1956-05-18

[Stage Direction]
1954-55 POOL OPERATIONS
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement regarding the final payment on 1954-55 wheat pool operations. On May 3 I advised the house that the Canadian wheat board was making a cut-off as at May 4 covering the 1954-55 wheat pool account, and that I would be in a position at about this time to announce to the house the amount of the final payment and the rate per bushel for each grade of wheat delivered to the pool by producers.
Producers' deliveries of wheat to the pool were 318-4 million bushels. A total of 164-1 million bushels, including 42 [DOT] 9 million bushels of sales contracts, were transferred to the 1954-55 pool from the 1953-54 pool as at April 29, 1955. Deliveries from other than producers amounted to 600,000 bushels, bringing the total volume of wheat in the pool to 483 [DOT] 1 million bushels. Completed sales to the close of business on May 4 amounted to 321-7 million bushels. Therefore there remained as at May 4 a balance of 161-4 million bushels. These stocks included 112 million bushels covered by sales contracts and unsold stocks of 49 -4 million bushels.
In closing out the 1954-55 pool the sales contracts were transferred to the 1955-56 pool at contract prices and unsold stocks were transferred on the basis of board selling prices for May 4. The final operating surplus in the 1954-55 pool is $62,588,000 from which must be deducted the interim payment made earlier this year. This payment amounted to $22,261,000. After providing for P.F.A.A. levy on the interim and final payments and after allowing for final payment expenses, the surplus for distribution to producers as a final payment is $39,680,000.
On producers' deliveries of 318-4 million
bushels the average final payment is 12-461 cents per bushel.
The final net payments to producers on the principal grades of wheat are as follows:
No. 1 northern, 14-815 cents per bushel.
No. 2 northern, 15-143 cents per bushel.
67509-258*
No. 3 northern, 12-163 cents per bushel.
No. 4 northern, 11 -440 cents per bushel.
No. 5 wheat, 6-553 cents per bushel.
No. 6 wheat, 8-533 cents per bushel.
Feed wheat, 10-513 cents per bushel.
Prior to the deduction of the P.F.A.A. levy the net price realized by producers for No. 1 northern wheat basis in store Fort William/ Port Arthur or Vancouver will be $1-65066 per bushel.
As in the case of the 1953-54 crop, the Durum wheat position continued very strong in 1954-55 and again in the present crop year. The final payments on Durum wheat grades are as follows:
No. 1 bushel.	Amber	Durum,	58-653	cents	perNo. 2 bushel.	Amber	Durum,	58-653	cents	perNo. 3 bushel.	Amber	Durum,	62-118	cents	perNo. 4 bushel.	Amber	Durum,	48-753	cents	perNo. 5 bushel.	Amber	Durum,	31-083	cents	perNo. 6	Amber	Durum,	32-073	cents	per
bushel.
Prior to the deduction of the P.F.A.A. levy the net price realized by producers for No. 1 Amber Durum will be $2-34498 per bushel.
There will be a final payment on all grades of wheat delivered to the pool. However, the final payments on the feeding grades of wheat, grades that did not participate in the interim payment referred to, will not be as large as the final payment on the milling grades. Hon. members will appreciate that it was necessary for the board, in disposing of stocks of low-grade wheat delivered to the 1954-55 pool, to sell the grain at levels competitive with prices for similar qualities of wheat being offered from other countries and, to a degree, in competition with other types of feeding grains. I am very pleased, however, to be able to report to the house that the board's marketing efforts in connection with low-grade wheat delivered to the 1954-55 pool account were successful. After taking into consideration sales contracts, practically no stocks of low-grade wheat are involved in the transfer of stodks to the 1955-56 pool.
Carrying charges were again a factor of considerable importance in the handling of the 1954-55 pool account. Although somewhat less than in the previous year, carrying

Inquiries of the Ministry charges per bushel were incurred to the extent of 16-83 cents. These charges were partially offset, however, by a credit of around 7-30 cents per bushel representing the participation of the 1954-55 pool account in the moneys received by the board under the provision of the temporary wheat reserves act. The effect of the latter credit was, therefore, to raise the final payment to producers by an average of around 7-30 cents per bushel on the 318-4 million bushels delivered by producers to the pool.
The board intends to commence mailing cheques early next week and hopes to complete the payment to producers by the first week in June.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: May I
ask the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Public Works, or both, what action, if any, the government proposes to take in view of the intimation from the Toronto board of control that unless the federal government is prepared to make payments equivalent to taxes on federally-owned property, the city will be obliged to withdraw municipal services from federally-owned property at an early date?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I read the newspaper report, which was somewhat to the effect the hon. member for Eglinton has mentioned, but I have had no communication from the board of control, and I think until I have I should not say anything.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I rise on a question of personal privilege. I hold in my hand a copy of the Calgary Herald for Wednesday last, May 16, and on page 14 of this paper is an article which is a complete perversion of the reference which I made in the debate on Tuesday night. The Canadian Press dispatch on page 14 is headed, "Nickle has Killed Himself says Low". The article goes on to say:
Social Credit leader Low said Mr. Nickle has "killed himself in Alberta and when the next election rolls around he will find out exactly what I mean."
"The people of Alberta are going to question the position he has taken."

Mr. Speaker, Hansard for Tuesday last reports that I said that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) had killed himself. So that there would be no misunderstanding at the time, I pointed my finger directly at him and called him the member for Calgary North.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, notice of which I sent him earlier this day and the relative information for which I communicated to him by telephone. In view of the urgency of making an early start on the Queensboro bridge and representations made by me asking for a decision on this matter, and in the light of the publicity given the fact that the public works minister has asked the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) to meet with interested parties and make a recommendation, will the minister make a complete statement in an effort to clarify the matter and indicate whether it is the policy of the government to send an outside Liberal member of parliament into a neighbouring area to make his recommendations.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the situation is that some time ago the city of New Westminster made application under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for permission to build a bridge to replace, as I understood it, the present Queensboro bridge. The department has been considering the very important navigational aspects of any such structure and has made certain suggestions which it was hoped would benefit navigation, such as a wider span. It was also contemplated the present bridge would be removed when the new bridge was completed.
Shortly after the application was received other interests communicated with us protesting about the nature of the design and in particular the British Columbia Electric Railway Company informed us that they had not yet arrived at a satisfactory arrangement for their rails over any bridge to Lulu island. The application has not, therefore, been approved. In the meantime the officials of the British Columbia Electric have been speaking to us, as have other interested parties. Some days ago the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond telephoned me. As hon. members know, he is very interested in all things respecting the welfare of British Columbia. He asked me how the matter stood. I told

him that the point had still not been decided, particularly between the B.C. Electric and the city of New Westminster, and that as he was going out there he might wish to speak to the officials of the B.C. Electric company just to satisfy himself on the points we discussed on the telephone. That is the situation as it obtains respecting the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. In the meantime, the mayor of New Westminster sent me a telegram on May 9, I think, which was replied to on May 17, and yesterday, or the day before, I received a letter from him which is in the course of being replied to at the present time.


Frederick George Hahn: May I ask a supplementary question? Am I to take it that the minister did not ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond specifically to make recommendations in respect of it?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall that I specifically asked him to make recommendations. He said he was going to British Columbia and I did suggest that, for his own information, he might wish to discuss the matter with the officials of the British Columbia Electric company. I will nevertheless be interested to receive his comments.



BURLINGTON, ONT.    INQUIRY AS TO MAINTENANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Has the government reached any agreement with the government of Ontario regarding the maintenance of the low level bridge over the Burlington channel?


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Speaker, this has not been a matter of recent discussion. When we discussed in the initial stages federal government participation in the Burlington high level bridge it was on the understanding the government of Ontario would assume full responsibility for all vehicular traffic in that area.


Frank Exton Lennard: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was there not an understanding that the federal government would contribute towards the building of the high level bridge under that agreement?


Robert Henry Winters: A part of the discussion involved federal government financial participation in the high level bridge. The provincial government subsequently told us they do not anticipate they will require federal government financial participation.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



STATEMENT REGARDING SETTLEMENT OF SEAMEN'S STRIKE ON GREAT LAKES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: In view of the questions that have been asked with regard to the seamen's strike on the great lakes, Mr. Speaker, I might bring the house up to date with the situation. The terms of settlement of the dispute between the seafarers' international union and the association of lake carriers were agreed to in discussions between the parties and the mediator, Mr. Goldenberg, at an early hour this morning. But because of a new development in the situation an adjournment was taken until three p.m. today to give the mediator and the representatives of the parties some rest. During the past few days conferences have been going on almost continuously.
The new development to which I refer arose out of the fact that there are two other unions, representing deck and engine room officers respectively, involved in disputes with the same employers, and while they are not jointly carrying on negotiations with the seafarers' union and the employers' association there is a tacit agreement between the three unions to support each other, and representatives of the two officers' unions have been present as observers at the conferences presided over by the mediator.
The disputes between the two officers' unions and the employers have not yet gone through the conciliation procedures provided by our legislation but it is the desire of all the parties concerned that a settlement be reached at the present time resolving all three disputes in order to avoid the possibility of another work stoppage at a later date involving the ships' officers.
It is to this problem that Mr. Goldenberg, the mediator, has to address himself this afternoon and I have every confidence that he will be as successful in this endeavour as he was in the other.



INQUIRY AS TO CALLING OF EARLY ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of the general interest of the people and the indignation of all of us across Canada, has the Prime-Minister given consideration to the calling of an early election?

Inquiries of the Ministry
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): No, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister feels that there is a responsibility to the whole of Canada to deal with many other matters before any dissolution of parliament could be considered. In particular, there is the implementation of the proposed fiscal arrangements that have been made for the provinces that we feel must necessarily be dealt with. Another matter is that we feel it is in the interests of Canada generally that there be a start made this year on the construction of the pipe line, and the calling of an election is something which would make that quite impossible.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have no mandate for what you are doing.


Mr. Rowe:: You should get a mandate.


Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East):: The hon. gentleman will have his opportunity to state his views.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
*Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister yet in a position to table Trans-Canada's option to purchase pipe in the United States which a week ago today he promised he would table?
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Yes, I am very happy to say that the document arrived in my office this morning. In the meantime, the option has been translated into a firm contract, and the contract has attached to it certain mill orders and other documents which are now being examined, and I hope to be able to table the contract either today or Monday.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position to give the house any information about the possible tariff reductions which it is reported Canada is making through GATT?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the announcement of the result of the GATT negotiations


will be released in all countries shortly. I am unable to make any announcement until the release date arrives.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, May 17, 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.
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I understand I have nine minutes left which I wish to use in summing up my remarks of last night. In order to do that I wish to say that early delay and the necessity now for speeding up to meet the deadline of June 7 can be explained on the ground that it was necessary to make certain no vested interests in gas are created on the United States side of the line which would rob this country of supplies of gas and transfer control south of the border.
Once the government had decided it was necessary to keep at least three hundred million cubic feet of gas on this side of the line, it would have been absolutely foolish for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to have been running to council with proposals to take from 400 to 500 million cubic feet of gas out of this country.
The government, for the same reason Sir John A. decided to build a trans-Canada railway, decided to build a trans-Canada pipe line, or to have a trans-Canada pipe line built. To build a line to Winnipeg without making sure there was an all-Canadian connecting link between the prairies and the industrial east would have resulted in building a line south to market gas. This would not only have drained a source of power out of Canada but would have drained the young men and women out of the part of the country which needs increased population, not decreased population. Population certainly would follow a gas line into every industrial centre from Emerson through Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago and Detroit, and vested interests would have taken control of the gas entirely out of the hands of Canada.
The C.C.F. say, "We agree with all that but let the government build the line". We point out there are fields in which government ownership is essential. We prove it by the success of hydroelectric power put in by Conservatives in Ontario and telephones and

