1956-05-21

Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, today Canadians in every part of this land are celebrating officially the birthday of our gracious sovereign, *Queen Elizabeth.
As members of this house we will, as in [DOT]other years, be demonstrating our devotion to Her Majesty by carrying out our duties as the representatives of Her Majesty's Canadian subjects and giving our attention to the public business of the nation.
However, before proceeding to the business of the day, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and I would like to suggest, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, that we all stand and sing together the first verse of *"God Save the Queen".
Whereupon the members of the house rose and sang
God Save the Queen BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



PIPE LINES


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice, pursuant to standing order 33, that at the next sitting of the house, immediately before the order of the day is called for resuming 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, I will move that the said debate shall not be further adjourned.


Mr. Fleming:: Shame.


Mr. Drew:: The gag again.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why don't you do away with parliament entirely?


Mr. Knowles:: What a way to honour the Queen!



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 80-Mr. Lennard:
For a copy of the original agreement with the province of Ontario or other authorities regarding the maintenance of a low level vehicle and pedestrian bridge over the Burlington channel.
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: To my knowledge, there was no written agreement. The only undertakings were oral, as set forth in the correspondence tabled in the house and as indicated in Votes and Proceedings for Thursday, May 17.


Mr. Lennard:: No, Mr. Speaker, I have reference to the original agreement, which might have been 60 or 70 years ago. I refer to the original agreement relating to the original bridge that was built over the Burlington channel.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Cold well (Rosetown-Biggar):
Has the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs been drawn to the report of a speech by the Earl of Home, the
Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, regarding United States investments in Canada and would he not consider, in view of the circumstances now existing in Canada, this to be an intrusion into Canadian domestic discussions?
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my attention has been drawn to the statement in question. It was made, not as part of a speech but as an answer to a question at a press conference. I think my hon. friend attaches too serious an importance to the statement in question.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister the following question. Has
4114	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the government given consideration to and approval of the sale of six super jet fighter aircraft to the republic of Colombia?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes. When I saw the short note in the newspapers I anticipated that there might be a question about it and I obtained the precise information. An application was received from the Canadair Company for the export of six F-86 aircraft and spare or maintenance parts to Colombia as part of an arrangement which the company was making with that country for supplying and servicing such military aircraft.
This application was examined very carefully in the light of the situation in the area and in the light of the policies of other countries toward the export of this type of aircraft to South America. It was considered by cabinet and approved on March 22, 1956. Export permits were then issued covering six F-86 aircraft at a value of $2,086,540, and parts valued at $1,095,620.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister give us any information with respect to the visit to this country of the president of Indonesia which has been referred to recently in the press? I should like to know when he is coming, what parts of Canada he will visit and so on.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the president of Indonesia will be visiting Canada, I think next week, where I know he will be most warmly welcomed. A program is being prepared covering his visit to this country which will be made public within a day or two.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
ask the Minister of Finance if it is the intention of the government to introduce a new succession duties act at this session?


Walter Edward Harris: I am hopeful that we can introduce a new succession duties act, but it would depend on the length of the session whether we can pass it at this time.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DATE OF COMPLETION    INQUIRY AS TO AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Was there an agreement between the United States and Canada as to a definite date for the completion of the seaway? My question is based on an article in the London Free Press to the effect that the United States would not complete the Detroit channel until June, 1962.


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I know of no agreement between the United States and Canada setting a definite date for the completion of the seaway. I did not quite catch the second part of the hon. gentleman's question. If he would repeat it, perhaps I could deal with it.


Harry Oliver White: My question was based on an article in the London Free Press stating that the United States would not complete their part of the Detroit river channel until June, 1962.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that the Detroit river channel does not form part of the works being undertaken as the seaway project.



INQUIRY AS TO EXPORTS OF WHEAT AND FLOUR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Caslleden (Yorkion):: Can the
Minister of Trade and Commerce give an explanation to the house of the situation regarding Canada's exports of wheat and flour for the first eight months of the present crop year in view of statistics which indicate that Canada's exports are the lowest in a five-year period and that our share of the world's markets continues to decline?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the explanation is that our sales for the first 3J months of this crop year were at a very low level indeed. I made a statement in western Canada indicating that confidence in North American prices had been destroyed and that buyers were holding off their purchases. Along about the middle of November buying commenced and sales at this time are considerably ahead of sales at this time last year. Shipments picked up during the winter months. We had a record movement from the maritime ports and very close to a record movement from Pacific ports in that period. But, as hon. members know, Canada is not well equipped to move export grain when the St. Lawrence

and Hudson bay are closed. All we can do is work to the capacity of our winter ports. I am told that there are boats now waiting for berths on both coast's, and I look for very heavy shipments from our ports during the remainder of this crop year. I can assure my hon. friend that over-all clearances of wheat from Canada during this crop year will be greatly in excess of the record of the past two years.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. C. Schneider (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, rising on a question of privilege I wish to register a protest against this cartoon in the Globe and Mail of Friday, May 18, which depicts our beloved peace tower as a guillotine with biased knife falling toward the war memorial chamber with its revered book of remembrance.
Quoting from Canada's national capital series book, we read:
Here, embodied in stone, is the spirit of the Canadian people. Here Canadians may pay tribute to the service, sacrifice and achievements of their countrymen of the first great war.
The peace tower is a national shrine.
My question of privilege is this: Is nothing sacred to cartoonist Reidford in expressing his dislike of everything pertaining to this duly elected government of Canada?
This cartoon is a sacrilege, and I quote from the table dictionary:
Sacrilege. Robbery or profanation of sacred building, outrage on consecrated person or thing, violation of what is sacred.
I protest this cartoon, which is not only in very bad taste, but it will also defeat efforts such as the Rotary adventure in citizenship which promotes respect and reverence in our children for the national capital and particularly our beloved peace tower.


George Alexander Drew: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it might have been well if the hon. member who has just spoken had added: "Is nothing sacred for this government?"



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister, may I direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. Has the parliamentary assistant any statement to make to the house
Inquiries of the Ministry concerning the two regrettable air accidents over the week end in which the R.C.A.F. was involved?


Mr. Paul Hellyer (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: I have no statement, Mr. Speaker.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice in the absence of his colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg).
Has the attention of the minister been drawn by his colleague to some correspondence which he received from the united fishermen and allied workers' union of British Columbia in connection with the launching of the inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act which affects that union organization? If so, could he give the house a statement on the matter?


Hon. Siuart S. Garson (Minister of Jusiice):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend did not give me notice of his question, but like the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) I anticipated that this type of question might be asked and I accordingly made inquiries and would reply as follows.
The general rule is that no information is given out as to whether or not an inquiry is being pursued in a particular industry unless and until a report is made to the minister by the restrictive trade practices commission and duly published. In this particular case, the parties themselves appear to have made public the fact that there is an inquiry and, in any event, it has been made public by the fact that some of the parties have sought an injunction in the supreme court of British Columbia to restrain the inquiry upon the ground that section 4 of the Combines Investigation Act applies and have sought a declaration that it does apply. Section 4 provides that:
Nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to combinations of workmen or employees for their own reasonable protection as such workmen or employees.
If on the facts of this matter section 4 does apply, then, of course, there is no contravention of the Combines Investigation Act.
The purpose of the inquiry, which was commenced as a result of a formal complaint under section 7 of the act, is to ascertain whether fish prices are being fixed and the liberties of fishermen are being interfered with by arrangements amongst persons who

Inquiries of the Ministry are not covered by section 4 or in a manner that is not sanctioned by section 4. There is no intention to interfere in the proper activities of any trade union.
In view of all the circumstances, including particularly the court actions that are pending, I believe that is all I should say for the present time.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. McWilliam). When is it intended to convene-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Read your rule book.


An hon. Member:: You read it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When is it intended to convene a meeting of the committee on privileges and elections to deal with the subject of redistribution according to the understanding reached in the committee last year?


Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norlhumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, as yet the report dealing with information as to what systems are in use in other commonwealth countries has not been tabled with the committee. There is also another matter. There has been a great deal of what I might describe as criticism about the number of committees now sitting and I hear nothing but protests to the effect there are so many committees sitting now that hon. members cannot attend. However, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the committee is conscious of this important work and I think at the very earliest opportunity the matter will be brought up and dealt with in the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State-


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add for the benefit of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the report which is being prepared at the moment on procedure followed in other commonwealth countries is not completed yet.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Finance would be good enough to

let me know when I may expect an answer to question No. 283, which I placed on the order paper on March 9.


Walter Edward Harris: :
Certainly.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: I
should like to inquire of the Secretary of State for External Affairs when I may expect an answer to the question which I asked regarding a suggested diversion of water from northern Ontario to the great lakes system.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The answer confirms the opinion I stated at that time that no representations on this matter had been received.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 18, 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. H. A. Hosking (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, when at five o'clock on Friday the house went to the consideration of private and public bills I was referring to the remarks about closure which had been made in the house. They were much the same as we heard today, such as the axe has fallen, the guillotine, and the end of free speech. During the debate we have heard remarks such as destroying parliament, hanging parliament, the rights of parliament being taken away and muzzling the representatives of the people. I mention these remarks because I submit that the interest which has been taken in this debate and which has been shown by spectators in the gallery since closure was announced last week has indicated that we have had a better parliament during this time than has been the case for some time. I should like to compare the coverage given by the press to the introduction of closure with the coverage given to some of the actions which have taken place in this house and which were more likely to destroy parliament

than anything the government has done. I do not think the refusal of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) to withdraw at the request of the Deputy Speaker a statement which he had made is the type of thing that would create confidence in parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


Henry Alfred Hosking: And on the following Tuesday we had another example-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is dealing with something which came before the house last week in connection with a point of order. This point of order was dealt with at the time and now the hon. member is referring to it again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Once a point of order is dealt with, it is dealt with. This point of order was dealt with last week and the hon. member wants to go over it again.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member knows, I was conversing with an hon. member of the house and did not hear what the hon. member for Wellington South said. According to what the hon. member for Eglinton tells me, the hon. member for Wellington South was dealing with a point of order which had been ruled on last week.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Wellington South be good enough to tell me with what he is dealing at the moment?


Henry Alfred Hosking: I was comparing the remarks made by the opposition about parliament being destroyed by the action of closure with the action of the Leader of the Opposition in refusing to comply with the request of the Deputy Speaker. That bad example which he set was followed by the hon. member for Kamloops who did exactly the same thing, who was supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the leader of the C.C.F. party.


Mr. Fulton:: It is so ridiculous, don't bother about it.


Mr. Speaker:: May I join in now and tell the hon. member for Wellington South that these points that have been brought up on earlier occasions have been the subject of rulings at the time, rulings which I believe were appealed and dealt with by the house? Whilst they might have been dealt with in a different manner, I do not recall exactly what has taken place, because I take only whatever takes place in committee of the whole at the very far end, but I should imagine that speeches should be relevant to the second reading of this bill and that we
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation would all do well to address our remarks not to several episodes relating to order which might have taken place before but to the second reading of this bill.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I was only comparing the methods of destroying parliament. One is, as the opposition say, by our bringing closure, which has created this interesting debate to which we have listened for the past week; and the other is their behaviour in defying the Speaker of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Henry Alfred Hosking: It is quite in order. I know the hon. gentlemen do not like it, but it is true. In my opinion their behaviour does more to destroy parliament than anything else.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the hon. member will now address his remarks to the second reading of this bill.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I shall be pleased to do that, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps he will try to be a little less silly.


Henry Alfred Hosking: This is probably one of the most important bills that will come before this house in my lifetime, unless we happen to have the misfortune to be engaged in another war. I believe that the building of this pipe line will do more for Canada in the next 20 years than any other thing we could propose. In making this statement, I should like to substantiate it by quoting a few figures regarding the power shortage which likely is to occur in the province of Ontario and which presently is being felt in the province of Quebec.
Some of my good friends in the province of Quebec tell me that the second thousand kilowatt hours of power in that province, for the first time, costs more today than the first thousand. It has been a standard practice, both in Ontario and in Quebec, to set hydro rates at a certain amount for the first thousand kilowatt hours and at a cheaper rate for the second, and possibly at a still cheaper rate for the third thousand kilowatt hours. In order to conserve power in the province of Quebec, they have now raised the rates on the second thousand. This is a very effective way of saving power in a power-short province.
The province of Ontario has a very similar situation. We have had large increases from our hydraulic power, and also from thermal power, but it would be wise to look at future developments in the province of Ontario. I should like to point out that 25 per cent of
4118	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the province of Ontario is below 500 feet in elevation. As we know, when we are using qur water energy to develop power, we collect the rain that falls and pass it over elevations and through water wheels to produce electric energy. So, when we have a very flat province such as we have in Ontario, with 25 per cent of this area below 500 feet, 67 per cent of it below 1,000 feet, and 100 per cent of it below 2,000 feet, we have developed at Niagara and various other falls most of the available hydroelectric energy.
When you look at the province of Ontario on a map and see that the great lakes system forms almost one side of that province and that the drop in elevation from the westerly tip of lake Superior to the easterly tip of lake Huron and Georgian bay is only 21 feet, you can see that the production of electric energy from the fall in that length is almost impossible. From lake Huron to lake St. Clair we have a drop of only six feet, and from lake St. Clair to lake Erie we have a drop of three feet. This means that the whole side of the province of Ontario is practically level and that our hydroelectric potential from that part of the province is nil. Then we have in Ontario, between lake Ontario and lake Erie, a drop of 326 feet. This is where we produce most of the hydroelectric energy in the province of Ontario. From lake Ontario down the St. Lawrence- and we are going to develop some hydroelectric energy-there is a fall of 246 feet. We are told that, before the energy which we shall derive from the development of the St. Lawrence seaway is ready to be used, the available electrical energy in the province of Ontario will be consumed.
This pipe line which is going to carry gas from Alberta, and which the province of Alberta is anxious to have used in a useful way, will carry nine times the energy of the hydroelectric development at Niagara falls. It is true that some three times the energy developed at Niagara falls will be siphoned off to the United States. But again I should like to mention the fact that when the hydroelectric energy was developed at Niagara falls, a proportion of that energy had to be supplied to the United States. I recall just a week ago looking at my television set and finding that, as the voltage dropped during that storm, the pictures disappeared but you could still hear the voices. We were watching a program from Buffalo and the announcer said, "Something has happened to our supply of electrical energy but as soon as it is resumed your picture will be returned". This incident indicated to me that Buffalo was receiving energy from the same source as that from which I was receiving


it. In other words, they were receiving power from Niagara falls. So when we ship some gas to the United States, we are doing exactly the same as was done when hydroelectric power was developed years ago at Niagara falls. In order to make that development economical, it was necessary to sell to the market in the United States which was available. Hence this bill has the same principle; we propose to sell 200 million cubic feet of gas to the United States.
This source of power is something that the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec require. We require it for the good reason that our records tell us that there is a total of 5,407,000 horsepower of electrical energy available in the province of Ontario at mean minimum flow. The equipment installed to develop electrical energy in the province of Ontario, is 4,006,668 horsepower. In other words, we are prepared to take advantage of three-quarters of the available power that we can produce from our water resources in the province of Ontario. When the total is used the province of Ontario will be a power-starved province.
We need only look at the situation of the people in the province of Ontario and Quebec in order to see that the people have found jobs and have chosen a place to live where cheap power was available. We have in the north country-and I spent some eight years in Kirkland Lake-an area known as the golden mile. I think possibly God gave more riches to that golden mile in Kirkland Lake than to any other mile in the Dominion of Canada. However, there are only some 23,000 people there. Then we go down to Sudbury, and we see that tremendous asset that Sudbury has in nickel. Yet it has attracted very few people to the area of Sudbury. Then when you go to Noranda, you see the tremendous quantities of copper and other minerals there. Yet the population in those centres that I have spoken about is very small compared with the population in the southern part of Ontario and in those parts of Quebec where power is available. So I want to point out just how necessary it is that we bring to Ontario and Quebec six times the available power which we derive from Niagara falls.
It was not to assist our government that Premier Frost has supported the building of this pipe line. Neither was it to hurt the Conservative party in the federal house that Premier Frost has offered to assist in the building of this line. It is in order to benefit the people of the province of Ontario that he has taken his stand that it is necessary to get on with the job and build this pipe line. I should like to point out to the house,

through you, Mr. Speaker, that every Liberal member from the province of Ontario was here a week ago when this debate was taking place on this bill, and that every cabinet minister was in his seat during this debate and during the votes. That fact should indicate to the house and to the people just how important the Liberal members and the government think this bill is when it requires each and every one of them from our province to be in the house.
About the power which we shall derive from the pipe line there is another thing that has not been mentioned in the house and it is one of the reasons why there is some urgency in building this line. Gas is different from electricity. If we build a power plant at some waterfall, the minute that the power is available from the generators you could connect it into the grid system and it would be ready for use. But gas is not one of those types of power. In order to build up a market for gas the individual houses that heat their water with electricity will have installed in them a different type of unit to heat the water. This means that the owners of the present houses, with their electric water heaters, will continue to heat their water in their houses with electrical power. But in the new houses or in the new buildings, when gas is available-because it will be cheaper-you will find those houses and buildings being equipped with gas water heaters and in a great many cases the cook stoves will be gas cook stoves. Hence it is going to take a considerable length of time to take advantage of the power which this gas line is going to supply.
It will not mean a quick change in industry. Many of the electric furnaces in the industries in this country will continue to operate with electrical energy after they have this gas power at their door. But over the years, when their electrical equipment wears out or becomes obsolete, it will be replaced by gas burners. It will take several years for this pipe line to lift the load which hydro is carrying and which in five or six years' time will be too great for hydro to handle unless it is augmented by a source of energy such as this. Hence, Mr. Speaker, there is great urgency that this project should be got on with right away. It is with great respect that I pay a compliment to our Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) for the move which he has devised to see that the pipe which is now being formed in the fabricating plants of the steel mills is going to be put to its use in Canada.
It is easy for a person who does not understand the problem to get a wrong impression. It takes about a month to change 67509-261
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation over a rolling mill from rolling shapes for I beams and channels to rolling flat plates and developing it into pipe. If this order at the rolling mills were cancelled so that it was necessary for the plant to change the equipment back, it would take them a month's time before they could change back again, then if the orders were renewed a whole season would be lost. You cannot afford to shut down a rolling mill and change it from rolling one shape to another at the whim of some inexperienced person who does not understand the cost of making such a change. It was, therefore, absolutely essential that if this pipe was going to be used this year some move had to be made to have the plant continue rolling it. Great credit should go to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) for this move.
Most people in this country realize that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has done many things very similar to this. I do not need to mention again T.C.A. and the Polymer plant as well as all the other plants that he has taken under his wing to ensure that the people of Canada would have what they required when it was needed. He did this during the war. I mentioned on Friday about the way he constructed these magnificent aeroplanes from wood which revolutionized the bombing of Germany. The Mosquito program of the Right Hon. C. D. Howe was known not only in Canada but all over the world. This planning of his to see that we do not lose the opportunity of getting the pipe laid from Calgary to Winnipeg this year is almost the direct equivalent of the development of the Mosquito bomber, the Polymer plant and Trans-Canada airways.
The city from which I happen to come has its own problem. We have a public utility there which sells gas developed from coal, but the plant is old and the city council will be deciding this year whether or not they should dispose of that public utility and sell the system to a free enterprise company. There are good reasons why the public utilities should be sold, but I am not going to give an opinion one way or the other. I am merely pointing out that in my city we have a public utility used for producing and distributing gas, and the government of the city is considering dispensing with that method of handling the gas situation in Guelph. For that reason, I would be very hesitant about recommending to any government that we should get into a public utility to handle gas. I should like to commend the minister for trying to devise a method of having free enterprise build this gas line, so the government of Canada will not be
4120	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation in the same position, in a much larger way, in which my city is, with all the problems and difficulties that they have and know about.
Before I leave that aspect I would like to say that the city of Guelph is most anxious that they get this gas from Alberta just as soon as possible so that they will not have to spend $200,000 in replacing the plant which is just about worn out. They have been watching anxiously for the time when they would be able to tap into this source of energy which the people of Alberta are so anxious for us to have.
Now, I should like to make one other comparison, Mr. Speaker. We have had Ontario hydro held up as a good example of a public utility. I am not so sure that the engineers of this country are convinced that hydro has been such a good public utility. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) started a program of which I approved, and that was converting the power in the province from 25 cycle to 60 cycle. This has been a very costly move. It has cost the people of Ontario more than it will cost to build the pipe line from Alberta to Montreal, but it was a necessary expenditure. I am not criticizing anyone for doing it. It is something that had to be done. I might criticize the way they are doing it and the extra money that is being spent in doing it, but still the taxpayers have to pay the bill, amounting to about $400 million.
The reason they have to pay this large amount of money is that the government of the day when hydro power was just started said they would have 25 cycle current. There was no real reason why we should have 25 cycle current, but they started with that and they continued to produce it in every new plant which was built until a few years ago.
If we had had free enterprise in Ontario with two companies developing power, one 25 cycle power and one 60 cycle power, there would have been no 25 cycle power sold in the province. It is very simple to understand why that would be so. A motor using 25 cycle current costs about one-third more than a motor that uses 60 cycle current. If we had had two companies under a free enterprise system, there just would not have been any 25 cycle current sold and the taxpayers of Ontario would not have needed to make an expenditure of some $400 million in Ontario to correct the mistake which the government made in producing 25 cycle current.
We have other examples of free enterprise versus government enterprise or public ownership. We find on looking at Saskatchewan
[Mr. Hosking.l

and Alberta that Alberta, under a free enterprise system,-they are the most free enterprise government in Canada except for the Liberal government of the dominion-has boomed and grown. People have invested their money in that province because they knew it was a good place in which to invest their money. It was safe there. No one was going to take it over and take it away from them by turning it into a public utility. There were millions of dollars poured into Alberta to the advantage of the people who live in that province. Compare that with Saskatchewan where we have a socialistic government, and where no one would invest any money.


