not afraid to deny parliament the right to express the will of the people just to please some United States friends of the regime.
I do not think it can be called democracy when the length of discussion in the House of Commons is set by a contract for pipe between one United States company and another which is 83 per cent controlled by United States capital. It is a humiliating situation for the Canadian parliament, and at the same time I think it is unfair to the people of Canada who will have to pay $30 each for this scheme which is being proceeded with in such a strange fashion.
The government refuses to apply to this bill the procedure which it has applied to similar bills, that is to send it to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. A few years ago when the question of old age pensions was being discussed in this house many Canadian citizens were waiting just as anxiously for their money as are these financiers at the present time. It was just as important to a lot of our old age pensioners to get a necessary increase in their pensions, but the government took time to send that legislation to a select committee of both houses before making any decision.


Jean Lesage: Not the legislation; the subject matter.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is not brilliant.


Léon Balcer: Why not follow the same sensible and democratic way of handling the taxpayers' money at this time? Let not the House of Commons and the parliament of Canada be run by a contract for pipe between two United States companies.
If the people of Canada have waited five years to get natural gas I am sure they will be ready to wait the time necessary to permit a committee to study such important legislation. After all, this legislation involves the spending and the lending of huge amounts of the people's money, and I see no reason why the promoters of such an
4208	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation ambitious scheme should not be submitted to the same rules as any Canadian citizen.
Has the government something to hide? Has this company something to hide? It is rather hard to come to a favourable conclusion when we see the stubbornness of the cabinet in connection with this matter and the undemocratic fashion in which this bill is being forced upon the people of Canada. I intend to vote for the amendment because in doing so I am convinced that I shall be doing exactly what my electors sent me here to do, that is to look after their interests and make sure that their money is spent wisely for the welfare, not only of a small group of friends of the government but of the whole of Canada.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: Am I allowed to ask a question of the hon. member for Three Rivers?


Some hon. Members:: No. We were refused an opportunity to ask Liberals questions in this debate. You gagged yourselves.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Steam it out. Are you through? I am asking, Mr. Speaker, whether I am allowed to ask a question of the hon. member for Three Rivers. If I am not allowed, I shall not ask it.


William Earl Rowe: Not under closure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Three Rivers accedes to the request of the hon. member for Portneuf, the hon. member for Portneuf might ask a question, but the hon. member for Portneuf indicates that perhaps he may have many questions.


Pierre Gauthier: I was disturbed by my friends over there.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Speaker, before you came into the chair a few moments ago I rose on a point of order during the speech of the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) to ask a question, and I was not permitted to ask it.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to spend the time of the house, but I take it that-


Joseph Warner Murphy: The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) referred to a speech I made yesterday. I rose on a point of order to ask a couple of questions.


An hon. Member:: That was yesterday.


Joseph Warner Murphy: The speaker who has just preceded-


Donald Methuen Fleming: A limited debate. The Deputy Speaker took the point that questions would


not be permitted because we were under limited time rules. He did not allow the question to be asked.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the point that is being raised is somewhat trivial, because the hon. member for Three Rivers certainly knows that we are under a time limit at the moment. When he is asked if he may be asked a question, all he has to do is say yes or no. In the circumstances I do not want to create any difficulties, and I would ask the hon. member for Portneuf-


André Gauthier: It is very short.


Mr. Speaker:: I know, but I would ask him to co-operate with me. To avoid any complaint I would ask him to desist from asking his question.


Mr. Ambrose Holowach (Edmonton East):: I am very glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this discussion and expressing several convictions with respect to the subject before us. May I begin by saying that I have listened intently to the various speeches that have been made by those members who have participated in this debate. Whilst I do not question the sincerity of their views, which are different from my own, it has been for me a most dismal disappointment to find so little substance in the arguments that have been used against this proposition, a proposition which should mean the undertaking of one of the great engineering feat's of our time, with immeasurable benefits to all Canada, namely the building of the trans-Canada pipe line from my native province of Alberta to the eastern provinces.
Sir, I respect every person's opinion provided it is honest and based on fact, but with the exception of creating a great deal of apprehension and doubt in the minds of the Canadian people, with the exception of giving a black eye to a vital industry, with the exception of doing great disservice to outside investors who have come to our country and made sizeable investments generously and in good faith, neither the C.C.F. nor the Conservatives have suggested one single alternative that is acceptable to this house and that would ensure the building of a natural gas pipe line to be completed by the end of this year. That is the real issue before us at this time. To continue stalling is to do irreparable harm to the economy of my province and foul up this project beyond any hope of repair.
I can appreciate the position of the C.C.F. in this debate. As usual they are taking the stand of advocating their pet doctrine of state ownership, state control and state monopoly-"the state is boss"-but for the Conservative members, members of that once

great, proud and independent party which professes to be the champion of private enterprise, to be outmanoeuvred and led into the camp of the C.C.F., from which they are imposing further impediments in the way of private enterprise, is, to say the least shockingly sad. Surely they must understand that what they are doing is destroying little by little the last potential for private enterprise to undertake this pipe line and make it a success.
With each of the Social Credit members, my colleagues, I share a deep feeling of responsibility in taking part in this debate and expressing views on a matter which is as crucial to Alberta's and Canada's welfare as this issue before us. It is with such a sense of responsibility that we have placed politics aside and appraised this question strictly on its merits.
When one considers the fundamental point there is only one thing that can be done. There is no other course but to accept or reject this proposition. To deny this proposition at this time is to make certain that no pipe line will be built in the foreseeable future, for no other company than Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has spent $8 million or so of its capital in preparatory work, in surveying and acquiring rights of way. No company but Trans-Canada has, ordered and ready, the 34-inch diameter pipe required for the western portion of this line. No other company is prepared to call for tenders in order that machines and men can proceed with the job as quickly as possible.


An hon. Member:: No other company is allowed to.


An hon. Member:: Don't be silly.


Ambrose A. Holowach: Further, no other organization has the present management, men who are familiar with the gas and oil business, headed by one who has for 17 years demonstrated his ability in that field and his concern for the public welfare. More important than all these, there is enough power vested in the provincial field with the government of Alberta and in the federal field with the federal government to make sure that the public welfare is at all times safeguarded.
These are some of the reasons we are voting for this bill. There are other reasons as well. My leader gave an indication of how urgent it is to undertake this pipe line at this time. We have waited for a long time to find a market for our great resource in the province of Alberta, and it is about time the politicians in the house got out of the way and allowed this line to be built. I think they have had plenty of time to play with the prosperity of the people in our province.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
May I say further that there seems to be a lack of understanding of how great an urgency there is. Let me point out to this house that over 90 per cent of the gas and oil reserves of this country are in the province of Alberta. In addition to that, we have the Athabaska tar sands, which have billions of barrels of oil. Oil and gas are interlocked, and these industries are interdependent.
We cannot wait indefinitely. It represents monetary waste involving millions of dollars that would otherwise be flowing into our treasury in order to provide our people with the services they need. We cannot be indifferent to the situation. Let me tell those who are stalling this proposal that we in Alberta look very seriously on their attitude. Can we help it? We have billions of tons of coal for which there is no market, and with nuclear science and research devising new forms of energy it may well be that unless we move our surplus gas it will become as obsolete as our coal.
I am sorry to say that the C.C.F. and the Conservatives have ridden roughshod over some of these compelling facts. Now, they are speaking about a loan being made. So what? What is wrong with that? Is there any government in Canada that does not have some scheme by which it induces industrial development within a province?
Let us remember that Canada financed its share of the war to the tune of $20 billion. We made a gift of $2 billion to Great Britain alone. We did that voluntarily, and it was considered in the national interest. Since the termination of the war over $4 billion has been spent in building up the economies of south Asian countries. Is it wrong for us to invest our money in order to sustain our economy, that economy which is pulling the full load?


Alfred Claude Ellis: Let us do it ourselves, then.


Ambrose A. Holowach: Certainly not. The idea has been created that it would involve some sort of subsidy. I would suggest that my hon. friends read the agreement. Believe me, if anybody will get headaches from this it will certainly not be the government or the people of Canada but Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Oh, that is a laugh.


Ambrose A. Holowach: I have listened very closely to the arguments the Conservatives have been making with respect to how small Canadian investment is in our own country. Certainly I agree with that. It is a matter of concern to us. For 20 years we have constantly advocated a fiscal policy which would enable us to finance any enterprise and would create new wealth without creating debt.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Joseph Warner Murphy: Twenty-five dollars a month.


Ambrose A. Holowach: May I point out further that when we found that the geological picture in Alberta was promising for the discovery of oil and gas we sent men to eastern Canada in order to induce the financial interests there to help us to develop our resources. We were listened to but we were not successful. In 1939 we sent our minister of mines and resources to Great Britain. They too listened politely, and again we were unsuccessful. What alternative would the Conservatives suggest to the one source that was prepared to come into our country and help us develop this resource? Would they suggest that the resource remain in the ground unused and wasted?


Mr. Wylie:: That is their policy.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Was it not
a Canadian company that discovered oil there?


Ambrose A. Holowach: Our support of the bill does not preclude legitimate criticism of the government. In my opinion the policy that has been followed for some time has been rather unrealistic by reason of the fact that it has denied that the only way to build a gas pipe line is to have a sizeable market. The best bargain for Canadians, both as consumers and producers, would have been created if we had allowed the export of our surplus gas in order that the export market might pay for the transportation of the gas through the line in Canada.
I have noticed that a great deal of attention has been paid to an editorial that appeared in the Calgary Herald. It was pointed out that this is a paper that is published in the heart of the oil industry. May I just say that a much more realistic position is taken by the Edmonton Journal in its editorial of Thursday, May 10, 1956. Edmonton is also in the heart of the oil industry and, I may say, is the oil capital of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Pretty weak.


Ambrose A. Holowach: The editorial reads in part as follows:
The federal cabinet's policy on natural gas transmission from Alberta to eastern Canada, and particularly its recent decision to advance $72 million to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, have been sharply attacked by opposition parties in the House of Commons. It is the duty of the opposition to criticize and oppose government policies, but it is also their duty, in a question of this kind, to propose a better alternative; and this they have been unable to do.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Public ownership.


Ambrose A. Holowach: The hon. member says "public ownership". The editorial goes on to say:
The only real alternative to the Trans-Canada plan is public construction and operation of the pipe line. A strong theoretical case can be made out for this solution. In practice, however, experience with such organizations as the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines suggests that federal ownership of transportation systems is not a satisfactory solution. Not only does state management tend to be unprogressive, inefficient and extravagant, but it is always subject to political and sectional pressure. . . . Generally speaking, a private corporation which is primarily interested in finding customers for its product is more likely to deal fairly with all parts of the country than a crown company which is under pressure by governments to remember the party faithful, . . .
Of all the schemes proposed for distributing Alberta natural gas, the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines project seems, in balance, the best. It is to be hoped that parliament will ratify it without undue delay, so that construction may commence this year.


Alfred Claude Ellis: They do not approve of closure, though.


Ambrose A. Holowach: I certainly endorse the views contained in this editorial. I hope the passage of the bill will help to eliminate some of the hardship that has been caused by the delay in the export of our great gas surplus, and I am confident that it will make a great contribution to the growth and stability of our country.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I think it was citizen Tom Paine who said something to the effect that those who expect to reap the benefits of democracy must undergo the fatigues of supporting democracy. I am sure that before this debate concludes tonight, Mr. Speaker, most hon. members in the chamber will be heartily in agreement with that sentiment. Tom Paine suffered unusual tribulation during the age of enlightenment, and could well speak from experience. However, I do not think his difficulties in defending democracy were greater than those that face the members of the opposition in opposing this bill this evening. We have been accused of political expediency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: A socialist speech.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member for Medicine Hat has implied that I am going to give a socialist dissertation tonight.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: You are married to them. Why not?


Edmund Davie Fulton: When are you going to get out of bed with the Liberals?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We have been accused of emotionalism. I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West on that score. I think this is an issue to become excited about. During recent days magazines and other publications in Canada have been criticizing parliament for its lack of aggressiveness, its lack of zeal in pursuit of the public business. Only on April 14 the leading editorial in Maclean's magazine, after very severely criticizing the lack of interest in public affairs on the national level, concluded with this statement:
Doesn't anyone know of a small body buried somewhere on parliament hill? Isn't there a single fang in the mouths of a couple of hundred politicians in Ottawa? Surely there's something wrong in the country!
I think it is high time that the members of this house, and I include members on both sides of the house, stand up on their hind legs and fight-


Joseph Warner Murphy: How can
seals do that?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -on an issue that is really important in this country.
Now, unfortunately, we are debating under the pressure of closure and time is limited. I should like to make just a brief reference to this matter of closure. Students of public affairs, again in recent years, have been discussing the decline of parliament. I should like to suggest that here tonight, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing traditional parliamentary procedures being destroyed right before our eyes and the government rabble is howling for the death blow. We are discussing this issue and the bill largely in a vacuum of information, because there has been no very careful analysis of what has been described as the most important undertaking this country has ever assumed.
The Minister of Finance made that statement yesterday. The hon. member for Wellington South said he never expected within his lifetime to see an issue of greater importance than the one we have before us at the moment; yet we are being forced to discuss it largely in a vacuum of information because of the unseemly haste necessitated by the closure procedure.
We have to take it from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is subject to his advisers-and there is a tendency for the administration to become a government within a government-that everything is in the best interests of the country. Much worse still, we have to take it from the United States interests which are behind the promotion of this project, which I remind the house has been described as of
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation momentous significance in the development of Canada, that this is in the best interests of Canada.
It has been said that at least proceeding with this measure now is building in the interests of the nation; it is getting things done. Well, I have heard that claim in other contexts in other countries. It was Mussolini who used to boast that he made the trains run on time and streamlined the mechanistic aspects of his fascist society. Hitler used to boast about his splendid autobahns, and of course we are all familiar with the five-year plans of the U.S.S.R. Perhaps it is a coincidence that this proposition we are discussing tonight has been on the way for five years; it dawdled along for five years, and then suddenly overnight parliament has to pass it on a sudden death basis.
During this discussion we have listened to a lot of friendly advice from our Social Credit friends.


Charles Edward Johnston: Good advice, too.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am going to return the favour tonight, if I may. I just want to quote the nature of the advice we have been receiving so you will see we have been subjected to sufficient provocation. On page 3930 of Hansard for May 15, 1956, the leader of that party in referring to the Conservatives said:
They are like a cat on a tin roof trying to find some dirt and manufacture for themselves an election issue. They have been so utterly bankrupt of ideas and propositions that they have to grasp at straws.
I could say that is the old psychological technique of projection, imputing motives and imputing ideas that you have yourself to those who have different ideas. I should like to suggest to my hon. friends that it is most regrettable that they, as an opposition group, saw fit to vote for closure this afternoon. Closure is being brought in under duress, so we have been told on several occasions, but certainly no opposition group which hopes to maintain itself in the confidence of the public of Canada should willingly stand up for the unprecedented method by which closure has been applied under the present circumstances. It is very dangerous for an opposition group to come too closely into the embrace of the government in power or the party in power. It tends to be the kiss of death. It is a vice-like grip, and I do not have any ulterior meaning when I use the words "vice-like grip".
We have been accused of political expediency because we fight for democratic principles that have been established by tradition and by painful struggle down through the centuries. As I examine those, other than the

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation members of the government, who are in support of this measure it seems to me that economic expediency is dictating their actions in this regard. Economic expediency, for example, might be the explanation for the support of the Ontario government in this respec.. They have nothing to lose in this deal. They have an opportunity of having this na ural gas, which is peculiar to western Canada piped in as the letter quoted in the house from the minister of finance of that province said, at no cost to themselves. I think t. a : i itself rather refutes the charge of pc i al expediency. If we were wishing to think in terms of political expediency we won a ue embracing the Ontario administration with all the enthusiasm we could muster. But we feel there is a national principle at stake.
I want to take this charge of expediency just a little farther and apply it to the supporters of the government. The main argument that has been put forward from the government side is to the effect that haste is necessary. We do not know why such haste is ne essary, except that the line has to get through to Winnipeg during this year. I am from Manitoba, and we heartily agree with that. However, there is no reason why that line should not have been through two years ago. Let me quote from a Liberal member of the legislature in this regard. We have had quotations from Conservative members of the Ontario legislature, so let me quote from a Liberal member of the Manitoba legislature. On March 26, 1956, he said:
I urge t iat the honourable the premier and the cabinet and every member of this house, regardless of party, make their views known and I hope their views coincide with mine. That is:	Let
private enterprise build the line and sell the gas where they can. If Ontario and Quebec want their gas to go over the top of the lakes . . . let them build t ie line there by all means, with their own money. Or, if they can't do that themselves let it be built by the shortest route, which means they would get it via Sarnia . . . after all, Canada and United States have maintained the peace since Christmas 1814, and they're not likely to start seizing our property now!
That is from a Liberal spokesman in the Manitoba legislature. Going on to speak of Manitoba's position in this regard, he says:
Mr. Speaker, for many years we in Manitoba have paid lor transportation of goods from the east. We've been told that we had to face the facts of geography. Now the shoe is on the other foot. We happen, on this occasion, to be in an ideal geographic position to receive this wonderful fuel . .	. and we shouldn't for one minute be
subservient to the interests of the Port Arthur area, or any other areas in the east.
It is high time western Canada was recognized as an important industrial area. Let our resources be made available first to the people here; and then proceed to pipe the gas east when the east can pay for it out of their own pockets.