power put in by Liberals in Saskatchewan, but we point out that the present Saskatchewan government has proven, when they attempted to apply the principle of public ownership and control generally, that it has its limitations.
We recognize that under private enterprise there must be legitimate profits and sufficient risk must be taken out of any national project to make legitimate profits possible before it can be financed.
Now therefore we join with Ontario to build the bridge across northern Ontario just as we paid $7 million to bridge the freight costs over the same area. But benefiting from the experience of Saskatchewan we encourage private enterprise to develop a billion dollar development in Alberta and eastern Canada. There is provision in the bill to allow private enterprise to take over the whole project if that is found feasible, but there is also provision to bring the whole line under the government if that is necessary to retain both the line and control on the Canadian side of the line.
It is not bad for United States capital to come in here from a friendly nation any more than it was bad for United States independence that British capital came in from an unfriendly nation in the early stages of United States development. It would have been bad to get quick sale for Alberta gas to the United States which would have created vested interests in the United States and drained our population south. This plan protects Canadian interests in every possible way and permits the entrance of United States capital into the development of our industry in a manner which increases friendship and wards off enmity.
Mr. Manning of Alberta, Mr. Campbell of Manitoba and Mr. Frost of Ontario say that time is of the essence. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) speaking for the Conservatives, and numerous C.C.F. members from the west, have boasted, one to ward off United States domination and the other to bring in socialism, that they are going to use every device possible to prevent this measure going through.
They have used every possible device which the rules permit them to delay the bill. They have delayed estimates by talking, 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 available to us, 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. They have compelled us to do this. We are simply using a rule they gave
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation 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. They have deprived themselves of the right to discuss a pipe line across this country. Yesterday the hon. member for Prince Albert denied a member of his own caucus the right to get up and put him right on something he was stating to this house. They are following every possible device to delay things with regard to this matter and to prevent it getting before the people of Canada and have to date succeeded fairly well in wasting most of the time that has been made available to them.
In summing up what I had to say last night with regard to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) who is in charge of the measure may I say that as I look across at my C.C.F. friends I realize that close to a majority of them were born outside of this country. When I look at my friends immediately across the aisle I remember that one of their ablest members, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), was born down there. In view of the fact that I had my elementary education in the United States, although I was born in this country, I am beginning to think that we are not a bad bunch of people. Although there may have been early influences on our lives down in the United States, since we have become members of this house we have done nothing but try to serve the best interests of the people of Canada and, as I said last night, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been a leader among us.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. During the course of his remarks last evening in the speech which the Minister of Agriculture has just completed he made some comments about myself and certain references which prompt me to rise now on a question of privilege. The Minister of Agriculture referred to a remark of mine found at page 3935 of Hansard of May 5, as follows:
The Minister of Trade and Commerce is confused, you see, as to what country he is supposed to be serving.
Then the Minister of Agriculture went on to say, as found at page 4059 of Hansard of
yesterday:
Now, what is that based on? That is based on the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was born in the United States.
4070	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
The minister used that in relation to what he said was a question of privilege. Let me make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I had no reference to the place of birth of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have never yet judged any man on the place of his birth-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -because the man is not born yet who has any control over the place of his birth. Let me make it quite clear that this was no reference to the place of birth of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. When I said what I said I was purporting to judge the Minister of Trade and Commerce not on where he was born but on his actions, his attitudes and his policies. In saying, as I did, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -is confused as to what country he is supposed to be serving, I was discussing-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -the policies, attitudes and actions of the minister. I had no reference to the place where he happened to be born.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I call your attention to the fact that was not a question of personal privilege and that the hon. member has now spoken in this debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarks just made I think I should have the privilege of referring again to what was said by the hon. member for Eglinton. I did not read it all last night and I will read it all this time. As found at page 3935 of Hansard of May 15 the hon. member for Eglinton said:
The Minister of Trade and Commerce concluded his words on May 8 with this sentence:
"The action proposed today is another declaration of independence by Canada ..."
Then follow the remarks of my hon. friend.
That is an interesting expression. There never was a declaration of independence in the history of Canada, but there was a declaration of independence in the history of the United States. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is confused, you see, as to what country he is supposed to be serving. What the Minister of Trade and Commerce really meant to say was: "The action proposed today is another American declaration of independence with Canadian assistance."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend wishes to read anything else into that but the statement that I made last night-


William Earl Rowe: No relationship at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: -all I can say is I am
quite sure that every member of the house, even my hon. friend's own members, took the statement at the time it was made as an intimation that the minister was born in the United States-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement has no
meaning and did not carry any reason for being made other than that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture cannot change the facts. I have made a statement as to the meaning of my remarks and nothing that he says can change the fact. I say that the comment I made at that time had to do not with the place of birth of the Minister of Trade and Commerce but with the effect of his policies, actions and attitudes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, since we first had the opportunity to discuss this measure on the resolution introduced last Monday which resulted in the bill now before us, we have heard from a good many hon. members, the majority of whom represent constituencies which will be affected directly by the construction of a pipe line from the Alberta gas fields to Toronto. I come from a constituency which cannot possibly receive any direct benefit from the pipe line, and my constituency is by no means the only one which will not have any direct benefit accruing to it from the construction of the pipe line. There are also those on the maritime seaboard, on the Atlantic coast, who will reap no benefits.
I am interested to note that the title given to the bill, namely, an act to establish Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, is far more realistic than the grandiose name chosen by the company which will obtain the loan and the greatest benefit from this crown corporation when it is set up. Just fancy, this company has the audacity to call itself Trans-Canada Pipe Lines! Trans-Canada indeed! Why, there will be no pipe of this company laid within a thousand miles of my constituency. Yet it calls itself Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. That shows the degree of knowledge of geography that the promoters of this company have although perhaps that might be excusable so far as American directors are concerned, who might not be expected to know too much about the geography of Canada. But listen to what the

venerable member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) had to say as found at page 3942 of Hansard of May 15. These are his words:
.	.	. putting this national gas line all across
Canada.
All across Canada! What misrepresentation! The hon. member must know better than that. He must realize that the pipe line is not going to the Pacific coast, that the pipe line is not going to the Atlantic coast. Perhaps be is daring to insinuate that British Columbia is not a part of the Dominion of Canada. I never heard such nonsense before.
What is the reaction of the people in those parts of Canada that are not going to be served by the pipe line? I do not think there is any enthusiasm for the construction of the line on the part of people living where they are not going to be directly served with the gas. Do you realize that under private enterprise in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, we have already had constructed an oil pipe line from the Peace river district through the mountain ranges to the Pacific coast? That has already been constructed and we did not come with our hands outstretched saying: "Give us a grant from the federal government."
Then we have a gas pipe line under construction at the present time and we have not come running to the federal government asking for millions of dollars for that project. In the part of our country where it is being constructed it is infinitely more difficult to construct a pipe line than around the northern part of the great lakes. I wonder whether I should appeal to the minister and the government to make a grant of a few million dollars to run a spur line from this gas pipe line over to Vancouver island. Why not do that? You might just as well make a contribution for that purpose as to make a contribution to this so-called trans-Canada pipe line around the northern shore of lake Ontario.


An hon. Member:: Lake Superior.


George Randolph Pearkes: Lake Superior. I suppose it goes around lake Ontario too. I wonder whether it would not be possible for the government to send some of their ministers out to Vancouver island to explain why my constituents must make a contribution towards this northern Ontario pipe line.
I should like the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) to go out to Vancouver island and to explain to the old age pensioners of my constituency-and there are a great many of them-that the federal government cannot raise the pension of $40 a month which it gives them because
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation it would cost money, and that extra money is required for the wealthy promoters of this gas line.
I should like to send out the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) and let him go to the Legion branches on Vancouver island and tell them the reason the government cannot put an addition on to the veterans' hospital in Victoria-something which the Legion branches all over the island have been asking for-is that they need that money to construct a pipe line to Winnipeg and to Emerson.
I should like the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters)-who I notice is in the house -to go out there and explain to the fishermen around the Pacific coast that he is not able to provide the necessary harbour facilities and safe berthing for their vessels because the money which would be required to put up those protective measures is required to help finance this pipe line.
I should like the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) to go out to the west coast and explain to the mariners there that he is not able to give them an adequate lifesaving service because the money is required for this pipe line rather than to be put into life saving apparatus.
I should like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) to go out to the west coast and explain to the municipalities that he is still obliged to go on taxing them on everything they purchase because the $20 million or $30 million which would be lost to the treasury by the removal of that sales tax is required to build this pipe line. Let him tell the school boards that he must still go on taxing them on the supplies they buy because that money is needed for the construction of this pipe line.
Then I should like the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to go out there and meet the superannuated federal civil servants, those who have worked for this government over the years and who made their contribution believing that their superannuation pension would purchase a standard of living that they would enjoy when they retired, only to find that the inflationary policies of this government have not permitted them to obtain that standard of living which they anticipated. Let the Prime Minister tell them that he has no money with which to augment their superannuation pensions because that money is required for the construction of this pipe line or to assist in its construction.
All those groups of people on the Pacific coast to whom I have referred are taxpayers. All of them will be obliged to make their contribution towards the construction of this trans-Canada pipe line, and they will
4072	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation be obliged to tighten their belts in order to do it. I do not want to give the impression that we are an insular people and that we are not prepared to play our part in the development of Canada. Far be it from that. But we do not like to feel that a government is playing fast and loose with our money. We want to be quite certain that any scheme in which we invest is an economically sound one.
There was a time, Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, before this government came into power, when the Canadian was represented as Johnny Canuck, a bronzed, strong figure wearing a Stetson hat, with sleeves rolled up ready to take on any job at all. You do not see Johnny Canuck in any of the cartoons today. What have you in his place? You have a miserable little man who is downtrodden, whining and grumbling, and wrapped up in a barrel: "UNO Who".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is all very well to laugh, and I know that these caricaturists exaggerate. However, these caricatures are an indication of national character. Have we after 20 years of Liberal government changed from Johnny Canuck to "UNO Who"?
Last year I thought I saw a small flickering flame of national pride in the federal government. When they rose in their wrath for a few days and protested against the action taken by the Social Credit government of British Columbia in, as they put it, "selling out" Canadian water to the United States through the Kaiser dam. How strange it is, 12 months afterwards, here you have the Liberal government and the Social Crediters-


William Earl Rowe: In the same bed.


George Randolph Pearkes: -allies here, thinking about sending out by pipe something far more valuable than even the water resources of British Columbia.
We should like to examine this all-Canadian pipe line and to see whether it is worth our while investing the money that they will take from our people in taxes. In 1951, five years ago, Mr. Tolmie came down here representing the trans-Canada pipe line company and he put forward the argument that this was a simple proposition, that there might be some little difficulties and some lean years-three lean years, in fact-after they had the pipe line constructed until such time as they had built up the market in eastern Canada. At that time there was no reference whatever to the necessity of exporting any gas. The markets would soon be available in eastern Canada. There would be only three tough years, according to him, and the only interest he had was to build
[Mr. Pearkes.}

a pipe line across Canada to bring Alberta gas to what he described as fuel-hungry parts of eastern Canada. With those representations, it was not unreasonable that the government, feeling that it would be an excellent thing to have a pipe line in Canada rather than for the gas to be sent across to the United States, agreed and gave a franchise to this company to go ahead.
Then it became evident to the company that it would be necessary to export some of the gas to the United States. A proposition was made that two-fifths of the daily amount of gas passing through the pipe line could easily be spared and could be exported with advantage to the United States. It was said it would be better to do that south of Winnipeg rather than send it directly south from the gas fields of Alberta. A branch line was to be built from Winnipeg to Emerson and through that branch line there would be some 200 million cubic feet passing daily. Reasonable-yes; we will authorize that.
Then, they had to look for a distributing agency in the United States and this chosen instrument of the government selected the Tennessee Gas Transmission Company to be the importing and distributing agency in the United States. But then difficulties were encountered because there is a law in the United States, a very reasonable law, that any organization importing gas into the United States must obtain a permit from the federal power commission. Nobody could take any objection to that, so an application was made to the federal power commission to see whether 200 million cubic feet a day might not be imported into the United States. Proceedings were held before this commission, and the commission had certain responsibilities to the other distributing agencies in the United States. It soon became evident that if the Tennessee Gas Transmission Company imported gas into the states immediately south of Manitoba, they would be conflicting with other companies such as Northern Natural Gas; People's Gas and Coke and American Louisiana, distributing companies already in that area or with projects already laid out for the distribution of their supplies into the area into which Tennessee was entering.
They made strong representations to the commission, and as they were powerful companies there was every indication that the proceedings would be very, very long. Of course, there are other interests too. There are the coal mining interests in the United States who have been selling their coal to Ontario for many years. They do not want to lose that lucrative market, so they are also making their representations to the federal power commission. There was no likelihood