An hon. Member:: Under the Liberals.


Henry Alfred Hosking: No, I am not talking about when it was under the Liberals. Then, it was the best province in western Canada. We cannot say that today. Saskatchewan produced the most wheat under a Liberal government, and was the best province in the west under a Liberal government. Since I came to this house in 1949 we have had redistribution and the population of Saskatchewan has shrunk to such an extent that they lost five members. Compare that with the province of Alberta. There is only one reason why that is so, and that is the socialistic government of Saskatchewan. There were no oil companies moved into Saskatchewan because they had no assurance they would own the plant after they built it.


Mr. Ellis:: Wait until June 20.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You socialists have yourselves to thank for that. This is the province the representatives of which have to come down here with their hat in their hand and beg for relief, beg for support, and there is no other person responsible for that. God was just as good to your province as he was to Alberta, but it has not had the same management. During those years when there was a Liberal government in that province, it was the best province in western Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Let us go back to the bill, now.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I see my time is nearly up.
Before I resume my seat I wish to mention two other things that happened in this debate. One was, we were accused of bringing in the resolution for the construction of the northern part of this pipe line, that part that runs' from the Manitoba border to Kapuskasing, four months ago, and that since then we have just sat and waited and have done nothing. Now we bring in this bill

and are prepared to see that it goes through the house in some two weeks' time by using closure.
There is a very good reason for that. I do not think it is to the advantage of the members of the opposition to suggest that there is some sinister motive in bringing in this bill. During the past four months Trans-Canada Pipe Lines were striving to get a ruling from the federal power commission of the United States which would permit them to take some 200 million cubic feet of gas into the United States. During those four months they have made strenuous efforts in that regard. Had they been successful there would have been no need for this bill. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there is a very good reason for the delay in bringing in this bill. It would not have been necessary had the federal power commission of the United States approved the import of 200 million cubic feet of gas from the province of Manitoba.
The four months' delay was a very sound piece of business. It is unfortunate that the federal power commission of the United States has not completed its report so that this pipe line could have been built without a loan. It is not assistance; it is a loan from this government.
The action of bringing in this bill has called from the opposition numerous requests for an election. To me this is a rather interesting venture on their part; first, because they have not done very well in elections; and secondly, we have been in power for only two years and nine months.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government has no
mandate for what it is doing.


Henry Alfred Hosking: This is not a very long time. I hear the hon. member for Eglinton passing some comment. I would just like to tell him that when he spoke-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government has no
mandate for what it is doing.


Henry Alfred Hosking: The government has no
mandate for what it is doing?


Mr. Sluder:: Has the opposition a mandate for what it is doing to the Liberal government of the day?


Henry Alfred Hosking: The Liberal government of
the day has a mandate to do the right thing for this country at any time, and that is what it is doing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is to laugh.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I would just like to draw
the hon. member's attention to the fact that when he spoke on this pipe line bill he never said one single thing about it except to deal with procedure and various 67509-2611
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation rules and regulations and he made references to the guillotine and so forth. There was nothing directed constructively to the debate on the pipe line. He did not say whether we were doing right or wrong; he did not say a word about building the pipe line and he did not suggest any alternative method.


Irvin William Studer: Why does the hon. member
for Eglinton not resign?


Henry Alfred Hosking: Mr. Speaker, there is just
one thing I should like to suggest. When Trans-Canada Pipe Lines make their 51 per cent stock available to the Canadian people I would like through you, Mr. Speaker, to call the attention of the people of Canada who believe in free enterprise to the fact that this is their opportunity to save Canada as a free enterprise country. We have given to them the opportunity to invest their money in free enterprise, and this is a challenge by the government to them to protect free enterprise.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity of taking part in this debate at this time just after the guillotine fell again today from an unexpected source, from an expert at throwing out the lifeline, as was evidenced last week on a couple of occasions. To have the motion come from him was rather astounding. Of course, he is the house leader. I am also going to remark on what was said recently. In the course of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I hope to deal with some aspects of the situation that have not been fully covered. I come from western Ontario, where we have had gas for years.
Let me say at this time that it might be of interest to hon. members to know that, in the particular county from which I come, Petrolia is of historic importance. I remind hon. members at this time when so much is being said about gas and oil that it is in that area that oil was first discovered on this continent. Of course, we in southwestern Ontario have always been oil and gas conscious. It may surprise some hon. members to know-it will not surprise the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie) or the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Huffman)- that our counties are surrounded by lakes and rivers and several thousand acres of the water area of the rivers and of lakes Huron, St. Clair and Erie have been leased for the exploration of oil and gas and, incidentally, with some success because I noticed just recently that 19 wells have come in within the last few months in the water area. Those who have been to the west coast, of course, know that it is not unusual to see oil and gas wells in the ocean; but perhaps
4122	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation in western Ontario it is unusual and I think rather exciting at the moment because it places us in the position where we do not know exactly where we stand. We have always had gas to a certain extent in that area but not enough to supply our requirements.
As I shall point out in a moment or two, we have been importing around 5i billion cubic feet of natural gas per year, and we now have an application before the authorities to increase that to some 15J billion cubic feet. I want to refer to that. I must comment on what was said by the last speaker when he rather lamented the fact that we and the press are criticizing the placing of closure on this legislation. He expressed the hope that the persuasive powers of the Minister of Trade and Commerce would brain wash the members of the press gallery. He may have brain washed his own members, but he certainly did not brain wash the members of the press gallery and certainly not the members of this party or of the C.C.F.
When the hon. member speaks about the gas used in his particular area for industrial purposes, I wonder whether he knows the rates that would be charged even in our area which would be one of the areas in Ontario which will receive a lower rate because we have had storage facilities in our area for a generation or two and we are able to get gas during the summer at a lower rate.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the committee that had before it the application of this company and other companies to obtain charters from this government to build pipe lines. It was an interesting experience, as I have again learned from reading over the evidence, and I am sure the same thing must have occurred to others who were on that committee. Perhaps we were a bit hasty. We received bland, blatant assurances from Mr. Schultz in connection with the gas companies and from the big banking houses from New York and engineers and others. We were told that all they needed to do was to get a charter from this government and they would build for Canada and for Canadians an all-Canadian pipe line which would be economical. They needed no help from the government. I express regret that we did not take more time on these applications. We should have inquired into many phases that we are now faced with in connection with the distribution and the cost of the gas to the consumer and the price paid to the producer. People of this country forget that in the distribution of gas in the United States the gas is piped through a pipe line, as is done in this country.
."Mr. Murphy (Lambton West).]

The price to the producer at the well head is a great deal more than it is in Canada and the price to the consumer in most cases is even a great deal less because they do not have the same length of pipe line as is proposed for Trans-Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we do not want to deceive ourselves in this house nor do we want to deceive the people of Canada with the figures that are being put on Hansard concerning throughput and the load factor and all that sort of thing. These are the very figures that deceive most people. We have an illustration where one accountant makes a statement which is denied by another speaker. It is a question of interpretation. Surely it is a question of the load factor, but one hon. member can get up and convince everyone that because of a certain load factor we will get gas at a certain price in one area and in another area a higher or lower price will be paid. For that reason we know perfectly well if the gas is to go south from Emerson to the steel mills in Chicago and the Minneapolis and St. Paul area they will get their gas at a much lower price than in Sault Ste. Marie, which is approximately the same distance from Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Why is this true? I am sure we will have an accountant speak on this subject before the debate is over. The amount of gas going to St. Paul and Minneapolis at 200 million cubic feet per day is a large throughput and they will be able to get gas at a lower price. Figures have already been put on the record which indicate the price is much lower than it is at Sault Ste. Marie. Notwithstanding what has been said, we are subsidizing United States industry which is probably producing the material we hope to produce in this country.
I want to refer to something which I think should be put on the record on this occasion. I am referring to a statement made by Mr. Schultz before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and reported at page 45 of the evidence. Referring to an allCanadian line Mr. Schultz said-and this was long before Western Pipe Lines merged with Trans-Canada. I think this is very important. Western Pipe Lines were granted a charter to go from Winnipeg to the south in the Minneapolis area, and Trans-Canada intends to go both ways. One reason there is so much opposition before the federal power commission is that Trans-Canada is raiding areas now serviced by opposition groups. Mr. Schultz said:
Well, our experts have never claimed that we needed any help in doing this job. I would not contemplate that a project of such national importance should receive less treatment than the

set-up which interprovincial or any other important project has received in the way of sales tax and duty remissions. But even without that X do not think that we have to have it, because I think that we can make it work; and it all goes back to what we have always said: that this project would have three rough years, and that as we got a market built up, the project would be entirely economic and go along by itself.
A moment ago, Mr. Speaker, I referred to the price of gas at Minneapolis as compared with the price at Sault Ste. Marie. I think the figure I quoted should be emphasized but the important thing to our economy is that in this country we are endeavouring to build up our industries from infants to full-grown industries, and we should not be subsidizing any foreign industry of a similar nature through government policy. I think that is absolute folly and I am sure I am not the only one who holds that view.
I am going to refer for a moment to one of the most startling statements ever made in this house. The statement to which I refer was made last Friday by a minister of the crown. The Minister of Agriculture was speaking at that time and I am sorry he is not in his seat; however, Hansard speaks for itself. The minister was referring to closure at that time. I certainly want to put this on the record because I believe it will be a revelation to many people who perhaps overlooked it. This is it, as reported at page 4069 of Hansard:
They have used every possible device which the rules permit them to delay the bill. They have delayed estimates by talking-
I am going to speak about double talk here in a minute.
-they have prevented debate and have wasted time by calling a total of 15 votes within the last week. They have used every device the rules of the house permit to delay the passing of this measure. We are using the one device, and it is a device the Tories gave us in 1912, by making closure possible. They have used it four times; we may have to use it four times.
Listen to this:
They have compelled us to do this. We are simply using a rule they gave us to overcome their use of the rules. They could have discussed this matter for 15 days if they had not followed the procedure they have been following of avoiding discussing it at every opportunity they could. By using the rules of this house they have deprived themselves of the right to discuss the bill.
Imagine that coming from a minister of the crown in 1956.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A minister of a fashion.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Continuing, he said:
They have deprived themselves of the right to discuss a pipe line across this country.
I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, and every hon. member of this house, how low can
21,	1956	4123
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation some people get regarding the duties and functions of parliament? Never in my experience in this house have I heard such an expression coming from a minister of the crown and I hope no hon. member of this house will ever again hear such an asinine statement.
I am going to say what was said by your former leader at whose shrine you worship.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Tell us what he said.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I hear the hon. member for Ottawa West and I have heard more intelligible noises from the cradle.


George James McIlraith: That is a great answer.


Mr. Dickey:: How dignified you are.


Joseph Warner Murphy: We have had closure on seven occasions and I hope some hon. members will put them all on record.


An hon. Member:: All Tory.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am going to quote now what the Liberal leader said in connection with some of these debates. I want to do so now just in case the Prime Minister will extract himself from behind that wall of solitude and give us some of his ideas. He may have some respect for his former leader because, after all, it was his former leader who tapped him on the shoulder and said, "Now you are my heir".


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Whose heir are you-Bridey Murphy's?


Joseph Warner Murphy: The first occasion I want to refer to is August 30, 1917. Hon. George P. Graham was speaking on that occasion. Incidentally Mr. Graham was defeated in one of the Essex ridings about 1925, I think, and I was living there at the time. This is in connection with the 1917 closure which certain hon. members opposite know all about without my referring to it. I do not think they want me to discuss it to any great extent. Mr. Graham was noted for his expressions and he said:
Mr. Speaker, in the midst of this very serious discussion-
He was a member of the opposition at that time, of course, and was sitting on the opposition benches where the present government will be sitting if it still has any members after the next election.
-if one sits on this side of the house, one cannot but be really amused at the plight in which members on the government side have found themselves. Stringing up a beautiful rope with a noose on the end of it for the benefit of hon. members on this side, they find themselves dangling with their heels in the air at the end of their own rope.
This is the reference to closure, of course.
The minister of finance himself,-
4124	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
In this case, of course, it is another minister.


An hon. Member:: A Tory.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am sorry you do no follow what is being said.
-anxious to tell the world that he has jammed this measure through by use of the closure, finds himself gagged.
Mr. Graham went on to say that he did not accept the gag very gracefully and I do not think the Minister of Trade and Commerce would accept it any more gracefully. A year ago the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) bailed him out after he had gone Ashing. This time he does not dare go Ashing because of the likelihood of being bailed out again.
The amazing thing is that that was a Liberal member; and now we And Liberal members in full accord with what was then done. Since the capitulation by the government they have been just as enthusiastic about the other end. Mr. Graham continued:
He did not accept the gag very gracefully; it seemed to stick in his throat-
Maybe that could be applied to the Prime Minister now because we have not heard from him.
-but the gag was there, made by himself. It is not such a serious thing, you know, if you put up a good fight and are killed by somebody else, but it is a terrible thing to find yourself in such a state that you are committing suicide. The Minister of Finance, in his anxiety to prevent the rest of us from making a few observations, discovers all at once that he has fallen into his own trap and been caught. Perhaps next time he will be a little more careful and reasonable.
That was the statement made at that time by Hon. George Graham, and yet when that closure was applied it was weeks after the resolution had been introduced. But that is not so in this case. Before the minister sat down after introducing the resolution he moved closure. There is no precedent for that in Canadian history and I hope there will never be another one. Then I should like to quote what was said by a well known Liberal, the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux on August 30, 1917, as reported on page 5185 of Hansard. Referring to closure he said:
This is nothing else but a raid, and it is because it is a raid perpetrated on the Canadian treasury, that it has to be done by closure. A raid must be made swiftly and sharply, it must be done in the dark, far from inquiries, far from the surveillance of the elect representatives of the people.
They do not want the newspapers of this country to quote what is going on in parliament. They would rather brainwash the people and brainwash their own members. They have been successful at that. 1 do not mean members of the press gallery, but their
iMr. Murphy (Lambton West).]

own members. I should like now to give a quotation which indicates the attitude of a former Liberal leader toward closure. I hope the government which is now forcing closure down our throats will listen to what a former leader (Mr. King) said, as reported on page 1617 of Hansard of April 1, 1932:
But what those of us on this side have strenuously opposed is the sanctioning of a course which torpedoes all that there is in the way of established parliamentary practice and procedure, and submarines the very constitution of our government.
And at page 1610 Mr. Mackenzie King is reported as follows:
I shall content myself therefore by saying that the action of the administrators at the present time reduces parliament in its most essential functions to a mere futility and a complete farce,-
That is what we have been saying.
-and that we of the opposition do not intend to lend ourselves to participation in any step of that kind.
And then at page 1627:
I want to make it perfectly clear again, Mr. Speaker, that the battle that has been put up in connection with this measure is not merely over the rights of minorities or the rights of majorities; it is true that it has to do with the rights of both; rights, which in the case of the majority no less than in that of the minority are threatened, it is concerned with the rights of something greater than either, namely, the rights of parliament and all that parliament stands for in a free country.
May I just comment on that. As far as we of this party are concerned, facing as we do the huge majority of the government in this house, we would rather be right and be in the minority than be wrong and be in the majority. Then on May 9,	1932, as
reported on page 2719 of Hansard, Mr. King said:
Closure has a proper place with respect to measures which may be brought before parliament, namely, to see that a measure that is appropriately and properly before the house is not unduly obstructed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Yes, hear, hear. The brain-washed are at it again. Never in the history of our country have we been faced with such a procedure, and I hope that never again will any government have the audacity to bring in closure when introducing a resolution. I continue:
Closure has a proper place with respect to measures which may be brought before parliament, namely, to see that a measure that is appropriately and properly before the house is not unduly obstructed.;
I repeat that observation for those who do not hear very well.
But the closure cannot properly be used to prevent a House of Commons from seeing that the constitution itself, is not being undermined, by.

any measure that may be under consideration.
It is because the most important of all the achievements under British government has been the final and complete control of the commons over all grants that it may make, over taxation, and the right and power of the commons to follow to the last degree the control of public expenditure, that we on this side feel so strongly about not parting with so fundamental a right even, as an exception, in connection with a measure which may relate itself to so important a question as the relief of unemployment.
There was not any hesitency of hon. members at that time to indicate their attitude and thinking on closure, but it would appear that at the moment there are some on the government benches who are captives of Trans-Canada. I should like now to refer briefly to something which has been referred to already by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). Since he comes from the city of Calgary, I was glad to have him place on the record the thinking of the press in Calgary. I think that was most important because those people do not have any stock, probably such as you and I have, in oil ventures that do not pay any dividends and probably never will. I think it is most important to know that newspapers like the Calgary Herald came out with indications of what the government had in mind apparently from the beginning. On April 27 that newspaper contained an editorial entitled "Canada Can't Control a U.S. Plan". That is all I am going to say about that editorial.


An hon. Member:: What paper?


Joseph Warner Murphy: The Calgary Herald of April 27.


An hon. Member:: They do not say that today.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I will bring the hon. member up to date. On May 2 an editorial in the same paper was headed "An Unholy Mess'?. Here is just a little of what they had to say. Those who are yapping away like the term that we are not supposed to use may not like this, but I want to put it on the record:
We do not blame the Americans behind this fantastic deal. They are not philanthropists yearn- ' ing to do us Canadians a .favour.
When they appeared before the committee ytm would have thought that ' we were children and that' they were something' like manna from, heaven. ;	\
And if they can find a.government as meek and amiable as the Liberal government at Ottawa seems ' to be, a government which, will dumbly foot half the * bill. to enable , a foreign country to derive [DOT]; maximum benefit frSm Canadian natural resources, then- they would be fools indeed not to take advantage of that unbelievably juicy turn of events. .	..	,.	,And to- put the cap on an already revolting situation, have . Canadians-;	.	.	t: v
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. Weir:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand the hon. member is rising on a question of privilege?


William Gilbert Weir: On a point of order.


Joseph Warner Murphy: The	hon.
member cannot rise on a point of order during my speech, when he is not in his seat. He can do it at the end of my speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member is rising on a point of order?


Joseph Warner Murphy: The	hon.
member cannot rise on a point of order when I have the floor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will hear the point of order.


Joseph Warner Murphy: The	hon.
member has been government whip for the last 11 years and he must know that you cannot raise a point of order when a member is speaking. An hon. member cannot raise a point of order when I have the floor. I continue:
And to put the cap on an already revolting situation, have Canadians stopped to consider that the future of this country's natural gas at this moment is being determined . . . not in Ottawa, which is nominally the capital of Canada . . . but in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States of America?
It is hard to believe that a nation and a people with any pride would tolerate such a demeaning state of affairs as this.
That comes from the people in the heart of the oil industry. of this country. Here is another one a little later, on Saturday, May 5:
Stop the Pipe-line Negotiations Now That is what my leader and our speakers have been saying for some time. The Trans-Canada Pipe Line Company defaulted and have been in default for some considerable time. It is time, as our leader has said emphatically, that this whole mess should be referred to a standing committee. Certainly no one could find fault with that except those who are themselves captives to Trans-Canada. I shall not refer to anything more in that particular editorial.


Mr. MacDougall:: That is enough.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I hear the Liberal members say "That is enough," but it takes a lot to satisfy some people, and I shall give them some more. This is from the Calgary Herald of May 8.