That is Liberal sentiment from Manitoba spoken by Mr. St. John, who has been actively pushing this pipe-line project for the past two years.
Why has this sense of urgency on the part of the government suddenly developed? I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is because an election is pending. If this line is not in the ground by next year, if this unholy mess that confronts us in the breakdown of negotiations over the past five years is not remedied in concrete terms by next year, of course this administration will be committing political suicide in a good many parts of Canada, particularly in western Canada. I would like to suggest that it is expediency of the worst kind. Let me quote a former prime minister of this country on this score, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. In his book "Unrevised and Unrepentant", Mr. Meighen said, at page 319:
I believe in the British system of democracy and would submit to almost anything before surrendering those liberties which we as British subjects enjoy, but if anyone tells me that fidelity to party and fidelity to country are always compatible, or that the wisdom of mere numbers is the wisdom of heaven, then I tell him that he loves applause far more than he loves truth.
Loyalty to the ballot box is not necessarily loyalty to the nation; it is not even loyalty to the multitude. There must be something better than an ambition to be re-elected or democracy will fall even in this dominion.
I had the pleasure of listening to my neighbour from Manitoba speak on a similar level last Monday to the "adventurers in citizenship", and I agree heartily with the sentiments he expressed on that occasion.


An hon. Member:: The Minister of Justice.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The Minister of Justice is my neighbour in Manitoba. This afternoon we had the pleasure of listening to the Prime Minister make a contribution to this discussion, and I felt an underlying sense of anxiety in what the Prime Minister had to say regarding this measure. He regretted that closure had to be applied; he regretted the unseemly haste, but it was one of the distasteful things that a leader of a nation had to face from time to time. I believe those were the words he used, "one of the distasteful things that the leader of the government faces from time to time." Well, now, I sense that he was very concerned about the unfortunate level to which parliament has descended because of the manner in which this measure is being pushed through the House of Commons at the present time.
I would like to suggest that the words of a former prime minister might well be taken to heart. There is a higher loyalty in this country than party affiliation. There is loyalty to the national interest; and when a political

party begins to identify its welfare with the national welfare I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that party has outlived its usefulness to the nation.
The one answer we have received to all the questions we have asked on this subject up to the present time as to why we must proceed in ignorance as a parliamentary body, a body responsible to the people of this country, is the stock answer, "There is no other solution". We must continue to place our confidence in this United States-domi-nated company, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, even though it has failed to deliver the goods on all successive occasions, because there is no other solution. That is a tragic admission for an administration that has been in office for some 20 years to make, that they have no alternative policy for what they themselves have declared to be the most important development in the history of Canada up to the present time. I would suggest that the government should be ashamed to have to make an admission of that kind, particularly in a period when the Canadian economy is booming as it never has before, tied to the great United States boom to the south of us.
There are attempts to confuse the issue, of course. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) yesterday made one of those attempts. He suggested that on this particular issue we were criticizing United States investment. As I read the terms of the bill and as I listen to the discussion, United States investment has nothing to do with this particular issue. What we are opposing is Canadian investment in a United States company. We are opposing this unorthodox, reprehensible public financing which is being perpetrated on the people of Canada for the first time, and which was amazingly enough supported in the house as recently as yesterday by the Minister of Finance, though I thought he was a little bit sensitive on the subject.
A project of this magnitude, a project which has so much promise for the future development of Canada, should capture the imagination of Canadians from one coast of the country to the other; yet this government is forced to admit that it cannot get sufficient support from the Canadian public to finance it on a strictly Canadian basis, but must continue to work with the group which has broken all the promises it originally made. I would not attempt to prophesy, but, judging from the observation which was made at the opening of the session this afternoon regarding the purchase of suitable pipe for this undertaking, it seems that the project might once again blow up in the face of the government.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
We are trying to be helpful and they will not let us. We can really be helpful. Let them refer this matter to a committee, and let us thoroughly analyse all the facts.


Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this important debate to express what I believe is the attitude of those I represent in this House of Commons, the citizens of Kingston and district. I can say that I represent an area which is keenly interested in the transmission of a Canadian natural resource, namely natural gas, from the Canadian province of Alberta through Canadian territory to the Canadian province of Ontario, with as many distribution arteries and extensions as may be feasible to assist in reducing the price to the Ontario consumer while at the same time expanding our national economy.
We are what you might call a large potential consumer area. The evidence of this possible consumption of natural gas in our district of Kingston is supported by the Financial Post of May 12, 1956, when, on its front page, it shows a map of the area through which the pipe line will pass, with an indication of the title of each section, and I am pleased to note that the area from Toronto to Montreal along the north shores of lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river is labelled, "Big Market Potential".
This area at the present time is experiencing an industrial boom in the wake of the St. Lawrence seaway project and the St. Lawrence hydro project. We might say that the known availability of hydroelectric energy is one of the chief contributing factors in the encouragement of heavy industry to settle in this area. For years the St. Lawrence seaway was delayed, with one of the chief factors of the delay being the United States lobbyists who were against the project. When our government indicated that we as Canadians would go it alone and build an allCanadian St. Lawrence seaway, such opposition soon dwindled in the United States. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when the opposition presently being presented before the federal power commission in the United States to the export of gas from Canada realizes that Canada is once again taking the initiative, such opposition will soon dwindle.
This bill No. 298 presently before us, I suggest, removes the possibility of the shackles of United States control, either legislative by government bodies, or by private or corporate bodies, in preventing the development of the use of Canadian natural gas and the availability of this Canadian resource to the people of Ontario.
With the availability of natural gas to the Kingston area, I anticipate a great boom

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation and as expansive a program as the St. Lawrence seaway is causing, and I know it is the wish of my constituents that this project should not be delayed further. What can we gain by delay? The lack of use of our natural resource, a higher cost of construction, a restriction on the development of Canada and particularly in the area which is described as being a big market potential.
Our neighbour to the south is in an enviable position. The United States has a network of gas pipe lines which run across it and currently energy from natural gas represents about 25 per cent of all the energy produced in the United States from coal, water power, petroleum and gas. To date we in Canada have been blessed with abundant resources of hydroelectric energy but our expansion program has caught up to our power potential and it is noted that in Ontario we might have a power shortage by 1962.
This expansion program has been stimulated by the atmosphere of good governments, and the reputation of this country for fair dealing has encouraged outside capital and personnel to be directed to Canada. The Canadian reputation to which I refer can best be described in the words of Hon. Leslie Frost, premier of Ontario, in a debate in the Ontario legislature on February 21, 1956, as reported at page 392 of Ontario legislature Hansard:
Do not regard the fact that money comes here in large quantities as any deterrent. That is what has made and will make the wheels go around. Foreign capital is present in Canada in fabulous amounts, coming from various parts of the world, the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries. We have a reputation in this country for fair dealing.
I said a moment ago that this pipe line is under the jurisdiction of Canada, subject to our legislative enactments. So are the great developments of this country which can be seen far and wide. They are in this country, because they know that Canada will treat capital from elsewhere fairly and justly, and may I say to all hon. members that we intend to maintain that reputation. The coming here of these vast sums of money, the coming of industry from other countries to Canada, have all added to Canadian independence, to our self-sufficiency as a nation, and this we intend to carry on.
Bringing to central Canada and utilizing Canadian gas and oil is one of our greatest opportunities. one which a dozen years ago we did not think existed, and in this bill-"The Northern Ontario Pipe Line Act''-as placed before this house, there will be found an opportunity for expansion by the people of Ontario, an opportunity which is ours today.
Now, let us consider where a great deal of our fuel, consisting of coal and fuel oil, comes from to create our energy in Canada. Statistics have revealed that for the calendar year 1955 Canada imported from the United States 19,161,634 tons of coal at a cost of

$102,418,429 and 171,660,357 gallons of fuel oil at a cost of $18,080,585.
Let us break this down by provinces. Manitoba imported 112,031 tons of coal from the United States at a cost of $1,094,872 and 1,045,420 gallons of fuel oil at a cost of $126,175. Ontario imported 16,056,600 tons of coal from the United States at a cost of $83,113,320 and 105,827,161 gallons of fuel oil at a cost of $11,829,771. Quebec imported 2,760,323 tons of coal, from the United States at a cost of $16,392,125 and 46,614,071 gallons of fuel oil at a cost of $4,607,533.
Therefore, when we consider that the total import of United States coal to Canada in 1955 was 19 million tons in round figures, of which some 16 million tons came from the United States into the province of Ontario; and that of the 171 million gallons of fuel oil imported from the United States 105 million gallons went to the province of Ontario, one realizes that this legislation is of the utmost importance to the province because it will provide an alternative source of energy selected from our own natural resources, developed in Canada and transported through Canada. I might add this is done entirely under federal and provincial legislation, and it makes no difference where the capital comes from.
We must remind ourselves, with special reference to Ontario, that the provincial government in its wisdom has established a fuel controller under the Ontario fuel board act. I should like to read sections 15 (1) and 16 (1) and 16 (2) of that act. Section 15 (1) reads as follows:
The board may control and regulate the production, storage, transmission, distribution, sale, disposal, supply and use of natural gas in Ontario and may make orders with respect thereto.
Section 16, subsections 1 and 2, read as follows:
(1)	Without restricting the generality of section 15, the board may make orders fixing the rates, meter rentals and other charges to be paid by ultimate consumers of natural gas.
(2)	No new rates, meter rentals or other charges and no alteration of existing rates, meter rentals or other charges to be charged to ultimate consumers of natural gas shall be put into effect until ordered by the board.
Some people during the course of this debate have suggested that this bill will provide a sell-out to the Americans, that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited will be controlled by American capitalists. They must have forgotten or entirely disregarded the fact that there is ample legislation to control the development and sale of this Canadian source of energy.
May I now refer again to our present imports of coal and fuel oil from the United States. United States interests can regulate

our imports of these goods to create energy with no control as far as Canadian consumers are concerned. They can tell us how much coal we will get, how much oil we will get, where and when we will receive delivery, and all the contributing factors to convenience and cost are out of the control of the Canadian consumer.
We in Kingston are not unmindful of these circumstances of the control of our elements of energy by American exporters of coal and fuel oil, because in this district we import all our coal and with very little exception all our fuel oil from the United States. We ask for the immediate availability of Canadian natural gas as a competitive source of energy, among other things, so that we as Canadians can have an opportunity to rule our own destiny. This legislation is the vehicle to answer both our requests. We need an immediate start on this project so that our expansion program will not be delayed due to a lack of energy.
I object very strongly to the calling of Americans who are interested in the investment of United States capital in Canada by such names as American or Texas buccaneers. Our economy in Kingston and district has been bolstered by the introduction of American capital along with capital from Britain, Germany and various other countries of the world. We have welcomed the introduction of capital and know-how to keep as many people as possible at work while contributing to the national economy.
I have been gratified to note that in this house on the votes on the introduction of this legislation, the Liberal members in the big market potential area along the north shores of lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river have voted unanimously in favour of the introduction of this bill. In other words they have voted for the immediate transmission of natural gas to their areas as an alternative source of energy.
At the same time the Conservative members for Ontario, Prince Edward-Lennox and Leeds constituencies have voted against it. Why? Can they go home and say to their electorate, "Your need for an alternative source of fuel is different in Oshawa than in Belleville, is different in Napanee than in Kingston, is different in Brockville than in Cornwall," or can they say, "You do not need natural gas until years from now." I am sure we will note with interest their explanation to their electorate of their objections to this legislation.
Some hon. members have repeatedly used the word "subsidization" when referring to this legislation, but I think a more proper
22, 1956	4215
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation term might be interim financing, which is not uncommon in our economic methods of developing this country.
In concluding my remarks I should like to refer to a speech which I heard delivered by a distinguished American whose theme was "Build as Free Men". He stressed the things that Americans and Canadians have shared in common through the history of the two nations, things which have made them great and have had much to do with the fact that we have remained good neighbours for so many years. History demonstrates that certain things or principles have played a vital role in the development of our two countries and the prosperity of our peoples. He emphasized four specific points.
One, the driving force of great dreams and awareness of bigness.
Two, the realization that practically nothing is impossible as long as men are free.
Three, adherence to competition and free enterprise.
Four, a demonstrated willingness of both our governments and our peoples to accept change.
I commend the above thoughts to my hon. friends in the allied opposition parties who are opposing this bill, namely the Progressive Conservatives and the C.C.F.