in the immediate future of the Trans-Canada company being able to get enough money from their exports to the United States to construct the portion of their line between Winnipeg and Toronto around the north shore of lake Superior.
It was then desirable to re-organize the finances of the company to see whether, by bringing in other powerful interests, other high class salesmen, they might not be able to interest United States and Canadian investors in this company. They must raise the money somehow if they were going to build this pipe line. But the Canadian and United States investor was not interested. He was not at all sure that this would be a paying proposition if, by any chance, Tennessee was not able to import and sell the gas in the United States. He was not at all sure there would be a market even for the 300 million cubic feet per day in eastern Canada. I do not know whether any consumers have already declared their intention to buy the gas in eastern Canada. Anyway, there was a great deal of uncertainty and the public was not going to fall for it. So the company came to the government again and said, "Will you construct this difficult portion of the line around lake Superior?" The government, anxious to fulfil their promises, agreed to construct this line between the Manitoba boundary and Kapuskasing, together with the Ontario government, for something over 118 million.
Then what happened? I think you begin to see the sinister workings that there are behind this whole scheme. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company got a corner on all the available pipe and the pipe is safely stored in the yards of the United States manufacturers on the other side of the border where the Canadian government cannot get hold of it and where no other Canadian company could possibly reach it. It is under guard on the other side of the border. They have cornered all the pipe that is available, all the pipe that is required.
Then, what happened? They came back to the Canadian government to say, "If you want that pipe line built this year or next year, we are the only people who can do it; we are the only people who have got the pipe." Now, then, hand out another $80 million, and the poor little Prime Minister and "UNO Who" crept down into the barrel, scraped the bottom of it and handed out to the blackmailers another $80 million. Mr. Speaker, I think that these transactions are worthy of Horatio Bottomley. If you remember, Horatio Bottom-ley during the first world war, who under the guise of being a patriot, fleeced the British people of millions of their money. Oh, he was
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation quite a character. He had a very attractive personality, so attractive that although he had robbed the small British middle class people, he could still come back to them and with a smile they handed out their money again. Oh, he was quite a sportsman. He kept a string of race horses and he used to breakfast every morning on kippers and champagne. I do not know whether the Prime Minister breakfasts on kippers and champagne, but there are certain characteristics which are not dissimilar between Horatio Bottomley and the present government. Horatio Bottomley ran a newspaper, you may recall, entitled John Bull. Signs were posted up all across the United Kingdom during the first war: "If you see it in John Bull it is so". That is akin to the propaganda which is now being put out by this government: "If we say it is so, it is so". There is no need to ask any further questions. If we say that it is a matter of great urgency to build this line and that it must be done this year, it is so, John Bull says so. One dares sometimes to question the urgency of this construction. Must it be done this year? Remember, I am speaking for people who have to help pay for this line and are going to get no benefit from it. Must it be done this year? That gas, that oil in Alberta, has been there for centuries. Fifty years ago, when I first came out to this country,-and I was born in another country; I was not born in this country, but I have been here for over 50 years-I saw the gas coming out of the ground in Medicine Hat and the flame burning. It has been there all those years. It seems to me that Toronto has been a big industrial city for a long time and they have got on very well without this Alberta gas. Oh, if it is really necessary, let us know. Why is it so imperative that it must be started this year? Are all those factories around Chicago in desperate need of this gas this year? They can get gas from other directions. Is Fort William so urgently in need of gas? Is northern Ontario? Are the people going to freeze to death there? They have been living in that district for a very long time.
What about Winnipeg? I have lived in Winnipeg. We did not have any gas then and everybody seemed perfectly happy. I passed through some of the defence establishments within the last few months. I noticed great piles of coal and elaborate and excellent heating arrangements for the burning of that coal at Rivers, at Shilo, at Fort Osborne barracks. Is it necessary to change all this coal heating apparatus over to the burning of gas right away? No, I do not think so. I cannot see the urgency of this proposal. I think it would be much better-and I am quite
4074	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation certain it is the opinion of all those people who are not receiving direct and immediate benefit from this pipe line-to have the whole problem reviewed.
Suppose we do have to wait for two years in order to get a sound scheme worked out; suppose you do in the end have to go to some form of public ownership, would it not be better to take that time? What is the rush? Is it because some people connected with Alberta are anxious to reap the benefits from the distribution of this gas during their lifetime? I am not at all sure that it might not be well to store up this gas. It is not all going to be burned up and wasted. Leave this oil in the ground. Let the future generations of Canadians have some opportunity before we rush in some madcap scheme to dispose of the gas and the oil immediately. Might it not be perhaps possible or even wiser to consider the advisability of moving some of those industries out from Toronto to the prairie provinces so that the industries can move to where the fuel is rather than going to the expense of bringing this fuel all the way across the country?
From time to time in this house we have heard various arguments advanced and pious hopes expressed regarding the decentralization of industry. Might it not be worth while to investigate and see whether it would not be more practical to do this instead of going to the expense of bringing this fuel all the way across the country? Personally, I do not see the need for this urgent, mad rush. Why should my constituents be asked to dig down into their pockets? Why should they be denied all those advantages and improvements that they consider are so essential for their well-being in order to develop, without full consideration, this scheme which is now proposed. I appeal to the government to give this further consideration. Let us have a second look at it. It is not such a likely or lovable scheme. Even the Prime Minister expressed doubt about it the other day. I do not believe any member of the government is really happy. It is a form of duress, it is a form of blackmailing that is being put up to them. Do you have to build this line now? Let us have another look at it; let us do something for the economy of all parts of Canada rather than for the small privileged section of two or three provinces.


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that in this debate an important section of Canadian history is being written. I believe that throughout the debate it is of paramount importance that at all times the interests of the 16 million Canadian people be uppermost in our minds. I further feel that I owe a debt to the thousands
[Mr. Pearkes.l

of people who have sent me here to use all the weapons at my command to attempt to persuade the government to change its mind about the proposal which it now is placing before parliament. If the Prime Minister was convinced about what the people at home in my constituency think of this matter, if the Prime Minister is unwilling to call a national election-I noticed the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) participating in this debate: I would challenge him to persuade the Prime Minister to assure us an immediate by-election in our two respective ridings and I will oppose him either in his riding or in my riding on this issue, and I am sure two C.C.F.'ers will be returned in those by-elections.


Mr. Philpott:: You have a strong urge for suicide.


Erhart Regier: I would in that case permit the hon. member for Vancouver South to appeal to the people on behalf of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and I shall tell the people about anti-Canada pipe lines limited.
In the time at my disposal I intend to show that we need a survey of Canada's resources in the matter of energy that is available and may be made available. We need a survey of the needs of Canada during the next 25 years as far as energy and power are concerned. Until such an analysis has been made on a national scale I feel it is not correct for the government to take from the public purse hundreds of millions of dollars for a scheme that is looked upon in many responsible circles as a doubtful scheme at best. The very fact that private enterprise seems unwilling to risk its capital in what is usually a most lucrative enterprise should give us cause for serious consideration.
I mean to argue in support of public ownership of the line, if a line is necessary. I maintain that this entire proposal is solidly against the national interest. I feel that even the agreements which have been entered into by the minister with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited are not agreements to which any responsible businessman in Canada would apply his signature. The agreements are so one-sided and full of loopholes that the public interest is not being looked after.
I said I felt a survey of Canada's energy resources and requirements is badly needed. We have atomic energy rapidly developing. We do not know and we are not being told what role atomic energy is likely to play within the next 25 years. Many of these vast expenditures we are making may be entirely unwarranted and unnecessary. We need to be told what is taking place and what we have reason to expect. A survey should be made of our coal resources. In the interests

of all those who need coal, the people of Canada as well as the people who mine the coal, consideration must be given to what is the future role of that fuel. We have huge resources in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan and also in the maritime provinces. What is the future of oil in supplying the energy needs of the Canadian people? What future is there for hydroelectric energy and, finally, what is the picture in relation to natural gas? We need to know what supplies there are of these energy producing resources. We should know how much we need, what are the best and most economical means of transporting energy to where it is needed, what is the relationship of these resources to unemployment, what is the relationship of our energy resources to national development, the decentralization of industry, methods of distribution and what should be the role of private enterprise versus public enterprise. We should know what is the future role of atomic energy, what should be our policy with regard to the export and import of fuels, what must be done to preserve our heritage, what conservation measures are necessary, what is the relationship of the production of energy to irrigation and how it relates to our future population. Some study should be given to price structure, measures of government control and the subject of taxation.
I feel the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has often rendered a service to this country in emphasizing the need for the early setting up of a national fuel policy board that will have its fingers on such problems as I have outlined. It is scarcely good enough that we are continuing to pursue the matter in this haphazard fashion whereby individuals, and foreigners at that, move about the country and look at where they can make a rich grab with little regard for the consequences to the people of Canada and the future welfare of this country.
There is much to be said for public ownership, Mr. Speaker. The most convincing argument for it in this case is that the people are going to pay for the line in any event. The minister is now offering to build the western leg and to entirely own the northern Ontario section. If the people have to pay for it by means of taxation, the people have a right to claim ownership. I have never before heard of someone having to pay for something and not being able to claim possession of that for which he has paid.
The Ontario and Saskatchewan governments are on record as being in favour of public ownership. Manitoba has its publicly owned hydro system and I am sure the province would not be averse to entering into an agreement whereby it also might
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation become a shareholder in this public enterprise. There is plenty of evidence on the record that the Alberta government is most anxious to sell gas and I am convinced that is their desire. Judging from the letter of the premier of Alberta which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) put on the record yesterday, the government of that province is anxious to sell gas. The last paragraph of that letter reads in part as follows:
.	. . we feel your government would be fully
justified in taking whatever steps are necessary.
I think that indicates how anxious the Alberta government is to get rid of its gas.
There are other advantages to public ownership. Public ownership allows proper conservation measures to be exercised and it allows for distribution in the national interests. If private enterprise owns the line it will build the line where and when it can make the most money. It will build the line only to such places as will provide it with the greatest revenue. No consideration whatever is given to the national needs. On the other hand, public ownership allows for the equalization of rates to consumers in smaller communities with those in larger communities. Private enterprise will not even bother servicing smaller communities because there is no money in it for them. They simply want to service areas where there is mass consumption.
As has already been pointed out by my colleagues, public ownership will mean lower capitalization costs and can ensure that the national heritage of the people will be preserved.
Private enterprise means the establishing of a monopoly. It is our contention that when a monopoly exists, whether through necessity or otherwise, that monopoly should be subject to public ownership and in this case to direct public ownership. I feel direct public ownership would give the government a splendid opportunity to aid the lower levels of government, in that many municipal governments would be able to undertake their own distribution and thereby relieve taxation on real estate in their municipalities. That situation exists in the case of hydro. In many municipalities in Canada the local government is able to relieve taxation by looking after its own hydro distribution.
I feel the present proposals are unacceptable to the people and against the national interest. The taxpayers are asked to run the risk and if the thing turns out to be an uneconomic venture the taxpayers of Canada will have lost hundreds of millions of dollars. If it is not a paying proposition Trans-Canada will never buy that northern Ontario
4076	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation section; it will be a white elephant on the hands of the taxpayers of Canada. If there is money in this northern Ontario section the company will be pleased to buy it and reap the profits. The people have everything to lose and nothing to gain. It is not in the national interest because control over one of our basic natural resources is being handed over to foreigners.
The export of energy may be vital to our development. We should have a policy whereby we will export only surplus energy and not energy vitally necessary for our national development.
By and large the bill is a poor bill. It sets out a poor policy because it gives almost unlimited power to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). He can tear up these agreements next week and sign new ones. Many Canadian people may have the utmost confidence in the present Minister of Trade and Commerce but I would point out that one agreement is for a 25-year period. I certainly hope that the minister will be hale and hearty and living in retirement in beautiful Burnaby 25 years from now, but I certainly do not believe he will still be Minister of Trade and Commerce at that time. Regardless of the confidence Liberals may have in the minister's integrity, it should be borne in mind that this legislation may be administered in some future year by a Conservative, a C.C.F. or even a Social Credit Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Liberals in this house may yet regret that they wrote out a blank cheque to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
The management of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited have no personal stake whatever in this operation. I am not at all surprised that Mr. Tanner saw fit to resign as a cabinet minister in the Social Credit government of Alberta. By buying only two shares in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited he is given the management of hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money which is being handed over by a grateful federal Minister of Trade and Commerce. This is certainly a good deal for Mr. Tanner, much more lucrative than any cabinet position in the province of Alberta.
I am given further faith in my theory that this proposal is unacceptable to the Canadian people by the fact that large sections of Canada will have to pay for this pipe line without getting anything out of it. The people of British Columbia are having to pay for their own pipe line in the price they pay for gas delivered by Westcoast Transmission, and why should they be called upon to pay
[Mr. Regier.l