Mr. Richardson:: I rise on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Is it a Tory newspaper?
4126	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


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


Claude Sartoris Richardson: On a point of order. May I refer to citation 306 in the second edition of Beauchesne?


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I know the citation.


Joseph Warner Murphy: The Deputy Speaker is quite well acquainted with the rules.


John Lorne MacDougall: That is the first constructive thing you have said in the whole speech.


Joseph Warner Murphy: That is good. I am glad we have satisfied the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. It is so rare that we do so. The Calgary Herald of May 8 says:
Is This "The Dominion of Howe"?
Of course, we have referred to the Dominion of Canada and the British commonwealth of nations in the one breath, but is this the dominion of Howe? it says:
Canadians can scarcely be blamed for wondering if the Right Hon. C. D. Howe regards the building of the east-west natural gas pipe line, and the exploitation of Alberta's natural gas, as purely personal projects of the Right Hon. C. D. Howe.
In view of this being the pet project of the minister, I think that editorial is also well worth reading, because no one else has had an opportunity to present the facts before parliament for a case for an alternative to the Trans-Canada pipe line. Apparently they were warned off with the big stick. Let there be no mistake about that. The people of this country certainly have that impression, from what the minister himself has said and from the attitude of the government. I think it is very important that we have material of this sort from that particular area. It means more than my speaking or anyone else's speaking, and certainly means more than the various attitudes that have been held by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is only last January when he spoke in Toronto-and how contradictory can a man be?-and said the following:
A subsidy for the line is not desirable, since gas in central Ontario and elsewhere will compete as a fuel with coal and oil. Is it desirable for governments to subsidize one fuel against competing fuels and one set of producers against another?
I think not.
Now we have a project which is neither beast nor bird, which is partly public and partly private. We must not overlook the importance and the necessity of getting a fair distribution of the natural resources across our country. I think members of this house would be well advised to recall what


An hon. Member:: Do you think he will?
4128	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Joseph Warner Murphy: -and give us his views on this important subject, I hope in the meantime he will have considered what has been said by both sides. He is a great corporation lawyer. There is no question about that. I know he will probably feel as though he should say something. I think the people down in my part of the country for whom I speak would like to know the Prime Minister's attitude with regard to this mess and whether he is going to allow it to go through.
We do not like closure, Mr. Speaker. We in our party make no apology to any government nor to any person for the attitude we have taken. I have no hesitation in saying that we have in the house today two members-and as I said a short time ago we might not continue to have one of them for a time

namely the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), who have made an exceptional contribution not only to this parliament but to their ridings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I make no apology for saying that because X am expressing the opinion which the press of this country expressed and which the people of this country will express when they get the opportunity to do so at the next election. Mr. Speaker, I am saying that we as Canadians should not provide a luscious melon to satisfy the hungry taste buds of foreign investors. I hope the time has come when the Prime Minister and others in the government will not be the Charley McCarthys of the big interests on the other side.


Mr. Rene N. Julras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this stage particularly to deal with the speeches made by three Winnipeg representatives in this house. Coming as I do from Manitoba I feel strongly that all three of them completely misrepresented the feeling of the people in the city of Winnipeg. I think it is quite clear to everybody that there is no place in Canada where the feeling on this subject is clearer than it is in the city of Winnipeg. The people there certainly do not feel that this is the time to take a second look or that this is the time to postpone the matter any further.
The premier of the province of Manitoba himself made representation to the board of transport commissioners and emphasized that point clearly. A little later the legislature of the province debated this matter and again this point was made clear not only by the Liberal members of the legislature but by all parties represented in the legislature.


Furthermore, the people as a whole in the province are very much concerned about the immediate implementation of this scheme because the company has negotiated probably a bigger purchase contract in the city of Winnipeg and surrounding area than in any other part of Canada.
So far as the province of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg are concerned, the matter that concerns them now is to have this pipe line built at the earliest possible time. Generally speaking, they are very pleased with the situation and are grateful to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and to this government for having found a solution with respect to the early implementation of this proposition.
I can understand the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), who belong to the C.C.F. party and who choose to ignore the practical realities of any schemes. There is no likelihood of their party having the responsibility for putting any of these policies into operation in this country for many years. Hence over the years they have delved into the realm of fancy when it comes to great socialist theories. But when it comes to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), I must say that he is not so easily excused because he belongs to the official opposition. He belongs to one of the old parties of this country, and I regret that he did not show any more sense of responsibility than he did in the speech that he made to this house. But if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can be excused to a degree he is a socialist, I am at a loss to understand his stand on the procedure at the resolution stage.
All hon. members know that this hon. member was one of the first, and the one who put more effort than anybody in this house, in an attempt to prevent the second resolution from being dealt with by the house. He used his experience and his knowledge of the rules of the house to prevent the second resolution from being dealt with, and delayed proceedings for a considerable time. Now, what does the second resolution mean? I am going to refer now directly to the bill before us, part II of Bill No. 298. This second section, with which the hon. member tried to prevent us from dealing, embodies practically the same principle as was contained in the original resolution. It also deals with the same amount of money as was contained in the original resolution. There is no new money involved in this second part of the bill, but it does make it possible for roughly half of the money which was to be provided

for the construction in Ontario to be used for the same purpose in the western provinces in order to expedite the construction of the pipe line. There is no subsidy involved in this second part.
Some hon. members from both parties have referred to this as a subsidy to western Canada. There is absolutely no subsidy involved. All that is involved is that the government allows the company to use up to $80 million for the construction of the western pipe line. There are only two things that can happen. Either the company puts in the pipe line and brings gas to Winnipeg, in which event the loan is repaid to the government at a rate of 5 per cent interest and it does not cost the taxpayers any money at all, or the company defaults and the government takes over the pipe line and also the security. In the first case the government might realize a small profit on this enterprise, and in the second place we end up with a pipe line at certainly no cost to the taxpayers. In this particular scheme Canada is in the very fortunate position that she cannot lose either way. The taxpayers of Canada have nothing to lose and the people of western Canada are assured of the pipe line going into the ground and reaching the city of Winnipeg this fall. In view of all this it is very difficult to understand why the three representatives of the city of Winnipeg are putting forth so much effort to try to prevent this from being done. Irrespective of what happens, under the present arrangement we are assured of a pipe line to Manitoba this fall. Furthermore, the pipe line goes into the ground irrespective of what is decided in Washington by the federal power commission.
Now, this second part of the bill is highly commendable and most desirable, particularly from the point of view of the western provinces. I was very much surprised to hear one of the front benchers of the Conservative party refer, in a speech on May 18, to what I take to be the attitude of the Tory party in this house. In his concluding remarks on page 4074 of Hansard for May 18, 1956, he said:	-
Do you have to build this line now? Let us have another look at it;-
This is typical of the attitude taken so far.
-let us do something for the economy of all parts of Canada rather than for the small privileged section of two or three provinces.
Here is the attitude of the Conservative party when it comes to the western provinces, a small privileged section. When the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who represents a constituency in Winnipeg, applauds that statement in the house, when 67509-262}
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation he asks what is the big hurry, let us wait and delay and delay, then I am surprised.
It used to be that the Conservatives in the official opposition blamed their inefficiency and their abortive policies on the huge majority of the government. Now, they have a new line. They are turning their wrath on the United States investors in this country. They are trying to blame their difficulties on the United States investors in this country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How silly can you get?


René Jutras: Just read your own speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You will not find any such statement in those speeches.


René Jutras: You made your speech before, and it is on the record.


An hon. Member:: You made your speech before.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Closure; you just do not give
us any chance to speak.


René Jutras: I think I have the floor. The hon. member made his speech and I think it is a typical example of the argument I am advancing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You were never more wrong in your life.


René Jutras: As I mentioned, the member for Winnipeg South Centre followed the same line. He spoke very briefly on the pipe line itself and was very careful to speak mostly on the closure motion. He did mention the pipe line for two or three paragraphs, and frankly it would have been better if he had spoken exclusively on closure because he did not contribute very much. I am sure he will not be proud of the speech he made. He, of all people, should not be the one to turn his indignation against the United States investors in this country. I do not think there is a city anywhere in Canada that understands the United States people better than does the city of Winnipeg. There is certainly no other people who fear the United States capitalists to a less extent than the people of Winnipeg. I doubt if there is anywhere that United States investors are more welcome than in the city of Winnipeg-with the probable exception of Regina, with all due respect to our socialists in this house.
We in western Canada do welcome United States capital in our province to develop our resources.


Mr. Dufresne:: Tell that to your friends from Quebec.


René Jutras: Nowhere have provincial governments made more overtures to United
4130	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation States capital than possibly Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We have vast resources which we are just beginning to develop, so we welcome United States and other capital that will help us to explore these resources and take advantage of the real wealth we have in our provinces. I for one certainly cannot understand why anybody in this country, and particularly anybody in this house, should abuse those people who have faith enough in this country to come in and use their resources in the development of this country as a whole. They come here at our invitation; they invest in this country under our terms. It is up to us to lay down the rules; it is up to us to state under which law or what law they will operate. As I say, we invite them to come here. Surely, once they are here under our terms we should be the last ones to abuse and criticize them and particularly to call them buccaneers and pirates and so on after they have come into the country. If we do not want them to come into the country there is a very easy way to stop them. If they come, as I say, it is because we invite them. I want to make it clear that I certainly am not one of those who criticize them when they come to this country.
Why is United States capital flowing into this country at the rate it is? It is because they have faith in the sound fiscal policies of this government. Will the hon. member hold his peace for a little while? After I have finished with this matter I shall come to his speech and paradoxes and I shall add a few more. One needs only to read the sound publications in the United States, in Great Britain and in other countries of the world to know that the one factor that encouraged United States capital to come to this country was above all else the sound fiscal policies of this government over the last several years. Another factor that encouraged them to come here was the stability of the government of this country Then, there is the fact that they see the vast resources of this country. They have faith in Canada. They have faith in Canada not 50 years from now, not 100 years from now but now. That is the big difference between them and our friends of the official opposition. They think only in terms of years to come. As I say, since we have invited them to come here, they have come to help us develop our resources. We know where the western provinces would be if it had not been for the outside capital that came in. They have made possible whatever development we have.
I want to make it clear that I am not the only one who thinks in this way. We are


very grateful, and we hope they will continue to come. It is very unfortunate that all this criticism should come at this time because United States capital is on the downgrade at the moment. It is getting less and not more. Why this campaign should be waged at this time is even harder to understand.
I come now to the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart). The hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) referred to it this afternoon. I do not think I would have to refer to this matter if it had not been dealt with at some length by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle) last Friday. The hon. member for Winnipeg North was up to the same trick as his leader used several months ago, the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) and a great many others. Hon. members will recall that at the very beginning of this discussion the leader of the C.C.F. party went on the air and charged that the rate at Sudbury would be 60 cents as against 34 cents in the United States. Taking that as his assumption, he tried to prove that this was a subsidy to the United States consumer. That was corrected the next day. It was proved that his reliable information was most unreliable. But, then, several hon. members came back to the same point. The hon. member for Winnipeg North, who is an accountant, purported to cite figures to show that the rates in the United States would be much lower than the rates in Canada. I admit it is not a simple matter to try to compare rates when they are on a different basis. This afternoon the hon. member for Lambton West said: "Oh, well, let us forget about that; we need not worry about the conditions." He insisted on making comparisons with two different things. There is nothing really mysterious about these various conditions of rates. The same principle applies to electric power, to the communication lines, to the telephones. What the hon. member is saying is that you should take the rate of a telephone call in the United States on Sunday and compare it with a Canadian rate of a telephone call on Monday or another day of the week during office hours.
We all know that the telephone rate is cheaper on holidays and Sundays than it is during business hours. It is even cheaper after six o'clock. To compare one rate with the other without taking these various factors into consideration is just plain ridiculous. And yet the hon. member for Lambton West rose in his place this afternoon and said we should not worry about the different factors; we should just take two rates and compare

them. The point is, there are different factors and different rates, and there are a great many that have to be taken into consideration. I do not propose to go into all these factors at the moment, but in the case of the Winnipeg Central, which is the largest utility company in Winnipeg, they have already negotiated a contract so that we are not dealing with possibilities, we are dealing with facts as they are. They negotiated their contract on a 50 per cent load factor. The other company, the Midwestern, which is the company which will take the gas into the United States, negotiated their contract for 200 million cubic feet on a 95 per cent load factor basis; consequently, you cannot compare the two just on that basis. It is easy to break them down to a common denominator. By taking the 75 per cent load factor and by equalizing pressure, which is also another factor to take into consideration, it is found that over a 20-year period Winnipeg Central will pay an average price of 28-3 cents per thousand cubic feet. Over the same period the average price that would be paid by Midwestern would be 29-3 cents. In other words, the export price to the United States works out at an average of slightly more than one cent per thousand cubic feet higher than the price to Winnipeg.
There should not be too much question of that because, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, we have an act called the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act, which is on the statute books of this country. Regulation 9 of this act states in very clear language that no company can take gas and sell it cheaper in the United States than it sells it in Canada under similar conditions. This is clearly set out in regulation 9 of our Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act. That act has to be complied with. So far, none of the contracts negotiated in Canada has been higher than in the United States. It should be pointed out, as it was previously, that in the case of the United States company, Winnipeg is on an escalator clause basis; whereas the other one is on a constant rate basis, which means that for the first year the Winnipeg company will pay roughly 2 cents more; but in the second year both will be the same; and in the third year the Winnipeg price will be exactly one cent lower; and the fourth year it will be 3 cents lower, and so on.
Taking the period of 20 years as a basis, the Trans-Canada company over that period of time will receive an average of an additional $2,000 or more per day on its exports to the United States than would be the case had the American company been able to
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation buy it at the lesser price charged to the Winnipeg utility. This amounts to an annual increased revenue to Trans-Canada of $759,200 or, viewed in terms of the 20-year sale, Trans-Canada benefits to the amount of $15,184,000 more than if it had taken the Canadian rate. One can see the charge that this is a subsidy to United States consumers is definitely incorrect.
Before I close I want to deal briefly with the charge that the Trans-Canada company is the chosen instrument of the government. We have heard that statement over and over again. We all know if anybody was chosen by anybody that one had to be chosen by those who had the gas. One fact which seems to have been overlooked in the discussion is that this government has no gas to export. It can deal only with those companies which have licences to export gas from the province of Alberta. This was not brought about at the last minute, it has been going on for years.
The first real activity in the export of gas goes back to 1948, at the time of the discovery. Interest was created in the possibilities for gas export at that time and several applications were made to the conservation board of Alberta. In 1949 a natural gas export hearing took place and an application was made by Northwest Natural Gas Company and Alberta Natural Gas Company, both predominantly United States companies. Their application was to take gas to the Pacific northwest of the United States.
In October of the same year the Westcoast Transmission Company applied to take gas from Peace river to Vancouver and on to United States markets. They received their permit from the Alberta board in March, 1952, but they received their permit from the United States to take gas into that country only a few months ago. Let me point out that Mr. McMahon, the president, was not able to complete the financing of this enterprise until the licence was granted by the federal power commission in Washington.
Then we go to February, 1950. At this time Western Pipe Lines Limited, predominantly Canadian, applied for a permit to take gas from Winnipeg to Minnesota. In April of the same year Prairie Transmission Lines Limited, headed by a Canadian, also applied to take gas directly south to Minnesota; however, they withdrew their application and applied for one which would permit them to take gas to the Pacific coast.
In August, 1950, McColl-Frontenac and Union Oil applied to take gas to Montana, as was referred to this afternoon. In September, 1950, Canadian Delhi Oils Limited applied to export to eastern Canada over an all-Canadian route. At this stage, in September, 1950,
4132	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation two companies, Western Pipe Lines and Canadian Delhi had applications, and these hearings were not completed until November,
1950.	The board announced its decision in
1951.	The decision was that the province did not have sufficient gas for export in excess of their requirements. Mark you, this was in 1951.
In March of the same year Trans-Canada, now under its own name applied, as did Western Pipe Lines. The decision of the Alberta board in November, 1953, was that neither of these two companies could meet the financial requirements to carry the project through, so they were both turned down. I would like to point out that the Canadian government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not enter the picture until that late stage, after 1953. It was only then that Mr. Manning wrote the Prime Minister to the effect that they would consider granting a licence to a merger of these two companies to take care of both United States and eastern Canadian requirements.
I think the record is quite clear that nobody was debarred. There was ample opportunity for everybody. Several applications were made and all were dealt with by the Alberta conservation board. Their first consideration was to take care of the interests of the province of Alberta before allowing any export out of that province. It was in 1953 that this government, through the Minister of Trade and Commerce, announced the same policy and made it clear that the interests of the Canadian people had to be taken care of first before there could be any export to the United States. The only possible solution was to merge the last two companies I mentioned which had passed the various tests of the province, in order to try to bring this great natural resource to all parts of Canada for the benefit of Canadians and for a greater Canada. It was intended to treat eastern Canada and all parts of Canada on an equal basis, which is completely in line with the philosophy and experience of this government which builds for a greater and more prosperous country.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in accordance with your instructions last week to wait until the conclusion of a speech before indicating to the hon. member who has spoken that he was incorrect in some of his statements. I do so now to assist the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) who I am sure, if he had heard my speech last week or read it at page 3939 of Hansard, would have discovered that contrary to his


statements I did not advocate delay in building the pipe line but suggested that the pipe line could be started last week and these are my very words:
The pipe line could be started this week if the company had any initiative and was prepared to substitute deeds for words.
I went on to say further that all of us who live in Manitoba are anxious that gas shall be delivered there this year.


An hon. Member:: Is this a speech? You made that one.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I pointed out:
. . . Manitoba has been sold down the river . . . three years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the same point of order may I point out to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) that far from advocating delay I advocated-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -I advocated that the line be built this year under the direction of that past master of public ownership, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).


Mr. Reinke:: Watch him squirm.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to correct some of the other errors committed by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) in his remarks-


Walter Edward Harris: He did not make any.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: But I might say the two corrections which have been made are merely a sample of the many that are needed as far as his speech is concerned, because it was largely composed of fabrications and misrepresentations.
I am one of those who perhaps can look at this matter a little differently from other hon. members who have spoken in this house because, like the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes), I am from outside the area it is proposed this pipe line will serve. I rather wish I had a little of the eloquent indignation of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich in order to express my opinion concerning the fact that this is called a trans-Canada pipe line. I shall deal with that later.
I want to say that as far as we who live in the eastern provinces of Canada are concerned, while we will receive absolutely no benefit from the gas in Alberta we look upon that natural resource as we would upon any other natural resource of this country. We want to see it developed in the best manner for the people of the Dominion of Canada.