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it my duty to take part in this debate. As a member of the C.C.F. I have always considered it my duty to take part in debates, but it is apparent that the government of the day does not consider it to be their duty because through their closure motion they have made it little more than a privilege for hon. members of the opposition to take part in this debate.
I should like to review some of the procrastination which the government has shown over the past five years, and which has led us to the present situation. Hon. members who were here at that time will recall the procedure in 1951 when Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was incorporated. My colleagues have put some of the most damning evidence on the record showing the pack of lies which the proponents of this bill put forward, lies which have been proved to be such by the subsequent turn of events.
For a time the matter was allowed to remain relatively inactive. The government was playing a game of chess with a few pipeline companies until 1955, when we heard the announcement of the establishment of a crown corporation to build the northern section of the line. We did not hear anything from our Social Credit friends in the intervening period, our friends who now state
4216	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation that it is so urgent to dispose of the natural gas resources which they have in Alberta. Their vocalism of recent times has been prompted by a different motive, which I shall refer to at a later time.
The matter was left relatively dormant until 1956, when during the first several months of this session attempts were made to elicit information from a most reluctant government. Hon. members will recall the questions which were posed to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce in an effort to glean information as to their proposed policy. It was to no avail. We had announcements of confidential letters of which the Prime Minister had no knowledge, and it was apparent that the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be only too pleased if no one knew anything about it. With that turn of events things were relatively quiet until a full government caucus was called, at which all the sheep were herded into the railway committee room and the Minister of Trade and Commerce announced what the government was going to do.
The policy was received with the utmost docility. The Rip Van Winkle which had been sleeping for 20 years finally woke up, and it was decided that this legislation which they accepted with such ease and rapidity must be passed by June 7. Closure was announced and received without any protest by members of the so-called democratic Liberal party. All government members had been listening to the dissertations of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on previous occasions and were only too anxious to toe the party line.
Backbenchers, who are usually reluctant to take part in any debate-I have noticed this on past occasions-have been encouraged to take part in this debate because by taking 20 minutes here and there it will limit the chances of the opposition to expose this whole sordid scheme which the government of Canada has perpetrated on the people of Canada.
The government has selected Trans-Canada Pipe Lines as their chosen instrument. She has become their favoured daughter. The haste with which the government is giving this $80 million dowry to its daughter makes her past conduct very suspicious. The government has now proceeded at second reading to reintroduce closure. It was introduced at the resolution stage without any opportunity whatsoever to debate as the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave notice of closure in his opening remarks.
At the second reading stage there has been no regard for the democracy of parliament and free speech. It is true that they allowed us a day or two more to discuss some of the


manifestations of this very complicated bill. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) have pointed out, the pipe contract is something which will require a great deal of study before all the information is finally revealed.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has taken his traditional attitude. He says, "We are the government of Canada and we are going to do precisely what we want to do. Who is going to stop us?" It has been most amazing to notice the activity on the government benches during this whole debate. It is evidence to me that the Liberal party is stretching at the seams, that it is beginning to fall apart.
For some time now we have heard the rumour of the election of a new leader for that party. The reluctance of the Prime Minister to take part in this debate was apparent, because he waited until closure had been applied so he would be limited to 20 minutes. Then he could throw out a challenge to his colleagues that this was the last election in which he was going to run, that it was necessary that his mantle be placed on younger shoulders.
The challenge is out. In effect he said, "The colleague in the cabinet who can make the best speech on the pipe-line bill, regardless of his previous attitude, shall receive the party leadership." We have had the Minister of Finance vying for that position. We have heard the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, who generally admitted that he was not in favour of the proposal, vying for the leadership. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has entered the debate. It will be most interesting to see which speech receives the favourable nod by the Prime Minister.
The Conservative party objects to the loaning of money to a company controlled 83-4 per cent in the United States. They consider it not in good taste to lend $80 million to a Texas buccaneer, but it would be quite all right to loan that amount of money to a Canadian millionaire.
The Conservatives have drawn attention to the increased United States investment in Canada, and they have also pointed out the decline in the value of the Canadian dollar over the past number of years. I believe they said it was down to about 42 cents, but I think they are finding that the "Nickel" they have in their possession is worth less than nothing. Perhaps it is questionable if they still have that "Nickel". The position of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle) is understandable when one looks through the Parliamentary Guide and notices the various

oil companies in which he has a very significant interest. It is natural to expect he would be out to get the maximum amount of money possible out of this deal. The more development there is in the oil industry, the more benefit is obtained by those financially interested in the operation of oil.
The position of the Social Credit party is also understandable, because their whole political atmosphere in Alberta is dependent on the development of oil and natural gas. I might also hazard a guess that the party revenues of the Social Credit party also come from exactly the same source. Not long ago a prominent Social Credit member stated, "You do not need to know what Social Credit is; you feel it in your heart." They are supporting this measure because they have a good idea they will feel it in their political pocketbooks. In fact, so confused are the Social Credit party that at the resolution stage they voted against closure whilst today we find them voting for closure.


An hon. Member:: Because of your
obstruction.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: When the Social Credit party was organized they devised the Social Credit policy of "phony" money. It was a program that Mr. Aberhart began in Alberta in the depression period, when he promised to give $25 a month to everyone, but it would seem to me that if the Social Credit party wanted to be consistent it should come out with its proposal to pay $25 to everyone in Canada with the proviso that $1 would be deducted to pay for the pipe line and help out the oil millionaires in Alberta.


Charles Edward Johnston: Why don't you socialize the oil? You are socialists. Socialize the oil in Saskatchewan.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I have put some salt on the sore spot of the Social Credit party. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) makes a strange bedfellow with the Liberals and the Social Credit party.


An hon. Member:: No stranger than the C.C.F. with the Conservatives.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: He has the aptitude to distort the truth, which would qualify him as a Liberal. It is quite apparent that he was bought by Liberal money and will be seeking a Liberal nomination at the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I did not hear the hon. member's entire remarks, but what I did hear leads me to believe that they should be revised.
22, 1956	4217
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker; I left the impression that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre has been bought by the Liberal party. Perhaps that has not happened as yet. So I shall have to withdraw my statement.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member has withdrawn any imputation against a fellow member.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: That is right; I mentioned that I had withdrawn my statement, Mr. Speaker.
The C.C.F., the effective opposition, rather than the official opposition, has a stand which is perfectly clear. We have believed that a natural resource such as gas is so important that a pipe line should be built, operated and controlled by the people of Canada to serve the people of Canada. The first claim to public ownership is to prevent the present sell-out of our resources to the Americans.
The Minister of Finance very kindly quoted from a speech by Mr. Porter in the provincial legislature, as recorded on page 4142 of Hansard, as follows:
The day will soon be upon us when with a continuing growth at the present rate, a shortage of energy resources will set in and progress will accordingly be limited and cut down. It is not only desirable, but is an absolute necessity, that every possible provision be made for access to the people of this province to an abundant supply of natural gas.
The Prime Minister, speaking today, said that future generations of Canada will be glad it will be built. Let us just look at the present proposal. It is a proposal that three-fifths of the gas which is being exported from Alberta will be used by Canadians, since of the 500 million cubic feet, 200 million are being exported to the United States. If Canada is going to grow, as the hon. member who has just spoken has indicated, and if, as the hon. member for Rosthern indicated, we are a great people making great strides, we are going to need that 200 million cubic feet of gas we are shipping to the United States, and we are never getting it back under the present proposal.


Walter Edward Harris: Nobody on this side said that.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: The only way to establish those resources for the people of Canada is by public ownership. This afternoon the Prime Minister said that the difficulties of public ownership are not insuperable. When he went on further to point out why the loan had to be made to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, a member of the Conservative party interjected, "They were

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation broke." The Prime Minister said, "Yes, that was the only justification for making the loan."
Let us go back a few months and think of the debate that took place earlier this session, when a pipe-line company was not broke but thousands of western farmers were, through their inability to sell their grain. Was there any talk of giving them a cash advance because they were broke? Now they are loaning money to a crown corporation at 3 i per cent when farmers were being loaned money at 5 per cent.
The government has stated periodically that it is not opposed to public ownership; it just does not like public ownership. What arguments against public ownership has the government put forth? The Minister of Trade and Commerce put the only argument against public ownership on the record. At page 3862 of Hansard he pointed out that there was the necessity of setting up an organization. What is a government for but to set up an organization? Surely, as the Prime Minister said, it is not an insuperable task. They indicated they would be unable to get the gas from these sources in Alberta which are so closely allied with our Social Credit friends. Surely with the two parties together on this issue, they have made such a lasting friendship that they should have no difficulty, if necessary, in arranging with their Social Credit friends who have control of the gas to sell it to public ownership.
They also pointed out that one of the objections has been the limitation of pipe. They say that 34-inch pipe simply is not available. Admittedly Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited has an option on this pipe, but if it were not going to be used, surely it would not let $40 million go to waste with the pipe companies which manufactured the pipe. That pipe would become available for the country to utilize under public ownership.
The arguments which the government has used against public ownership are straw men. Some of them are United States straw men, some of them Canadian, but all of them are manufactured by the same imagination that dreamed up the use of the closure motion at this time. It has been proven that public ownership will work. The government has yet to prove that it will not work.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am appealing to the members of this house to support the amendment to the amendment moved by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, requesting further consideration of this matter so we can go ahead and set up a public enterprise to handle natural gas in order that it

can be utilized, in the words of the Prime Minister, for the generations to come and not for the benefit of a few Texas buccaneers.


Mr. D. R. Mitchell (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge I am the second member from northern Ontario to speak on the pipe-line bill. I feel that inasmuch as the legislation includes the northern Ontario pipe line which will be of great advantage to northern Ontario I should contribute something to the debate now taking place on this particular issue.
I have heard a great deal about closure being applied by the government with respect to this debate. The matter has been argued pro and con, and I believe I can clarify my stand on it by drawing the attention of the opposition to the fact that a certain committee was set up by the house last year, I believe, which had to do with the review of the rules and procedures of the House of Commons. To the best of my knowledge all parties were represented on that committee and all views with respect to the rules were discussed and agreement was reached thereon. To the best of my belief there was no argument at that time that the closure provision should be taken out of the rules. Therefore I assume that it still remains among the procedures of this house.
There is no doubt about the fact that the opposition have, within the rules of the house, used all means within their power to delay, obstruct and in every way possible stop the passing of the bill. They have done so within the rules of the house; therefore I do not see any reason why the government cannot apply the closure rule which also remains as one of the rules of the house. I understand that closure is used in the mother of parliaments which is referred to so frequently by the Leader of the Opposition as the outstanding example of procedure in any parliament. When the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) drew the attention of the house to the number of times that closure had been used at Westminster the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) interrupted and said "agreed to". I can agree with him, but I also have the number of closures which were not agreed to in the mother of parliaments, and in the last seven years the number happens to be 45 which, means that over six and a half closures per session were not agreed to. I will admit that 148 were agreed to, but the grand total of closures in the British parliament in the last seven years is 193.


Mr. Caslleden:: There are no provincial houses over there.


David Rodger Mitchell: Therefore I feel
that in spite of all this arguing and beefing about closure it is not the vicious weapon that the opposition would have us believe. Last night the leader of the official opposition was granted the privilege of continuing his speech without interruption for another hour. He saw fit to refuse that opportunity; nevertheless I imagine that he and his party will still say that they were prevented from saying anything further in this debate. He used 20 minutes today. I think possibly the press will be well advised to take note that he will still claim that he was shut off because of the closure motion before the house.
As I come from northern Ontario I must say something about a fellow named Frost, the premier of the province of Ontario. I do not wish to go into details, but he and his government have thoroughly endorsed that part of the pipe line through northern Ontario with which we who live there are particularly concerned. His acquiescence in the bill now before us is right down our alley as far as we in northern Ontario are concerned. I think he realizes that industrial and domestic use of natural gas is very necessary in our province.
Many years ago the Canadian Pacific Railway was extended to western Canada to promote markets for eastern Canada in the west. That added greatly to the industrial and general well-being of all the people of Canada. As I see the situation, the pipe line we are now discussing is the C.P.R. in reverse. It will bring to eastern Canada a certain commodity of which there is more than plenty in the province of Alberta, and provide a market in eastern Canada for that western product. To me the situation is the same only in reverse, and the pipe line will benefit all Canadians.
In northern Ontario we have a continual struggle to obtain power. A great many hydro projects have been launched and are in operation. However, in the particular area from which I come we still seem to worry about the possibility of obtaining further power. There is a certain company, of which you are all aware, which conducts its operations in the area I happen to represent and which supplies in the neighbourhood of 90 per cent of the world's nickel. They use a great amount of power. They are using as much power as the Ontario hydro can give them from various sources of supply, and in addition they have their own hydro development in reserve in case they do not receive enough power from Ontario hydro. In addition to that they use a great amount of coke, oil and coal. The company of which I am speaking uses 600,000 tons of United States
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation coal per year. With the advent of this gas line I can see where our Canadian resources are going to be used instead of importing this great amount of United States coal.
The McMahon proposal has been held up in this house by a number of speakers as a shining example. I should like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the inadequacy of the amount of gas that would be transported to eastern Canada under that plan. I am authoritatively advised that the 500 million cubic feet of gas per day which the McMahon interests expected to transport east would shrink to 100 million cubic feet per day after the line left the Ontario-Manitoba border. The company of which I am speaking is prepared tomorrow to use 20 million cubic feet of that gas per day. Upon further conversion they are prepared to approve of the purchase of 50 million cubic feet of gas per day. In view of those circumstances, sir, you can see how inadequate the amount of gas under the McMahon proposal would be, not only for use in my own area but for those farther east.	,
Added to that, sir, we have a city of 52,000 people who would use a few cubic feet of gas. There would, therefore, be very little left over for the people farther east for whom we are trying to bring in gas. During this debate the Progressive Conservative party have done all in their power to delay this bill. I should like to rename that particular party, if I may, without changing the initial letters. The Progressive Conservative party name is shortened to P.C., and I wonder if I could, instead of the word "progressive" use the word "prohibitive" and call them the prohibitive Conservatives. In my view, and in the view of the people in my area, that is about the way it sounds when we want gas. Speaking for my constituency, I feel that what we want is a great deal of hurry. We need the gas; we want the gas, and we want it as quickly as we can get it.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Mitchell), who has just taken his seat has made what I thought was a rather laboured defence of the government for inaugurating closure at this time. I thought, as Shakespeare said, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." The hon. member said that last night the Leader of the Opposition was granted the privilege of speaking for an additional hour. That is the pass to which this parliament has come, that when the leader of the government has made a suggestion, parliament has granted some privilege or some right. I think that is
4220	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation indicative of the thinking by which this government was actuated when it inaugurated closure.
Since the hon. member did speak on that for a moment or two, I should like to deal with it as well because closure has an important part in this debate. This afternoon the Prime Minister said he intended to devote part of his time to closure and part to the bill itself. As a matter of fact I think he divided his time about equally between the two matters. The hon. member for Kamloops replied, and also referred to closure. The Minister of Justice said he spent about 90 per cent of his time on things other than the bill, and I think he was quite justified in doing that.
What is the situation with respect to closure? It is something which has been grafted upon our rules in very recent days, from a historical standpoint. Closure was a practice which developed in continental European parliaments, where they were riven with groups and divisions of all sorts and where certain groups were determined to obstruct parliament. Closure, or the old French word cloture, was first defined and incorporated in the rules in Britain during the days when the Irish nationalist group attempted to obstruct parliament in order to so nullify the actions of parliament that the British parliament, perhaps in disgust, would grant them Irish home rule; that is when it came to Britain. We adopted it later.
I venture to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that no parliament in the British commonwealth, leaving aside for a moment the British parliament itself, has ever adopted closure except after a long and protracted debate on the various stages of the bill. It is, as the Prime Minister suggested this afternoon, something which you reluctantly grasp; it is something with which you reluctantly deal, and why? Because it is a gag which nullifies parliament.
Never in the history of a parliament in the British commonwealth have we reached the stage which we have now reached in this parliament, where in the opening speech at the resolution stage the right hon. gentleman who speaks first says, "Parliament, you are through; I am giving notice that this debate concludes tomorrow night at one o'clock". It is true that closure was adopted in 1913; it is true that it was adopted in 1917 and sometime in 1926 and in 1932. You can count the number of times on the fingers of one hand. But never in this country or any other country has it been adopted during the preliminary stage as it was here.
There is one question we would like to have answered. Why it was done at that 

time? If you are going to introduce closure at the resolution stage, why summon parliament? You are negativing the whole procedure. As the hon. member for Kamloops pointed out very effectively this afternoon, the resolution stage is the most effective stage at which debate and inquiry can be conducted.
It is interwoven in our constitution that when a bill involving the expenditure of money is brought before the house it should be preceded by a resolution. Why? Because in the old days the king had to justify to parliament why it was even necessary to bring in a bill, and until that justification had been established the bill could not be introduced. In this case the resolution is introduced one day and debate finishes the next. As I said, it is a negation of parliament. It is now going to serve as a precedent because, since it has been done on this bill, it can be done again on some other bill.
This is the most important bill which has been before the House of Commons for 25 years, at any rate, and perhaps 50 years, and debate is precluded. Why do you not close up this place? The Minister of Trade and Commerce has not made a very successful job of selling wheat. Perhaps we could use this building more effectively to store wheat, rather than have a nullified debate such as we have now.
I read the speech the right hon. gentleman made at a meeting in the Chateau Laurier on the occasion of a birthday party, or a celebration of some kind, in that building in January or February, and he said: "I am afraid, like Churchill, that I am a House of Commons man". Well, Mr. Speaker, he does not have to be very much afraid. He is the only one that is afraid of it, I can tell you that, because Churchill suffered a lot of criticism and abuse but I do not think he ever had to stand a body blow like this. Anyone who introduces closure at the opening stage of a debate and then says, "I am a House of Commons man" is using his imagination.
Tonight we are on the second reading of the bill. It is now a quarter after eleven. An hour and 45 minutes from now, unless someone happens to have the floor for a few moments, this debate will be concluded and the guillotine will fall. This is the second reading of the bill, the time at which we are supposed to discuss the principle of the bill.


An hon. Member:: When are you going to start?