for a pipe line to serve other provinces of Canada? We feel that that is a double imposition upon them.
If this is to be a trans-Canada pipe line in fact and not just in name, it should include in its set-up the line now being built by West-coast Transmission so that we could also reap benefit from the taxes that Canadians in other parts of Canada will have to pay.
I wonder what the miners down in Nova Scotia will think of this bill. When this gas arrives in Montreal it will throw them out on the streets. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has always refused to accept responsibility for the unemployed. Those miners will be thrown out on the streets and yet they will have to pay taxes for the very thing that is causing their unemployment. I cannot see the Liberals winning many seats in mining areas in Canada.
The limitation of $130 million in the bill upon the amount which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) can lend the crown corporation means that it will be financially impossible for the corporation to build the Ontario section or even begin to build it until the company has repaid the loan in connection with the western link. That also is not in the public interest. If we are going to start building a pipe line we should be starting to build the whole pipe line, not just the western link.
Much has been made of the need of United States capital in Canada. A lot of people who know little of economics have been making some rather wild statements. They have been saying that Canadian national development will be seriously handicapped if United States capital does not continue to enter Canada in the large amounts in which it is presently coming to this country. That is an absolute falsehood as less than 10 per cent of our overall investment in 1956 is dependent upon United States investment. To even argue that we could not curtail our expansion program by 10 per cent is most ridiculous, especially as it is expected that our capital investment program will be 20 per cent greater this year than last.
The agreements themselves constitute a piece of bad business. First of all, the bill is a blank cheque. Then I notice the minister's method of doing business. I have a copy of the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Ontario. The government entered into the agreement with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited on November 21 to arrange for the section through northern Ontario, yet it was not until the day after that Mr. Porter of the government of Ontario signed a letter agreeing to the terms

of the contract for the northern Ontario section. In other words, the minister went out on a limb; he ran the risk of this agreement not being sanctioned by the government of Ontario at the time he signed it. I think that is an indication of how he does things. The "great C.D." is a quotation we often hear, but we find that he makes agreements by telephone or otherwise and signs his name on the dotted line before he has the sanction to do so by the government of Ontario.
The agreement provides for the gift of the line by whoever may be Minister of Trade and Commerce to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. In a period of about 15 years, if the line is found to be a paying proposition, the Minister of Trade and Commerce will have the right, if he so wishes, to sell the northern section to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines for the sum of $1. The agreement provides for that. The agreement says that the minister may charge 70 per cent of the original capital cost as defined in the agreement; the company has no right to purchase unless it is willing to pay 70 per cent of the capital cost. However, there is nothing in the agreement to stop a federal minister of trade and commerce selling this line to the company for the sum of $1. I submit that that should be remedied before any federal government builds this pipe line.
I fail to understand the logic of insisting on an interest rate of 3J per cent on our investment in connection with the northern Ontario section. This is a 25-year deal, this is long-term money which usually carries a higher rate than short-term money, but this government turns around and offers a shortterm loan at an interest rate of 5 per cent. I see no logic in that. There is no financial logic whatsoever in that type of deal. We are satisfied to let them have money for 25 years at 3J per cent but on the other hand when we give them a loan for ten months we insist on 5 per cent.
The first agreement regarding the northern Ontario section is already a dead agreement because the company has already violated it in many respects as to dates of ^meeting obligations. The company is also-this is another serious loophole in that agreement -under no obligation to use the pipe line at all. They can allow the government to build the pipe line and they may use it but they do not have to use it. It may be a white elephant from the very day it is completed. If this company is going to build a larger pipe line south of the border which it will own I see no reason why it should want to use the government pipe line and have to pay a high rental on it.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
The agreement with regard to the western section allows the minister to make a maximum loan of $80 million. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), however, may lend to the corporation $130 million. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) created the impression that if the government had to take over the company because the company defaulted the shareholders and investors would lose money. There is nothing in the agreement to assure the taxpayers of that. The agreement says that the minister may buy the shares and he may even buy options on shares. He may take over the assets and rights of the company if it defaults in its payments but he may also take over all the undertakings of the company. In "undertakings" we can safely include the undertakings that the company has with respect to its shareholders. In other words, if the government needs to take over the company at the end of the ten months or at the expiry date of the loan there is no assurance to the Canadian people that the scandalous deal by which the shareholders and stockholders of all the bankrupt railway companies of Canada were bailed out by a government and the C.N.R. loaded with a terrific and unnecessary capital overhead will not once again be repeated and we will have a similar shemozzle.
When the minister takes over Trans-Canada he even has the power to pay back to them the $15 million he says they have already spent. I am wondering how much of the $15 million was a contribution to the Liberal campaign fund in 1953. There is nothing to block Trans-Canada Pipe Lines from making another heavy contribution to the next Liberal federal election campaign, and there is nothing to stop the Minister of Trade and Commerce from assuming all the indebtedness of the company with the taxpayers' money. I feel that these agreements have far too many loopholes to be sanctioned by any responsible minister of the government.
Much has been said about the C.C.F. being in an unholy alliance with the Conservative party on this subject. My reaction to that is that we of the Conservative and C.C.F. parties are Canadians all and Canadians first. The Conservatives may well represent only the monied class, the huge industrialists of Canada and what have you. I shall fight the Conservative party on their own ground at the proper time. However, so far as this problem is concerned I recognize the loyalty of my political opponents when I see it, and I have never yet accused the Conservatives of not being, as well as the C.C.F., a loyal and honest Canadian political party. The day will come when we will have in Canada
4078	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation what the people of Great Britain have, a loyal Conservative party and a loyal C.C.F. party.


Mr. Knowles:: The Liberals will have gone down the pipe line.


Erhart Regier: I have no use for this party that is neither fish nor fowl, that lives on political expediency only. That has been the history of the Liberal party and if it were not for the lack of political development oh the part of the Canadian people, who are too busy building up the country to take much interest in politics, the Liberal party would not be able to exist. They feed on the lack of interest of the Canadian people in political matters.
The Liberals are in serious disagreement on this issue. They are floundering around. If it had not been for last Thursday's caucus meeting the Liberal party would have been unable to present this proposal to the House of Commons. That caucus meeting saw the cracking of the party whip. In the C.C.F. ranks we do allow for freedom of conscience, and I want to state here that my leader has told us in more than one caucus that our first responsibility is not to the party but to our own individual conscience. That is a lesson the Liberals have never learned and I do not think ever will learn. They are not only exercising the whip on their own members but they are exercising the whip on our democratic institutions.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Are you talking about the Conservatives?


Erhart Regier: Those cabinet ministers who could not agree with the Trans-Canada proposal should have had the honesty to resign from the cabinet as they do in Great Britain on each and every occasion when a cabinet minister finds himself in disagreement with a decision of the majority of the cabinet. But that is not so in Canada. Political expediency rules the roost and rules the Liberal party. It always has. I am also very surprised at the position taken by the Social Credit party-


Charles Edward Johnston: Go easy, now.


Erhart Regier: -although it may be understandable. After all, they have waited for 25 long years for $25 a month. They were elected on that platform in 1935 and they have been striving for it ever since. They sold out their oil heritage to United States interests in order to lay their hands on immediate cash.


Charles Edward Johnston: Saskatchewan did the same.
(Mr. Regier.]


Erhart Regier: Saskatchewan sold its oil rights under lease, and ten years from now the revenues of the Saskatchewan government from oil will exceed those of Alberta by far because Alberta sold outright. Saskatchewan said: We will take less cash and we will leave some return for those who will follow. I am not surprised at the hon. member for Bow River being loyal to the Alberta government. However, I am surprised that the four Social Credit members from British Columbia show greater allegiance to the treasury of the Manning government than they do to the welfare of the Canadian people. All the Social Credit party has done in the house is to put up a terrific fight on behalf of the producers. We were once told that there were thousands of them but Hansard shows us that they now only claim about a dozen.


Charles Edward Johnston: You had better watch Saskatchewan. It is a little shaky.


Erhart Regier: We are rather accustomed to the Liberals and the Social Crediters taking the same philosophical outlook.


Charles Edward Johnston: And the C.C.F.
and the Conservatives.


Erhart Regier: In British Columbia the Liberals and the Social Crediters are still fighting right now for the patronage of the liquor, lumber and B. C. Electric interests.


Charles Edward Johnston: There is nobody else left to fight there. There is no C.C.F. party there any more.


Erhart Regier: The statements of the minister to the house are a mass of bland assertions and even of contradictions. His greatest argument is that the pipe line must be built this year or otherwise we will have to wait until 1958 at the earliest. Only today he admitted on the orders of the day that the pipe was now under firm contract to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. As found on page 3862 of Hansard of May 14 he said:
I have implied that taking over the enterprise of Trans-Canada would be the only way for us to enter immediately into this business. That is precisely true.


Elmore Philpott: You have a strong urge for suicide.


Erhart Regier: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle).


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am the next Conservative speaker on the list.


Frederick George Hahn: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. Nickle:: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member tor New Westminster is rising on a question of privilege.


Frederick George Hahn: That is right, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member who just took his seat, namely the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), indicated that all the four Social Credit members of parliament from British Columbia, of whom I am one, have shown allegiance to the Manning government ahead of their allegiance to the Canadian people. My question of privilege is this. I owe my allegiance not to any particular government. I was elected by the electors and I realize my responsibility. I shall consider his remarks as being those,, of a man who is under the influence of a sense of egotistical emotionalism far out of proportion with his sense of reason.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that a question of privilege or a speech?


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Do I understand that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) is also raising a question of privilege?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker. I am raising a point of order. This question arose a day or two ago, and I should like to know why it is that our time that has been allotted to us is being curtailed. We have given Your Honour a list showing our next speaker. We have the position that two Conservatives are asking for the floor. I should just like to know from Your Honour whether this is a case in which Liberal time is being used up, as it was the other day, or whether it is the time of the Social Credit party which is being allotted to the next speaker, or just what the position is. We might as well get the matter straight now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I refer the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and other hon. members to citation 214 in Beauchesne's third edition. This citation reads as follows:
214. The succession of speakers is left entirely to the Speaker. If his call is disputed by some member who thinks he rose before the Speaker's choice, a motion may be made under S.O. 35. that "he be now heard".
Standing order 35 is now standing order 29, I believe. Standing order 29 reads:
When two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place; but a motion may be made that any member who has risen "be now heard", or "do now speak", which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.
When the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) resumed his seat

after making his address, three hon. members rose to their feet, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle), the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn). The hon. member for Calgary South rose to his feet first; the hon. member for New Westminster was second and the hon. member for Broadview was third. I, therefore, in accordance with the rules gave the floor to the hon. member for Calgary South. I then learned that the hon. member for New Westminster wished to raise a question of privilege and I granted the floor to him for that purpose. I thereafter granted the floor to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra who rose on a point of order, and I have explained that. I am recognizing the hon. member for Calgary South unless the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra wishes to make a motion under standing order 29 which I will, of course, allow.