While we expect no benefit from it, we do not want to see this asset wasted nor do we want to see it cost the people of Canada more than it should.
In past years we have often heard it said that Canadians were the most wasteful people in the world as far as their great natural resources were concerned. Possibly that may have been true because we were a new country, but we have had considerable experience and there should be no recurrence of any great waste nor should there be any great misuse of our natural resources.
There are certain basic principles which I think should govern the development of our natural resources. Perhaps the first is that we as Canadians who are proud of these great assets should control their development. I think that is a great fundamental principle that should apply. The second might be that we should conserve and use our natural resources for the benefit of all the people in so far as that can be done. The third is that these great natural resources are not only for the people now living but should be conserved, developed and preserved for the people who will come after us.
As I said a moment ago, we may have been wasteful in the past in the development of our resources because we have had so many good things given to us. I do not suppose there is a country in the world with such a small population which has been so richly endowed as has the Dominion of Canada. In recent years many of these riches have been discovered in the form of great oil fields, great gas fields, base metal discoveries, uranium and other minerals. Having such a small population it may be that we have not been able to digest these riches as well as we possibly would if we had been a great, rich and heavily populated country.
The matter of closure was brought up again this afternoon. It is not my intention to debate closure except to say that I am sorry indeed that this government, after initiating closure on the first reading of this bill, has decided to initiate it again. Every hon. member, no matter what his constituency, has some interest in this pipe line. It has been called one of the great national developments of Canada, and has been compared with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Why should not hon. members representing constituencies from one end of Canada to the other, whether or not those constituencies are in areas to be served by the pipe line, have an opportunity to express their opinions in this House of Commons?
It is not my intention to develop that argument any further, but I think it is an interesting fact to note that members are sent
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation to the House of Commons to express their opinions on matters and events which come before this house. This is not something having to do with war; this is not something in the form of a great national calamity; this is something which has to do with the future and a few weeks or even months would not make much difference. I submit that the government is unfair to the members of this House of Commons and to the people whom they represent when they do not give hon. members an opportunity to express their views on a question of this kind.
There are bound to be many views. I hope I will be excused if I attempt to indicate briefly this afternoon the views of the people of eastern Canada. We remember when the question of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was brought before the house in 1951, and we remember the sessions of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. We remember the decisions that were made at that time.
I told my constituents over the radio and individually what were the results of the decisions arrived at in the>
committee. Although my people would get no benefit they were pleased to know that this was to be an all-Canadian pipe line and would not go through the United States. We were guaranteed by the people who were asking for incorporation that it would be an allCanadian pipe line. The people of the eastern provinces agreed 100 per cent. There was no doubt that it was to be an all-Canadian pipe line.
The matter of finances was also discussed in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. What were we guaranteed then? We were guaranteed that the pipe line company would pay 100 per cent of the cost of this line. This also appealed to the people of the eastern Canadian provinces, as I am sure it did also to people in other parts of Canada who would not be able to receive gas from this line. There was no objection to it because it was to be an all-Canadian pipe line to be paid for, not by Canada, not by the people of the eastern provinces, but by this company. That also was satisfactory to our people in 1951.
We were told at that time that it would be under the control of Canadians. Later on we found out that a company known as the Hudson Bay Oil and Gas Company would own 327,000 shares; that another United States-controlled company, Canadian Gulf Oil company, would own 327,000 shares; that Tennessee Gas Transmission Company would own 327,000 shares; that other United States companies would own more shares; that in all about 83 per cent of the shares of this
4134	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation company would be controlled in the United States. Our people did not think so much of that as long as the company was to be under the control of a Canadian directorate or the Canadian people. Mr. F. A. Schultz, vice president of Canadian Delhi Oil Limited of Calgary, one of the prime backers of the proposed company, stated before the committee:
The third consideration was that the project had to be economically feasible. We are satisfied at this stage that the line is entirely feasible.
We were told at that time that it was entirely feasible. As I said a moment ago, representing the people of eastern Canada, we were satisfied with the report of Mr. Shultz, the vice president of this company, that it was feasible. Again we heard nothing about the federal government or the people of Canada having to put up money to pay for the pipe line crossing the terrain of northern Ontario. Whilst the remarks of Mr. Tolmie, the parliamentary agent for the proposed company, and some of his engineers have been put on the record before, I would like just to quote again the statements that were made at that time as to the responsibility of the Canadian government in connection with building across the rugged terrain through northern Ontario.
I might say that at that time this company was applying for incorporation. They were willing and ready to promise anything, and they did promise anything and everything to the members of this House of Commons and the people of Canada. Very few of the things that they promised to the parliament of Canada or to the people have been carried out by them. Mr. Tolmie said:
The relative ruggedness of the terrain between Kenora and Sudbury has given some people the idea that this project is a little bit difficult or even impossible and for that reason we have today the engineer who made the survey on behalf of this company. I think he will be able to give you some enlightening comments on the type of country that these pipe-line builders have met in other countries and that the shield country of Canada is not as formidable as we have been led to believe, largely because of going over it by train and plane.
Then he introduced Mr. Floyd Waterfield of the Pipe Line Engineering Company and the Oklahoma Contracting Corporation. Mr. Waterfield gave the following evidence before the committee:
"So, everything being considered," he told the committee, "that so-called south route as I have referred to it along the (great) lakes provided some quite difficult construction problems-but I have seen worse in our country. In Pennsylvania there are certain sections of that country which are difficult particularly across the Tuscarora mountains and in West Virginia. That is a pipe-liner's hell there. So there is nothing in this pipe-line construction that is insurmountable. It


is just big. Some of it is going to be difficult construction but the average over-all cost comes to a very reasonable and reconcilable figure."
They did not want the Canadian people to pay for it. They themselves were prepared to pay for it at that time. They appealed to the people of this country who will get no benefit, to the people in the far-reaching provinces and other parts of Canada which would get no benefit. We had no objections on the evidence and on the report of this company which came here and sought to obtain incorporation.
So what do we have? First, in 1951 we had the promise that it would be an all-Canadian line. Second, there was no financial difficulty; that this company was willing and prepared -not only willing and prepared but they told us of the finances they could get. They told us in the committee that there was some firm in New York, I think, where they could obtain $250 million for the purpose of financing it. We were told they could get all the finance that was needed. We were told that the northern route, which we all agreed here in this House of Commons was a route we would like to see followed, was not a difficult route and that they would build it across there. They would serve Canada and ask no one to help them. But that was in 1951. After they obtained their incorporation, we began to see just what this company had in its mind.
I am sure that in 1951 they must have appeared before the government with their tongues in their cheeks, and that they also gave evidence before this committee with their tongues in their cheeks, because they no sooner got the incorporation than they began to point out the great difficulties in the construction of a Canadian pipe line. First, they told us that the pipe line would not pay unless some 200 million cubic feet of gas were exported daily to the United States.
As has been said here many times they joined with another company, and a new company was formed in 1954. Then they began to point out the great difficulties of the northern route. They said their company coud not build this route; that unless there was assistance from the Canadian government and from the Ontario government it could not be completed. That was in 1954. Then from 1951 to 1956 we have heard this company complaining that they could not do this and could not do that, and they come back again to the government today. They not only ask them to build over the rough terrain in northern Ontario, but now they tell them they cannot even build from the border of Alberta to the city of Winnipeg.
Has there ever been such a change in the promises of such a corporation in the whole

history of this country? They have climbed today on the backs of the Canadian government; and not only are they on their backs but believe me they have their hands very close to the throats of the Canadian government and Canadian people.
The other day the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes), said they had blackmailed the Canadian government into giving them conditions for which they had never asked before. I believe the people of Canada will feel that we have been blackmailed; that this company has taken advantage of the position which it has been allowed to attain, and today they are blackmailing the government and the Canadian people to assist them into doing something that they promised some years ago they could do without any assistance.
I can follow some hon. members in their arguments here when they speak entirely from local and personal points of view. For instance, the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking), in speaking this afternoon, in his argument for the pipe line said that in the city of Guelph their old coal apparatus was outworn and out of date and they had to have a new one. He wanted to see the pipe line put through for this reason. That is a good reason for the city of Guelph, a very fine city for which we all have a high regard because it gave us our hon. leader. But it is not reason enough for the people of Canada, it is not reason enough for the people in my part of the country.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras), discussing the city of Winnipeg-and he made so many mistakes that he had to be corrected by other hon. members-said it was a great advantage to the city of Winnipeg. Of course it will be a great advantage to the city of Winnipeg; but we are told that if the pipe line is built through the city of Winnipeg and we do not get the 200 million cubic feet per day of gas going into the United States, the amount of money received from the gas sold in the city of Winnipeg will be only a trickle and that no company could afford to ship gas to the city of Winnipeg unless arrangements were made for the gas to be shipped to the United States.
For over a year, since February, 1955, we have waited for the federal power commission in the United States to grant permission to export gas to the United States. We seem to be no further ahead today than we were then. As a matter of fact, with the antagonistic feelings there are against this Trans-Canada Pipe Line company in the United States, it seems as though that permission may not be granted. So we are in a very poor position as far as this development of our gas pipe line is concerned.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
As I said, I can understand some of the arguments. I can follow to a certain extent the hon. members of the Social Credit party. They have this great and valuable resource in their own province, and they want to sell it. Naturally any person or organization which has a good article wants to sell it. They think that they are going to sell it more quickly if this matter is hurried through at this time without proper organization or without proper study. I do not think that result follows at all. I am much surprised to see the great confidence which some of their members place in this government, and the great applause they sometimes give in this connection when this pipe line is mentioned. I should like to read what the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas) said the other day. As reported at page 3961 of Hansard the hon. member, speaking of the delay, said this:
It is as a result of their fumbling, bumbling and lack of decision that the present step was made necessary.
He was speaking of the federal government, the federal cabinet, at that time. Then he went on to say this:
We have to realize that because of this fumbling and indecision the government have taken the only action they could have taken under the circumstances. I would not be surprised but what one of the greatest causes of indecision within the government was the attitude of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I say that because he has attempted all through the years to squash anything that would bring any credit to the Social Credit government of Alberta. It is quite possible that by his arguments he led some of the junior members of the cabinet to go along with him.
We also know that over the years it has been the expressed policy of the Liberal party in the province of Alberta that there will be no export of natural resources. They have opposed the export of coal, the export of oil, the export of gas. Now the whole thing has come down to the present situation. The government has made a mess of things.
Still, with that verdict by the members of the Social Credit party as to a government which they themselves have said has made a mess of this pipe line, they will stand up today and defend the action of that government which, in my opinion, is going to make a bigger mess of it than before.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), as a reason why he wanted to see this pipe line built immediately, said the government or the people of Alberta were losing $50,000 a day. I think that is probably a great exaggeration, but I am not sure. However, I should like to ask him this question. If the Alberta government are losing $50,000 a day, who is responsible for their loss?


Mr. Blackmore:: Failure to sell the gas.
4136	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It has been the failure of this government-as they said, by their fumbling and their bumbling-to do what they should have done in the last five or six years. Those are the people who are responsible. Yet those are the people whom they are supporting today to do more fumbling and bumbling as far as this pipe line is concerned.


John Horne Blackmore: The failure to sell gas.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Then again, do they think for one minute that as soon as this bill goes through the house this $50,000 a day they speak of will roll into the treasury of the government of Alberta?


John Horne Blackmore: There will be a great deal more.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It will depend upon what the United States does. My hon. friend knows this. It will depend on whether the federal power commission of the United States grants the permit to sell 200 million cubic feet of gas to the United States. Consideration may go on for a year or it may go on for years. It may never happen. Alberta will still be losing that $50,000 a day, and they can blame their friends across the way for that loss.
I can also understand some individuals- and I am speaking of no particular individual; many of them have been mentioned- connected with this gas industry in Alberta. I know a good many of them myself. I can understand these people being extremely anxious to get this thing pushed forward. They have a personal interest. They have an axe to grind.


John Horne Blackmore: They have a national interest.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They want to gain something, probably, on the investments they have. They know that if this company fails-as it very well could-this thing is going to be saddled on the government and the people of Canada. They know that, and they do not think they are taking any great risk as far as that is concerned. I have nothing to say about Ontario. They are interested. Our provinces are not. Ontario is an interested party. They want gas no doubt for northern Ontario. They have already been sucked into this thing. Perhaps they were unwilling, but they had to come in. Now that they are in, it looks to me as though it might be more or less a Hobson's choice for them to carry on.


An hon. Member:: Who are the suckers now.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The people of Canada. An attempt is being made to make them the suckers.
This all leads me to say that I agree with the amendment which was moved the other


day by my friend the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and which suggested that first this matter should go to a committee. A few days or a few weeks more spent in discussion of such a great undertaking for the development of this country of ours is not going to make much difference. Years were taken to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. Sir John A. Macdonald had all sorts of trouble-


John Lorne MacDougall: We have heard all that a thousand times.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It will not hurt you to hear it again. We have heard you a thousand times, too, and it has not been to much advantage. As I was saying, I agree with the hon. member for Prince Albert. We should know what people are going to be supplied. We do not yet know whether the gas is going to go into the United States. That matter could be discussed. We do not know the people who are going to take it in Fort William and Port Arthur.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You worry about New Brunswick.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There is talk about Algoma Steel going to take gas. Algoma Steel is. going to pay nearly twice as much for their gas as will companies down in the United States. If the federal power commission allow gas to be exported to the United States, Algoma Steel will still pay almost twice as much as do the people down in the United States. We have not heard from Montreal, the great city of Canada. We do not know how much of this gas is going to be sold in Montreal, which is 2,200 miles from the gas fields of Alberta. It is going to cost the city of Montreal about twice as much for their gas as is paid in Winnipeg or in Saskatchewan. Have we any reason to believe that these people in that city of Montreal are going to rush in with open arms to take this gas from the Trans-Canada company? How about the city of Ottawa? We all live here part of .the time. I have not heard nor have I seen it reported in the press of Ottawa that the people, business or anyone else are rushing in and asking that this gas be brought into the city of Ottawa in the immediate future.
These are things which I say should be considered by a committee. These are things which should be known by the people before they go ahead. These are the questions which are being asked and which I feel should be answered. What about the cost of construction? In 1951 an estimate was given. Since then we have heard other estimates. However, the cost of construction is going up all the time.	,


John Lorne MacDougall: That is why we should not wait.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We should know just what it is going to cost. There is another thing we ought to know. We have been told many things which we have found out have not been altogether facts. We ought to know whether there are any other companies which are willing to take on the construction of this pipe line. We ought to know whether there is other pipe available as far as these other companies are concerned. There are many other things that should be considered. The opinion of the eastern provinces, of the province of British Columbia and of the province of Quebec should be known.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is not a trans-Canada or a Canadian pipe-line bill. The province of British Columbia will derive no benefit from it. The province of Quebec will derive very little, if any, benefit from it. They are not clamouring for the gas from this pipe line. The maritime provinces will receive absolutely no benefit from it. These are the things which should be taken into Consideration by any committee examining this matter.
I want to speak for a moment about the situation in the maritime provinces. In 1951 the' maritimes had no criticism of this project, but were pleased and anxious to see that this pipe line was being constructed. Today, when they realize that the government of Canada is willing and ready to lend money to a United States concern to construct a pipe line from Alberta to Winnipeg, and then to help construct the portion in Ontario at a cost of some $160 million, the people of the maritimes want to know why this government could not guarantee the bonds of the province of New Brunswick to permit hydro development in that province when it was so badly needed. That is one question which I think, in fairness to the people of New Brunswick and the people of the maritime provinces, the Prime Minister or someone else should answer in this house.
Not so long ago the Prime Minister referred to the maritime provinces when speaking to the Canadian Labour Congress in the city of Toronto. At that time he pointed out that the rest of Canada felt that there had been certain neglect of the eastern provinces, and he felt that something should be done about it. There should be economic redevelopment in the eastern provinces, and special measures should be taken. He also went on to say, and it sounded very logical and reasonable, that the people of the eastern provinces should state just what they wanted and that would be given careful consideration by the federal government.	_
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
I have sat in this house for 20 years, and I have heard repeatedly from members from the maritime provinces. Time and time again they have told this government what they felt was needed for the development of the maritime provinces. The Prime Minister must know. The Prime Minister has taken part in federal-provincial conferences, and there has not been one provincial government from the maritimes that has not had a long list of things it felt the federal government could do to greatly benefit the people in that area.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot the federal government can do to help our people. Those things are well known. In the face of what is happening in this parliament today there is no excuse whatever for this federal government not giving assistance to these little provinces down by the sea which are having such a hard struggle to build up their economy. As I said a moment ago, the government is helping a great United States company which promised the people of Canada and the government that they, without any financial assistance, would build this pipe line. This company must have hundreds of millions of dollars at its disposal today which could be used to build this pipe line without federal government aid. This same government refused aid to the little province of New Brunswick, which is trying to develop hydro facilities in order to process the great natural resources being found there at the present time. I say it is unfair to the people of our province, and that is one angle which should be considered and discussed by this government.
There is another matter which I should like to discuss, but I have not much time. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jut-ras), in what I call a speech full of cheap political claptrap, said we were opposed to United States capital. We welcome United States capital into this country, and we have said so time and time again. What we object to is this. We object to United States capital coming in here, buying up all our natural resources and siphoning them out of the country, because it is a well known fact that when your natural resources are taken out of the country your people leave. What we want is more United States capital. In New Brunswick we do not want our minerals to be shipped out of the country. We want United States capital to come in and build smelters and refineries in that area. That is what we want, and that is what we want for this Dominion of Canada.
I can give you an example of United States capital. They own the great Knob mine in Labrador and have built a railroad, which
4138	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation should have been built by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian people, because that is going to be one of the richest parts of the Dominion of Canada. But they own the mines, the railways and the ships at Seven Islands which take the ore from Canada to the United States to be smelted. Those are the things to which we object, Mr. Speaker, not United States capital coming into this country but United States capital taking most of our natural resources out of this country for the employment of their own people and not for the employment of the people here.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my time is up. This bill should be sent to a committee to be studied; there is no question about that'. If there ever was a case of "heads you win, tails I lose"- which the minister mentioned in reverse the other day-we in the maritimes feel that this is such a case. We want this matter thoroughly discussed in a committee so that every angle can be studied, and so that the people of Canada will know where they are going with relation to this bill.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) invited me to take part in this debate and I gladly do so. I would have done so anyway, but I should like to read the invitation he extended to me. I quote from page 3869 of Hansard:
I should like to hear from the Minister of Finance just how enthusiastic he is about this proposal. I should like to hear from him how well he likes the idea of Canadian taxpayers' money being put up to assure the control of one of our greatest resources by investors in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, there never has been a more inaccurate statement put in the form of a question than that which has been made by the Leader of the Opposition.


George Alexander Drew: It is accurate.


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member for Proven-cher delivered an excellent speech this afternoon, and I shall have to repeat a little of what he said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Walter Edward Harris: But in any event I want to make it clear that this mouthful phrase about the great natural resources of this country being sold has been adopted by most of the opposition speakers when they do not know what it means. The bill before the house has to do with the construction of a pipe line. The pipe line, of course, will transport natural gas, and in so far as there is any natural resource concerned in this debate it is with respect to the gas itself, and not the pipe line.
Now, sir, this government and this parliament do not own one cubic inch of natural


gas. We are not dealing with the natural resources when we discuss this bill. That belongs, sir, to the province of Alberta, or rather to those persons in Alberta who have discovered the gas and want to sell it.
Let us consider what we in this parliament are called upon to do; let us go back to the discovery of gas. And may I point out that every hon. member could read with profit the comments made by my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham), and what was said by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) with respect to this natural resource of Alberta. Both these hon. gentlemen placed before the house the facts with respect to natural gas and what it would mean to the economy of this country if that natural gas is turned into money.
The other day in his speech the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) tried to suggest that he was rather opposed to this whole business. If I understand the tenor of his remarks, they were to the effect that there was no rush in this; that we could go slowly; that we could leave the gas in the ground for the time being if we wanted to and perhaps it could be dug up by a later generation. In his speech the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich took much the same view, and I was a little surprised because the hon. gentleman is not the kind of man to say, "Now that we have gas in British Columbia we do not care what happens to the rest of the country".
Let me go back to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. May I point out to him that in his party there are some gentlemen who could give him a certain instruction with respect to some of the parables in the Bible. May I draw his attention to the fact that in one particular parable the master did not give the reward to the servant who buried his talents in the ground and left them there. The reward given by the master, Mr. Speaker, was to him who had taken his talents and wisely and prudently used them and returned them to the master with interest.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Used them prudently.


Walter Edward Harris: In the province of Alberta a great many people and a great many companies have spent a great deal of money to find natural gas and oil. They have been desiring to sell that in the markets of Canada and the United States. This government became involved in this argument, as the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) said, only something over two years ago. It is true that we incorporated pipe-line companies before that but in fact, until the Alberta conservation board decided there was

gas within Alberta for the purposes of export, we were not in a position to do anything about it. But having made that decision through the conservation board, the government of Alberta quite rightly would expect this parliament to take some action in some form to carry out their wishes.
At that point, sir, this government was faced with the decision, are we going to uphold the whole policy of every successive government in Canada since 1907, namely not to permit the export of any energy until Canadian demand had been adequately covered? This government made a decision which every hon. member approved, namely that we would not grant a permit until we had decided that Canadian need and Canadian uses would be adequately protected.
I want it clearly understood that the conservation board of the province of Alberta had given that decision as well. I am not suggesting that because we made that decision they had not also taken the same view. But they said, in the Pincher Creek area, or in that particular area, we shall dedicate for export out of Alberta so many hundred million cubic feet of gas a day, I think something between 500 million and 600 million. At that point the federal government came into the picture for the first time. We have made the decision that we will not permit the export out of Canada of more than 200 million cubic feet a day, and that by way of Emerson down to the midwest states. I have not heard anyone in this house in this debate or in a previous debate say that decision was the wrong one to take. What does it mean, sir?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is one of the things we want to find out about.