George Clyde Nowlan: When can you start when you have closure imposed on you? It is not only the principle of the bill, but the principle of whether parliament is going to be maintained

at all in this country or whether the executive is going to rule supreme that we must discuss, because there is much more in this bill, Mr. Speaker, than simply the question of financing, important as that may be, and it is very important. One could make a speech or several speeches on that. It is the control of a great natural resource.
It is true that last night the Minister of Finance made a legalistic play on words and suggested it was not dealing with natural resources; it was only a pipe line to convey that natural resource. If the Minister of Finance drove a nail, or opened up the pipe line and held a match beside it, he would get burned by the natural resource which was escaping in the way his party is going to get burned because of the way this government has been treating the House of Commons.
He told us about the effects on other industries, of the great development of industry that will take place in this country through the use of gas. Of course that is so, and that is all the more reason why we should discuss this thing and why we should have time to debate it. We spend days in this House of Commons on minor, trifling and relatively unimportant bills, and quite properly so. Here the debate is stultified and virtually nullified by a party which is masquerading under the pseudonym of Liberal and which professes to be the friend of the people and representing the people.
Why is debate precluded, Mr. Speaker? It is not because the issue is clear-cut, not because it is simple. After all, this government has spent five years wrangling over it, trying to make up its mind as to what it is going to do. The cabinet met and met. One day last year the Prime Minister told us there were three alternatives, but he never told us what they were discussing. He said this was the worst one.
I guess we have it, Mr. Speaker. There is no question about it, we have the worst one. We know that the cabinet met for weeks and weeks this spring trying to deal with this matter. Then when it finally comes before the house, what are we told? This afternoon the right hon. gentleman said, "After considering all the alternatives we came to the conclusion". Then he went on to say, "It appeared to us". And later on, "If we believe, as we do, then we must do so and so".
Who is the "we", Mr. Speaker? That is the old imperial prescript. That is the language King Charles I used when he was quarrelling with parliament. Undoubtedly King Charles believed that he was right. However much they may have deplored his judgment, no one suggested he did not think he was right and was doing the right thing
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation when he closed up parliament and said, "We, we, we". That is the royal "we" again.


An hon. Member:: The divine right of kings.


George Clyde Nowlan: The divine right mentality. That is the mentality of the Bourbons who said, "L'Etat c'est moi"-"I am the state". And so, Mr. Speaker, the wheel has come full circle again. We now have the executive having supremacy over parliament as it had in the days of King Charles. There is this difference at the moment, but I do not know whether it is such a difference. King Charles lost his head physically. This government lost their heads intellectually before they brought in this measure. They are going to lose their heads politically when they go to the country.
Unfortunately for myself I was away a week ago when this matter came up; I had to be home. A friend of mine told me the government had brought in closure at the resolution stage. I could not believe it, Mr. Speaker. I never heard of such an action of political lunacy in my life, and I could not believe it was possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whom the gods will destroy they first make mad.


George Clyde Nowlan: Whom the gods will destroy they first make mad, and they have made this government mad and they are going to be destroyed. This afternoon the Prime Minister plaintively said, "Can we shirk whatever distasteful responsibility with which we are confronted?" What a pitiable statement, Mr. Speaker, to make on this great national undertaking of which we should all be proud and which they say is an undertaking which regretfully, hesitantly, almost crawling along, we now have to start.
The company, like Gaul, is divided into three parts. There is the leg running down to the United States, which cannot be built until we get permission from Washington; there is the bridge across northern Ontario which cannot be built until we have a connecting link, and they cannot build that until we lend them the money.
What position is this government in? Every promise this company has made to it has been broken. We have reached the position where the company apparently says to this government, "We want cash on the barrelhead before we will proceed with the part which we said was the easiest of all". We have reached a stage, Mr. Speaker, where no one trusts the company and the company does not trust our own government.
We had wheat legislation before this house a while ago. We did not entirely approve of the action, but we were told that the
4222	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation government wrote a letter to the banks and on the authority of that letter the banks accepted the undertaking of the government of Canada; but not these gentlemen from the United States; oh, no. The right hon. gentleman could say, "The government will carry through this legislation. The government has a big majority, and in time we will pass this bill through the house and we will give you the money", and in the meantime the company could start construction. But no, these gentlemen from Texas, or points south, say, "We must have the cash on the barrelhead," and so parliament is told by the executive that we have to ram this legislation through so we can satisfy them because they do not trust us, and that is the reason for closure. So much for closure, Mr. Speaker.
Someone said that I should discuss the principle, and I will tell him this. The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Holowach) a while ago made a great plea for the province of Alberta, and I do not blame him for that. The hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Mitchell) spoke about the demands in his own district. But as the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) pointed out yesterday, there are parts of this country which will not benefit in any way, shape or form from this project, and I happen to come from one such part.
That does not mean that I would not support this project if I were convinced it was in the best interests of Canada and if it had to be done and could only be done as a public work. There was a time in this parliament two years ago when we dealt with the St. Lawrence seaway. That obviously was something which should have been constructed for the nation as a whole, and every one of us from every part of Canada supported it. Coming from the part of Canada I do, I say that every opportunity should be given to private enterprise to construct this project before the nation is involved in a huge expenditure.
Much has been said about the Tories and the Conservatives. I have a letter in my hand-and I know the same letter was received by other hon. members-from the united mine workers of America, no great capitalistic organization, asking me as a member from the maritimes, and asking every other hon. member from the maritimes, to vote against this bill if it involves government expenditure because, as they point out, they believe they are going to lose the market for hundreds of thousands of tons of coal in the St. Lawrence area if, as and when this legislation goes through. Whether that is right I do not know but I am passing on the fact and I do say that this is one real reason to object to the passing of legislation such as we now have before us involving a public [Mr. Nowlan.l

expenditure, building first the bridge and then lending 90 per cent of the cost of construction of the line across the prairie provinces.
The fruit growers of the Annapolis valley a while ago tried to get some money from this government. They waited seven months for an answer. It was yes, no, and in and out and after a great deal of waiting they will receive approximately something between $100,000 and $200,000. As broke as they are, the fruit growers of the Annapolis valley could finance the pipe line if the government would advance 90 per cent of the cost. One could continue to deal with the situation down there. I know the guillotine will descend very soon. I am told I have two minutes to go; two minutes to go on a matter such as this, and this is parliament under a Liberal government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Under a fascist government.


George Clyde Nowlan: I say this measure should not be rammed down our throats and the public should not be forced to put up money one way or another until at least every other avenue has been explored. Let me say this in conclusion, and I know it has to be the conclusion. The procedure of this house requires that any relatively minor bill must be sent to a committee for investigation and study. When the bill incorporating this company was before us five years ago it was sent to a committee for study. Last week we sent a bill to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines providing for the construction of a 20-mile railway branch line in New Brunswick which was important to the area-


An hon. Member:: Very important.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, it was important to the area, of course, and it was sent to the committee. We are now asked to pass this bill, which is certainly more important than any other bill which has been sent to the committee for years, without having the opportunity of studying it in committee. Why, Mr. Speaker? Why is the government afraid to send this bill to a committee? Is it because of what happened last year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is going to be sent to a committee.


An hon. Member:: It will be sent to the committee of the whole.


George Clyde Nowlan: Is it because of what happened last year, when there was a fairly prolonged debate and public opinion was aroused from one end of this country to the other? I suspect that is one of the reasons; the matter will be investigated and discussed if it is sent to the committee and public opinion across

this country will be aroused. It is either that and/or, probably both, because the government does not want the facts to be disclosed.
Think of the questions which have already been raised in this strangled, abbreviated debate. Question after question has been raised going to the merits of this case, and we are precluded from getting answers. When we go into committee of the whole the rule of closure will probably be applied, and when we ask questions we will not get the answers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


William Earl Rowe: You have been cut off.


Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, if there is one quality which Canadians admire it is courage; therefore I must confess an admiration for the Leader of the official opposition, because during the past few days he has displayed a great degree of courage in that not only has he stood firm against the considered opinions of technical and financial experts, including that of a member of his own party, but he has had the courage to fly in the face of his own beliefs and policies.
Hon. members will recall, I am sure-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make any unnecessary objections to any of these statements, but the hon. member has no right to make a completely false statement to the effect that 1 went in the face of my own convictions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman has no right to interrupt.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The hon. member is reading every word.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there was an imputation that the hon. member was saying something he did not believe, that remark, of course, must be withdrawn.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Read on.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Hon. members will
recall-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Withdraw.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Hon. members will recall, I am sure, that it was during the Leader of the Opposition's distinguished tenure-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, did I understand you to say the hon. member must withdraw that remark?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I requested the hon. member to withdraw any imputation that the 67509-268
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Leader of the official opposition had said anything in which he did not believe. I think that was the intent of the question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad, of course, to withdraw if it hurts the Leader of the official opposition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not a withdrawal.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: In any event, as premier of Ontario, the Leader of the Opposition-he was a very distinguished premier-


An hon. Member:: Distinguished looking.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: -established Ontario House in London, England. The avowed purpose of that government agency, a purpose which it has admirably fulfilled, was and is to attract to Canada the investment of foreign capital.


Mr. Trainor:: Let us get to the pipe line.


Thomas Miller Bell: Who wrote this?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: What difference, may I ask, is there between the investment of British capital in Canada's future, and the investment of capital from another country, whether it be the United States or not?


Thomas Miller Bell: What book are you quoting from?


An hon. Member:: Ding dong Bell.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: I should like, if I may, to quote from a recent issue of the Montreal Gazette, a newspaper which is a strong supporter of the Conservative party. On Monday, May 14, under the heading "Canada's Historic Problem-Distance". The Gazette said:
Ever since-
And I insert the word "confederation".
-new links have strengthened the bond between Canada's east and west-more railways, telegraph lines, the telephone, radio, the air lines. The trans-Canada highway when it is completed will become a further major link.
It went on to say:
Today Canadian technological know-how makes the boldest engineering schemes feasible. But there remains the problem of finding money to pay for them. That problem is once again occupying Canada's parliament.


Owen C. Trainor: Put the books away and stop quoting.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: The problem of finding the money to pay for another in the long line of major Canadian economic developments is indeed facing this parliament, but some of the members of parliament have shown themselves totally disinclined to face the problem.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is this a radio speech you are reading?
4224	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Pierre Gauthier: The Bell of peace.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Perhaps they honestly feel that the people of Canada will be impressed by these forlorn, delaying tactics. If so, I would earnestly advise them to feel the public pulse a bit more professionally. When we consider the construction of a pipe line from the Canadian west to the Canadian east, we are considering a project of the relative magnitude and productive potential of the construction of the first transcontinental railway.


Thomas Miller Bell: Are you speaking from the heart?


Donald Methuen Fleming: He is reading from the heart, or from the desk.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: It is true that there were calamity howlers even then, nearly 90 years ago, people who had not the vision to see our country's future unfolding before them. Fortunately, their obstructive efforts-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Dispense.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: -were insufficient to constitute an effective rail block, just as their present-day philosophical heirs will be unequal to the task of setting up a pipe block.
The trans-Canada pipe-line project is a billion dollar undertaking. Not only will it be the biggest thing of its kind in the world, it will involve ancillary industrial expansion which may well result in Canada moving on an up-draft of natural gas to a higher plateau of national greatness.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the hon. gentleman is rising on a point of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My point of order is that under the circumstances I feel sure the house would give the hon. gentleman leave to file his speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will agree that that is not exactly a proper point of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not proper that the hon. member should be reading his speech.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: There is one thing sure; the people of Kamloops will not need a gas pipe line into that district.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have one already, built by private enterprise without government assistance and under Canadian control, by Mr. McMahon.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: This building program will involve the expenditure of many millions


of dollars in Canada. In addition, the knowledge that the pipe line exists will stimulate further exploration for potential gas sources and the development of those sources when found. This means more dollars spent in Canada. At the other end of the line, in Ontario and Quebec, large capital and maintenance investments will have to be made in the manufacture of equipment for the distribution of the gas. Hence there will be increased industrial activity, increased employment, increased national income.
The years since the second world war have been years of expansion in Canada on a scale so tremendous that if anyone had seriously predicted them two decades ago he would have been dismissed out of hand as an eggheaded visionary. We have had the expansion of the aluminum industry at Kitimat, the expansion of the iron ore industry at Steep Rock and in Labrador, the expansion of hydroelectric power facilities in Ontario and Quebec, the expansion of transportation facilities through the St. Lawrence seaway, the expansion of atomic energy facilities at Chalk River. And now we are on the threshold of another phase of expansion, the development of our natural gas resources.
I said a moment ago that this is a billion dollar project, and so it is, but the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues in this house are apparently unable to take in the entire picture. They apparently can see only a small corner of the canvas, that corner which is occupied by the short-term loan the government proposes to make to the private company which has undertaken to construct and operate the trans-Canada pipe line. The fact that many of the officers and principal shareholders of this company are Americans seems to offer irrefutable proof to the members of the Conservative party that the government of Canada is ready and willing to sell this country down the Mississippi.
May I ask why it is that these gentlemen from the United States are willing to take a multi-million dollar gamble here in Canada? Is it not because they have more faith in Canada than some Canadians themselves have? If there is a flow of United States risk capital into this country is it not because little or no Canadian risk capital can be found? It is an unfortunate fact that those who proclaim their love of Canada most loudly, and who are shrillest in their denunciation of foreign infiltration, economic, social or political, are least inclined to invest personally in any phase of Canada's development which has not already, through the courage and foresight of others, become established as a sure thing. They not only want to have

their cake and eat it too, they want someone else to do the baking and take the first bite to make sure it is palatable.
On the subject of the suspected "sell-out" we have heard here in the house repeated references to the Minister of Trade and Commerce as a dictator, a man who is prepared to sacrifice public interest to political expediency. I think the answer to that is simply that if the people of Canada held this same belief there would now be a different Minister of Trade and Commerce.
But the people of Canada do not believe this. They know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is a doer, not a dictator. He is a bottleneck breaker, a production man turned to politics. If enterprise, to quote the Royal Bank letter of May 1956, is the doing of things, then the minister is a man of enterprise because he gets things done. Being a good production man he hates waste, either of money or of time. And at the present stage of the trans-Canada pipe-line project time is even more valuable than money.
We have reached a point in Canada's national progress where additional sources of energy are urgently required. Less than 10 per cent of our total energy is in the form of electricity. The remaining 90 per cent is found in fuel of one kind or another, coal, oil, wood or gas. Hence, natural gas is not in itself a competitor with electricity. Its development as a source of energy will take place within the 90 per cent non-electric area, and therefore its productive potential is almost unlimited.
The United States is now served by a tremendous network of natural gas pipe lines, pipe lines which provide about 25 per cent of all the energy consumed in that country. Moreover, it is predicted that in the near future natural gas consumption for domestic purposes will equal that of oil in the United States, and that within one year there will be no substantial section of the states which is not supplied with natural gas services. It is estimated that one out of every two houses in the United States is using natural gas at the present time. In comparison, gas provides only 6 per cent of the total energy consumed in Canada. Obviously there is a national need for making our western gas reserves available to the rest of the country.
The province of Ontario will require additional sources of energy, other than electricity, within the next six years. Ontario is looking for low-cost energy, and natural gas is the answer.
The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) stated this evening that Quebec is not interested in natural gas. I do not know 67509-268J
22, 1956	4225
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation about the city of Quebec or the city of Three Rivers, but I do know about Montreal. In Montreal there is no shortage of hydroelectric power, and there will be no shortage for at least 25 years. However, Montreal is one of the most expensive cities in America when it comes to buying coal. Because of Ontario's relative proximity to the Ohio and Pennsylvania coal fields coal laid down in Toronto is much cheaper than the same coal laid down in Montreal.
Consequently when the trans-Canada pipe line reaches Montreal it will have a beneficial effect upon the fuel situation. Because of its competitive qualities natural gas will not only provide an efficient and cheaper source of heat but it will also bring about a reduction in the consumer cost of coal and oil. This will of course 'be to the direct advantage of domestic consumers, householders and apartment dwellers.
Further, it will materially help Montreal to maintain its position as Canada's metropolis, in spite of the rapid expansion of other cities. The high cost of fuel in Montreal has had the effect in the past of discouraging the establishment of certain industries there, inasmuch as fuel is a major cost factor in the production of goods. As a result, the coming of natural gas to Montreal will place that city in a better competitive position with respect to other manufacturing and industrial centres.
The domestic consumer will benefit in many ways from the availability of natural gas. Like other large cities, Montreal is bursting at its residential seams. Areas which once were small suburbs are now the scene of great housing developments. Former country villages are now city suburbs. What a few years ago was farmland is now urban property. This movement toward the periphery will continue for many years to come.
Once the trans-Canada pipe line has been laid into Montreal, feeder lines can be hooked on to it to supply new residential districts. Thus there will not be the initial construction expense of providing for large central heating units in houses, nor the operating expense of buying more expensive fuels to heat the houses. Even in the older, long-established residential areas, where no gas supply system exists and where it would be uneconomic to introduce such a system now, residents will find the coming of natural gas a benefit, since it will bring down the price of other fuels.
There is also an important national defence aspect, so far as the Montreal area is concerned. Oil supplies to Montreal come from sources outside Canada, principally the South American countries, and during wartime the
4226	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation movement of tankers is seriously hampered. With the completion of an all-Canadian gas pipe line, adequate fuel supplies will be assured regardless of enemy action at sea.
A rather more specialized but none the less important field is the production of petrochemicals. A very limited supply of these hydrocarbon by-products is now obtained from Montreal oil refineries, but there is a virtual ceiling on their production. Natural gas will raise that ceiling substantially, if not remove it altogether.
I should like to restate a point upon which I touched earlier. When I speak of energy resulting from natural gas, I am speaking of the fuel aspect rather than the power aspect, the supplying of heat rather than lighting or the turning of wheels. The province of Quebec, and particularly the industrial and manufacturing area of Montreal, must adopt the use of low-cost natural gas if it is to keep pace with industrial development in Ontario.
Canada's economic and social development in recent years has not been the result of occult forces working beyond our human understanding. It has been the result of careful planning and courageous action. The prime function of good government is to create the atmosphere in which progressive planning can be done and productive action can be taken. The present government has created and maintained such an atmosphere. It has not rushed heedlessly into disaster, but neither has it hung back in indecision when the moment arrived for positive accomplishment.