Howard Charles Green: Your Honour knows as well as every member in the chamber-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: -that the time is allotted among the parties in this debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think I have dealt with the point of order sufficiently and either the hon. member must now make his motion or I must call on the hon. member for Calgary South.


Mr. Nicholson:: In connection with this point of order, in view of the fact that a great many members have not yet had a chance to speak and the hon. member whom you are now recognizing has already spoken, it would appear to me-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am quite certain I have heard sufficient to decide the point of order. The rule is quite clear. I am now waiting for a motion or if no motion is forthcoming then the hon. member for Calgary South may proceed.


Mr. Quelch:: Perhaps I could help to clarify the situation. Normally, we would have had the next turn for a speaker but we agreed to give up our place to the hon. member for Calgary South.


Howard Charles Green: I rise on another point of order. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) has just taken the position that his party is entitled to put up one speaker for every speaker put up by the official opposition. Now, they have between one-third and one-quarter the number of members we have, and I should like to know from Your Honour whether or not that is the case. Is the Social

Credit party entitled to put up member for member with the Conservative party?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I assure the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that I knew nothing of the question raised by the hon. member for Acadia. I also refer him to citation 214 in Beauchesne and some previous citations, I think 212 and 213, which are absolutely binding on this point. Now, we cannot have a discussion here of political parties and political parties' time. The matter is left entirely to the Speaker who must be in a position to recognize who rises first. There is another citation which says that it is desirable that the Speaker recognize first a pro and then a con and I think hon. members will agree the Chair attempts to do that.
Now, that is all I can say. The citations are clear and the rule is clear. Do I understand that the hon. member is advancing a motion or not? If not, the member for Calgary South.


Mr. Fulton:: A one-man filibuster.


Carl Olof Nickle: May I
first of all express my thanks-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Did I understand the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) to interject, "A one-man filibuster"? May I ask if he was referring to the Chair?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Far from it. I was referring to the hon. gentleman who now has the floor.


Carl Olof Nickle: I am not an expert in filibusters, but I must say a one-man filibuster could perhaps not be as effective as a 49-man filibuster.


Thomas Miller Bell: We do not go behind the curtain for our filibusters.


Carl Olof Nickle: Nor will I.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot be interrupted without his consent.


Carl Olof Nickle: 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. I am going to discuss the one general subject, "fable versus fact". Before getting down to that subject I want to briefly reiterate something I said on an earlier occasion. I am supporting this government legislation not because it is the best solution to the problem but because the only other politically possible alternative to it would involve more long delays, higher costs, further denial of industrial and population growth, particularly in western Canada, and a far heavier burden upon the whole Canadian economy than the present plan.
Mr. Speaker, the need now for government assistance stems of course from political interference with the normal process of economic
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation planning for gas transport and marketing systems, which would have involved a much more substantial degree of international routing of pipe lines and international interplay of markets served by those pipe lines. The best proof of this lies in a comparison or contrast between the development of oil pipe line marketing systems over the last few years-


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Speaker, facing the realities of the situation as it now exists in Canada and the position of government and political parties that a northern Ontario route for the first gas pipe line east from Alberta has top priority, then the government's present proposal for assistance to Trans-Canada offers the fastest, lowest cost means of getting the project under way. I support it for that reason, and for that reason alone. Let me therefore very briefly outline the main arguments which have been used against the plan by its opponents in this house and among Canada's press. Because some of the same arguments come from various sources I will name no particular source, but merely try as best I can reasonably to answer the arguments.
The summary, sir, might well be called "fable versus facts". Some may disagree that what I call facts are such and argue also that what I may call fable is indeed fact. Whether they be members of this house or editors, I think Canada's public has every reason to expect some reasoned and accurate rebuttal from them on the specific points I will mention rather than vague generalities and loose charges and damnation of Americans, of which there has been so much.
The first fable, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to mention is the claim that Americans are going to get natural gas at bargain prices while Canadians will pay more. The facts, sir, are these. With load factors and the type of gas sale taken on the same basis as between Canadian and American customers of Trans-Canada, sales over the border will actually be at the same, or slightly higher, prices to the Americans than to Canadian customers in the same area. To be specific, Manitoba is the nearest Canadian market area to the point of export at Emerson. As to customers in Manitoba communities taking gas at 100 per cent load factor-by "100 per cent load factor" I simply mean taking gas at exactly the same maximum volume every
4082	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation day of each year-under the existing contracts those customers big and small in Manitoba will for 25 years get a flat price of 26-2 cents per thousand cubic feet. The sale to Tennessee Gas Transmission Company at Emerson for resale in the United States at the same 100 per cent load factor involves an average price payable during the 25 years of that contract of 27-07 cents per thousand cubic feet if the volume of gas sold is 200 million feet a day; or would increase to 28-73 cents a thousand feet if the total volume exported were 400 million feet a day. This indicates, sir, a difference in favour of the Manitoba consumer at this particular load factor rate of at least one cent per thousand feet differential favouring the Canadian customers. I might say that the same approximate difference in favour of the Canadian customer in Manitoba carries through under the existing contract at any other load factor condition of sale you want to take into account. Later in my remarks I will place on the record the specific details of the various contracts entered into by Trans-Canada, both in Canada and with American customers.
Now, the other form of sale to the United States that is involved is the sale of excess gas; that is, gas that cannot be sold during the summer months to any Canadian customer in Ontario or Quebec. This is to be sold, if it is available, at Niagara to Tennessee for storage during the summer in Pennsylvania storage fields. This will be sold at a price comparable to the central Ontario prices for summer interruptible gas supply, which is now under contracts already entered into priced at 33 cents to 34 cents per thousand feet.
The next fable that I want to deal with, sir, is that the McMahon plan would involve the sale at Emerson to the United States at prices from 5 cents to 7 cents per thousand cubic feet higher than the prices under the present Tennessee plan. The facts are simply these. McMahon claims that he can get about 30 cents per thousand feet for up to 400 million cubic feet daily at a 90 per cent load factor for a 25-year period. This remains to be proved; for a vague offer is not a firm contract. Even, however, if his price could be validated by signed contracts it would be only one-quarter of one cent per thousand feet higher than Tennessee's average price under its firm contract, which would be on the basis of 90 per cent load factor 400 million feet a day sale, 291 cents per thousand feet under the price escalation contract covering the next 25-year period.
The third fable, sir, is that Trans-Canada would not be under Canadian control. The facts in answer to that are simply these. No matter who owns shares, any pipe line com-


pany in Canada is always under most adequate government control in our own country. At the producing end of the pipe line governments of producing provinces have complete authority over the volumes, prices, equitable market sharing among gas well owners, and so forth, related to gas supply for the pipe line system, whether that pipe line markets its gas in that producing province only, in Canada only, or internationally. Provincial authorities in the consuming provinces through such bodies as the Ontario fuel board, the Alberta public utilities board and similar organizations in other provinces, have full control over rates, charges to consumers by gas distributors, over the rates of earnings permitted distributors, thus providing strong provincial check-reins over gas transmission companies as well as contracts with the distributors in each of those provinces. The federal government has complete control over the transmission company no matter who owns it and regulates not only the rate of earnings that company can make-of course it does not guarantee the company against loss-but also has full control at all times over export or import permits, including the terms of volume and price involved in contracts for which export permits or import permits are required.
The fourth fable, sir, is that Canadians will not be given a chance to invest in a large way on fair terms in this proposed Trans-Canada pipe line. The facts again are simply these. When public financing becomes feasible, which it is not now, Canadians can buy at least 51 per cent of the total issued capital of Trans-Canada at comparable prices to the present cost of stock held by the current shareholders, but without taking the heavy risk which is now involved for the present shareholders of that company.
The fifth fable, sir, is that there is not even any assurance that Canadians will constitute a majority of the directors of the board of Trans-Canada. Trans-Canada, sir, is a special act company incorporated by an act of parliament and that act prescribes that the company is bound by section 155 of the revised Companies Act of 1934. That section, sir, reads as follows:
No person shall be elected as a director unless he is a shareholder owning shares absolutely in his own right, and not in arrear in respect of any call thereon; and the majority of the directors of the company so chosen shall, at all times, be persons resident in Canada, and subjects of Her Majesty, by birth or naturalization.
Therefore, Trans-Canada, regardless again of who may have the majority of shares, must at all times comply with section 155 of Canada's own Companies Act and have a majority of its directors both residents of Canada and subjects of Her Majesty.

Now, I might say, sir, of the present board of Trans-Canada of some 17 men, 10 of them are Canadians. I think all 10 are men who will be regarded by most thinking Canadians as pretty solid citizens. I am going to mention their names and their locations because I think it would be most unfair to have these types of Canadians unfairly labelled, as the company has been, as being made up of "Texas buccaneers" or some other such thing.
The 10 Canadian directors of Trans-Canada are: N. E. Tanner, Calgary; Hon. Edouard Asselin, Montreal; E. W. Bickle, Toronto; M. A. MacPherson, Regina; J. K. McCausland, Toronto; H. R. Milner, Edmonton; A. D. Nesbitt, Montreal; G. P. Osier, Winnipeg; Jules R. Timmins, Montreal; and J. Ross Tolmie, Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, the next fable is that the proposed federal-Ontario government northern Ontario Crown Pipeline, for lease under purchase option to Trans-Canada, is a subsidy or handout to the Trans-Canada shareholders.
I think the facts can be described in this way. Trans-Canada will gain a major deferment of carrying charges during the early tough years of market build-up in Ontario or Quebec, but these deferred charges become a first charge against profits of the over-all Trans-Canada system when it reaches a profit position. The actual net saving to Trans-Canada will be an average annual interest saving of about $1,250,000 for the years until the Crown Pipeline is purchased by Trans-Canada, at depreciated value plus 3i per cent annual interest, plus depreciation.
Even this is not a handout to Trans-Canada shareholders, but rather a cost saving to Canadian gas consumers. The Northern Ontario bridge plan has been taken into account in recent reductions in sales contract prices to Canadian distributors. These price reductions, with Ontario the principal beneficiary, will amount to over $2,500,000 annual savings to Canadian consumers during the early years and progressively larger annual savings as consumption expands in eastern Ontario.
To give you a specific example of the type of savings which will result to eastern Canadian consumers specifically as a result of this bridge plan of government assistance, also aided by the proposed sale of gas at Emerson, Manitoba, I would like to quote the contract price proposed two years ago in the H. K. Ferguson (Shattuck) report to the board of transport commissioners in June 1954. At that stage, which was prior to the contemplation of any government assistance, the average weighted price for gas to be sold in the province of Ontario to all types of consumers was placed at 51i cents per thousand cubic feet. As a result of various measures of export and government assistance the new
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation contract prices in Ontario work out to an average weighted price of 46-6 cents per thousand cubic feet, a saving of 4-9 cents in the weighted average cost. This saving has made a world of difference in the extreme difficulty of distributors in competing with other fuels and their ability to successfully compete with natural gas at competitive prices. The same type of comparison could also be made for other provinces.
The next fable is that the proposed $75 to $80 million loan to Trans-Canada to cover 90 per cent of cost of the 1956 pipe line from Alberta to Winnipeg is a handout to the company or a subsidy. The fact, sir, is that this is a short term, 9-month loan at a full commercial interest rate of 5 per cent. Security for it is the pipe line itself which will cost $7 to $8 million more to build than the amount of the government loan, and will be worth an additional $7 million based on expected higher steel, freight and labour costs if construction is delayed beyond this year. The other assets of Trans-Canada, including rights of way, engineering, purchase and sales contracts, et cetera, which represent a multimillion dollar investment, are also security for the government. Should the government have to foreclose next spring owing to the inability of Trans-Canada to complete its quarter billion dollar financing program, the government will receive an operating pipe line and a start on an Alberta to Quebec pipe line system at a bargain price.
The next fable is that the government will make a handout of up to $200 million to Trans-Canada. The fact is, sir, that that argument is as phony as a $3 bill. First, no handout is involved at all. Second, the Winnipeg line loan would be fully repaid before Ottawa and Ontario start the northern Ontario pipe line section and the federal government's share of that would likely be under $100 million; thus there will not be more than $100 million of federal money involved at any time, and no part of that is a handout or subsidy.
The next fable is that somebody other than Trans-Canada could build a pipe line this year and the fact, sir, is that no private company, no matter who backs it, could be organized, get the necessary government permit, gas purchase and sales contracts, engineering, rights of way, finances or pipe in less than two years; nor could any crown company, even if the federal government was willing to commit itself to a capital expenditure of some $400 million. Nor could it be done if by some miracle, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta could be quickly persuaded to join in such a venture.
4084	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
The next fable, sir, is that there is no urgency for a start on construction this year. The facts are that the governments of Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario and the government of Canada all say that a start is urgent. So, too, say the Alberta producers who have already made a tremendous $150 million investment and have been hog-tied mainly by politics for several years. Common sense also dictates urgency, for the costs of pipe, labour, and freight are going higher, reducing the economics of the project. Actual pipe line construction is needed to spur a United States decision in favour of gas import from Canada.
The final point indicating the urgency of a start is the long delayed development in the prairie provinces of a great by-products industry based on the by-products of gas, and the petrochemical plants, sulphur plants and other industries and the population boost in the west that will accompany these plants. All of these things are urgently needed in the west. The sooner dry gas can get into the market the sooner will the west have new plants of many kinds using the byproducts of that gas, employing many thousands of Canadians and paving the way for a much broader and sounder economy in that part of Canada.
The next fable is that Trans-Canada would syphon off gas to the United States to the detriment of eastern Canadian consumers, and the government investment in the northern Ontario pipe line. The fact is that there are several reasons this could not possibly happen. First, the federal government has control over the volume and terms of export at all times. Second, the company will initially have about $175 million of private capital invested in the pipe line system east of Winnipeg, over and above the government investment in northern Ontario, and the huge private investment can only bring earnings if large volumes-as much as can be sold- are moved into eastern Canada through the system. The third reason is that the government-owned section leased to Trans-Canada involves as part of rental payments a first charge on profits of the entire Trans-Canada system. Thus any failure by the company to get maximum markets in eastern Canada by diverting gas south of the border from Manitoba would result in the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation draining off Trans-Canada's export profits as rental payments on the government "bridge" pipe line.
The fourth reason, sir, why we need not fear the draining off of gas to the United States is the vast size of the present shut-in gas reserves in Alberta and the huge rate at which this surplus is expanding. This
TMr. Nickle.]