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, yes. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that no one in this debate has quarrelled with our decision that if there are somewhere between 500 million and 600 million cubic feet a day of natural gas available for export out of Alberta the proper proportion to export to the United States at the moment at any rate is 200 million cubic feet. Since we made that decision, sir, it followed that we should also require that the remainder of that amount should be transported to eastern Canada for use along the route and in eastern Canada.
It has always been understood, sir, that we should have an all-Canadian pipe line in the sense that the pipe line would run through Canada. No hon. member of this house, as far as I have been able to find out, except the hon. member for Calgary South, has ever advocated any other course. Well, sir, the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company is a federal incorporation; it has a federal charter because it has to have the
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation right to transport gas across international or, at least, across provincial boundaries.
In case anybody feels that he has got himself confused on this issue, I repeat that our position arises only because of the fact that someone wants to transport gas across provincial or international boundaries. We do not own the gas; we have no control over it except that which I have described. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines then made certain engagements to buy and sell gas; to buy it in the west, transport it and sell it in the east. In the course of doing so they asked permission, or at any rate they made a contract, with a company which had to apply to the federal power commission in Washington to import that 200 million cubic feet a day at Emerson.
At that point hon. members of the Conservative party opposite began to point out and suggest, directly and indirectly, that this government was having its decisions made for it by an agency of a foreign government, and I quote from the Leader of the Opposition on another occasion. He said at page 2171 of Hansard:
This proposal is going to delay the delivery of gas by adopting a method that makes us dependent upon the whims of the federal power commission in Washington.
This government has placed itself in the humiliating and improper position where it is bound to wait until an agency of the government of the United States reaches a decision.
We heard those arguments-


George Alexander Drew: What was the date of the statement?


Walter Edward Harris: That statement was made on March 15, 1956.


George Alexander Drew: Before you brought in your new measure.


Walter Edward Harris: And since this debate has begun we have heard the same suggestions made by hon. members opposite in criticism of the policy which we now put forward, which would mean that we would not wait for the federal power commission at all.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the Alberta conservation board has complete control of the sale of natural gas outside Alberta in the sense that unless they allow the export of it there is no export. My hon. friends of the C.C.F. party have talked at some length and in glowing terms about public ownership and about the Ontario hydro commission as an outstanding example of its success. No one in Ontario will disagree with them. The Ontario hydro commission is an excellent institution which discharges its duties quite well; but there is no comparison at all in this case with the Ontario hydro commission. If my hon. friends were to go out to the province of Alberta and say to that government,

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation "You should produce this natural gas and you should market it within the confines of the province of Alberta," they would be talking about the same thing they are talking about when they mention the Ontario hydro, which develops power in the province of Ontario and sells it within the province.
Instead of that, they are discussing now this government running a pipe line at public expense through at least four provinces and perhaps even five, making contracts for the sale of gas throughout all those provinces with municipal corporations and provincial governments when in fact, Mr. Speaker, the premier of the province of Ontario, in the debates in the legislature just recently, said that after the fullest consideration they unanimously rejected the idea that Ontario hydro would distribute natural gas in Ontario.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You run a railway transporting goods you do not own.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, and I have often heard hon. members say in this house it is regrettable that we are in that position.


An hon. Member:: What do you think
about it?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company found last year that this government and indeed the government of Ontario as well were insisting that the pipe line go through not the shortest northern Ontario route but a northern Ontario route which is longer than they normally would survey, and the result was they expected the government of Ontario and Canada to contribute in some way to the construction of that line which would be at an extra cost because of its length and direction. We have not subsidized that line, and we are making no subsidy at all in the bill before the house. Let any hon. member opposite who uses the word subsidy correct himself and speak of a loan.
The province of Ontario, desiring to have natural gas in Ontario and desiring to assist this government in providing it in the reasonably near future, entered into an agreement with us that they would help finance that northern Ontario section of the trans-Canada pipe line. That is part of the bill before the house. We are advancing money. We are creating a crown corporation for the purpose of constructing a line and leasing it and perhaps ultimately selling it to the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company. Now I understand, Mr. Speaker, that even this part of our proposal does not meet with the approval of hon. members opposite but let me remind them that the premier of the province of Ontario and his government felt

that this was wise and desirable in the interests of the people of the province of Ontario.
May I just now, sir, by way of interjection, answer what the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) has said. This government and any government of Canada would be hopelessly unable to say on all occasions and on every occasion, "We shall do something for every part of Canada at this particular moment". This government has stayed in office for many reasons, but one of them is that we have given full consideration to the sectional requirements of this country.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You have not a very good idea of the meaning of requirements.


Walter Edward Harris: It may be, Mr. Speaker, that at any given time there will not be something we can do for a particular part of Canada, but we are in office because when the opportunity arises we have always seized it and we shall do so in the future.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company made its contract with the United States company which wanted to import gas into the United States, that company made an application to the federal power commission for the purpose of obtaining an import permit. I think that consideration began in December-certainly the hearing began in early February-and the hearings are not yet completed but are expected to be completed some time before the summer holidays. This spring, sir, we were faced with a decision to be taken. That decision was, shall we await further a decision of the federal power commission which appears to be necessary before financing can be made available to Trans-Canada, and if we wait what will be the damage, if any, to the Canadian economy in waiting one more year?
Ordinarily a minister of finance is not inclined to loan anyone $80 million, and when this proposal was considered in this department I must say I gave it a certain amount of critical examination. But let us consider the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal to do what this bill now provides for.
This bill provides for the construction of the western leg of this pipe line this year. By the way, sir, something which may be interesting to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is this. I believe he made up the minds of some government supporters when his party two weeks ago today moved the adjournment of this house on a matter of urgent public business, namely the method of financing the western leg. In the course of speaking to that motion and before Your Honour disallowed it the hon. member said

this urgency "relates to getting something done without further delay in western Canada". He said further:
Your Honour realizes that the urgency that confronts us today is that unless some action is taken before long the western leg of the across-Canada pipe line cannot be built this year.
He also went on to say that it would be desirable to give parliament the views of his party "as to what they feel should be done to get this project under way without further delay".
Mr. Speaker, in April this year it became evident that if the federal power commission were not to complete its work immediately this government would be faced with the decision, as I said before, as to whether to delay this project one year or to take some action. At that point it would have been easy to say, "We shall not intervene at all; we shall await the decision of the federal power commission, and if it is successful no doubt this company will be able to finance itself by next season". However, Mr. Speaker, there was another factor that had to be considered.
This company ordered 34-inch pipe last year. That pipe is now partly rolled, and the remainder will be rolled and ready within a matter of days or weeks. But, Mr. Speaker, that involves an investment of between $30 and $40 million and it was highly unlikely, that those who had ordered that pipe would be content to carry the pipe for another season.
Now, if it happened perchance that the federal power commission did not give a decision until late this year it was extremely unlikely-indeed, the odds were very much against it-that we would be able to acquire pipe after that in time for the construction period of 1957, and that the first pipe would be laid for the western leg in July, 1958. Well, sir, that was our choice. We could risk that or we could take the action we are taking here.
I come back, then, to what the hon. member for Lethbridge and my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys have said, that in Alberta there are millions of dollars worth of natural gas capped and blanketed down, of no use whatever to the economy of Canada at the moment. The Minister of Finance is entitled to consider the condition of the economy and the revenues which will come into his coffers should business continue at a high level.
This project; the building of the pipe line itself; the installations in the consumer homes; the installations in industry and the installations in municipal institutions, we thought would run to a cost of something over $1
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation billion spent in the Canadian economy over the next five years. But more than that, sir, if all this wealth is to be tapped and used, may I point out that this government at the present rate, if these companies are successful in selling their gas at a profit, will take 45 per cent of that profit by way of corporation income tax.
When my friend the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich-and perhaps also the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, but particularly the former-appeals to the Minister of Finance to go out to Vancouver island and explain to his constituents why a municipal corporation has to go without taxes from us, or why the local hospital should not have a wing on it, all I can say is, "Bless your soul, if this project gets going we will have enough money for all the things you have asked for".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that a promise?


Edmund Davie Fulton: You had better take that off Hansard.


Walter Edward Harris: No, that is not a promise.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is a careless exaggeration.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall enter my little caveat to say I was quite right; literally, we would have enough money for all the projects, but we would use our usual good sense in deciding which ones should be proceeded with.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The leopard has not changed its spots.


Walter Edward Harris: There is another factor in the economic situation of Canada which ought to be considered, and that is the needs of the province of Ontario. In Ontario we have about one-half the industrial production of Canada and about one-third of the population. When I speak now I am speaking as Minister of Finance, but at the same time I cannot help thinking that I represent a portion of that province. The premier of that province has said on more than one occasion that it is extremely difficult for his government to finance the growing expansion of the province. Indeed, some of his criticisms directed at this government with respect to our tax-sharing agreements are simply that the expansion of Ontario has been so great he has not been able to keep pace with it, because every expansion has required some capital outlay.
Let us consider for a moment what that expansion has meant in Ontario. It has meant something to the rural members in this house. When my hon. friends across the way who represent rural ridings speak about lower prices which they claim the farmer is obtaining, let them consider for a moment what

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation would have happened in the past five years if the province of Ontario had not expanded at the rate it has. Everyone from rural Ontario knows that the reason the economy in the rural parts of Ontario is reasonably good at the moment is the growth of the cities and the growth in the number of mouths to be fed in those cities. If we did not have that progress the picture might well be different in rural Ontario, because for one reason or another we are becoming more dependent upon our own consumption of goods than we formerly were.
There was a most interesting debate in the Ontario legislature with respect to this, and I should like to quote the provincial treasurer who spoke as follows on February 21:
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.
I am not going to enter into an argument as to whether prices are adequate or desirable or what they are, because that is a matter of detail with which I am not concerned at the moment. What I am concerned with is that the province of Ontario is, as the provincial treasurer has said, fast coming to the point where sources of energy are becoming fewer and fewer and may possibly dry up. Every member of this house representing an Ontario constituency knows that the Ontario hydro is finding it difficult to look forward and make plans for power for those who need it. Indeed the St. Lawrence waterway, which was expected to provide this additional power, is still a matter of a year and a half or two years from being completed. While I am not prepared to give a precise figure, reading statements made by the provincial people I have come to the conclusion that long before that power is delivered every single part of it will have been spoken for.
If that is so, and even if by making do the province could increase its energy sources somewhat, nevertheless that is not good enough because today there are people in the province of Ontario asking the provincial government when they can have power so they may plan ahead. It is no longer a case of saying, "Well, we think you can have power next week or next month or six months from today." They must know, yet they are being told that their power will not be available until one, two or three years hence.
That is why the premier of Ontario and his government have come to the conclusion

that they are ready to put up $35 million with respect to the northern Ontario leg of this pipe line, and are willing to extend the time under which that arrangement was made so as to provide for the passage of this bill in the house. We can then make a partnership agreement on that basis.
What was the alternative to saying that we would provide this? The alternative was to say that we would not. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, and has repeated it more than once in this house, that he believes the pipe line ought to be begun this year, of course under public ownership. I do not know of an hon. member, except the hon. member for Royal and perhaps one or two others like the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, who does not agree that it is desirable that this pipe line be begun this year.
What are the alternatives offered by the opposition groups in this house? The Leader of the Opposition, speaking on behalf of his party, has said in effect, "Let us send this to a standing committee, we can do that without interfering with the time element of having the pipe line this year." I must say there is no possibility whatever of this bill going to a standing committee and having the examination he has in mind and coming out in time to have this job done by Christmas in western Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why not?


Walter Edward Harris: It has been most interesting to see how the debate has been developed by other members of his party. I had thought all of us felt that as much of this natural gas as could be should be retained in Canada. Indeed it was with some searching of hearts that we decided to grant a permit for the export of 200 million cubic feet. But, as I said before, there has been no criticism on that score because it is recognized that that is absolutely proper under the circumstances. But in this debate we have had the official opposition advocating in this house a plan which calls for the exportation of 400 million cubic feet a day. Now, if we were recommending that-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true.


An hon. Member:: Distortion.


George Alexander Drew: The plan the Prime Minister did not even know about.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall be glad to quote it. Before I do so, let me say that if we had been recommending that course, how much would they have talked about the opposition being pro-Canada and the government being anti-Canada. The other day the hon. member

for Broadview (Mr. Hees), the former president of the Progressive Conservative Association of Canada, was speaking and was interrupted by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Dickey). Let me quote from page 4090 of Hansard of May 18:


John Horace Dickey: Do you support the McMahon
proposals?


Mr. Hees:: The McMahon proposal looks like an excellent one. Yes, I certainly do.
If hon. members opposite do not agree with their colleague, and I am not surprised that they do not, what is the situation at the moment? They have no plan as an alternative to that which is being put forward. They agree with the necessity of this job being started this summer. What they are saying in effect is that the government of Canada should not risk $80 million to do it. Let me point out, however, that this government is not risking very much.


George Alexander Drew: It is not risking anything; it is risking the taxpayers' money.


Walter Edward Harris: If this bill passes we will advance 90 per cent of the cost of the western leg. For what reason? In order to be able to deliver gas before winter to the city of Winnipeg, among other things; and to get in one of the two construction years that we always thought would be required for this job. If the house passes the bill the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation will be set up and will be authorized to go forward with its plans in conjunction with the province of Ontario for the purpose of continuing the line down as far as Kapuskasing. The completion of the line from Kapuskasing to Toronto and from Toronto to Montreal may very well be done in the next construction season.
Bear in mind what I have said. If the western leg were started in the summer of 1958 there would be no certainty that the eastern section would be completed by the fall of 1959. What I want to say as a representative from the province of Ontario is that I agree heartily with the premier and government of that province when they say that this would be almost fatal to the progress of this province.
The proposal is that we should advance $80 million to the crown corporation, which in turn will lend it to Trans-Canada for the purpose of getting that pipe laid this summer. When the pipe is laid this summer and the gas comes through to the city of Winnipeg, we shall then have before us the possibility of completing this project next summer. I do not know that this will necessarily occur, but at least it is a possibility.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Why should we do this? My hon. friend from Royal makes the point that we might think this thing over and that there is no great rush; yet he admits that the people in the province of Alberta want to sell their gas now, and not two or three years from now.
We have not heard anything about the people from the province of Saskatchewan, because they have been rather quiet over there, but they will take the gas any time it comes along. The people of the province of Manitoba, and particularly the people of the city of Winnipeg, not only want the gas but they need it. It should be delivered to them at the earliest possible moment.
The people throughout the northern part of the province of Ontario are going to have a fuel substitute for a fuel they now import from Pennsylvania, and at a low cost; and we shall have a greater mining development, which will mean a greater income to this country.
What about the people of the rest of the province of Ontario? There is not a municipality in Ontario on this route which is not waiting for the gas pipe line to come in order to provide gas for them, and that goes for the route from Kapuskasing to Toronto and from Toronto to Montreal. Of course you can make do, but that is not the way in which the Canadian government and the Canadian people want to conduct their economy. One of the reasons this government, as the hon. member for Provencher has said, is so well thought of abroad is that it is stable and you can count on it. What is more, it goes forward instead of standing still.


Mr. Bell:: What about the maritimes?


Walter Edward Harris: I am coming to the maritimes.


Thomas Miller Bell: O.K., let's go.


Walter Edward Harris: My hon. friend represents a city in which there has been a great deal of the Canadian taxpayers' money properly spent on buildings and harbour installations, and he cannot complain. If it happens, according to the hon. member for Royal, that the only people who are going to benefit by this transaction are the people of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and possibly Quebec, may I say to him that he is taking a very short view of what the people of this country think they ought to do.
What we have left are the Atlantic provinces and British Columbia. The Atlantic provinces and British Columbia will inevitably receive that careful attention to their needs that this government always gives to them-


Thomas Miller Bell: Shama.
4144	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Walter Edward Harris: -but to say that we ought to hold up a benefit which is going to redound to the credit of all these people because at the moment it is not possible to do something in some other part of the. country seems to me like the very smallest Canadianism we have ever heard of.


Thomas Miller Bell: How about Beechwood?


Walter Edward Harris: In the course of this debate a great many members on this side have inquired of the official opposition why they seem to be disregarding and not speaking of the position taken by the government of the province of Ontario. I do not intend to be offensive when I say what I am about to say. It would be difficult, sir, under the circumstances, for a Conservative government of the province of Ontario to take any position which might embarrass the Conservative party in this house. It would be most difficult, and I can understand the premier and the provincial treasurer of that province thinking at great length and looking at their words very carefully before either using them or writing them. I can only say that after the fullest consideration those words have been used, and it must have been for one reason. It must have been because they thought it was not only in the interests of the people of Ontario but in the interests of the whole of the people of Canada. May I just quote one sentence from Mr. Porter's letter to Mr. Howe of May 14:
Every day's delay invites the most serious consequences to the development of Ontario, and to the national economy. In these circumstances, it would appear essential that the .western section of the line be completed'-
Be completed, sir, not begun.
-be completed during the year 1956.
Sir, as Minister of Finance, I repeat what I said a moment ago when it was suggested to me that the solution to this problem, was a loan to a private corporation of $80 million, or approximately that sum. You would, understand, and the house would .understand, :that the Minister of Finance would have to be very careful Of what his position ought to be under those circumstances. Yet when I thought it over; when I heard some of the arguments made in the house earlier and when I considered the position the premier and the government ' of the province of Ontario were taking, I felt that I could not take less than a national interest in,.this and that I would have to agree in the interests of the Canadian people.	.	..


Alfred Claude Ellis: May I call it six o'clock? -~~i-
At six o'clock the house took recess. , . ...
IMr. Bell.]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock we had just heard one of the better, efforts from the government benches. To give credit where credit is due, I think that we shall be quite free in admitting that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) to a great extent neatly pulled the rug from under the feet of the members of the Progressive Conservative opposition. However, during the course of his remarks I thought it was quite significant that he made no valid case against the proposition of public ownership. Indeed, throughout the course of this debate I suggest that neither the Minister of Trade and Commerce nor the Minister of Finance has done very much to convince the house that public ownership is pot practicable or desirable at the present time.
I note that both he and the hon. member for Provencher, who spoke earlier in the afternoon, tried to put up the proposition that the issue facing the house at the present time is simply a question of whether Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited is going to build this line on the one hand or whether no line at all is to be built. In other words, from afnong alternative schemes they have taken the worst scheme and then they have come to parliament and said, "It is. either this or that; you will either accept this package deal which we are trying to ram down your throats Or you will stand condemned for delaying this particular project". I think that is a. false position the government is putting forward, because there are other alternatives which we .should like to examine more closely.
One of the reasons we have submitted a subainondment calling, on the, house to refer this, legislation to the committee on, railways, canals land telegraph lines is that such a procedure will give members of the House of Commons, , an opportunity of hearing some of the. reasons why this rather nefarious proposal is the only one the government will consider. f \ , .	.	. .We have heard a great deal of talk about the chosen instrument. Apparently the government is-exceedingly anxious to dissociate itself f rom Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, although I was quite interested the'other night in hearing the hon.i. member ..for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore): suggest that it was not true that Trans-Canada Pipe j Lines was the chosen instrument al .the government. I have before me his .exact words as reported at page 4052 of. Hansard.	[	. .	,	. . '
Mrs Blackmore: L am not denying it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: He said this:
It is not true that the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company is in any way a favourite or pet of the government of Canada. It is simply the instrument chosen by the Alberta government, and it has done everything it possibly could to comply with the request of the dominion government.


John Horne Blackmore: That is right.


Alfred Claude Ellis: What the government spokesmen have been trying to get across to this house is the proposition that you can get the pipe line built only through this particular arrangement. We do not accept that proposition, because we feel that the most practicable of all the suggestions that have been advanced have to do with public construction of the pipe line in order that it might be owned by the people of Canada. I suggest that the issue is not "Either Trans-Canada or no pipe line". I suggest the issue is whether the government is going to insist, in its folly, on backing up this company which has failed us over the past five years; which came to parliament and obtained a charter under false pretences; and which lied to parliament and to the committee. The sordid story has already been placed on the record.
This parliament obtained from the promoters of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines every assurance that they were ready to go ahead with the project; that all they required was the green light from parliament; that there was money available; that they would have no difficulty in financing the project; that they would use Canadian money; that they would build an all-Canadian pipe line and that they would serve an all-Canadian market. On the strength of these assurances they were granted a charter. Yet what has happened since then? We hear a great deal of talk about delay and about the necessity of going forward now with the immediate construction of the pipe line. I suggest that the main urgency now is of the government's oWn making. The urgency is that of getting the Liberal party off the hook and sparing Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company from the embarrassment which it so richly deserves having regard to its inaction in the past.
' It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there are several issues at stake at this time. The question of the pipe line itself is extremely important. Many hon. members have stressed the1 fact that there has not been a more important piece of legislation before the house in a long time. But even more important tb the welfare of parliament and the future of the' country is the manner in which the government is trying to ram this proposition through parliament. In this house [DOT] in the last, few days there has been a great deal of loose talk about filibuster.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Henry Alfred Hosking: We are getting one right now.