An hon. Member:: Give us the author.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: The time has arrived once again for such accomplishment, and once again the government has its carefully considered plan. In a democracy the essential economic factor is competition. The competitive spirit has brought the minerals from beneath the surface of Canadian soil, built Canadian cities, planted Canadian wheat fields, constructed roads and waterways. It follows, then, that the introduction of another and competitive fuel will stimulate our economy still further. It will lead to the further use of our ingenuity and skill. It will promote economic expansion in all its phases.
The proposition is simple. Natural gas is available in almost unlimited quantities in Alberta; the potential customers are for the most part concentrated in Ontario and Quebec. Therefore the need is to get the gas to the customers. Because of the difficulties of distance and geography, it will cost $375 million to build a pipe line across Canada.
fMr. Macnaughton.)

That is a great deal of money, so great in fact that it has apparently frightened our major Canadian investors out of their financial wits. The same thing happened in the early days of the Alberta oil fields. Anyone with $8 had a chance to get in on the ground floor there, but most Canadians were looking the other way, with their $8 pinned inside their pockets. Consequently the exploration and exploitation of Alberta oil had to be undertaken by United States capital and with the help of American technical knowledge and experience. The inevitable result is that the profits of American enterprise are now going to Americans, but no one has suggested that this is a national disaster.
The same situation exists with regard to Alberta natural gas. If Canadians had come forward with a satisfactory proposal, Canadians would now be building the trans-Canada pipe line. Since no Canadians did come forward, the government had no choice but to accept the offer of interests in the United States.
Is this not a prime illustration of democracy at work? The Leader of the Opposition does not think so. The Leader of the Opposition, who insists that his party, and his party alone, is the last outpost of sturdy free enterprise, refuses to recognize-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but it is my duty to tell him that his time has expired.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William McLean Hamilton: By
the sounds that are coming from the other side, they are not all seals over there. There are some other types of animals. There are a number of bulls and horses over there.


An hon. Member:: You have goats on that side.


William McLean Hamilton: But
I wish they would restrain their enthusiasm for just a few minutes so one could put forward a few ideas in connection with this bill. I realize that perhaps it is embarrassing to members of the government to have these arguments put forward. I realize that once closure has been introduced it is very much in their interest to harass, to rile and to make these cat-calls, but the time is getting toward twelve o'clock, and whatever time they can bring themselves to give me I shall be content to have.
Referring to the hon. member for Mount Royal, who just finished his speech-


Alfred Claude Ellis: Reading an essay.


William McLean Hamilton: -I
must say that I attempted to follow him as well as I could. I think he established one small record for my time in the house. I have heard before now in the house speeches which I felt were being read, but this is the first time I have ever seen any member in the house construct his own lectern in front of him, composed of a couple of volumes of Hansards, to keep his speech up off the desk so he could read it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What has the hon. gentleman in front of him?


William McLean Hamilton: challenge the hon. member for Mount Royal to take those so-called notes he had there and send them over to any member of the press gallery and let them compare those notes with what went down on Hansard so that we can see what difference, if any, there is. It is my persona] opinion that, with the exception of one or two words, there will be no more difference-


An hon. Member:: Make the same challenge with the hon. member for Three Rivers.


William McLean Hamilton: The
hon. member for Mount Royal, toward the close of his remarks, made one statement to which I would just like to refer for a moment. I took it down quickly. As I remember it, he said that if Canadians had come forward with a satisfactory proposal, Canadians would be doing this job. I think that is a fair interpretation of his remarks.
I do not think we can remind this house too often that we have before us, filed after it was eventually turned out of the pockets of the Minister of Trade and Commerce or wherever he keeps his documents, a complete presentation by a Canadian named McMahon in which he sets out how he plans to build this project, sets out the source of supply for his pipe, and engages himself firmly to back his judgment with $500,000 of his own money as a bond which will be sacrificed if he does not perform. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly $500,000 more than Mr. Murchison or anybody else interested in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines is putting up as a guarantee that their judgment is right or that they are going to be able to do this job.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


John Horace Dickey: Eight million dollars.


William McLean Hamilton: Having dealt with at least that one point in the hon. member's speech, may I say that I listened carefully, Mr. Speaker, and I feel that not too many of the others, if any, bore directly on the pipe-line debate.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
I should like to remind the house again of something which I think the government at least seems to have forgotten. This is not a mere single pipe line which is being constructed. This approach to the problem at this time is going to establish a basic definitive policy for the transportation of gas in Canada for all time to come. It is a historic breakthrough in that connection. It is not an isolated example. It is establishing a basic policy. Therefore when we consider this matter we have to look at it not in the light of a single isolated example, not in the light of particular geographical or local interests, but in the light of the future policy of Canada and the future development of this country.
Within that framework, Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty generally agreed that if a country is to grow, prosper and develop, then control of its own economic interests must rest within its own borders. In that respect there is nothing wrong with the investment of foreign funds in a country. That is a good thing. But there is something radically wrong with foreign control of a country or foreign control of any major economic field in that country. That is bad. I suggest that as a touchstone in this whole matter, as a basic approach to it, we should be seeking something which will give us the maximum foreign investment needed in Canada with the minimum foreign control.
I suggest to you further, Mr. Speaker, that this particular bill is a complete reversal of that process. It gives us, as far as I can see, a minimum of foreign investment with a maximum of foreign control and is completely abhorrent to the other proposition I put forward, which I certainly think is in the best interests not only of the economy of Canada but of the economy of any country.
If we are going to encourage foreign investment in Canada it is certainly necessary that we know the fields in which this should be done, and I suggest that transportation is one field in which, while possibly welcoming investment, we should fight against control.
I think one can put forward in support of that argument something that one might call the vital industry theory. I suggest that there are the usual two breakdowns of any country's economy, the primary, which is the extraction of raw materials, and the secondary, which is their production into finished goods. But I suggest that beyond these two fields there is a third field of economic endeavour which we might call vital industry. That field can be broken down into three essential divisions, the banks and finance, because without finance we cannot build; energy supply, because without energy we cannot produce; and transportation, because without transportation we cannot market.
4228	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
To date we in Canada have been fortunate in that our banking enterprises have developed as Canadian enterprises and under Canadian control. Our transportation, rail particularly which is the base but air lines and steamships as well, has again developed either under Canadian control or completely in Canadian hands.


Jean Lesage: What about the C.P.R.?


William McLean Hamilton: We
have a system that is competitive with the C.P.R., Canadian National Railways, and as long as you have one particular company in a field-


Jean Lesage: You are changing your story.


William McLean Hamilton: -which is of major importance and which is under the control of Canadians we do not need to worry too much about what happens to the other competing interests in that field. But we must have first and foremost one Canadian operation in every one of these fields.
Having said that, I turn to the supply of energy, and here we find that while we have been reasonably successful in retaining control of some energy sources, coal, electric power and atomic power, control and domination of the sources of supply in the petroleum and natural gas field has fallen into the hands of United States interests. Nonetheless we as Canadians are still able to control our destiny and our future in that field if we control the transportation of that particular source of energy, the way in which it moves from one point in Canada to another. However, if we do not control the movement of that particular source of energy we have sold out to foreign interests what is perhaps the most important source of energy to come to our modern civilization.
Regrettably, because of time limitations, I shall not expand upon why natural gas is such a vitally important source of energy. However, I do feel the point should be made that it is not just another minor source of energy but is perhaps the principal source that we are going to see put to use in the next few years. We only have to look at the United States for evidence of the explosive nature of this particular commodity in so far as the supply of energy is concerned.
We know, because these arguments have been introduced and have been buttressed on this side, that in the first instance the bill before us gives no guarantee whatsoever of construction of this pipe line. Why, Mr. Speaker, in the agreement there are 27 escape clauses. They range from acts of God at the beginning down to wars and
CMr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace).]

washouts at the end, and if ever there was a washout it is this bill as presented by the government.
I am being polite tonight, Mr. Speaker. I have restricted myself, and perhaps one good reason for 20 minute speeches is that they cut out some of the nicer things one could say to the government benches.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the hon. gentleman lost his place?


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have lost your way.


William McLean Hamilton: Second, we also know that the bill proposes to use the Canadian taxpayers' funds to subsidize United States interests.


George James McIlraith: Not to subsidize; use better language than that.


William McLean Hamilton: some of these interrupters from the other side will stand up and make their own speeches instead of making these interjections, those of us on this side will be very glad to hear them. I repeat, the purpose of this bill is to use government funds, taxpayers' funds, for the subsidization and assistance of United States interests who propose to build the pipe line.


George James McIlraith: That is not an accurate way of stating it.


William McLean Hamilton: Does the house realize, and particularly does the government realize, that we are in the process of building the biggest monopoly in a tremendously important field that this country has ever seen? The reason I suggest that to you, Mr. Speaker, is this. One of the principal companies controlling the source of natural gas in Alberta is the Canadian Delhi Oil Company, and Mr. Murchison is the president. The largest single shareholder in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines is the Canadian Delhi Oil Company, and Mr. Murchison is president. In other words, here is something we have never seen to my knowledge in Canada before. We are not only turning over control of the pipe line to a United States corporation and a United States financier, but we are enabling him to integrate this trans-Canada pipe line into a system of supplying natural gas which he has already built up, so that immediately this bill goes through and he gains control, we will have a continuous flow from deep within the ground right down to the companies that consume it, all under the control of this single individual.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely this has been more than 20 minutes.


William McLean Hamilton: No,
but the facts make it sound longer when they are embarrassing.
I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce why on earth it is necessary to build a 34-inch pipe line from Alberta down to the Winnipeg border. I wonder if he knows, for example, that 34-inch pipe lines are almost unheard of even in the United States where they are servicing great cities. The "big inch" pipe line, which is one of their most important transportation units for natural gas, running from Texas-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Natural gas? The "big inch" was built for oil.


William McLean Hamilton: The
*"big inch" was built for oil, but there has been gas running through it for the last seven years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But it was not
the "big inch" any more when they put gas through it.


William McLean Hamilton: It
is the "big inch" pipe line to which I am referring. The minister need not try to confuse the issue, because if he knows what the situation is he knows it is being used as one of the principal sources of supply for the city of New York, bringing gas from Texas. He knows it is a 24-inch pipe line.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He knows that it is not the principal source of gas supply for New York.


William McLean Hamilton: New
York, which has within its boundaries as great a population as we have in all eastern Canada, or almost in Canada, is satisfied with a 24-inch pipe line. Pipe lines throughout the United States are 16, 20 or 24 inches in the majority of cases. We are proposing to construct a 34-inch pipe line from western Canada to Winnipeg, and a 30-inch pipe line from Winnipeg east.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hope no one is taking you seriously on that information.


William McLean Hamilton: This is contrary to every construction practice in the pipe-line industry that I have been able to discover. They prefer to build their pipe lines of a smaller diameter, and then repeat the process by looping them if and when necessary.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me leave on the record one last observation, and it will not be my own. It is an observation of the Toronto Daily Star and appeared in the issue
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of March 17, 1956. In the last paragraph of the editorial they say, and I must say I agree with them:
The Trans-Canada deal is so bad that it deserves to be laughed out of parliament. But with the government standing pat, and the Liberal majority evidently ready to fall into line, it is no laughing matter. The stage is being set for a Canadian tragedy.


Mr. Donald D. Carrick (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, although it is late in the evening-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Early in the morning.


Donald D. Carrick: Early in the morning, my friend has corrected me quite accurately, and this is the 65th address in the debate on this proposed legislation, I hope I will be able to add something to what has been said already.
In the course of this debate the position of the various parties has become transparently clear. The C.C.F. position from the first has been the support of public ownership of the line to transport gas across Canada. They brook no compromise with that position; it is outright public ownership. The position the Conservative party has now taken is that there should be a reference of this matter to a committee in order to determine whether the line can be financed by Canadian capital, and if it cannot then there should be public ownership. The position of the Liberal party, of course, is that this line should be constructed by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.
In the course of this debate, when the house has been sitting long hours and when feelings have been strong on the issue, there have been many things said, attacks upon people, which I think will not commend themselves to the judgment of many of the electors. I do not propose to indulge in any way in that type of debate. I believe the facts in this case are so eloquent that if they are only stated to the people they will agree that the solution adopted by the Liberal government is the only possible solution under the circumstances. May I just remind hon. members that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was incorporated in 1951, and Western Pipe Lines at about the same time. In 1953 when they applied to Premier Manning of Alberta for permission to export gas from Alberta, Mr. Manning said that neither, independently, was qualified, and he asked the Prime Minister if he would use his good offices to bring these two companies together.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce undertook that task and in January, 1954, he brought together the people who had backed Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and Western Pipe Lines Limited. The result was that this company, made up of new interests as well as
4230	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the old but retaining the old name, made application to the premier of Alberta for permission to export gas from Alberta. I think, technically speaking, the application was made to the petroleum board of Alberta. In any event, permission was granted to Trans-Canada to export 500 million cubic feet daily from Alberta, of which 200 million cubic feet could be exported to the United States via Emerson and they were obliged to reserve 300 million cubic feet for Canadian use. I need not recall the debates that took place in this house when all parties were agreed that the trans-Canada pipe line should run through an all-Canadian route.
Following permission to export gas from Alberta, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines obtained permission from the board of transport commissioners to lay their pipe across Canada. They also proceeded to make arrangements with the suppliers of gas in Alberta, and they proceeded to arrange for the distribution of gas to the consumers. I believe that Trans-Canada does not deal with the consumers directly; it deals with distributing companies. The result was that in 1954 Trans-Canada was in a position where it could try to arrange its finances.
After investigation it found that it could not successfully finance the project under the set-up that existed at that time. It was not economically feasible; therefore an application was made to this government for help. The government refused to guarantee bonds, as was first requested, to be issued by the Trans-Canada company. The company then made application to the industrial development bank, but the terms laid down by the bank were such that they could not be accepted by the Trans-Canada company.
That brought the company up to 1955. In that year it made arrangements with Tennessee Gas Transmission Company to sell 200 million cubic feet daily in the Minneapolis market via Emerson. If it had been able to make those sales Trans-Canada was confident that it would be able to finance the line. As hon. members know, the right to transport and sell gas in the United States depends upon the permission of the federal power commission. The opponents of the backers of Trans-Canada opposed the application before the federal power commission. Northern Natural Gas Company had previously a contract with Trans-Canada and they spearheaded the attack before the federal power commission, as a result of which no decision has been given by the federal power commission.
It was under those circumstances that the Trans-Canada company approached the government, and the result is the proposal we
[Mr. Carrick.i