million feet a day the second contract between Tennessee and Trans-Canada would come into effect. That contract, unlike the offer reported to be made by McMahon and associates, provides for the initial price under the new contract for the second 200 million feet per day to be immediately increased by three cents per	thousand	cubic feet. The	resultwould be	that	for	the second 200	millioncubic feet	per	day	Tennessee could	importgas on a	100	per	cent load factor	at an
average price of 30-4 cents. During the first three years of that contract Tennessee is required to take or pay on the basis of a minimum 75 per cent load factor. The price for the first three years with that load factor would be 31 05 cents per thousand cubic feet. During the first five years at 100 per cent load factor the price would be 28 04 cents. At 95 per cent load factor, which is the minimum take-or-pay provision, the price would be 28 52 cents. Those figures increase one cent per thousand feet for each five-year period thereafter.
There are additional special contracts, one of which covers the southwestern Ontario area from Hamilton through to the Sarnia and Windsor areas. This area is served by the Union Gas Company. Union Gas has an advantage over any other distributor in eastern Canada in that it has gas storage fields available in the area of the market which it serves. As a result Union Gas Company is going to take its gas from Trans-Canada mostly during the summer period when it is available at the excess gas price. They will take two-thirds of their gas during the summer months, put it in storage in these fields, then during the winter put it back into its pipe line and serve the area it covers. The other one-third of Union Gas Company's purchases will be delivered to it during the winter months near Hamilton and will be used in that community. As a result of having those special facilities in the way of storage fields Union Gas Company will pay an average price during its 25-year contract of 39 cents a thousand.
I might say at this time that the suggestion has been made that the storage fields in southwestern Ontario should be put to use in order to make gas available from them to such places as Toronto and Montreal. Unfortunately those storage fields are located some 170 miles south or southwest of Toronto and are-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, the hon. member's time has expired, unless he has unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, it is rather obvious that this legislation was conceived in the era of giant giveaway programs. We have the $64,000 question and the $100,000 question on television, where individuals may win fantastic amounts of money by answering correctly certain questions. Obviously this government decided that it would go in for a bigger and better give-away program than had ever been conceived. It decided that not only would the prize be much bigger, but the question would be much easier.
These are the questions you must answer to qualify. First: Are you a corporation which is predominantly owned by foreign interests? If you can answer "Yes" to that question, the second question is: Have you defaulted on your undertaking which was the basis for your being awarded a government franchise? If you have answered those two questions correctly, this government will do almost anything to bail you out of any financial difficulty you might run into, or build your whole project for you.
However, if you happen to be a Canadian province, for example Saskatchewan, and apply to the federal government for assistance to build a dam which will irrigate half a million acres of farm land, and provide you with enough hydroelectric power to industrialize your province and increase the standard of living of your people, then you know of course that you are going to be turned down flat.
Or if you happen to be another Canadian provincial government-for instance the government of New Brunswick-and you happen to be applying to this government for federal backing for your power development bonds which, if granted, will not cost the federal taxpayer or the federal government one penny, but will simply make it possible for you to borrow the money you need to build your project at a great deal lower rate of interest, and thus save your taxpayers millions of dollars a year, then, Mr. Speaker, of course you know that once again you are out of luck, and that you can count on being turned down flat.
It has become fairly obvious, Mr. Speaker, that if you want to get anywhere with this government, you must first of all be a foreign-owned corporation and, second, have the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) wrapped around your little finger. If you happen to qualify on both those scores, then you know that the sky is the limit and that there is absolutely nothing that this government will not do for you.
Let us have a look at this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and see what it will do. First of all, 67509-259
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation it will provide 90 per cent of the capital to build the first third of the line. Then it will provide 100 per cent of the capital to build the second third of the line. So, by simple arithmetic, we find that this government is providing 95 per cent of the capital to build this whole line.
Up until a year ago, this chosen instrument of the government, this Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, professed over and over again its ability and intention to build the whole line unassisted by the government. Then suddenly, a year ago, the company came to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, cried on his shoulder, and professed inability to finance construction. Of course, without question,- it being his chosen instrument-the Minister of Trade and Commerce did exactly what the company wanted him to do. He believed everything they said; did not question them in any way; and agreed to build the northern Ontario section of the line for the company. He did it, of course, with the money provided by the taxpayers of Canada.
Then, spurred on by that initial success, a little while ago Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited again came to the minister; again cried on his shoulder and said, "We cannot finance the building of the prairie section of the line". Once again the minister listened to everything they said; believed it without question- because, after all, it is his chosen instrument, it is his baby; the company cannot do anything wrong in the eyes of the minister-and agreed to give them everything they asked for. He agreed to put up 90 per cent of the cost of building even the easiest section of the line.
The worrying part about this matter,-bad though it is so far-is that there is no doubt about it that when this line reaches Kapus-kasing, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited may be counted on once again-spurred on by those two initial successes; after all, it has been so easy, why not try it again?-to come to the minister and cry on his shoulder a third time; and as he did without question on the first two occasions, he will say, "Certainly; if you want it, I will finance the construction of the remainder of the line". Hence we shall see this whole line built by the government.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made an amusing statement this morning. He said that the Conservative party objected to United States capital coming into Canada to build this pipe line. Mr. Speaker, we do not object to United States capital coming into Canada to build this line. We object to the fact that there is no United States capital coming in to build this line. We object to the fact that the capital is to be provided just about 100 per cent by the Canadian taxpayers,
4088	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation while the wealthy United States interests that control and own this pipe line will be free to reap all of the profits from it. That is what we object to. We should like to see United States capital come in, but we object to seeing the whole line being built by the Canadian taxpayers and all the rewards and profits being reaped by the United States interests that own and control this company.
What is the reaction of the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker, to the expenditure of public funds in order to enable United States interests to take over the transportation and marketing of a large proportion of one of our vitally important natural resources? The answer to that question was given by a nation-wide Gallup poll which reported as follows on May 2 last. I quote from the official report of the Gallup poll:
45 per cent of the people of Canada favour a pipe line built and run by private Canadian investments.
29 per cent favour a line built, financed and administered by the government.
17 per cent favour a line built partly by the government and partly by private investments from Canada and the United States.
8 per cent had no opinion.
One per cent gave various and sundry other answers.
Of the 17 per cent who favoured a line built partly by government and partly by private interests, more than half opposed this proposal if it meant the possibility of American control.
It is therefore clear that, because Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited is owned and controlled 83-4 per cent by foreign interests, only 8 per cent of the people of Canada are in favour of the present government plan for building this line. That leads us to the logical question: Why should a policy that is favoured by less than one out of every twelve Canadians be thrust down the throats of the Canadian people? It is simply because one man, namely the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is determined to have his way. This is the same man, the same minister, who a year ago was determined that parliament should grant him unlimited and unchecked power. That power was denied him for one reason and one reason only. That reason was that the Conservative party was determined that no minister and no government should be granted power of that kind. Today, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party is just as determined that this minister and this government shall not impose their will on the overwhelming majority of Canadians who oppose this legislation.
The attitude of the minister, and the arrogant, bungling and bulldozing methods of this government, were described about as well as I have ever heard them described, in Ottawa a week ago today at a luncheon given
| Mr. Hces.J

by the Canadian Club which was addressed by a distinguished Canadian journalist, Mr. Max Freedman. Mr. Freedman, whose sentiments are clearly Liberal, and who has had ample opportunity to observe the operations of this government while working for the Winnipeg Free Press here in Ottawa, and the Manchester Guardian in Washington, describes this government's approach to matters of policy in the following words: "They are often in error but never in doubt". I think those words describe the attitude of this government just about as well as I have ever heard it described.


Mr. Dickey:: The Tories are always in
doubt and always in error.


George Harris Hees: Before I was so rudely interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I was just going to say that I feel that Mr. Freedman, who is usually right, is slightly in error in this case, because in this case I think it has become fairly obvious that the government, besides being in error, is also in doubt. If it was not in doubt, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would have had the courage, on behalf of the government, to stand up and accept the challenge thrown at him by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) to take this matter to the people. Of course, he would not do it because he and the members of his government, as well as the members of his party, know quite well they would get the pants beaten off them. They know quite well there would not be one in three of them who would come back. They know that not only the newspapers of the country, but the people as well, are against the project. The gallup poll, which gives us a most accurate guide to the opinions of the people, has demonstrated that less than one in twelve of the people in Canada are in favour of this proposal.
Up to the present time, there are a number of aspects of this extraordinary proposal that have remained a mystery. One of them is the result of the fact that there has never been any attempt made by either Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, or the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to explain why, after claiming for four years and getting their franchise on the basis of being willing and able to build the whole line without government assistance, suddenly the Trans-Canada company comes to the government and claims it cannot build two out of three sections of the line, and the government has to bail them out. Last fall, as I said, the minister simply made an announcement, without any explanation, and we are still waiting for it from him, from the Prime Minister or the company, that this line would be built across northern

Ontario by the government. A short time ago, it was announced here in this house that the government proposed advancing 90 per cent of the capital needed to build the prairie section of the line, which is by far the easiest section to build.
Mr. Speaker, to be a shareholder in a corporation which is financed by the government, and is free to make unlimited profits after the work has been done for the corporation by the government is nothing short of an investor's paradise. This government is making such a paradise out of a company, not a Canadian company, which is owned and dominated to the extent of 83-4 per cent by wealthy United States financial interests. The only possible explanation is that somehow or other the Minister of Trade and Commerce has become mystified and is under the domination of the wealthy United States interests who control Trans-Canada. When they snap their fingers, the Minister of Trade and Commerce jumps to do their bidding. What we on this side of the house object to is that he is using the money of the taxpayers of Canada to do their bidding.
Now, how did all this take place? The Minister of Trade and Commerce refuses to tell us any of the secrets that are kept hidden in his breast pocket, so we have to speculate upon what happened.