Alfred Claude Ellis: When the matter was first brought up, or when notice to move closure at the next sitting was first brought up, I can recall hon. members opposite saying, "We are going to save the taxpayers some money". Is that not an amazing observation to make on this action taken by the government, a thing that has not been done since 1932? If you follow that line of reasoning, or lack of reasoning, a few steps further, you might say that the Liberals could then argue, I suppose with equal logic, that you could save the taxpayers a great deal of money by having no opposition at all.
The Liberals could then say, "We got rid of the opposition. What is the use of having other members of the house around? We might as well pack them up and send them off. They are serving no useful function". Then they could go a step further and say, "Why do we need all these members of the cabinet? They are not serving any particularly useful function. One man can run the government"; and it certainly would not be the Prime Minister. We have heard some talk from the United States in recent months about President Eisenhower perhaps being a part-time president. We are one jump ahead of them. We have a part-time Prime Minister who has abdicated his authority, and who has put control of the government in the hands of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I suggest that during the course of this debate the government has been under continuous fire, yet the Prime Minister has not seen fit to take part in the debate. He has completely ignored everything that is going on in parliament. Of course if the main idea is to fight the next federal election, then perhaps there might be some logic to that particular point at issue.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Talk about the pipe line.


An hon. Member:: What are you suggesting?


Alfred Claude Ellis: I am suggesting that in the action which this government has taken it is guilty of the very things which members of the opposition have been saying in recent days. I am not going to repeat them, other than to point out that the guillotine or closure, call it what you will, is certainly the extreme abuse of arbitrary power. In our parliament the opposition has certain duties and certain responsibilities. It has a responsibility to examine government legislation and to offer alternative proposals. Above all:,, the opposition have - a duty to examine legislation, and
4146	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation when they find a piece of legislation which they feel to be against the interests of the Canadian people they have a duty to use all the methods within the rules-


An hon. Member:: To obstruct.


Alfred Claude Ellis: -to put up opposition to that particular measure. After all, if that is not done what is the function of an opposition in a democratic parliament? We hear hon. members opposite call themselves Liberals. The other evening I had occasion to go through a volume of speeches by Sir Wilfrid Laurier entitled "Wilfrid Laurier on the Platform, 1871 to 1890". I read through some of those speeches. Then we find the type of so-called Liberals that we have in this house today, people who will sit idly by and allow an autocratic government to destroy the effectiveness of the opposition by means of the guillotine.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Talk about the pipe line.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Naturally they do not like this line of discussion. I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that there has been a course of reference to the procedure used by the government. I think the first of the three Liberal members who spoke this afternoon referred at some considerable length to the manner in which the government had put this legislation through the house. I believe it is generally accepted that in the final analysis there is only one weapon which the opposition has in a parliament in which the government has an overwhelming majority; and remember this. The domination of the House of Commons by the government is as absolute as is the obedience of its private members.
I suggest that perhaps as a result of the lecture given recently by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture, they have certainly indicated to us that they are toeing the party line. We have had Liberal members get up in this house and say, "Well, of course, this is going to pass the house; we know that." Under those circumstances I think it must be admitted that in the final analysis the only weapon the opposition has is opposing the legislation in the hope that eventually the government will be forced to make concessions and bring the legislation more into line with the needs and desires of the Canadian people.


Mr. Carrick:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Alfred Claude Ellis: When there is closure put on by this government, then I think the hon. member should take whatever time he wants to discuss the matter. Some suggestion was


made the other night that he was the spokesman for the oil industry. I took some exception to that because I felt that all government members were spokesmen for the oil industry, and I did not think it was fair to single out one particular backbencher.
We are told by the government that time is of the essence, and that those who are putting up any opposition to this particular bill are guilty of holding up the construction of the pipe line. This is a rather interesting assertion, because the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company, as I have pointed out, received its charter in 1951. If there has been any delay who is at fault? In his letter to the Minister of Trade and Commerce Mr. Manning says it is not the fault of Trans-Canada. I think the Canadian people have to decide who is at fault for the failure of this company to keep its commitments to parliament. We have been waiting around for five years.
Last November, as a matter of fact, the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company apparently came to some agreement with the government and they were prepared to go ahead. They had been given this big hand-out in the form of the construction of the northern Ontario section of the pipe line. We thought perhaps they were ready to go ahead with it; but oh, no. There was more delay. Finally we had the second part of this bill brought to our attention a few days ago.
The other night the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) wept crocodile tears over the fact that this delay was costing the producers in Alberta some $50,000 a day. We will accept those figures without comment for the moment, but I should like to point out how much money has been lost during the past two years through the inability of Trans-Canada to fulfil its commitments. The concern over this matter seems to have come a little late. It is only within the last month that there has been any realization that there was gas going to waste in Alberta, and that the Trans-Canada company was not doing the job it had promised parliament in 1951 it would do.
I suggest that if they count $50,000 a day back to November 1 they will find that the inability or refusal of the Trans-Canada company to commence this project has cost many millions of dollars. Who is at fault? Certainly it is not the opposition in parliament. The responsibility for the procrastination and delay in building this pipe line must be laid squarely at the doorstep of the federal government; that is where it belongs.
I do not think any hon. member will have the temerity to go into the country and suggest that because opposition members in

parliament wanted to take a little time to discuss this matter they were delaying the construction of this particular pipe line. I want to suggest that if we had had a government that was a building government-the other day the minister referred to the fact that he was a builder and this was a building government-the pipe line would have been built a couple of years ago. The government would not be coming here trying to scuttle democratic processes and ram through a piece of legislation to bail out a company which has failed the people of Canada for the last five years. We are beginning to wonder just who has the influence and the power in this country, whether it is parliament or some United States-controlled company. If we had had a C.C.F. government on those benches the line would have been built a couple of years ago; there is no doubt about that. I shall make some slight reference to that a little later.
I want to refer now to the excuses being put forward on behalf of the Trans-Canada company by the government' and by one of the opposition groups. The old Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company, as has been pointed out before, definitely stated that the export of gas to the United States was not necessary to their plan. They did not say to the Canadian parliament, "We will only be able to go forward with this plan if the federal power commission in Washington grants permission to some United States company to import Canadian gas". They did not say that. They assured parliament that a decision of the federal power commission was not necessary because they did not contemplate the export of gas to the United States.
Under those circumstances what right has this company now to argue that they cannot finance the line because they have not got a decision from Washington? It seems to me there are a lot of short memories on the government side of the house. How can you accept the alibi put forward by Trans-Canada with respect to their inability to finance because there has been no decision reached in Washington with respect to the application of the Tennessee transmission company. Under those circumstances I think the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company have prevailed long enough on the good offices of the people of Canada. They have been given every opportunity to do the job, but there has been nothing but procrastination and delay.
When this company finally decided it had received enough as a hand-out from the government to go ahead with a small part of the project, they said to the government, "You ram this through parliament by June 7 or the deal is off." They are assured that this will
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation be done, so we have the government putting through parliament a piece of legislation which demands the closest scrutiny of every member. There are many unanswered questions, and every bit of information that has been obtained about this pipe line has been obtained only by tremendous effort to wrest details from the government regarding this scheme.
I suggest that in pursuing this course the government is answerable to the Canadian people. I know that once the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, "Who is going to stop us?" If we want to ram this thing through, who is going to stop us? I suggest that the way this thing will be stopped is by the force of public opinion, public opinion led by opposition members on the one hand and the press on the other.
I have had the opportunity since this pipeline issue came before the house of reading the daily newspapers from one end of the country to the other. I found that without exception there was condemnation by the daily press of Canada in connection with this closure motion.


An hon. Member:: The Tory press.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Indeed, the whole pipe-line issue was condemned. I could quote at some length the editorial opinion expressed in these newspapers, newspapers that have consistently, in season and out of season, supported the Liberal party. I have in my hand a copy of the newspaper that has never been particularly friendly to the C.C.F. Over the years this newspaper has given its support to the Liberal party. It is the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix for May 16, and in an editorial entitled "The Use of Closure", I find this:
The federal government's decision to invoke the rarely-employed closure rule in order to limit parliamentary debate and so meet its own deadline for commons' approval of its massive financial aid to the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines interests is a further example of the administration's last-minute desperation in this monumental national issue. After a lengthy cabinet wrangle, the government has committed itself to advance funds so that construction of the western leg of the pipe line can begin this summer.
Oh, yes, they do not mind taking all sorts of time in cabinet, but once the cabinet has made up its mind they are going to ram this through the House of Commons. But to continue with the remarks of the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix; toward the end they speak about the "speed at all costs" policy of the government, and they say:
Surely, then, the long-term interests of the nation require that caution-not "speed at all costs"-should be the watchword. But the federal government, after months of vacillation and confusion, has decided otherwise. The future will
4148	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation disclose how high a price the nation will be made to pay for this sudden jump into a maze of uncertainties.
This is an opinion from a Liberal newspaper. If I could take the time I could bring into the house ream after ream of editorial opinion from Liberal newspapers across this country. Even the Regina Leader-Post, perhaps the most slavish in its adherence to the Liberal party, has gone on record as opposing the use of closure. And I might say, apart from the closure issue itself, there has been generally speaking widespread condemnation of the legislation on which the government has seen fit to use closure to ram through the House of Commons.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the need for a different line of approach and about the necessity of constructing a pipe line at the earliest possible moment. We have talked about that throughout the years. We of the C.C.F. have always pointed out that Canada is rich in natural resources. We have always maintained that this government should have a public investment program in order to develop Canadian resources in the interests of the Canadian people. We have pointed to the depression years when the Canadian people were ill-housed and ill-clothed, and yet at the same time this country, with vast resources undeveloped, had a government which sat by and did nothing. We have always urged and advocated the maximum use of Canadian resources in interests of the Canadian people.
Our contention now is that it is not the question of whether a pipe line is going to be built at all, it is simply the question of whether the pipe line to be constructed is going to be a private pipe line controlled by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines or whether it is going to be a crown corporation working in the interests of the Canadian people.
We have had some reference to the difficulties of public ownership. The other night the hon. member for Peace River made a very interesting observation in this connection. When the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell) spoke he referred to the fact that Alberta had gas to sell and after all what real difference should it make who owns the pipe line as long as the province was able to bring this gas to market. I can recall the hon. member at that time saying, "Don't be too sure about that." Well, when he spoke the other evening he put the situation quite clearly, when at page 3931 of Hansard he said:
The government could not possibly start a pipe line this year and I will tell you why. If the government of Canada were to enter into a nationalization program for the building of a pipe line today it would be up against the problem of


getting a supply of gas, and I am telling you they would have a very difficult time getting a supply of gas.
If they have all the gas, and if they are losing $50,000 a day, what group of men in control of the gas reserves of this country would then say, "We are not going to make this gas available because we do not like a publicly-owned pipe line." But that is what the hon. member must have meant when he suggested that a government-owned pipe line would not get the gas. Well, of course, that was the story we heard last fall when Canadian Gulf made it known that they were not interested in supplying gas to a pipe line in which the people of Canada, through their government, had any interest.
Who are those producers who would hold up the supply of gas to a crown company? Well, the Minister of Trade and Commerce placed on the record the other day some very interesting information. He pointed out that the gas reserves of the province of Alberta are controlled by four major companies: Canadian Gulf, which controls about one-third of the reserves; Hudson Bay Oil and Gas; California Standard and Canadian Delhi. Then he made a very significant statement a few moments later when he pointed out that three of those four companies are principals in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. Therefore the situation is that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines are the same people who control the gas reserves in the province of Alberta.
In view of that fact there is a very interesting statement made in the letter from the premier of Alberta which was tabled in the house the other day. In that letter premier Manning stated, as reported at page 4027 of Hansard:
If the project is delayed another year, all present permits, both federal and provincial, and all contracts entered into by the company will lapse by default. It will be extremely difficult to grant further indefinite extensions of the government permits, and almost impossible for the company to retain existing contracts with gas producers.
It is a very interesting situation. Here are the gas and oil companies which control, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce pointed out, a major part of the gas reserves of the province of Alberta, who are the same people who control Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. He says they are going to have difficulty to get permission from themselves to sell gas to themselves. That is what it amounts to. All that would happen, I presume, is that the board of directors of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines would hold a board meeting, and they would not have to send a memorandum or a communique to the directors of the three or four major gas producers in the province of Alberta. They could hold a meeting, adjourn

the meeting and a few seconds later hold another meeting of the same people. Under those circumstances, it is very difficult to understand why the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines would have difficulty in obtaining a supply of gas after those permits had lapsed.
That brings up a very interesting point. In this country we have anti-combine legislation of a sort. It has seldom worked very effectively, but at least we pay lip service to the idea of breaking up a monopoly situation. We find today we have most of the gas in the major gas-producing provinces of Canada owned by four major gas companies, and three of those four companies will own the pipe line. Therefore far from breaking the monopoly control over the gas resources in Alberta, we are going to hand to these companies a monopoly over the transportation of all gas to eastern Canada. Talk about creating monopolies; there you are going to have certainly one of the biggest monopolies in the country.
We talk about public ownership. I want to remind hon. members that in the province of Saskatchewan we discovered gas a few years ago. Within two months of the discovery of adequate gas reserves the Saskatchewan power corporation was building a pipe line. We build pipe lines in the province of Saskatchewan; we do not wait five years. No; we do not enter into all sorts of devious arrangements to get them built. We had a task to do and we went ahead and built the pipe line. The Saskatchewan power corporation built over 323 miles of pipe line in the province of Saskatchewan. What is more, under public ownership we are extending our grids and gas lines throughout the province. We are taking care of the needs of the future.
As a matter of fact, early in April an agreement was signed between the Saskatchewan power corporation, a crown company, and certain of the smaller producers of Alberta, and as a result of this agreement signed between the power corporation and the producers we shall have additional sources of supply which eventually we shall store in the Success field. Through public ownership we have proceeded efficiently and systematically to take care of the needs of the people of Saskatchewan. I suggest there is no reason whatsoever why the federal government could not be doing the same thing, instead of utterly refusing to consider the most practical way of building this particular pipe line.
I want to refer to a remark made by the Minister of Agriculture the other night. When he rose to his feet I thought he was going to tell us that the government are so solicitous of the needs of Canadians that they were going to agree to put up their share of the
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation cost of the South Saskatchewan dam. Apparently he got up to say something about pipe lines and during the course of his address he made a statement that was amazing, to say the least. In the short space of about three lines the Minister of Agriculture deliberately misrepresented the case. What he did was to compare the retail price-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. If I heard the hon. member correctly he used the expression that the Minister of Agriculture "deliberately misrepresented" the case. It is, I think, the responsibility of the occupant of the chair to see that statements of that sort are not allowed to be put on the record and I feel it is my duty, particularly as the hon. member to whom it refers is not in the house, to raise the question myself. I would ask that that statement be withdrawn.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps we know the Minister of Agriculture a little better than do most hon. members of the house. We are used to this out in the province of Saskatchewan, but we are a little concerned about statements like that being made in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The minister the other night was quoting gas prices and he quoted the price to the consumer in Saskatchewan-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. It is not my job to determine the accuracy or otherwise of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, but it is my duty to request the hon. member to withdraw the statement "deliberately misrepresented".


Alfred Claude Ellis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw that statement and simply say the minister made a misleading statement to this house. I am not going into motives at all.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Why judge other people's motives by your own?


Alfred Claude Ellis: The minister quoted the price to the consumer in Saskatchewan and compared it with the price to the distributor in Winnipeg. There is a 50-cent spread there. I do not think anyone is going to suggest you make a slip when you create the impression in the House of Commons that the people of Winnipeg are going to get natural gas for 30 cents. Of course he was not right in the figure or the price in Saskatchewan. If there is a difference of a few cents we are not too concerned about a thing like that, but we are concerned when someone leaves an impression such as he did the other night.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
In the last sentence of that statement, as reported at page 4060 of Hansard of May 17, the Minister of Agriculture said:
That is something that is happening under government ownership and control, and about which our friends do not tell us the whole story.


Mr. Hahn:: Is 83 cents correct?


George Hugh Castleden: You come out and have a look at it.


Frederick George Hahn: We want to know.


George Hugh Castleden: You will toe there in a little while.


Mr. Argue:: You would hand it over to some big American corporation.


Frederick George Hahn: They charge two bits in
Medicine Hat.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The C.C.F. subamendment we are discussing at this stage calls on the house to refer this bill to a committee in order that consideration may be given to the advisability of constructing this pipe line as a public enterprise. Throughout the debate many valid reasons have been given as to why we should begin now with the construction of the pipe line as a public enterprise, but I do not think we have heard any valid reason as to why this course of action cannot be undertaken, nor have we heard any reasonable argument as to why public ownership would not be in the interests of the people of Canada.
We in this group have been consistent in our policy. We have argued that the natural resources of Canada belong to the people of Canada and that we should make them available as quickly as possible and in the greatest quantity possible to the people of Canada; but we argue that this can only be done through public ownership, because it is only in the motives behind economic endeavour that one can see the direction in which a particular policy is going.
We argue that if we are going to turn over the gas pipe line to private enterprise, whether they be Canadians or Americans- and I do not think it matters too much whether the exploitation is done by Canadians or Americans or the people of any other country-the only way in which Canadian control of the pipe line can be guaranteed is through public ownership. The Minister of Trade and Commerce admitted this in debate just a short while ago and I commend this to my Progressive Conservative friends. I might add that the only way in which the interests of the people of Canada can be protected is through the building of this pipe line as a public enterprise in order that the scheme will be of benefit to all Canadians

and not to the financial advancement of a small group of people, whether they be Canadians or Americans.


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Roslhern):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to deal with the question of closure which has been mentioned by the opposition. In the first place, when the rules were being revised last year I do not recall any suggestion that this provision be dropped from the rules providing for the step that has been taken to bring this debate to an end in time to have a decision made to avoid frustrating the program completely. In other words, as I recall it hon. members of all parties thought that rule was quite proper to be left in the rule book.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We thought it was a dead letter.