now have before the house. It proposes that Trans-Canada construct the line from the western end of Alberta to Montreal, Quebec, and that the western section be financed to the extent of 90 per cent of the cost, not to exceed $80 million, by the government. The western section is to extend from Alberta to Winnipeg. Trans-Canada is to construct the line from Winnipeg to the western boundary of Ontario.
Under the proposal the federal government, together with the Ontario government, is to construct the line from the western border of Ontario to Kapuskasing, Ontario, at a cost of $118 million, and Trans-Canada is to carry the line from Kapuskasing, Ontario, down to Toronto and to Montreal, Quebec. This is the proposal now before the house.
The position of the Conservative party is that Trans-Canada should not be assisted as long as there is a possibility of the project being financed from Canadian capital. Anyone who has perused the documents of Mr. McMahon tabled by the Minister of Trade and Commerce will see, as has been mentioned on a number of occasions in this house, that they involve a condition which makes it absolutely impossible for the government to accept the proposal. The necessary condition of that proposal was that 400 million cubic feet daily be exported to the United States via Minneapolis, which would leave only 100 million cubic feet daily available for the Canadian market, which is only one-third of the requirement of the Canadian market.
The only other proposal put forward was put forward by Gairdner and Company. Their proposal was inadequate because, among other things, they asked for a 10-year exemption from income tax. That was unacceptable to the government. Even in their last letter they said that they might be able to eliminate that on certain conditions, but they did not say what the conditions were. Besides, the government were not satisfied, in spite of what they said, that Gairdner and Company could get the pipe.
I do not think it has been mentioned in the house that Gairdner and Company contemplated constituting a corporation in which Trans-Canada was to have a part of the equity. One needs only to state that to hon. members to indicate how impossible it would be for Gairdner and Company to make any such arrangement. So the net result was that there was no Canadian company that could possibly finance this project. The fact has been mentioned often that the only company that has pipe available to start construction in 1956 is the Trans-Canada company.

Now, it must be obvious to everyone that in these circumstances there was only one company available to carry on this project. It may have come as a surprise to some hon. members to see the urgency that was established by the evidence in the letters of Mr. Manning, premier of Alberta, and of Mr. Campbell, premier of Manitoba, and of Mr. Porter, treasurer of Ontario. Anyone reading those letters could have no doubt whatsoever why it was absolutely necessary to get the western end of the pipe line constructed this year. That was the situation in which the government found itself.
I would like to submit for the consideration of the house some suggestions in connection with the charge that has been made that the Canadian taxpayers' money should not be used to finance Trans-Canada because at the present time it is about 83 per cent controlled in the United States. I think all hon. members will agree with me that all parties in this house are in favour of importing capital from the United States. The Leader of the Opposition has made it quite clear that when he was premier of Ontario he took steps to see that this was done, and all parties are agreed upon that. I think all parties will agree that if imported capital is to be brought in from the United States, that capital is entitled to a fair return on its money.
I point out this fact to hon. members. What the government is doing in helping Trans-Canada in connection with the northern Ontario sector and in connection with the western section is to enable Trans-Canada to construct this pipe line and arrange its financing. This is the important point. It has been established that Trans-Canada will need to raise $257 million in order to construct this line in Canada. Well, that $257 million can be raised only in two places. It can be raised either in Canada or in the United States. If it is raised in Canada everybody is in agreement that it is a good thing; and if it is raised in the United States everybody is in agreement that it is a good thing because it imports capital into Canada. Under these circumstances, how can there be any reasonable objection to the proposal that the government makes to help the Trans-Canada line?
I wish to deal for the moment with the charge that this is a sell-out of Canada's natural resources. The owners and the large suppliers of gas in Alberta include Canadian Gulf, which owns about one-third of the supply and is the largest owner. I am now refreshing hon. members' memories on certain facts given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Hudson Bay Oil and Gas is the second largest owner and Canadian Delhi is the fourth. At the present time these three
22, 1956	4231
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation companies are backers of Trans-Canada to the extent of 58-9 per cent. In other words, the backers of Trans-Canada are merely trying to a large extent to sell their own gas. I ask hon. members in all fairness in these circumstances how it can be suggested that any group of persons who are trying to sell what they already own are selling out the natural resources of Canada?
A great deal has been made of the monopoly position of this company. I do not want to embark on a discussion of monopolies or the policy of this government as laid down under the Combines Investigation Act. I point out to hon. members, however, that under the Combines Investigation Act there is nothing wrong with being a monopoly. It is only when a monopoly operates or is likely to operate to the detriment of the public that there is anything objectionable to it. I think it would be a very difficult task to prove that the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company, with its rate of profits which can be controlled by the federal government and with the price the distributors can charge to the consumers controlled, would be acting in a way that is detrimental to the Canadian public.
Mr. Speaker, time alone will prove whether or not the legislation before the house is in the interest of Canada. I am confident that time will vindicate the judgment of this government and that the trans-Canada pipeline project will stand as a monument to the courage, foresight and wisdom of this government and the great Liberal party of Canada.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mir. Speaker, I am very happy to find all the hon. members in such good humour so early in the morning. My first remarks must be directed to some of the problems affecting the province of Saskatchewan. I want to pass over the references made by the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. member for Rosthern; one expects from them the sort of nonsense they presented to the house. The hon. member for Rosthern went back to Saskatchewan and tested public opinion on two occasions. The alternative he presented was Tucker or tyranny. Well, the people did not choose Tucker and I think even he would not suggest that the people of Saskatchewan chose tyranny or have had tyranny.
However, I am sure hon. members were somewhat surprised tonight to hear the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) make his assault on public ownership. I am sure hon. members in all sections of the house will agree we have not changed our fundamental principles since we came here. I am sure, too, hon. members are curious to know why the hon. member for
4232	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Moose Jaw-Lake Centre joined the C.C.F. party and why he stayed so long in the party when his views were those he expressed tonight.
I want to say if the hon. member knows as little about the business of hardware as he knows about the subjects he discussed tonight, the Moose Jaw hardware and Allied hardwares are in for rough weather. The hon. member stated that the people of Saskatchewan have no alternative but to sell lumber through the crown timber board. That is nonsense and if the hon. member knows anything about Saskatchewan he knows that any citizen in Saskatchewan who has timber on his land can sell his timber where he likes and at whatever price he can get. The hon. member should know that The Pas Lumber Company-although we have a very interesting Indian name, it is one of those companies with head offices in Minneapolis-has sold 200 million feet of lumber in the last ten years.
The government of Saskatchewan honoured the agreement which was made prior to 1930 when the natural resources were alienated by the federal government of that day before turning over the property to the government. This company has had the best timber in the province. It was in the most favoured freight rate area, and it sold most of its cut in the United States, as might have been expected. At the same time, when The Pas Lumber Company was paying $1 million for the best timber in the province the timber board was contributing to the treasury of the province $3 million in royalties in that period, and $3 million in profits. In other words, $6 million was paid by the crown corporation for harvesting the scattered lots of timber all over the province.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre referred to the fur marketing service and said it was compulsory to sell fur to the marketing agency-


John Whitney Pickersgill: What has this to do with the bill? We are tired of the Saskatchewan elections.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for Ros-thern and the Minister of Agriculture and the-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, but it gets boring after a while.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: You
look after your babies.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre who took time during this debate when he had nothing more useful to do than talk about these thingsfMr. Nicholson.]


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I submit, sir, that there are members elected to this house from nine other provinces besides the province of Saskatchewan and this bill has nothing to do with the Saskatchewan provincial election.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Why did you not tell that to the hon. member for Rosthern; it was all right for him to bring it up.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):
Order. I do not want to spend any more time than I have to on points of order. In view of the nature of the speech made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre in which he used a large number of examples to demonstrate the argument he was making that public ownership was not the solution to the present problem, I think the hon. member who has the floor might be permitted to reply; but I would advise him to bring his reply into line with the general argument and not to discuss matters that do not relate to the bill.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I must remind you that we are now under closure. I have only 20 minutes in which to reply, and I hope the interruptions of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will not further reduce my time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am also a member of this house and I do not take anything like the amount of time the hon. member takes. We get very tired of your box cars.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Go and have a good sleep. It is about time for babies to be in bed.


Colin Cameron: Who cares how tired you are?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I suggest that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration go home to bed if he is too tired to discharge the duties for which the taxpayers of Canada are paying him $27,000 a year. If he is too tired to listen he can go home to bed, because we can get along very well without him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have spoiled that speech for circulation anyway, and that was my main objective.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Go and put the babies to bed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This speech will not be of any use to send out to your constituents now.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I was going to make a reference which would give the government a little comfort. Mr. C. M. Fines, the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan, in his budget speech admitted the fact that we have some problems in connection with

public ownership in Saskatchewan. He referred to the fish board, the shoe factory, the tannery and the woollen mill. He said that in spite of that the experience in public ownership in Saskatchewan in the last 12 years has given us a record of achievement that no political party in Canada is going to challenge on June 20.


Mr. Tucker:: Why didn't they build the *cement plant under public ownership?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I shall not take time to deal with that.


Walter Adam Tucker: Just tell us why.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I want to say-


Alfred Claude Ellis: You voted against the cement plant.


Walter Adam Tucker: I did not vote against it at all.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You try to sabotage everything we do.


Walter Adam Tucker: Tell us about the cement plant and why you did not establish that under public ownership?


Mr. Charlton:: What about your success out there?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fines, our provincial treasurer, admits that we have had certain problems in the province of Saskatchewan; but in spite of that the government airways, the forest products, the government insurance office, the government fur marketing agency, Saskatchewan minerals, Saskatchewan government printing, Saskatchewan transportation, Saskatchewan power corporation and Saskatchewan government telephones have all had enviable records and have returned to the people of Saskatchewan a very substantial return on their investment.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre complained about our compulsory automobile insurance. I have here my registration certificate which shows that I paid $20 for compulsory insurance and $15 for my licence. We take the view in Saskatchewan that it is equally important to provide protection for the people of the province who are injured by automobiles as it is to provide licences. For the payment of $40.50 I have a policy with $50 deductible which compares with the policy that would cost me $100 in Ontario. In other words, the motorist in Ontario pays as much commission to the agent who writes his insurance as I pay for the insurance on my automobile.


An hon. Member:: What about the pipe line?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Sit down and let someone talk about the pipe line bill.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, over the
week end I went up to my old home in Bruce county and a 14-year old school girl-


An hon. Member:: We are not on divorces now.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure that hon. members would like to hear what the hon. member for Mackenzie is saying, whether or not it would be in order. If he completes his remarks at about a quarter or ten minutes to one or thereabouts, it will mean only 20 minutes for the record. Even if his remarks do relate to matters in Saskatchewan rather than to the pipe line I suggest that perhaps our affairs this evening might be finished sooner if he were permitted to continue without interruption. Then those who support him will feel that he has done something for their cause and those on this side will feel the same.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I must thank the Minister of Finance for his interjection. I felt that I was in order in view of the hearty applause received by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre who went a considerable way in his references to Saskatchewan. This 14-year old girl who lost her father-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I am willing to assume that the hon. member is starting a sentence which will conclude with a reference to the pipe line, and I would request hon. members to proceed on the same assumption and permit the hon. member for Mackenzie to speak.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this 14-year old school girl, whose father gave his life for Canada before this girl was one year old-her father was an eye specialist, who had spent three years in post-graduate training before he gave his life for Canada-asked me, "Are we going to give away this valuable natural resource to the Americans?" I submit that a great many people are not aware of the fact that opposition members cannot do everything. I had to explain to this school girl that I was only a member of the opposition. But it was interesting to note that in old Bruce county, where so many people have been Liberals for so many years this girl by the name of Mackenzie who had never heard about the C.C.F. was disturbed at the prospect presently before Canada.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier was one of my heroes when I was a lad, and he felt that closure was most unbecoming in this Canada of ours. He said:
But, sir, I also have the honour to belong to the great Liberal party of Canada. I have occupied

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation a position of some importance in it; nay, I may say that for twenty years and more I have been entrusted with its chief command. During the fifteen years I was in office it sometimes happened that friends came to me and told me that I was not doing justice to myself and to the party, but that I should impose closure, as had been done in many other parliaments. Sir, I am a Liberal of the old school; I have been brought up in the school of Fox and of the old leaders of the Liberal party; and I could not bring myself to the point of depriving a minority in parliament of such a valuable weapon as it would be deprived of by the introduction of closure.
And then later:
Let me repeat to my right honourable friend: As you sow, so shall you reap; as you are fair, so shall you meet with fairness; as you are unjust, so shall you meet with injustice. . . . The poison that he offers to us today will come to his own lips at some future day. We are in the minority; we can be gagged; we can be prevented from expressing our opinions; they can trample upon our rights; sir, the day of reckoning will come, and it will come as soon as we have a dissolution of the present parliament.
I submit that the performance we have witnessed here is unbecoming to any democratic country. The government has been unwilling to allow us to discuss this question at sufficient length, as is indicated by the interruptions I have had during the major part of my time tonight. I was simply trying to reply to remarks which were in order when the Minister of Agriculture was on his feet, when the hon. member for Rosthern was on his feet, and when the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre was saying everything that was so pleasing to the government.
The proposal to build this pipe line under public ownership really would not place any strain on the resources of Canada, and no one knows this better than the Minister of Trade and Commerce. This is the minister who developed T.C.A. at a time when private enterprise was not prepared to put risk capital into such an uncertain venture. I remember when the Minister of Trade and Commerce got $50 million from the public treasury for Polymer. The large rubber and petroleum companies might have been expected to put in risk capital, but when we lost our source of natural rubber the Minister of Trade and Commerce risked his reputation and risked $50 million of the money of the Canadian people to try out this new process for the manufacture of rubber. I think the experience we have had in those two fields should demonstrate that this important development should be undertaken from the beginning under public ownership.
I know the problems of management that we have had in Saskatchewan. The Minister of Trade and Commerce knows that he has trained a great many young people in his department who have been picked up by private enterprise and paid double the salaries

he was able to pay. That is a matter of real concern to every cabinet minister in this house. That is the retaining in the public
service of some of our best people when such large salaries are being offered by private enterprise, when the corporations which pay these high salaries can dip into the public treasury by means of the corporation tax to compel the taxpayers to pay salaries which are sometimes three or four times as high as these men would have had in the public service.
So I suggest that the government should face up to the fact that it cannot ask the people of Canada to bail out a corporation of which 83 per cent is controlled south of the border when they are unwilling to risk more than a very small percentage, and when they refuse to move unless they are guaranteed that they will have the taxpayers of Canada run the real risks.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, in rising-


Some hon. Members:: No; sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What is the order now? I just came to the chair.


Mr. Richardson:: May I move that the hon. member for Halifax be now heard?


An hon. Member:: No.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You have closure already. What more do you want?