John Horace Dickey: You have not done anything but speculate since you got on your feet.


George Harris Hees: It is rather obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the wealthy interests controlling Trans-Canada simply got together and said, "Let us see if we can get old C.D. to build the northern Ontario section". You can just see the boys sitting around the room, cutting up a melon in advance. The question would come up, how do you think we can get good old C. D. to build that northern Ontario section? Most of the financial interests would say, No, I do not think we can because after all, it is quite obvious this is a money-making proposition. We got the franchise on the basis that we will build the whole line, and C. D. knows that this is a plum; there is a lot of money to be made out of it. We have finances to put up to do the job. One of them, probably the largest shareholder, got on the telephone-that would be Mr. Murchison-and sold the minister a bill of goods to the effect that the company could not build the northern Ontario section. The minister said, certainly, I do not want you to be unhappy about this; we want you to make a nice thing out of it, and we want to keep everybody happy, so we will build the northern Ontario section.
The same thing happened with regard to the prairie section. There has been no 67509-2594
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation explanation as to why the government has had to put up 90 per cent of the financing-


Mr. Richardson:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Is he now relating facts from his own knowledge or from his imagination?


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member had been paying attention, I said we have for a long time been trying to get some information from the minister as to why these two sections are being built by the government, instead of by the company which holds the franchise. They received the franchise on the basis they would build the whole line unassisted. I submit if he had been listening he would have heard me say that, because the minister will not let us in on these mysterious conversations he has had, we have to try to speculate on them for ourselves, and that is exactly what I am doing at the present time.


John Horace Dickey: You are one of Canada's foremost novelists at the moment.


George Harris Hees: Another thing that remains a mystery is the conversations and dealings between the minister and Mr. Frank McMahon. After an interview with the Minister on March 27, Mr. McMahon submitted very detailed proposals to the government in a letter dated April 4. He made the following very definite and positive proposals:
I am prepared to undertake a Canadian-owned, privately financed project to construct an economically feasible gas pipe line from Alberta to Montreal if Trans-Canada is not immediately able to present a suitable proposal.
This line can be operated on a sound business basis without government financing or debt guarantee, but requires only remission or deferment of import duties and sales taxes.
1 will personally post with the government $500,000 performance cash to complete the project by 1958, subject only to being able to obtain necessary materials.
The project will be Canadian controlled with not less than 70 per cent of the equity owned by Canadian companies and individuals.
I am further prepared to arrange interim financing to permit starting construction this year of a 34-inch pipe line from the nearest Alberta gas fields to Winnipeg to supply Saskatchewan and Manitoba by late 1956 or early 1957,


An hon. Member:: Where would he get the
pipe?


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member who asked, "Where would he get the pipe?" had read the full submission of Mr. McMahon, he would know that Mr. McMahon set out in detail where he would get his pipe. He had enough pipe lined up to build the line as far as Winnipeg, and he had no doubt he would be able to get sufficient nw" after that to complete the line.
4090	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario * Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. Macdonnell:: And he has a record of performance, not of failure.


George Harris Hees: He happens to be the only man in Canada who has financed and built a successful pipe line. The minister used the 'private and confidential" which was placed Dn this letter and two subsequent letters of April 16 and April 24, as justification for doing what I consider to be a preposterous thing, standing up in this house and denying he had ever received any communications from Mr. McMahon.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We might as well be accurate. I never said that. I said I had never received a proposal from Mr. McMahon.	.


George Harris Hees: Well, when I say he had received a communication I was referring to the proposal with regard to this pipe line. What the minister should have done-and he knows he should have done it-was immediately to get permission from Mr. McMahon to remove the "private and confidential" designation, and immediately submit that proposal or those proposals to his cabinet colleagues and to parliament as a comparison with the present extraordinary proposal being put forward by this government for having the line built.


John Horace Dickey: Do you support the McMahon proposals?


George Harris Hees: The McMahon proposal looks like an excellent one. Yes, I certainly do. I think it is obvious that the minister had no desire to see any other proposal put up against the proposal of his own chosen instrument, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, and particularly a proposal of this kind which offers to build a line without government capital or debt guarantee.
If the minister did not think this was a good proposal, then why did he not bring it before parliament and explain to parliament that he had received this proposition, and why it could not be accepted and why it is not a good proposition and proceed in a straightforward, open-handed way, instead of this cloak and dagger treatment that we have seen. The Prime Minister was not even told that this proposition had come forward. That is not a straightforward way of dealing either with your cabinet colleagues or with parliament. If there was nothing to hide in this matter, why did the minister not bring it forward and let parliament know what was going on? There is no answer, of course, except that the minister did not want to. He was determined that his proposition, put up by his own chosen instrument, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, should be the only one that would be accepted.


In his telegram to the minister immediately following a mysterious telephone conversation with the minister, Mr. McMahon said that he did not wish to be considered as being any more interested in building the pipe line from Alberta to Montreal because, as he said, he found now that he was far too busily committed with his Westcoast Transmission line. That, of course, is an explanation that no sensible person can accept, because anybody familiar with this situation knows perfectly well that Mr. McMahon is the kind of person who delights in being busy.
Mr. McMahon is not the kind of man to go to the time and trouble of working out the details, arranging and lining up the financing, of a proposition as big as this, and then all of a sudden back away because he is too busy. When he made his original proposition he knew perfectly well how much time he was going to have to devote to the Westcoast project. No, there is no doubt about the fact that there was a great deal of pressure brought to bear on Mr. McMahon by this government to withdraw his proposition so that they would not be embarrassed any further by a proposition which was one that certainly should have been considered by the government. As yet, there has been no explanation as to why it was not so considered.
Now, what about the provinces that are not going to benefit from the expenditure of public funds to build this pipe line? These provinces have a perfect right to demand the same kind of consideration that the five provinces that are going to benefit from the building of the line are getting, in developing power within their own borders, which they need just as much as do the five provinces that are going to benefit from receiving this natural gas. I ask the minister, I ask this government, what about their attitude toward helping the province of British Columbia with developing power on the Columbia and the Fraser rivers? What about the developing of power on the Saint John river and in the Passamaquoddy bay in New Brunswick; or, in Nova Scotia, by developing electric power by new and cheaper methods from coal; or in helping the province of Newfoundland develop power from the Hamilton river? Mr. Speaker, these are great potential developments that are simply waiting for assistance from the government; developments that cannot be proceeded with without assistance from the federal government because those provinces do not have the financial resources to proceed alone with developments of this magnitude.
If this government can hand out $100 million, $150 million, $200 million, $300 million or maybe $375 million before it is through, in

helping a corporation which is 83-4 per cent owned by American financial interests, then it can certainly provide the very modest financial assistance which has been asked for by Canadian provincial governments to help them develop power and other natural resources within their borders, which will materially increase and improve the standard of living of their people.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say this. Let this government stop using the taxpayers' money in bailing out the shareholders of American corporations which have defaulted on their undertakings, and support financially the development of Canada by Canadians for the benefit of Canadians.


Mr. G. D. Weaver (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Broadview, who has just taken his seat, mentioned in one of his remarks a challenge that had been issued to the government to call an election. This is the most empty challenge that I have ever heard, and I shall tell you why. All hon. members know that if an election were called today it could not be held until long past the date when it is necessary to get this pipe line under construction, and no sensible government could possibly do that. I said it was an empty challenge because the Tories have no policy on which to go to the people.


Mr. Montgomery:: So say you.


George Dyer Weaver: And you will hear more on this pipe line question. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle) has taken the only realistic stand on the Tory side of the house in this debate. As far as the Socialist party goes, they also issued a challenge, but they know what would happen. They have fought election after election in Canada on the policy of socialism and they have been defeated many times.
This is the first time in this parliament that we have heard the Tories throw out the challenge of an election. They have been very careful not to because no one wants an election less than they do at the present time.


Mr. Cardiff:: Speak for yourself.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Why do you not call one, then?


George Dyer Weaver: And even when they did throw it out this morning they were so fearful that there might be some possible way that it could be accepted that they waited until the C.C.F. had already issued the challenge.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Go ahead and call one.


George Dyer Weaver: In the very interesting debate that took place on the resolution there were 26 speakers. The first day, of course, was
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation taken up by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the-Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell). The next day, the day on which so much was said about closure, there were 23 speakers. Not since I have been here have so many, speakers taken part in a debate in a single day. It was a very interesting debate; it was a debate in the proper sense. The issues were clearly defined. In the years since I have been here the Liberal majority, as is usual, has been large and we had either to spend a year around here or we had to restrain ourselves because there was no restraining either of the opposition parties. As an example of that, about four sessions ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did a great deal of speaking and I took Hansard for that session and I counted the lines in it, and I calculated that if every one of the 265 members in this chamber had taken the time of the house that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre took, it would take us three years to finish one ordinary session. The opposition have been talking about closure. Without closure there would be no bill passed in time to get construction of this line under way this year,, and all hon. members know that.


An hon. Member:: Why did you not bring in the resolution in January?


George Dyer Weaver: There would be no gas in Winnipeg this year. The government would have been frustrated within the rules of this house had closure not been adopted. I am satisfied the vast majority of Canadians-and I mean Canadians who support all parties, not just those who support the Liberal party-feel that when a government is elected its job is to govern. If a government does not govern then it does not have a right to the confidence of the people. In this particular case the government is only doing its job; it is governing.
When government speakers mentioned that the United Kingdom use closure on many occasions the opposition interjected that it was closure by agreement. The opposition knows that if they had desired it there could have been closure by agreement on this issue; a time table could have been drawn up which would have permitted the bill to pass in time for construction to begin on schedule but the opposition turned down what they profess to call closure by agreement.
In speaking further about the necessity of having a fixed schedule for this debate, I would like to point out that the date has been fixed not by individuals or the government but by the cold hard facts of Canadian

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation weather. This is something which must be considered in Canada to a greater extent than in any other country. Our construction season is short. In the case of a pipe line it has to be buried in the ground. All hon. members know that our ground is frozen for many months of the year.


An hon. Member:: So is the government.


Mr. Hosking:: Particularly in Manitoba.


George Dyer Weaver: But come July 1 and you will see the pipe line being constructed.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) this morning with great indignation decried the name Trans-Canada saying that the pipe line did not extend into British Columbia. He neglected to point out that British Columbia is already served by Alberta gas and has a gas pipe line. The hon. member went on to ask why his part of the country should pay anything toward this trans-Canada pipe line. The answer is that they will not pay anything. This is not a gift, it is an investment. There is nothing in our estimates having to do with this. This is an investment by the people of Canada. As is the case with all investments, certainly there is a risk involved. I do not believe for a moment that it will happen, but if we ever have to pay anything as a result of taking this risk, since it is a risk for the good of all Canada it is only right that all Canada should share in it.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Who
said it is for the good of all Canada?