Walter Adam Tucker: Therefore I take it that all parties agree that under certain circumstances it is quite a proper rule to use. Then the idea that there should be a fixed time for debates was also accepted by this house when it adopted the rules. At that time it was deemed wise to set a time limit on the debate on the address and on the budget, and I think the reason for that is that it was felt the objective for parliament is for the position of the various parties to be fully stated, and after that the time would come when a decision should be made. In other words it was considered that parliament has the right as part of its function to listen to the views of the various parties, but parliament should not be prevented from coming to a decision or handling business in a proper way. The idea of limited debate as required by the needs of public business was recognized when we passed those rules.
Some suggestion has been made with regard to this particular bill that it was unusual because it was indicated that closure would be applied the first day of the debate on the resolution. This matter, of course, had been before the house before, and when part of this particular legislation was introduced by way of resolution the C.C.F. party indicated their position concerning the matter by demanding a vote when the very first move was made. They indicated that they intended to fight this measure to the very last in an effort to prevent it going through.
The hon. member for Regina City, who has just spoken, said it was the duty of the opposition, if they do not agree to something, to oppose it with all the means the rules provide in an endeavour to prevent its passage. If that is the duty and obligation of an opposition, it certainly is the duty of a government which has been entrusted by the people with the administration of the affairs

of the country to see to it that the opposition does not by doing that really decide what the policy is going to be. In other words, the effect of allowing an opposition to prevent a thing going through until it would be too late to have the policy decided and acted upon, as would be the case if a long debate were carried on here such as was carried on last summer, would mean that instead of the majority deciding what our policy would be it would be in effect decided by the minority through the use of the rules of the house.
I suggest that that is not democracy. Democracy is rule by the majority, not by the minority. It was very definitely indicated that the opposition, both Conservative and C.C.F., intended to use the rules to prevent this measure going through at all. Had they held it up until it was too late to start construction they would have defeated it just as effectively as if the people had entrusted them with a majority in this house. In other words we would have government by the minority instead of by the majority. I suggest that what we are upholding here is government by the people who were elected to govern this country.
When it is suggested that there is no time for the opposition to state their case against this measure, I submit that is a misrepresentation of the situation. During all the various stages through which this bill must go there are obviously plenty of opportunities for the opposition to state their case if they want to state it. Quite obviously they are more anxious to give the impression to the people of the country that they are being trodden upon than they are to present their case. I think when the debate is over the people in the country will realize that there was plenty of time to debate this matter. When the time comes to make a decision the people who were ready to use the rules and make dilatory motions should not be permitted to dominate this parliament. The majority should decide the policy.
The position of the Progressive Conservatives, for example, was quite clear on the matter, let me refer to what was said by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) on April 5 last:
John Diefenbaker Thursday evening promised that "Texas buccaneers" would not get control of the natural gas outlet from western Canada. The M.P. for Prince Albert told a Saskatoon constituency nominating meeting that the Progressive Conservatives were preparing a fight in the House of Commons on the proposed trans-Canada pipe line that would make the recent filibuster on the Defence Production Act look like a mere skirmish.
I put it to hon. members; if that is the fixed policy of the Progressive Conservatives, would they not have prevented a decision being reached until such a late date that
4151
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation construction would not have been possible this year? In other words, they would have shown that they were masters of parliament instead of the majority. This is what the Progressive Conservatives boasted throughout the country that they were going to do. They object now because the government is using a rule which was introduced by the Conservatives in order to prevent that very thing happening.
Incidentally, when I read that item referring to Texas buccaneers getting control of the situation I noted that the director from Saskatchewan, whom I presume is one of these Texas buccaneers is none other than M. A. MacPherson, who was the runner-up for the leadership when the late Mr. Manion was elected to that position. He must be one of those buccaneers who is in control of this company. The hon. member for Prince Albert said he was going to see to it that Texas buccaneers like Mr. MacPherson would not take control of the situation.
My hon. friends talk about closure, but I never saw any worse closure than they are trying to put on the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle). They talk about only having a couple of weeks to debate this thing, but if it had not been for the good will of the Liberal and Social Credit parties they would have prevented the hon. member for Calgary South from speaking at all. The hon. member for Calgary South tried to get the floor on two occasions and on each occasion the member speaking for the Progressive Conservative party objected.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member is now discussing a matter which was dealt with the other day when the house was in committee. In effect he is speaking about a ruling which was made. It so happens that Your Honour was in the chair on the first occasion to which the hon. member is referring. You will remember that two Conservatives rose to speak at the same time, and when the member who was next on our list was not seen I asked Your Honour why it was he was not given a chance to speak. It was then explained by Your Honour that Liberal time was being used by this speaker to whom you gave the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: suppose I had better rehash this situation. The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) is referring to what he describes as an effort by one party to stop one of their members from speaking. As I take it, he was not discussing a point of order. I am not able to quote from memory what has just been said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), but I think unintentionally he
4152	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation attributed to the Speaker of that moment a more definite statement than was made.
However, the point to be decided is whether or not the hon. member for Rosthem is reopening a point of order or a decision of the house. I did not take it that he was doing so any more than every reference or speech which has been made in this house since the passing of the closure motion last week would also be a reopening of something which has already been decided by the house. As a similar notice has been formally announced for tomorrow I do not consider that a discussion of that motion is out of order.
I know that I rose at five o'clock on Friday to interrupt another hon. member who was in my opinion discussing a point of order from a different aspect entirely. At that time he was criticizing the Leader of the Opposition for a certain action which he had taken in a matter which had been decided and which I regarded as a closed incident. So far I do not consider the hon. member for Rosthern to be out of order.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the fact that the Progressive Conservatives have been taking great objection to the fact that they have not been permitted to speak on this measure. I was pointing out that when the member whom they held out as their expert on oil and gas matters saw fit not to be a trained seal, in the terms of the Leader of the Opposition, and not to line up with the Leader of the Opposition, the Progressive Conservative party objected each time that he tried to take the floor and endeavoured to close him off. I wonder whether the test is that you belong to this party, in which event if people do line up they are trained seals, or to the party who tried to keep their expert on these matters from taking the floor. Then we are told by the Leader of t'he Opposition that the members on this side are trained seals. I never thought to hear anybody belonging to one of the great parties of this country, who was regarded as one of their outstanding members and one of the experts on this matter, have to get up and thank the Social Credit party for being permitted to take the floor. Here is what the hon. member for Calgary South said, as recorded on page 4081 of Hansard:
I should like to express my thanks to the Social Credit group in this house for assisting me by giving me the opportunity to present my views to this house.
These are the people who talk so much about not being able to speak at any length in parliament.


Mrs. Fairclough:: How many of your members have spoken twice?
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite) .1


Mr. Sinclair:: No wonder Drew blushes.


Walter Adam Tucker: It has been said that the hon. member for Calgary South expressed the views of the Conservatives on matters of oil and gas. He was held out as one of the greatest experts in Canada on this matter.


James Sinclair: And he is.


Walter Adam Tucker: When he is agreed with by the premier of Ontario, who is one of the leading Conservatives in this country-


James Sinclair: The leading Conservative.


Walter Adam Tucker: It might be said that he is the leading Conservative, but I am speaking in deference to the Leader of the Opposition, and I am saying that he is one of the leading Conservatives. When the premier of Ontario is following the same line of thought as this outstanding expert, when he dares to disagree with the Leader of the Opposition then his followers try to prevent him from speaking in the house, and he has to thank the Social Credit party for the opportunity to present his views.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Your members do not even dare. Show me somebody on your side who dares.


Walter Adam Tucker: In 1952 the hon. member for Calgary South spoke for the Conservative party and laid down at that time what he thought the policy should be. One of the main items of the policy was the trans-Canada pipe line. That seemed to be the policy of the progressive Conservatives, because in 1954, on the question of Niagara Gas Transmission Limited, the Leader of the Opposition wanted a very definite understanding from the government that when the Niagara Transmission bill passed it would not affect the trans-Canada line. He spoke about the statement of the Ontario fuel controller, Mr. Crozier. As recorded on page 2721 of Hansard of 1954, the Leader of the Opposition said at that time:
It has been mentioned already that this in fact Is expected to be a temporary arrangement. It was stated the day before yesterday by Mr. A. R. Crozier, the fuel controller of the province of Ontario, that it is expected that within two years there will be a pipe line from western Canada carrying Alberta natural gas to the Toronto field as well as to other parts of eastern Canada.
What is important is the understanding very clearly expressed by Mr. Crozier, the Ontario fuel controller, and the Ontario minister of mines, to whose department Mr. Crozier is attached, that when western gas becomes available the flow will then be reversed through the pipe line to be constructed under the authority of this act, and Canadian gas will be carried to that area in Ontario through which the pipe line will pass coming from Niagara Falls. This, I think, is clearly understood. However, it should be remembered in considering this measure that in expressing their belief that it is desirable that

authority be granted for the construction of this pipe line, the Ontario minister of mines and the Ontario fuel controller have both made it clear that this is related to an unqualified condition that this area will be available and will be supplied by gas from western Canada when the Canadian pipe line is constructed.
The Leader of the Opposition then went on to deal with this matter. He said that the demand for natural gas was going to be so great that he spoke in these terms, referring to northern Ontario, as recorded on page 2724 of Hansard of 1954:
The possible use of gas throughout that area is tremendous. Unless there were diversions of gas from this United States pipe line at different points, there would be nothing to equal the demand that would be created by those very active and important communities which would be using gas from this pipe line.
New demands are emerging almost every day. They are dramatic, they are romantic.
Here was the Leader of the Opposition saying two years ago that the demand was dramatic and romantic. He wanted explicit promises from the government that there would be a trans-Canada built in Canada.


An hon. Member:: He still does.


Walter Adam Tucker: Now he says, "We want a committee set up; we want to find out what it is all about," this matter that was going to be dramatic and romantic and so on. Well, the romance seems to have gone out of the Leader of the Opposition's mind in that regard. There was however another statement made by the Leader of the Opposition which I would like to put to the house for its consideration. He said this, as recorded on page 2723 of Hansard:
In dealing with this we should all be assured the government has decided definitely that, subject to the availability of financial resources for that purpose, the all-Canadian route will be encouraged, and the encouragement of that route will not be adversely affected by the support of the measure now before us.
I would ask the house to note the words of the Leader of the Opposition endorsing the all-Canadian route, subject to the availability of financial resources for that purpose. I wonder whether it is unfair to suggest, if that represents the position of the Leader of the Opposition, that we should have an allCanadian route if financial resources are available, that if he had been head of the government and we had been confronted by the present situation, whereby there would not be the financing from the sale of gas in the United States for some time until this importation was approved by the federal commission, there is the suggestion there that the all-Canadian pipe line would not have been put through. That is a fair inference from that statement of the opposition leader.
21, 1956	4153
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
I want to say that I am glad we have a government in office which, when confronted with this opposition from the United States power commission, did not hesitate to promise to back $80 million worth of debentures, or rather to see to it that the money was loaned, to be returned with interest so it probably will not cost the government of Canada anything to bring about an all-Canadian pipe line, on which a billion dollars will be spent in the next three to five years. I am glad to support a government that is not ready to back down before a problem like that. I support it with a great deal of enthusiasm.
The Progressive Conservatives have gone about the country pretending that this is a government that is old and decrepit and unable to act. Who are the people who are providing the action today, and who are the people who are opposing it? The people will decide now who are the people who are ready to act and who are the people who are cautious and afraid to risk $80 million in a loan, under which this whole pipe line will ultimately be built in Canada, and which will do all the things the Leader of the Opposition found so romantic two years ago. If they do not repay the $80 million, we shall have the pipe line to Winnipeg at several million dollars less than it cost to build. Yet the opposition is afraid to go ahead with a scheme like that, saying this is a terrible and preposterous scheme and that they will fight it with all their power.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Have an election. Go to the people and find out.


Walter Adam Tucker: The opposition have been trying since 1935 to get back the support of the people. They will not get it back again by this attitude of fear and caution, this attitude of being afraid to take the slightest chance and, when it is quite obvious that a decision must be made on this matter, saying it does not matter even if it does delay the thing for two years, that it does not matter if it costs western Canada a great deal, that it does not matter if Winnipeg does not get gas for a year or two years, we will make sure that we do not risk the $1 million or so that we might lose if this thing does not go through.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What an imagination.


Walter Adam Tucker: If the government had been furnished in these last ten years by the Progressive Conservative party with that sort of timidity and fear in dealing with matters, I wonder if Canada would have gone ahead by leaps and bounds as she has, so that in the last ten years she has been the envy of the whole world. Mr. Speaker, we are just at the beginning. We have just laid the foundation for
4154	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation a still greater Canada. For the next government the people are not going to pick members who are timid and are afraid to take even a little bit of risk in preference to those who will go ahead and, if necessary, stand opprobrium for saying "If you are going to use the rules to prevent the majority from having their way, we will use closure and you can make the most of it". The people of Canada want action in the interests of a greater and better Canada.
I just wish to say a word or two in passing about the C.P.R. I looked up the act with regard to the C.P.R., and I was very much interested to find out that the government of that day wrote into the act, which is chapter 73 of the statutes of Canada of 1872, the following interesting clause to be found at the end of section 6:
The said railway being in tact a public work constructed mainly at the expense of the dominion for the benefit of all the provinces thereof.
They put it right in the act that the C.P.R. was constructed mainly at public expense.


Mr. Small:: And controlled by directors in Canada.


Walter Adam Tucker: It was no mora under control of Canadian directors than this company will be, as pointed out by your colleague the hon. member for Calgary South. I point this out, however, that under this act shares could be transferred in London without any reference to the office located in Canada. Yet they tell us that full control was assured in Canada. They could have transferred all the shares of the C.P.R. right in London without reference to Canada.
For a moment I wish to deal with the position of the C.C.F. party.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Be careful.


George Hugh Castleden: On the Saskatchewan dam?


An hon. Member:: What is the price of wheat?


Walter Adam Tucker: I have here the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, the leader of the C.C.F. party, which was delivered over television on May 14, 1956. I should like to read to the house some of the things the leader of the C.C.F. party said.


An hon. Member:: We heard him.


Walter Adam Tucker: Some people did not hear him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nobody shot at him.


Walter Adam Tucker: This is what he said:
I suppose I shall only be able to cover one, and that's the most outrageous proposal that I think has ever been brought before our parliament.


According to the leader of the C.C.F. party this is the most outrageous proposal that has ever been brought before our parliament.


Mr. Nicholson:: Hear, hear.


Walter Adam Tucker: He continues:
I refer, of course, to the pipe-line matter.
Then he says this:
Now, closure means that the debate must end at a certain time after only a few hours of debate.
I wonder how many hours of debate we are going to have before this is over? I wonder if this is a correct statement of the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Before the very first speech in the debate.


John Lorne MacDougall: Magpies, keep quiet.


Walter Adam Tucker: He said this:
Now, closure means that the debate must end at a certain time after only a few hours debate.
I wonder if the C.C.F. still say that this debate on the pipe line can last only a few hours.


George Hugh Castleden: What do you call a few hours?


Walter Adam Tucker: That was an obvious misstatement in the eyes of the whole country.


George Hugh Castleden: Ridiculous.


Walter Adam Tucker: Then the leader of the C.C.F.
party said this:
And this new proposition is the strangest proposition of all. The proposal is, of course, to build a pipe line from the province of Alberta down to supply the cities and towns of the province of Ontario.
This is a strange proposition in the eyes of the C.C.F. What do they think about national development?


An hon. Member:: Public ownership.


Walter Adam Tucker: Of course they think it should be done under public ownership and I shall deal with that matter in a moment. The leader of the C.C.F. also said this:
. . . but surely no one wants to see this very important natural resource simply made the means of profits and gain for a group of American financiers.
Does anyone think this proposal as it is presently envisaged is only going to make some profits for American financiers? What is it going to do in stimulating development in Alberta? What is it going to do in stimulating development in Ontario? Where are these profits when they are under control by the provinces where the gas is sold and by the province of Alberta where it is produced? Obviously all that will be ensured to these people is a fair profit. The leader of the C.C.F.

in Saskatchewan who heads the government there assures the people that he does not mind these people coming in from the United States getting a fair profit, so where is their objection?
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar goes on to say this. He first of all speaks about $135 million to be put up by the federal government and the province of Ontario. Then he speaks about the $80 million, and then he proceeds to add the two amounts together. Then he says this:
In other words, the governments of Canada will, together, give this project a backing of nearly two hundred million dollars.
They will give this project nothing. Nothing is being given. In one case they are building a crown pipe line which will be owned by a crown corporation. In the other case they are lending $80 million, and the crown corporation part will not be built until the $80 million is repaid. So the loan the dominion government will put into this scheme is $100 million, not $200 million. There is a case of a statement so incorrect as to prove irresponsibility in the eyes of the people. It was a misrepresentation of the first water.


Mr. Coldwell:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Walter Adam Tucker: When everybody else has been told that he should sit down and wait until the speaker is through, I do not know why I should not be able to go ahead as well as everyone else. Now I just wish to deal with what has been done in Saskatchewan. There the C.C.F. government under legislation just passed is providing a guarantee of $5i million of the cost of building a cement plant. The promoters putting up approximately $3 million. It was said there and not very seriously denied that these promoters are going to make approximately $400,000 out of the scheme. This is the C.C.F. in action, much different from the C.C.F. down here. I have here the advertisement of the C.C.F. in the election campaign now going on. It says:
The C.C.F. has helped attract more industry through personal contact with Canadian, American and European industrial leaders by the Premier and other top-level personnel .	.	. Financial
assistance is available to industry.
In other words, their pose to the people of Saskatchewan is that they attracted industry in Saskatchewan by personal contacts with these big financiers in the United States, in order to get them to come into Saskatchewan.


Mr. Knight:: Tucker or tyranny.


Walter Adam Tucker: This is the basis on which they are trying to get elected in Saskatchewan, yet listen to them in the house now.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Major James William Coldwell: We will debate this matter in Saskatchewan.


Walter Adam Tucker: I know you do not like to talk about this matter. You talk one way out there and act another way down here.


George Hugh Castleden: We like the way you act out there.


Walter Adam Tucker: We have been told that delay does not matter. During the 1944 election the C.C.F. said they were fighting against the big financiers, against these people coming in from the United States and making vast profits. They believed in the Regina manifesto. They were going to eradicate capitalism. As a result of that, after the 1944 election the oil companies pulled out of Saskatchewan. They went to Alberta and there, in 1946, the Imperial Oil company discovered the Leduc oilfield. This set Alberta on the road to the great prosperity she has today. I am convinced that if the C.C.F. government had not driven out those people in 1944, we would have had those discoveries instead of Alberta.


Major James William Coldwell: Where were you in 1943 and in 1942?


Walter Adam Tucker: Then the C.C.F. government was almost beaten in 1948 because of this action in driving industry out of Saskatchewan. It was seen how Alberta was prospering. Then the premier did the thing he mentions here and began making his personal contacts begging these financiers from the United States to come into Canada and invest. He wrote them a letter guaranteeing that there would be no interference in the ownership of their industries; that they would have a fair profit, and on that basis he lured some industries back into Saskatchewan.
What was the effect? Not long ago there was a smelter being established to look after the ore being mined at Lynn Lake. If we had known we had this gas in Saskatchewan we now know we have; if this work had been done six months earlier and we had known that much earlier, this smelter would have been established in Saskatoon. However, enough natural gas to operate that smelter could not be guaranteed, and what happened? It was established in Edmonton, and all the subsidiary industries that will grow up about this smelter have gone to Edmonton instead of staying in Saskatoon. It was told by a prominent member of the C.C.F. government that if they had been able to develop these resources and learn their position six months sooner, they would have had all this great development around Saskatoon instead of Edmonton.
4156	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Does the C.C.F. mean to say that a six-months' delay has not cost Saskatchewan dearly? They say a delay of two years is not important. When one can see the possibilities for development in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba if we get this natural gas in sufficient quantities, I wonder how any member from western Canada can get up here and say he is so wedded to public enterprise that he is going to fight for it even if it means a delay of two or three years? In the light of the experience we have had in Saskatchewan, in the light of the fact that their own leader in Saskatchewan has had to crawl down from that position and beg for people to come into Saskatchewan to make investments, I wonder how they can continue along that line.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, in Saskatchewan are they going on the basis of no profits to United States investors? Are they going on the basis of eradicating capitalism? No, they are saying their premier induced capital to come into Saskatchewan, and we should elect them again to do more of the same. They talk to us about a chosen instrument and shady deal. I wonder if the C.C.F. party recalls the loan of $75,000 of Saskatchewan insurance office money to Mr. Bodnoff and then shortly afterwards $60,000 was lent by him to a company in which the premier and provincial treasurer were interested. I wonder if that is the sort of thing that gives them the right to talk to this government here in the way that they have?


Major James William Coldwell: You were all through that in the provincial election and you were proven to be wrong.


Walter Adam Tucker: I might say this, that the way the C.C.F. really thinks is the basis upon which they are appealing to the people of Saskatchewan, and not the nonsense they are talking on the floor of the house. I want to say that the C.C.F. did go to the people in Saskatchewan in 1944 on the basis of what they are talking now. Then they found that if they did not retreat from that position we were going to have no progress whatever. They now ask for support on the basis that under the C.C.F. financial assistance is available to industry. They are giving more financial assistance to the promoters of this cement plant proportionately than is promised to the promoters of this great pipe line project. The promoters of this cement proposition went out and bought a piece of land and obtained a lease for less than $50,000, and they are going to get from the company over $450,000 for that investment.


Major James William Coldwell: 
Walter Adam Tucker: That was not denied. They said, "Oh, well the promoters had some other expenses such as the hiring of lawyers and engineers and so on." They said to a member of the opposition, "Well, that is no greater percentage than you get out of the companies you float". That was the sort of denial they gave. Yet these are the people who take the high stand here and talk about public ownership, talk about not encouraging United States financiers and say they should not be permitted to make great profits. The government told the opposition in Saskatchewan that they had a deadline to meet, and the opposition let second reading go through in less than an hour. That is the difference.


George Hugh Castleden: They did not apply closure.


Walter Adam Tucker: No, because the opposition did not say they were going to fight the thing to the limit. Here are the people who are talking about public ownership, and the last big act of their government was to advance a guarantee of a loan to the company at the bank, $5 [DOT] 5 million, while the promoters of this cement plant are putting up $3 million.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his time is up.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Perhaps my voice was lost in the noise, but I had called the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod). Was the Leader of the Opposition rising to speak at this time?


George Alexander Drew: I was rising to speak before you had called anyone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I had called the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke.