Mr. Speaker:: If the motion of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is to be proposed, it is one of those motions that must be put forthwith. If it is to provoke a division, then the time that is being left now will not be used by anyone. I would suggest to the hon. member that he would do well to withdraw his motion, if he has unanimous consent. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: According to the record here, prior to the hon. member for Mackenzie, the hon. member for Trinity had spoken. Prior to him the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, and prior to him the hon. member for Queens and the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings-


Some hon. Members:: No. The hon. member for Mount Royal.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course this matter could be easily settled. There is a possibility of 45 minutes left-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Fifteen minutes; but if the hon. member for Middlesex East were to conclude at one minute to one, the hon. member

for Halifax could rise at one minute to one and speak for 19 minutes. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather historic occasion. It is 24 years since closure was last used in this house. I would point out that the history of closure has shown that it has not been a profitable course to follow. People generally look on it as a way of stopping free speech and as a way of circumventing parliament and the people; consequently they view it with a certain amount of alarm.
Changing the subject, I want to say something about the pipe line. There are a few questions that could be asked the government by the people as to just what is going on. One of the questions they are almost certain to ask is why the unseemly haste, when five years have elapsed since the granting of the charter to this company and their time has been extended from time to time. If there was all the urgency that the government would now like to convince parliament and the people exists, why did they not do it the first time the company defaulted some three years ago, and not wait until four months after parliament had convened to urge upon us that there was some emergency?
There is an answer behind this activity, too. Governments, whether they be paternal, autocratic, totalitarian or democratic, are not eternal. Therefore, in this government's lifetime, this line must be built for its friends. That is the motive behind this unseemly haste during the past few days. The question arises, who are the people that are actually behind this Trans-Canada Pipe Line company? They are primarily-not entirely, but primarily,-those Americans who now own and control the gas resources in Alberta.
Then there is another question that should be asked. What about Canadian markets? There is a very strange silence at that particular level. Apparently there is a wait and see attitude in the municipalities, towns and cities. There is one answer, however, that is obvious; and that answer is that the consumer will not buy unless it is sold at a competitive price. I would say from my talks with residents in Ontario that I cannot find any pronounced demand and enthusiasm or any crying need for immediate gas supplies. As a long-range proposition, I would say yes without hesitation; but even then there is a question mark in my mind. Will the atomic age make the gas pipe line obsolete just as the atomic age and the age of the airplane made the Maginot line in Europe obsolete?
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Then another question arises. The company having assured the parliamentary committee that there was abundant financing available without any difficulty, that there were abundant supplies of gas and there was an eastern market and, above all, that there would be a Canadian line, what do we find? We find that until the federal power commission in the United States grants permission for the importation of Canadian gas into the United States the Trans-Canada company is not interested in proceeding. We find also that the original intention of the company, though well disguised, was not to supply eastern Canada but to supply a lucrative market south of the border.
So, after five years of jockeying for position, where do we find ourselves? Trans-Canada Pipe Lines have so manipulated the course of events that the Canadian people are being forced by the government under closure and threat of further closure to finance in large measure a privately-owned pipe-line venture largely for the direct benefit of a small number of United States interests holding vast supplies of Canadian gas.
Then there is another question. Will eastern Ontario and Quebec consumers benefit? I would say not appreciably, because the gas will be sold at the highest competitive price at which it can be sold. Then there are other considerations. As far as I can find out, no cities and towns have evinced publicly any great desire to secure western gas, and it is quite within the realm of possibility and, in fact, I would say it is more than likely that Canadians will be asked to subsidize this line further after it has been completed so that the price of gas in the east can be made competitive with the prices of other fuels. I think this matter should be very seriously considered. I can see deficits and further votes of public funds might well be the order of the day for parliaments of the future, maybe for years to come.
As far as the western leg of the line from Alberta to Winnipeg is concerned, I can understand and appreciate the interest and desire of those provinces to have the line completed at the earliest possible moment. I can see where it is a great asset to those western provinces, but once again I ask: Why should the province of British Columbia, all of the province of Quebec beyond the city of Montreal and the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have any enthusiasm for such a project?


Charles Edward Johnston: How about the St. Lawrence seaway?


Harry Oliver White: That is a different proposition.
4236	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Charles Edward Johnston: All the other provinces have to contribute toward it.


Harry Oliver White: That is for the marketing of your western grain. Why should the maritimes be enthusiastic when the federal government has not been able to assist the maritimes with projects that have been on the drawing boards for many years and which have been promptly forgotten after every election? No farmer in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario and no person in the small communities or towns off the main line will benefit directly from the pipe line. It is worth noting that the province of Quebec has abstained from any participation in this questionable undertaking, and no one in the government has given any indication of what the delivered price will be in central Canada.
Then there are some other angles that should also be considered. Probably not many Canadians are aware of the fact that during the second great war thousands and thousands of users of gas were deprived of fuel because the Americans refused supplies to the southwestern Ontario region, particularly the city of London. During the war thousands of people had to remove the gas equipment from their furnaces and reconvert to some other fuel.
When the chips are down, Mr. Speaker, the Americans do not hesitate to look after their own interests first. Whether it be a gas line, whether it be tariffs or trade relations, the United States of America comes first on every occasion. The question arises whether we are prepared to subsidize private interests. I rather think we should not. But I believe Canadians are prepared to subsidize, if necessary, Canadian ownership, however distasteful it may be, rather than see the line owned and controlled by United States interests. It is my opinion that it is better to guarantee bonds sold to Canadians than to guarantee profits to Americans.
There is another question I want to bring to the attention of the house. I cannot support the C.C.F. amendment because it precludes all the other angles that we have sought to bring before a committee. I believe the line can be built by private industry and without the use of the taxpayers' money. Then there is another point. So far we have been talking about securing pipe in the United States of America. I understand a plant is under construction in Canada that will produce 34-inch pipe. If we were not in such a hurry we could use Canadian-made pipe and give employment to Canadian labour in the building of that pipe to be used in constructing a Canadian pipe line. But


no, we are in such a hurry that we cannot, even give these benefits to our Canadian people.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, I shall undertake not to detain the house but there was one specific point that in view of the speech of the hon. member for Nanaimo, I thought should be dealt with before the vote is taken. I had thought that the Prime Minister had dealt adequately this afternoon with the situation in so far as it applies to the option agreement covering the pipe, but it was obvious from the speech of the hon. member for Nanaimo that he did not understand the situation and perhaps other members did: not.
The situation is very clear and very simple. As stated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and as disclosed by the documents which have been tabled in the house, the original option agreement was operative in favour of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited on the granting of a favourable decision by the federal power commission with respect to the application for the import into the United States of Canadian natural gas. Those rights in favour of Trans-Canada are still in effect and can be exercised by Trans-Canada if events transpire in a way that they can be exercised. In other words, if the federal power commission were to grant a permit tomorrow, then under the original agreement Trans-Canada would still be in a position to exercise that option and get the pipe.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Yes, but there is a big if there-if, if, if.


John Horace Dickey: Now, what is the effect of the agreement of May 11 which was also tabled in the house and which was quoted this afternoon by the Prime Minister? The effect of that agreement is first of all to keep in effect the original option agreement operative as I have described, and the second effect is to create a new and additional right on behalf of Trans-Canada to exercise that option in the event that the government of Canada is, by the 7th of June, in a position to act under clause 1 of the agreement between Trans-Canada and the federal government dated May 8. This is a new right. It is a right in addition, and it is within the power of Trans-Canada to exercise that option whenever the notice under clause 1 of the agreement of May 8 is given.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: There is a lot of doubt there too.


John Horace Dickey: If the situation were as described by the hon. member for Nanaimo and previously described by the hon. member for

Winnipeg North Centre, the effect of this agreement would be that the approval of the federal power commission is a condition precedent to the operation of both these options, which is not correct. There are two rights. There is the option to proceed on a favourable decision by the federal power commission, and there is the further option under the agreement of May 11 to proceed in spite of the federal power commission but on the basis of notice being given by this government under clause 1 of the agreement of May 8.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member
permit a question? Does the hon. member read the words "in addition to", as though they were "in spite of"?


John Horace Dickey: The hon. member misunderstands the meaning of an option agreement. An option agreement gives a right that can be exercised in certain circumstances, but it does not say that the right cannot be exercised in other circumstances. The situation under these agreements is as indicated in the house this afternoon by the Prime Minister that Trans-Canada under the agreement of May 11 has an option that it can exercise under the circumstances contained in that agreement, quite apart from the separate and prior option which is provided for in the original option agreement. I see the hon. member is trying to get to his feet to ask me another question. If he does not understand the situation I am afraid that I cannot explain it to him here in the house, because-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Colin Cameron: Has the	hon.
member read the letter of transmittal written by one of the companies which signed this agreement and written on	the same	day?


John Horace Dickey: Certainly.


Colin Cameron: Then has he
noted the clause in which it says that clause 2 of the option agreement shall remain operative?


John Horace Dickey: Certainly, Mr. Speaker; that
is what keeps in effect the right of Trans-Canada to exercise the original option.


Colin Cameron: It sets forth the terms under which it can be exercised.


John Horace Dickey: The hon. member is misunderstanding me either intentionally or unintentionally, I do not know which. The agreements and documents are crystal clear. There are two options and Trans-Canada is free to proceed and exercise its options under either one, whichever happens first. That is clearly the situation.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member
permit another question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, this is not
in committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The parliamentary assistant seems willing. I shall not pursue the other question. The hon. member has not convinced me, but our position is on the record. May I ask him this question. If he now refers to this as an option agreement, how does he square that with his minister's statement that this was a firm contract?


John Horace Dickey: Because it is stated in firm
terms.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horace Dickey: The terms which were put
on the record this afternoon by the Prime Minister are, "hereby agrees to and shall assign to Trans-Canada and all such parties' interest and obligations in purchase orders..." etc, and it goes on to deal with the pipe. It says "shall" and not "may", which would be permissive.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to call the attention of the house back to the commencement of the debate on the resolution which preceded this bill. At that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated, as reported at page 3860 of Hansard for May 14, 1956;
The course of action the government proposes is based upon certain inescapable facts. The first of these is that if the western part of this pipe line system is not started this year it probably cannot be started before 1958. The second is that for the Alberta gas and oil producing industry, and for consumers eastward from Alberta to Montreal, 1958 or 1959 is uncomfortably far away for a start to be made. The third is that there is only one agency which can be placed in a position to build the western part of the pipe-line system this year.
Now, in more than four days of debate hon. members opposite have been trying to escape from those inescapable facts. The Minister of Trade and Commerce went on from the portion I have quoted to say that nothing that could be said in this house would change those facts.
I think the debate we have had amply justifies that statement. Those facts are before us. Hon. members opposite have spent many days of debate in trying to get around them, to escape from them, but they are inescapable. These are the reasons the government has brought this bill before the house. These are the reasons the members on this side will support that bill on second reading and right through third reading.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. Speaker:: The question now is on the amendment to the main motion. Those who are in favour of the amendment to the main motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed to the amendment to the main motion 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:: Do hon. members consider that their members have been called in for the purpose of this vote?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: The question now is on the main motion. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur), seconded by Mr. Harris, moves that Bill No! 298, to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, be now read a second time. Those in favour of this motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please
say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it. Call in the members. Do hon. members consider that their members have been called in?


Some hon. Members:: No.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time under the provisions of standing order No. 11, which reads as follows:
No member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and a vote of any member so interested will be disallowed.
Under the provisions of that standing order, Mr. Speaker, I rise to challenge the vote just cast for the second reading of Bill No. 298 by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle). I am prepared to state the basis of my challenge, and I have under my hand the appropriate motion so that, if I understand the rules correctly, the proper procedure can be followed, namely that the decision can be left to the house.
May I say that I am sure the hon. member for Calgary South will agree with me that this is the type of matter that we should approach very seriously; for he himself said

on January 15, 1953, when he was criticizing the former Liberal member for Westmorland, as recorded at page 1053 of Hansard for that [DOT]day:
A member of parliament should be, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion.
I wish to make it perfectly clear that, as I understand the rules of the house, there is no question whatsoever as to the legal right of the hon. member for Calgary South, despite what I shall say in a moment, to apeak as he has done on this legislation. For my part, I had nothing to do with any efforts to prevent him from speaking. It was his right to speak and he exercised that right. But, Mr. Speaker, the same rules make it quite clear that if one has a direct pecuniary interest in a measure he should not vote thereon, and if he does vote his vote should be disallowed.
The information on which I raise this point is found in documents which are matters of record. I refer to the Parliamentary Guide, and I also refer to the Financial Post's directory of boards of directors. One can ascertain from these documents that the hon. member for Calgary South is the president, the vice president or a director of at least nine oil, gas or pipe-line companies. I do not intend to take the time of the house, nor do I intend to confuse the issue, by reading the names of all the companies of which my hon. friend is president, a vice president, or a director, but I single out one in particular, namely Bailey-Selburn Oil and Gas Limited, of which my hon. friend is a director.
I find in the Financial Post survey of oils, 1956, that Bailey-Selburn Oil and Gas Limited has signed a contract with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to supply gas from the Buffalo-Bindloss field to the pipe line when operations commence. That fact, namely that this company of which my hon. friend is a director has a contract with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to supply gas to that company when operations commence, is also indicated in the Financial Post for Saturday, December 24, 1955. The article I have in my hand, about half way down, indicates that in a list of Alberta fields *dedicated to Trans-Canada there is the Atlee-Buffalo-Bindloss field, which is a holding of Bailey-Selburn Oil and Gas Limited.
I point out that this company is quite a substantial company, representing a merger of several other companies a few years ago, of one of which my hon. friend was a director before it was merged with Bailey-Selburn Oil and Gas Limited. I also find by referring to the publication "Oil In Canada", of which my hon. friend is one of the editors, in its issue of May 21, 1956, that Bailey-Selburn
22,	1956	4241
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Oil and Gas Limited has increased its proven gas reserves by about 31-4 trillion cubic feet under the acquisition of all the shares of Selbay Exploration Limited.
It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that the contract which this company, of which my hon. friend is a director, now has with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited is, prior to the passing of this bill, just a piece of paper. When this bill is passed and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited is put in a position to commence operations, that piece of paper becomes a document worth a great deal in terms of dollars; and it is because of that direct pecuniary interest that it seems to me the vote of the hon. member for Calgary South should be challenged.
I wish to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that no one is to interpret from what I have said any reflection whatsoever on the speeches the hon. member has made in this house on this bill or on the amendments. The rules provide for that. He had the right to speak and he has done so, and if anyone had prevented him from speaking I would have supported his right to speak. Bearing in mind his concern for the proprieties of parliamentary behaviour, as he expressed them when he spoke in this house on January 15, 1953, at a time when he criticized the former member for Westmorland, I am sure he will agree with me that it was a duty that did devolve on some member of this house to raise this point at this time.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, at whatever point you deem it appropriate for me to do so, I am prepared to place in your hands a motion which I shall move, seconded by my colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue):
That the vote of the hon. member for Calgary South on the second reading of Bill No. 298 be disallowed.


Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that a member of this house has seen fit to raise the issue of what he has chosen to call my financial interest in oil companies debarring me from voting, not only on this issue but on any other issue affecting pipe lines in this house.
First of all may I say that my financial relationships with oil companies, all of which happen to be Canadian independent oil companies, are such as existed prior to my becoming a member of this house. I continued them during my period in this house, and in no way have they affected either my speeches in this house or my voting on any issue in this house.
Mr. Speaker, since the issue has been raised I feel the only thing I can do is make public at this time in this house something which has
4242	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation been known to some back in my home community but which, until the question was raised, I felt was a private matter and not one to be raised publicly. Under the circumstances I feel I must present the facts at this time.
When I entered politics in 1951 I did so with the pledge to myself that I would receive nothing from any government agency for services rendered to the government nor would I receive any financial benefit whatsoever from any decisions I might make as a member of this House of Commons were I elected. Under those circumstances, sir, in 1951 when I first sought election to this house I made a commitment to turn over to charities and a scholarship fund in Alberta every dollar I received as a member of this parliament.
In keeping with that commitment, Mr. Speaker-and I might say it has been honoured in full

every dollar I have received as a member of this house has been devoted to charities and to scholarships in the province of Alberta. Furthermore, as all hon. members of this house are aware, I opposed Trans-Canada for several years despite my interest in certain oil companies. My decision had been based upon several reasons which I have voiced many times in this house. I believe in sound economic planning. However, when it became apparent that I would have to take a stand in support of this particular company in order to get a pipe line built at all-and costs are certainly rising which rule out any further delay-and to avoid the building of a pipe line with a far higher cost to the taxpayers of this country, I then had to make another decision.
Two companies which have fairly recently become shareholders of Trans-Canada were companies in which I happened to have shares. I may say, sir, that when my decision to take a stand in support of Trans-Canada after my opposition to it for some years, I disposed of my stocks in those two particular companies which, incidentally, I bought some years ago not on the basis of Trans-Canada but on the basis of other assets and other developments. However, sir, those two stocks have since been disposed of, I might say at rather a considerable financial loss in the light of market developments since that time.
The next step taken concerns my relationship with the companies with which I have chosen to continue as a director during my term in this house. I emphasize again that the directorships of the several independent Canadian oil companies with which I was associated prior to becoming a member of this house are with companies in which I believe, and I shall do my best to support them as companies in which I think Canadians


themselves can benefit through their participation as shareholders. I hope my position as a director of these companies has had some bearing on the investment of Canadians in those firms.
My shareholdings in these companies are not large. In order to eliminate any danger of my position as a director of these companies being considered to have any influence upon my votes in this house, I also made arrangements with regard to them which have already been carried into effect. What I have said regarding charities and scholarships and what I am now going to say are matters of fact and a part of the records of the appropriate department of this government, and have been for some time. I have made arrangements to turn over certain of my assets, again to a foundation devoted to charitable work in my home province, an amount far greater than any possible return that could be received from any sale of the gas reserves of those companies of which I am a director.
In those circumstances, sir, I regret that the question has been raised, but I say flatly that on this particular issue and all other issues in this house personal financial gains have had no part whatsoever in any decisions I have made, and I stand on that record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this motion will not be supported by this house. Naturally I have had no opportunity to consult my colleagues in regard to the motion now presented, but I feel very strongly this is not a subject that can be dealt with in the way it is now presented.
I have resented very strongly some of the statements made by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle), when he has imputed to my colleagues the suggestion of political expediency; but I defend his right to express his opinion, and I would hope that the right to express independent opinions will be recognized on both sides of this house.
The question of direct pecuniary interest is not an easy one to resolve. I need not mention the cases which have arisen in regard to certain hon. members wherein this problem has been raised. In this case I am not in any way referring to the question of the relationship of directorates or matters of that kind, but this problem in this complex system of ours is not an easy one. Many people may have holdings in certain companies without any possible suggestion of impropriety. I think it would be most unwise and most unfair if on a motion of this kind and on a bald declaration that an hon. member has

certain shareholdings and certain associations, the right to vote, which after all is the right of membership in this house, should be dealt with by an arbitrary decision which permits of no examination of the facts.
There are procedures available. If any hon. member feels that any other hon. member is contravening the rights of membership in this house, we have a committee on privileges and elections before which such a subject can be properly raised. Under those circumstances the hon. member himself whose position is challenged would then be able to state the facts fully and answer any imputation that might be made as to a conflict of his own personal interests. The responsibility for that course is one that can be assumed by any hon. member. The course which is now proposed is one under which the members of this house would be asked to pass judgment upon another hon. member without an appropriate opportunity to examine the facts and to give that hon. member a chance to meet specifically the allegations that are made.
This is a difficult subject, one which has raised great difficulties, in this parliament, at Westminster and elsewhere in places which operate under a parliamentary system similar to ours. Certainly in this complex society of ours the personal interests of the hon. members of this house should not be dealt with in any arbitrary manner. They should certainly not be dealt with in a way which would deny full opportunity to meet any allegations stated in the most specific form.
For the reasons I have stated I hope the hon. members of this house will see fit to vote against the motion which has been made.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition has well said what should have been said at the right time in connection with this proposal put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Assiniboia. I draw the attention of hon. members, and especially the hon. member for Assiniboia, to the fact that the hon. member had a direct pecuniary interest in the $65 million farm payment for which he voted a few years ago. We would have been just as justified in challenging his right to vote then as he is justified in challenging the vote of the hon. member for Calgary South.
I think it is a dangerous thing to bring into the house a motion such as has been brought here and suggest that it be resolved by a vote of the membership of this house on the few facts we have available. So I would certainly suggest, as has the Leader
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of the Opposition, that we do not entertain this motion and try to resolve such a difficult problem in this way.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to comment on the subject matter brought before the house in this way. First, I do not question the right of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or any other hon. member to bring such a question before the house. It is an important question upon which the decision of the house is necessary.
Simply because I think it is desirable that the proprieties of the house be observed in a situation of this kind, I should like to draw the attention of Your Honour and the house to a passage in May's thirteenth edition upon which in my submission all these citations are based. At page 373-this is not the conclusion of my remarks, but simply in order that the proprieties of the house may be observed -we find the following:
The member whose vote is under consideration on the ground of personal interest, having been heard in his place, should withdraw immediately, and before the question founded thereon has been proposed.
That is a propriety which I think should be observed. While the house decides what disposition it shall make of the matter, I would like to suggest to you, and to all hon. members who must be very much concerned about this matter, that so far as I have been able to discover in the limited time at my disposal since the matter was raised in the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre all the citations in Beauchesne's second and third editions are based upon references to May. The references to May's thirteenth edition are to be found at pages 372 to 374.
I would direct the attention of Your Honour and of hon. members here to the fact that all references in May to the disqualification of a vote on the grounds of personal interest are based on references to votes in connection with private bills. For instance, at page 372 we find this:
The extent to which the rule of personal interest in a vote given by a member against a private bill, which would create a project intended to compete with an undertaking in which he has a pecuniary interest, is as yet undecided.
Then at page 373 May refers to an actual decision given in the British House of Commons, but he is dealing again with the case of a private bill. He concludes on page 374 by saying:
Since that time, committees on opposed private bills are constituted so as to exclude members locally or personally interested; and in committees on unopposed bills, such members are not entitled to vote. A member of a committee on an opposed private bill, or groups of bills, will be discharged
4244	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation from further attendance, if it be discovered, after his appointment, that he has a direct pecuniary interest in the bills, or one of them.
While I share with the Leader of the Opposition an intense personal resentment against the charges which have been made against us by the hon. member for Calgary South, I do invite your attention and that of the house to the fact that so far as the rules are applicable that I have been able to discover they are based upon the interest of a member in a private bill. Therefore I feel that we should not be invited at this time to express our opinion on a motion with relation to the bill now before us, which is a public bill.
I know I would be apt to be moved, I might say almost by personal resentment, with respect to the attacks made upon us by the hon. member for Calgary South. I do not think members of this party and of this house should be asked to vote at this time on a motion based upon the conduct of the hon. member with respect to a public bill, when the only precedents available to us are with respect to private bills.
While I am not going to express any opinion as to the conduct of the hon. member, I think in a matter of this kind we should be extremely clear as to what it is we are asked to do by the motion before us. I do not believe there are sound grounds for the motion which has been presented to Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: So this discussion may not be prolonged unduly, may I say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has sent to the chair a motion, but it seems to me that if one looks at the citations which have to do with standing order 11, namely citations 95 and 96 of Beauchesne's third edition and also the ruling by Mr. Speaker Bain at page 825 of Beauchesne's third edition it appears that the matter of a decision to be made with respect to what constitutes pecuniary interest in a vote given by a member is one thing and the procedure as to how that vote is to be challenged is another.
The ruling of Mr. Speaker Bain will be found in column 9688 of Hansard of July 10, 1900, and that ruling is inserted in Beauchesne at page 825. I cannot find exactly the moment at which the vote of an hon. member had been challenged, but there is one thing sure and certain; no action was taken that night. Hon. members can look in column 9680 where Mr. Foster said:
I wish to remind Mr. Speaker that there is a decision due to the house on that point raised by Sir Charles Tupper, as to the right of directors, being members of the house, in a company, a bill with reference to which is before parliament, voting on that bill. The Speaker undertook to


take the matter into his consideration and to give the house a formal decision upon it. We wish for that decision of the Speaker, so that there may be no doubt as to the proper mode of procedure in that respect.
It seems to me that Mr. Foster then was raising a point of order in anticipation. He wanted to know what would be the position of the members, directors of companies, having to do with a certain bill which was to be taken before the house. Then later, in column 9688, we find the ruling of Mr. Speaker Bain, in which he outlines the procedure, which is mainly that to be found in May, pages 373 to 375, as outlined by the hon. member for Kamloops. The case found there is not a ruling which should give us proper guidance in the circumstances in which we find ourselves now.
Surely the house is not going to decide just like this, on the spur of the moment, that an hon. member of this house had a pecuniary interest in giving a vote. That surely cannot be the procedure of this house. It is impossible, because in attacking a member in this fashion his character and his honour are also at stake, and that can only be done by a substantive motion. A substantive motion is one that is amendable and debatable, and I would suggest that the proper amendment to that motion, when it is taken, is that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections. It would seem to me that if the report of the standing committee on privileges and elections is that the hon. member in voting has had a pecuniary interest, then the motion is made that the vote be disallowed, but not immediately after a division like this evening.


Carl Olof Nickle: May I state unequivocally
that I have no share interest whatsoever in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and no shares whatsoever in any company which is a shareholder in Trans-Canada. I am quite prepared, and I would be most happy, to submit my record in regard to any of the oil companies of which I happen to be a director to the appropriate committee of this house for its examination.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre that from his deep knowledge of procedure-


Some hon. Members:: Oh! That is a joke.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me say at once-it may be an opinion that some hon. members do not share with me, but I say it with sincerity-I take it that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a student of procedure and has a great knowledge of these matters. From his knowledge of procedure, does it not strike him that this procedure

is impossible, because the house cannot be called upon to decide as to whether or not a vote is going to be disallowed just on the reasons he has advanced and on the explanations the hon. member for Calgary-South has given? Surely this cannot take place. May's thirteenth edition, at page 373, says:
An objection to a vote, on the ground of personal interest, cannot be raised except upon a substantive motion, that the vote given in a division be disallowed, and cannot be brought forward as a point of order.
There is a reference to page 271. If the hon. member refers to page 271 he will read:
Certain matters cannot be debated, save upon a substantive motion which can be dealt with by amendment or by the distinct vote of the house.
But after debate and amendment.
Among these may be mentioned the conduct of the sovereign, the heir to the throne, the Viceroy and Governor General of India, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Governors General of the Dominions . . .
Therefore this matter is in the same category as an attack upon the sovereign, the heir to the throne, etc. It is a question of privilege.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it will not be necessary for you to resolve this matter by any ruling on a point of order, and I can assure the house that my rising again at this time will be very brief and in a manner which will bring the incident to a close. I want to say-


An hon. Member:: It should never have been opened.


Stanley Howard Knowles: An hon. member says, "It should never have been opened." I have a different view. In my view, despite the remarks which my hon. friend from Calgary South has made, he has not denied or answered the basic statement I made-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member attempted to make the point that the hon. member for Calgary South should have his vote disallowed because he has a direct pecuniary interest in the matter that is now before the house. As soon as the hon. member has made his point, the hon. member for Calgary South had a right to make a personal explanation, which he did. It seems to me at this moment that I cannot allow the hon. member or any other hon. member to discuss the explanations given by the hon. member for Calgary South.


An hon. Member:: Resign.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me at this moment that the course which the hon. member may
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation follow-and I think it is the one he was about to follow without any hint to that effect- would be simply to leave the matter at that because, if later he wishes on a question of privilege to deal with the matter, I think he can achieve the same purpose he is trying to achieve now. I did not read his motion. It is not in the possession of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Resign.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall not pursue what I was trying to say a moment ago in view of your suggestion that I should not do so. I am prepared to let the record of what has been said speak for itself on both sides of this question, but I think I should be permitted to point out that before I raised this matter tonight I did study the rule book and the authorities on this question very carefully, and it seemed to me that whether or not Your Honour or the house thinks the rules are set out satisfactorily, nevertheless they do provide no other way than by challenging a member's vote and following up that challenge with the motion which I was prepared to make.
There is some difference of opinion between us as to whether or not that was the way to do it. I did it in a way that I thought was the way to do it. The ruling of Mr. Speaker Bain reported on page 825 and 826 of Beauchesne's third edition says-


An hon. Member:: It has been decided.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have no apologies to make for the important question I have brought to the attention of the house tonight.


James Joseph McCann: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the Speaker allows, yes.


James Joseph McCann: What is the position of the farmer members of this house who voted for the wheat bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps Your Honour would answer that question.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask hon. members not to pursue the point unduly? There may be a difference of opinion between the hon. member and myself as to procedure. Let us say that perhaps some other time we can get together and arrive, I am sure, at the procedure for the future, but at the moment let us conclude this incident.
4246	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am trying to get the chance to read one sentence in a ruling by Mr. Speaker Bain, on the basis of which I shall make a request to the house. May I be permitted to answer in a sentence the question of the Minister of National Revenue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Joseph McCann: Think it over.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your Honour can answer it yourself.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member be good enough to pursue the point with a view to concluding it as soon as possible?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think we all know, Mr. Speaker, that benefits that partake of a general interest are different from those that partake of a specific and personal interest. However, in his ruling on July 10, 1900, Mr. Speaker Bain said:
The question is one for the house to determine.
In my view it is obvious what this house Would determine on this issue, particularly in view of what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Social Credit party, and in view of the applause the hon. member for Calgary South has drawn from the government side of the house. Therefore I shall not press the matter, and if Your Honour feels that in any sense I made a motion I have no hesitation, in view of what I have said, in asking the permission of the house to withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: Being of the view that the procedure with respect to these matters is not as the hon. member has outlined it, and that it must be raised in a different manner and provide for a debate and amendments, I do not accept the motion. Therefore the hon. member does not have to withdraw it. The question now is on the second reading of this bill. Those who are in favour-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion for second reading has been carried. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) moves, seconded by Mr. Harris-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-
; Mr. Speaker: -that the house do go into committee of the whole on this bill at the next sitting of the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion, on a point of order may I ask this question? Perhaps I might be permitted to put a question to the Minister of Finance as leader of the house, because I think we should have some agreement on the point tonight. The question I have is this, whether


this motion now made, the motion for Your Honour to leave the chair to go into committee, be put at the next sitting, will require a motion and a vote at the next sitting of the house. Is that the understanding?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I may answer that question. Of course the order will be on the order paper, "House in committee of the whole", and whenever the order is called I will have to put the motion that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole upon this bill. At that moment it will be votable if the hon. member wishes to provoke a vote.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The question is on the motion of the minister that this motion be made at the next sitting. Is that correct?


Mr. Speaker:: The situation now is simply that after second reading has been adopted-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I can shorten it. What I am trying to determine is whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce has now made a motion that the motion for Your Honour to leave the chair be put at the next sitting. Your Honour has said that will be put at the next sitting. We now have a motion before the house, as I understand it, made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which itself should be subject to a division.


Mr. Speaker:: When the hon. member says "which itself should be subject to a division"-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is open to a division.


Mr. Speaker:: It is open. That is better. The hon. member is good at correcting himself whenever he wants to.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall continue with this bill in committee.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@Quebec East: I move that the house do now adjourn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: This house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2.30 in the afternoon.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: What about today, Mr. Speaker? You said "tomorrow".


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that the sitting of today started at 2.30, and by "tomorrow" he must understand that it is 2.30 on Wednesday.
McMillan
McWilliam
Wylie-159.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 3.17 a.m.
4248

Questions



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. Purdy: 1.	When was the freight assistance policy on western grains introduced?
2.	What is the total amount paid in connection with this policy on movements to Nova Scotia, since the start of the assistance?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):
1. The freight assistance policy on western feed grains was introduced in October 1941.
2. The amount paid on the movement of western feed grains into Nova Scotia up to April 30, 1956, was $20,657,188.75.


MARITIME MARSHLAND REHABILITATION ACT
Mr. Lusby: 1.	How much has the federal government paid to date for works undertaken in Nova Scotia under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act?
2.	How much has been spent in this connection in the constituency of Cumberland?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):
1.	As at March 31, 1956, $3,559,764.46.
2.	As at March 31, 1956, $1,006,282.01.

Wednesday, May 23, 1956


MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Seventh and eighth reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. -Mr. Henderson.