George Alexander Drew: I had risen to speak before the hon. member had sat down. Your Honour will, of course, make such ruling as you see fit, but I want it understood it is not on the basis that Your Honour called anyone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I rather regret that the Leader of the Opposition put it that way, because I did call the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. However, it is quite customary to extend courtesy to both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, and if the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke so agrees the Leader of the Opposition may proceed. If the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke does not voluntarily give way, I must see him.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the outset of this talk I want to advise the house, and

especially the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough), that I have no shares in any oil company; that I am not a spokesman for any oil company, and I have no brief for either Mr. Tanner or Mr. Frank McMahon.
It is not often that I pay tribute to any Liberal speech that has been uttered in this house, but I cannot let this moment pass without saying how glad I am that I happened to be in the house before dinner to hear the straightforward denial made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) to all the criticism that has been offered.
I think most of us regret that in the debate thus far there has been so much bitterness over a topic that should have been considered very earnestly, quietly and sanely. I am glad, though, that this rancor seems to have disappeared and that we are taking a saner view of the problem which we are trying to solve by bringing out the pros and cons at this time.
There is another hon. member whom I should like to congratulate on this occasion, namely the hon. member for Calgary South, on his able presentation of so many indisputable facts for our consideration. A few days ago we heard a little about trained seals, but this one particular member seems to be one of those independent sort of people who will not submit to training. He just will not put up with the orders of his leader or possibly his so-called superiors. He does not like the Tory tactics. He believes in facts, not fables, and he is trying to live up to that adjective which the Conservatives have attached to the party name, namely "progressive".
For so doing and for having the courage of his convictions he has risked being disowned by his party that claims to be the last bulwark of personal freedom in this House of Commons. Blind to their own actions, they accuse others of obstructing debate; but I am sure the people of Canada will not be so blind to the action that has been demonstrated here.
Then we have the anti-American campaign which the Conservatives let loose in the hope that it would appeal to the people and form a weapon to spearhead their next federal election battle. I would like to put on record the opinion of the Vernon News, one of the leading papers in my riding, which dealt with this in an editorial on April 26, 1956. I shall not read the whole article, Mr. Speaker. The heading is:
Prosperity depends largely on United States capital in Canada.
The article goes on to say:
The dangerous luxury of belittling the United States, its people, and its objectives has assumed a new form in Canada.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
The Conservative group in parliament, surprising enough, seems to want to assume the leadership here, in its frantic attempt to grasp any stick that will prove a scourge to the government back.
The Conservatives know as well as anybody that if the flow of United States capital to their country was turned off suddenly, our vaunted prosperity would vanish overnight. Canada simply lacks the money to sustain the gigantic volume of investment required.
It is equally false to imply that we are simply hewers of wood and haulers of water for another's benefit. Statistics show that Canada is building a manufacturing plant for processing its own resources at a rate straining its economic being this year.
Anti-Americanism is at the root of such irresponsible talk as has recently come from some Conservatives in parliament. Hating the United States is a luxury far too rich for the Canadian diet.
To this I say amen. On Friday last reference was made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to the British Columbia Social Credit members in this house. It is rather difficult to let this pass without notice. I know this hon. gentleman is in the habit of making irresponsible statements both in and out of the house and has embarrassed himself and his party thereby. Perhaps, like the kick from a mule, we should consider where it came from; but when he tries to imply that I show more allegiance to the treasury of the Manning government than to the welfare of the Canadian people he is going just a little too far. It is just another of his irresponsible statements that I am sure he regrets after he has had time to think and the emotional strain of trying to justify his foolishness has worn off.
Then the other day we Social Crediters had another indirect compliment paid to us. I take the remark of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam as an indirect compliment, but we had another compliment paid to us by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. I know it was unintentional; nevertheless I would like to express my appreciation. He was referring to another battle that took place in this house last year over the Columbia river, and expressed great surprise over the fact that Liberals and Social Crediters who opposed each other so bitterly at that time are allies here. At this point I believe it was the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) who interjected, "In the same bed".
I would say to the hon. member that we may be in the same bed but we in this corner are not asleep. I will tell the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the people of Canada that we Social Crediters look at each question that comes before us on its own merits. Last year we disagreed with the Liberals on the Columbia river question and we opposed them. Now we believe the

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Liberal plan for solving the pipe-line question is the best available and we are supporting them. I believe I can go further and say that we bring the same impersonal approach to any national problem that comes up in this house. We are prepared to support any group on any policy that, after careful consideration, we believe is worthy of our support.
In this issue we support the Liberals. That does not mean we have forgotten that our mission in the next federal election is to do our best to unseat them from the throne of government, but we do not believe it is our mission to create issues and try to mislead the Canadian people during this session to find material to work with.
I am glad the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich referred to our action on the Columbia river. What action did the Conservatives and the C.C.F. take then? The same as they are taking today, namely obstruction. What a wonderful record it is to place before the people of Canada at the election they are calling for so loudly at the present time, with their tongues in their cheeks.
Our previous speakers, the hon. members for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), Peace River (Mr. Low), Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas) and Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), have done such a noble job in presenting our views on this question that there is little left for me to say. We are concerned about possible regulations being made to assure control of this great project remaining within Canada. It is the duty of this government and every succeeding government not only to assure control of this company but of all business connected with the development of our resources and our industries, and we would ask the government very carefully to consider and try to formulate some plan to assure that at least 51 per cent of the stock of this company remains under Canadian ownership and control.
We hear about the new national policy of an all-Canadian pipe line, Canada first, and so forth. We believe that the people of Canada favour such a policy as this, and Social Crediters for years have endorsed such a policy. In fact, I remember a few years ago we were quite strongly criticized for advocating so vociferously the plan of Canada for Canadians.
In this connection we must admit the present government came out with this policy in connection with the pipe line, possibly with an eye to the 1953 election, at a very embarrassing time for the promoters of Trans-Canada. In negotiations and planning up to that time no such policy was announced by this government. This upset the plans of Trans-Canada, and through this new policy 
the whole problem of financing arose and created the present delay. In order to meet the changed position of the government and construct a line over an uneconomical route, it would not have been any great surprise if the matter of subsidy had entered the picture.
To the honour of the backers of Trans-Canada I will say they did not ask for subsidy; they have merely asked for a loan, although a great many hon. members of this house do not seem to know the difference between a subsidy or a direct grant and a loan. A subsidy would not have been any different from that which was given to the Canadian Pacific Railway for the construction of another great means of transportation across this country which meant so much in value to the east and the west. But instead of asking for a subsidy they asked for a loan in order to get on with the job more quickly than was possible with the finances they had at their disposal at that time, and in order to build the line to comply with the stipulations laid down by this government.
As I said, we support this national policy, but I believe it should not be a policy which this government may turn on or off in considering individual projects. I am glad to see it so rigidly adhered to in the development and control of our uranium industry. Why is it not applied to our iron ore development? Why do we not have a national policy with regard to iron ore that will build up industries in Canada to process the ore for our own use? Why did we not have a national policy with regard to the St. Lawrence seaway? I would suggest to this government that in all developments and in all projects of national interest the same yardstick of Canada for Canadians should apply. Then we will not have last minute obstacles thrust in the way of development as happened when the new national policy was applied to Trans-Canada.
Now I would like to stress a few points that are directly related to the urgency for immediate action. We have heard a great deal about this matter of urgency; we have some who think the project is not very urgent and of course we have others who believe it is something that should be proceeded with immediately. It is important and it is only right that every phase of this matter should be carefully discussed and the facts-and I stress the word facts-should be presented to the Canadian people. In the debate thus far I am afraid political expediency has been a major consideration in many of the speeches. Now, what are some of the facts?
First there is the urgency that has been stressed by the sponsor of this bill and by

other speakers. I believe there is urgency. This pipe line is a means of distributing a wasting product from Alberta to parts of Canada and the United States where it could be used to advantage. Every day the project is delayed means a loss of $50,000 to Alberta producers. We have heard this laughed at in this house tonight, Mr. Speaker, yet I wonder if that is the way to treat a direct loss which is of such vital concern to the Alberta producers? Perhaps the amount of $50,000 a day does not seem very large, but if we total that sum for a year we have a figure of $18,250,000.
To my mind that is a lot of money; yet that will not be the greatest loss. Householders in eastern Canada are getting tired of shovelling United States coal into their furnaces. Industry is crying for natural gas and promises great expansion when this fuel is available. In this respect I am prepared to accept the words of Premier Frost of Ontario when speaking of this pipe-line deal. I know these words have been quoted many times in this house; nevertheless I am going to quote them again. Premier Frost said:
Time is the very essence of this arrangement and every day's delay invites the most serious consequences to the national economy.
I like that word "national", Mr. Speaker, because it shows that the premier of Ontario is looking beyond the confines of his own province which plays such a vital role in this country of ours.
Agreed on urgency, the question then arises; how to get the line constructed in the least possible time? We have listened to the facts as presented by the minister in introducing the resolution and later the bill. We have made our own investigation and studies of the requirements for prompt action. We have talked with some of the principals involved in the plan and we find this. First, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has contracts for the purchase and delivery of the pipe necessary for immediate construction of the line. There is an extensive backlog of orders for such pipe, and if not accepted by Trans-Canada it would be immediately sold to others who are clamoring for it and who have unfilled orders waiting.
Second, Trans-Canada has connections and contracts with affiliated and independent producers who are in control of sufficient gas to feed the pipe line the moment it is ready to receive it. Third, Trans-Canada has distribution arrangements planned to take care of the gas as soon as it starts flowing to the eastern outlets. Fourth, Trans-Canada has the right of way, has completed surveys and preliminary planning, and has sufficient capital in cash to finance the 10 per cent of the cost of the western section of the line.
4159
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Knowing these facts, I believe no one will dispute the claim that Trans-Canada is the only company in a position to start work at once and satisfy the urgent demands for early construction of the line. With this established, the matter of the government plan for financing enters the picture. Again I would accept the view expressed by Premier Frost in these words:
That the Howe plan for doing so through the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited deal . . . offers the only possibility of getting the line started this year.
In the matter of financing we hear queer statements, statements that I am afraid are irresponsible and made for the purpose of leaving a false impression in the minds of the Canadian people. Today our people are thinking for themselves and, thank goodness, arrive at their own conclusions regardless of political oratory. The Canadian people know the difference between a loan and a gift. They know that money loaned at a rate of 5 per cent interest and secured by all the assets, contracts and agreements of the party getting the loan is not a gift, and I am sure they will not seriously believe the wild statements of the C.C.F. and Conservative parties about the use of taxpayers' money to subsidize Trans-Canada. It is a hard and fast business deal, and in my estimation the government has driven a hard bargain. In fact I wonder that Trans-Canada would accept a loan under such strict terms. It certainly must have had every confidence that it will be able to meet the debt in full when it falls due in March, 1957.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member who is now speaking, or rather reading every word of his speech, is I submit breaking the rule which Your Honour has mentioned on numerous occasions about reading speeches.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: think it has been decided quite often that the only decision which a Speaker can make is to request an hon. member to discontinue reading his speech if he is doing so. It has been decided by more than one Speaker during the last few months that there appears to be no provision in the rules which makes it possible to enforce a strict rule against the reading of a speech if the hon. member who has the floor states that he is following his notes very closely.


George William McLeod: I would inform the hon. member that I have quite copious notes in front of me. I will say that if he wishes to read what I have written here and what will appear in Hansard I am sure he will find there is some little difference.
We have heard much about the dangers of United States capital. I am not an advocate
4160	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of foreign capital. I believe I made reference to this in my budget speech delivered in the house some time ago, and I have not changed my mind one iota. I believe it is certainly preferable to have our industry and other projects financed by Canadian capital. Only this evening I received a copy of the Manitoba Co-operator which I think every hon. member received. I commend to hon. members the article which appears on page 4 entitled "Yankee Dollar". That bears out what I said in my speech some weeks ago and what I have said in public in different parts of this country, that we in Canada are not very good investors when it comes to putting out money in what we call risk ventures.
Perhaps if our C.C.F. friends were in power they would find some means of forcing our citizens to invest their money, but we who deplore the fact that they are not doing so still believe it is the right of each individual to use his money as he sees fit. So long as Canadian capital is not available for development purposes I claim it is a good thing for Canada that outside capital is available. I contend that when outside capital crosses the Canadian boundary it ceases to be foreign and becomes Canadian capital.
I know that someone else is anxious to get the floor, and I shall gladly give it to him at this time.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I was pleased to join with the Prime Minister in the suggestion that all hon. members rise and sing "God Save the Queen". I wish it were possible to feel that there had been a continuing recognition throughout the day of the traditions expressed in that way when we first met this afternoon.
On this day when we were asked to pay our tribute to the Queen herself and in doing so to recognize the traditions of the crown and its relationship to parliament, we have seen once again the denial of a fundamental right of parliament by the introduction of closure without any real opportunity for debate. Hon. members on the other side who say the records will show that there has been plenty of debate seem to disregard completely the fact that we have seen closure applied in a way that it has never been applied before, either here or at Westminster.


An hon. Member:: Baloney.


George Alexander Drew: That is a typically intelligent interjection from the other side and from the hon. member who made it.


An hon. Member:: By the meathead.
(Mr. McLeod.1


George Alexander Drew: There has never been a similar application of closure in this parliament or at Westminster. On the first occasion when closure was applied here the bill was introduced on December 5, 1912, and closure was applied on April 10, 1913. On every occasion there has been an extended debate.
I am not going to argue the justification or otherwise of closure at some point in an extended debate. However, I am going to point out that members of the Liberal party used the term "dictatorship" and every other vigorous term they could think of to describe the application of closure even after the debate had been going on for some weeks. Never at any time has there been a case of the very first speaker in the debate giving notice of closure, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce did last week when this measure first came before us.
Let us remember that this is not the measure we discussed on March 15, nor is it the measure which was announced in the speech from the throne on January 10. This is a new measure with a new purpose and one which presents an entirely different aspect to the whole discussion. Nevertheless, without hearing even a single speaker the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that just as soon as the rules made it possible they were going to close off the debate.


Mr. Forgie:: A businessman.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A dictator.


George Alexander Drew: I hope the remarks which are being placed on Hansard are being duly attributed to the hon. member who is making the interjections. The hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Forgie) is giving a fairly vigorous indication of the attitude of many of the members opposite to this extremely important subject of closure.
We had the ending of the discussion in the committee stage, when the house was called upon to express the opinion that it was expedient to introduce a bill. We were denied the opportunity to have a real debate on that motion. We now have second reading before us. After two days of debate the very first proceeding in the house today constituted a reassertion of the gag, and the indication that the government does not intend to permit a real debate.
To hear some hon. members opposite discuss this subject you would think it was a real privilege for members of the opposition to be heard at all. I would ask some hon. members opposite to remember that it was as the result of extended debate last year that the government finally came to its senses. As the result of expressions of opinion right across the country the wide powers

sought by the Minister of Trade and Commerce under the Defence Production Act were not extended and made a part of the permanent laws of this country. This is the same minister, and in the same manner, at that time, who sought to have permanently embedded in our laws the dictatorial powers of that emergency wartime legislation. The government was saved from a very improper course by the expression of opinion right across Canada that this would be improper, and it is to the credit of those members of the government who heeded that expression of opinion that the opposition's proposal was accepted.	.
Now we seek the same democratic right to express our opinion here, which can explain to the public what the issue is and in turn give the government the advantage of an expression of opinion across Canada from the press and from the people. Surely the government is not unaware of what the press is saying about this extraordinary measure. Surely the government is not unaware of what the press is saying right across Canada about the gag rule. Surely the government is not unaware that almost without exception the press generally is expressing opposition to this government arbitrarily putting up the taxpayers' money from the treasury of Canada to the extent of 90 per cent Df the cost of this operation, and then handing iver the benefits of that operation to an )rganization which is 83 per cent owned by nvestors in the United States. Do not repeat that absurd talk about our being opposed to United States investment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh! Look at the record.


George Alexander Drew: We are asking the government to insist that the United States investment they claimed they had available should be put into this venture so it can be completed without government intervention. In view of the very familiar sounds I just heard, which unfortunately cannot be recorded in Hansard, and which I described on an earlier occasion in terms that I deemed appropriate, I perhaps should frankly admit that I have had a number of communications expressing criticism of my description of members opposite as trained seals, and I should place one of those letters on record because it is typical of the letters I have received.


An hon. Member:: Identify it.


George Alexander Drew: I shall identify it. It is written by a man named John R. Harger, the president of The Rapid 5 System of Canada, White Rock, British Columbia, and it was received 67509-2644
21, 1956	4161
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation in my office on May 14. It is addressed to me personally, not marked "confidential". It states:
Dear Mr. Drew,
I am a visitor in the fair city of Ottawa. I notice on the quaint old street cars a sign saying- Ottawa Be Kind to Animals Week.
Have you noticed that sign Mr. Drew? I fear not. Just the other day I read in the paper that you, publicly in the house compared the government backbenchers to an "anvil chorus of trained seals".
Mr. Drew this was a very unkind thing to do to the seals, the seal is a useful, valuable, and relatively intelligent animal (or mammal). In view of the fact that it is "be kind to animals week" Mr. Drew, yqu as the Leader of the Progressive Conservatives should set a better example to all good men, in fact you should apologize to the seals, publicly for this unkind thing you have done-perhaps thoughtlessly to them.
Yours truly,
John R. Harger.


An hon. Member:: Is that the reaction?


George Alexander Drew: Yes, that is the reaction of the public, that they think it was an unfair comparison because they think the seals show more sense.
Mr. Speaker, when we come to the question of closure, we are dealing here with the right of hon. members to be heard, and I would point out to Your Honour and to the members here that on this very important subject only a few speakers on this side have yet been heard. Only a few of the Conservative members have had an opportunity yet to speak.


An hon. Member:: They have nothing to say.


George Alexander Drew: Six out of 53 have been heard in this debate, and that is described by the hon. members opposite as placing obstruction in the way. I wish that we would hear from the Prime Minister how he justifies this arbitrary denial of the right of debate, which had such successful consequences last year and which brought him to a recognition of the fact that it would be wise to retain the authority of parliament over the business of the people of Canada. We have the right to use the only weapon the opposition has-


An hon. Member:: Gas.


George Alexander Drew: -and that is the expression of opinion conveyed through the press in the gallery to the public. That, after all, is the democratic system, about which some comment has been made. Let the members opposite permit this democratic system to work. Let there be time for the public to express their opinion. This government is afraid of public opinion. This government is afraid to let that opinion be formed. That is why they are applying closure, not because of any deadline date.
4162	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
This pipe has been contracted for; this pipe is ready for delivery. This government, under a method that would assure control to Canadians, could assure the construction of this pipe line this year without handing over the benefits of Canadian investment to an organization that is 83 per cent controlled in the United States. That would be democracy in action, and that is what we are asking when we object to closure in this manner.
There will be short speeches tomorrow. Others will have other matters to put forward. I shall at that time continue my remarks but, before I sit down tonight, I hope I may be permitted to draw a similarity between the attitude of this government and that of Oliver Cromwell many years ago. When we hear about the fact that there must be no opposition and no delay, I am reminded of the close of Oliver Cromwell's speech to parliament on January 22, 1655, just 301 years ago. This is Cromwell speaking to parliament. This is the dictator who was an admitted dictator:
I think it my duty-to tell you, that it is not for the profit of these nations, nor fit for the common and public good, for you to continue here any longer, and therefore, I do declare unto you, That I do dissolve this parliament.
That, of course, was a dissolution that was intended to not permit the people of the British Isles at that time to express an opinion, but may I say once again that this government has no mandate to carry out this improper procedure. This government has no mandate to use the Canadian taxpayers' money to finance a venture to the advantage of United States investors. We ask the government to go to the people and let the people say what they want done on this occasion.
Mr. Speaker, I call it ten o'clock. I move the adjournment of the debate.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before that is done, may I point out that in this debate we happen to have another party in the house which is in agreement with the government, and it has often been difficult to decide the sequence of speakers. Earlier, while Your Honour was not in the house, the Leader of the Opposition sought to speak at about, I

think, twenty past nine; and quite properly, I think, having in mind the distribution that had been placed before him, the chairman of committees saw another member who had risen on one, if not two, previous occasions. Nevertheless, it is not the desire of the government that we should not hear the Leader of the Opposition at whatever reasonable length might be desirable. As a matter of fact, two members of the Progressive Conservative party this afternoon took part in this debate and three, I think, on the government side.


Mr. Nowlan:: Four.


Walter Edward Harris: All right; four.


George Clyde Nowlan: You forgot yourself.


Walter Edward Harris: At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the official opposition put their case in on this motion by the hon. member for Prince Albert, who I think spoke for about 1J hours. Nevertheless, if it would meet the unanimous wish of the rest of the house, the government would be prepared to sit until 11 o'clock if the Leader of the Opposition desires to take that time now.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I rose at a time when I believed it was appropriate that I should be recognized. However, I was not recognized. I do not now question that decision. Permission to carry on the debate is not in the hands of the government alone. I therefore do not propose to seek consent from the house at this time. We shall be sitting until long after one o'clock tomorrow night. I do not propose to extend my remarks at this time and to seek from the members of the house any concession that is not appropriately provided under the rules.
On motion of Mr. Drew the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We shall continue with this debate tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.