George Dyer Weaver: You will find out a little later on. Mr. Speaker, I fully accept the responsibility in this instance as well. Last spring there were many rumours about where this pipe line might go. There was one rumour to the effect that the pipe line would go east to Winnipeg then south to the border, delivering gas to the western United States. It was rumoured that at some time in the future a line would extend across northern Ontario if markets were built up. In the meantime there would be a line travelling south of the great lakes which would carry the Alberta gas. True, it was just a rumour, but rumours can be disturbing.
On more than one occasion I mentioned to various hon. members of this house that this would be a shameful and terrible thing to happen, because if the pipe line followed that course we might never have an opportunity of bringing the pipe line north of the great lakes to more fully unite this country. I said to more than one hon. member that any government which could not take the responsibility of seeing that this was done could not have my full confidence. I was very pleased when I heard of the arrangement whereby the line

would go across Canada north of the great lakes, and in this issue the government has the fullest support I can possibly give it.
Another reason for my astonishment at the remarks of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich this morning is this. When the Canadian Pacific Railway was built across western Canada, no one in the Canadian west objected to the great land grants which were given to the railway to enable it to reach British Columbia. At that time our fathers saw no benefit which would come to us. It was many years later when we on the prairies realized the value of Vancouver as a great grain port. I want it to be plain, Mr. Speaker, that we in the west expect to see the Canadian Pacific Railway agreements lived up to.
One last thought in connection with the speech of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. If it were true, as he claims, that Trans-Canada has with malice aforethought cornered the only available pipe, then the government by this bill is taking the one action that could smoke the pipe out from its storage hole south of the border and bury it on the western prairies for our benefit. However, I do not accept the truth of the hon. member's proposition.
The name of Sir John A. Macdonald has been invoked several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so. I believe that practically all Canadians are prepared to pay tribute to him for the part he played in the political history of this nation. He saw what had to be done and he was responsible for doing it in order to further the building of this young nation which at that time was at a much earlier stage of development. I feel he would be one of the first to disown the antics that were engaged in earlier in this debate by those who now bear the party name he bore.
Sir John A. Macdonald undertook to see that the Canadian Pacific Railway was built across our country, linking the then relatively thickly populated areas of the St. Lawrence valley and the Niagara peninsula with the Canadian prairies and the west coast, thus providing a transportation artery to nourish a young nation. I want to say one thing very emphatically, because it may surprise some people. Deep down the west is grateful for the assistance it has received from the east in its development.


Edward George McCullough: Deep down where?


George Dyer Weaver: It would have liked this assistance to be greater than it has been, but without that assistance the west would not have reached the point it has now reached. In a similar way all Canada is grateful for the

assistance it has received both from Great Britain and the United States toward the development of the whole nation. Now the time has come when the west is in the position through its resources to repay some of the assistance it has received from eastern Canada.	-
Gas is power and gas in a pipe line is flexible power, and the power that will be spread from the Alberta gas fields right across the country as far east as Montreal will be equal to the power of nine Niagaras. I may say that a portion of the power of those nine Niagaras will go south into the western United States.
Power is the foundation of industry. Power is the foundation of man's rise from aboriginal life to life in the twentieth century. Power is the foundation of that ever-rising standard of living to which every party in this house subscribes. This particular reservoir of power has been stored in the ground in western Canada for millions and millions of years waiting for our discovery and our use in the mid-twentieth century.
When I say for our use I include the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. The fact that the line as envisaged reaches only as far east as Montreal does not mean that the Atlantic provinces will not benefit in some form. It will be all Canada's duty to see that the Atlantic provinces do receive adequate benefits from the construction of this line, even though those benefits may be indirect.


Mr. Brooks:: Is that a promise by the government?


George Dyer Weaver: I said it is up to us. When I say it is up to us I mean the Conservatives in this house, I mean the C.C.F.'s in this house, I mean the Social Crediters in this house, as well as the Liberals in this house.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It has been up to the government for 20 years and they have done nothing.


George Dyer Weaver: Three years ago this house passed a bill to incorporate a company known as Niagara Gas Transmission Limited. Hon. members will perhaps recall that that bill had a stormy passage. It was eventually arranged that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines would build a pipe line from Niagara to Toronto, importing gas from the United States which would temporarily relieve a gas shortage in eastern Canada and serve to build up eastern markets for western gas. This was a temporary alleviation of the power requirements of Ontario and Quebec. I want to emphasize that it was only temporary because, power being the vital key that it is, no thinking person can rely on having this power permanently delivered from another country.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Mr. Frost realizes that this is only temporary, but the Conservative party under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition ignores this temporary feature. Eastern Canada can wait for one, two, three or perhaps four years for western gas without being hurt, but let us look at the position of western Canada. A large percentage of this gas is being burned daily because of a lack of markets. There is no pipe line to carry it away. This is a waste of a precious asset, and every day it continues to go to waste is an unhappy day in Canada's history.
Over and above the amount which is being wasted is the development which is being held up by the lack of markets, and this is tremendous. Southern Saskatchewan is hungry for power, and there is no pipe line to bring temporary power from the United States to southern Saskatchewan. In Winnipeg a Winnipeg gas company has already gone to great lengths in preparing for the arrival of this gas. That city is hungry for this power, and there is no pipe line built so the city of Winnipeg can get temporary gas.
This applies in a greater degree to that wasp waist of Canada north of the great lakes where they are less favoured as regards power than are other parts of Canada. They have all kinds of resources there in the pre-Cambrian shield, but they have not the power with which to develop those resources. At the present time there is no pipe line to bring them gas temporarily from the United States and thus serve those communities. Yet the official opposition in this house will smugly say that western Canada can wait. Is it any wonder that holding such views that party has reached the present low ebb?
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) referred yesterday to the pipe line which was originally proposed to carry gas from the Alberta fields to Winnipeg and then south to the border, and which was later united with the first Trans-Canada gas company. He did not mention that this line was to be constructed of small diameter pipe. In other words he was expressing the western Canada Tory view, "We will look after western Canada and let the devil take Ontario." The official opposition representing Ontario in this house are saying, "We are all right, let the devil take western Canada."


Edward George McCullough: The
Liberal government let the devil take everything.


George Dyer Weaver: You may think so and that is your privilege, but I am proud to be associated with the Ontario Liberals on this issue because they, together with their Quebec compatriots, are looking beyond their own doorsteps and recognizing that their welfare

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation is best served by serving the welfare of all Canada. I am afraid I must admit that after sitting in this house for the past several years I am not surprised at this Conservative viewpoint, because they have demonstrated time and time again that they have no understanding of our western problems. They have never demonstrated it more convincingly than on this occasion, when they have dragged their loyal western supporters into such an indefensible position.
The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle) is the only one who has taken what could be described as a normal Conservative position on this issue. In the final analysis there is only one issue: Is the pipe line to be built by private enterprise, or are we to rely entirely on public ownership? This is a time when the Tories should be saying, "Me too," and saying it honestly. The Canadian people would have given them full marks for saying it.
In his speech on the resolution the hon. member for Calgary South stated most emphatically that he was out and out for private enterprise based wholly on economics, without allowing any margin for national considerations which might arise because of the economics of the bridging time necessary to build up eastern markets until the line across north of the lakes could be completed. He was always for exporting as much gas as possible to the western United States. Fortunately our nation was not built on that philosophy. However, the hon. member has always been consistent. He knows and he has stated that delay at this time would cost far more than the cost of the northern Ontario section. This in itself indicates the measly cost of this northern Ontario section when placed against the value to the nation of the whole project.
Canada is developing at a more rapid rate than any 15 million people have ever developed in all history. They will need this power which is stored beneath the western prairies for their continued development. 1 do not say they should not export any of it to the United States, but I do say they should be cautious and examine carefully any export of something so vital to their future. Canada has demonstrated before that she recognizes obligations beyond her boundaries and that 15 million people cannot sit on treasures of the magnitude of our Canadian treasures with a dog in the manger attitude, but we must scrutinize carefully the export of power.
This attitude has always been taken by all governments in this country, and it has been taken also by the United States. That is the reason so much time is being taken in

scrutinizing the power question by the United States federal power commission, which has delayed this project up to the present time.
Last night the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) gave some figures on gas- this was for the benefit of the C.C.F. party-and power in cities in Saskatchewan. I do not have time to go into why these costs are so high. I shall leave that for C.C.F. speakers, but I should like to say that in Edmonton the lowest rate, which of course is a commercial rate, is 17 cents per thousand cubic feet. When the amount used is from 10,000 to 42,000 cubic feet per day the rate, and this is still a commercial rate, goes up to 19 cents per thousand cubic feet. The domestic rate is 25 cents. These figures are vastly different from those we heard the Minister of Agriculture give with respect to that socialist province right beside the province of Alberta.
As I said earlier in my address, there is only one real issue at this time and that is public ownership versus private ownership. Assuming that we could get all the pipe needed and that all other things were available that are not available from other companies, I want to give the reasons why we cannot afford the luxury of public ownership in this instance. We have already heard that the gross national product of Canada this year will be somewhere between $26 billion and $28 billion. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has already announced that it is estimated that capital expenditures in Canada this year will be $7J billion. This is a record percentage for any nation at any time, and I do not exclude Russia.
Serious doubts have been expressed as to the ability of our economy to find the goods and services to accomplish this capital expenditure. This means that there is danger of serious inflationary pressures within our economy. Canada is fortunate in being next door to the United States so these inflationary pressures may be cushioned by spilling over into their much larger economy. The mechanics of this spilling over involve the importation at such a time of United States capital for development.
I am one of those who have constantly urged the maximum rate of development for our country, with particular emphasis on the Canadian northwest; and since 1 have so constantly urged the maximum rate of development I again want to say that I support as strongly as I am able the procuring of the wherewithal to expedite this rapid development. When our own resources are being used to the maximum extent, we must do all possible to encourage the importation of outside capital. This outside capital is

not just paper money; this outside capital is orders on goods and services from beyond our borders.
In the case of the proposed pipe line the outside capital which we hope will go toward its construction will be orders for pipe of various sizes, heavy construction machinery, and the know-how of citizens of another country. These are things we lack, and we are grateful to be able to procure them for our benefit. If the line were publicly owned we would have to obtain these things with Canadian dollars. Canadian dollars are not orders on goods in another country, and we would have to purchase United States dollars to obtain these goods and services. At this time this would add further inflationary pressures, and if we insisted on carrying on this project without that outside capital the rate of our development would have to be slowed down.
Since the pipe line is vital, the government has indicated that it will be built as a public ownership project if necessary, which is proper; but if it became necessary to accept this proposition it would be with heavy hearts on the part of those who are most anxious for development. However, I have every confidence that it will not become necessary. I want to see United States capital come into our country, and having said that I want to put this idea on the record; that from personal observation I have noticed that not only people immigrate to a country but capital immigrates in the same way. A satisfactory share of the United States capital that has come into our country in the past has become nationalized as Canadian capital, and a satisfactory share of the United States capital that is coming into our country in the oil and gas fields will become Canadian capital. Whatever rewards we as Canadians must pay for the capital that enables us to develop our country, will be paid willingly and I hope with an expression of gratitude to those who are willing to express their confidence in us.
We have done a great deal about our own development but it has not all come about because of our own efforts. We have received assistance from others. However, I am pleased to say that having been assisted we have justified that assistance by continuing our development more and more through our own efforts. In proportion to our gross national product the use of outside capital is diminishing. Our gross national product is rising at a very great rate, and while more and more outside capital is coming into the country the ratio between the two is lower and will continue to diminish.
I should like to leave this thought with the house. All Canadians whom I know are 67509-260
18,	1956	4095
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation devoting all their spare money to some form of endeavour in this country, and the only way we can do more is by getting additional capital from outside the country. Reference was made to the loan for the construction of the prairie section of the pipe line. We all know that the reason a loan is necessary is that the financial institutions have not been able to grant loans in the ordinary way. But let me ask this question. Who is responsible for that situation? It is the members of this house who bind the banks in their lending and say under what conditions they can lend. We also say under what conditions the insurance companies and other financial institutions can lend money. We do so because these organizations are not always lending their own money but are lending the resources of the Canadian people. If the conditions with which we have bound them are such that they cannot lend for a short term the money that is required to get construction of the line under way this year, who more than the members of this house ought to see to it that the project is not halted because of that fact?


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Calgary South. I thought he gave the house a great deal of assurance that he knows what he is talking about-


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: He does.


Edward George McCullough: -and
while I was listening to his words I had occasion to look at the Parliamentary Guide and read his biography. I think I need say no more than that to indicate that this hon. member should know something from his point of view with respect to what he is talking about. I shall just refer to a portion of what I find here. The hon. member is indicated to be a publisher and editor and oil operator, the publisher of Nickle Publications Limited, president of the Pump Room Limited, director general of Petroleums of Canada Limited, president of Conick Petroleum Limited, a director of Superior Oils of Canada Limited, a director of Selburn Oil Company Limited, vice president of Anglo-American Oils Limited, and then it continues with other phases of his activities.


Carl Olof Nickle: I might say all Canadian-controlled or wholly-owned companies.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say that I consider this proposal before this house to be the sinister brain-child of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is a monstrosity of indiscretion, and in my opinion is a desperate plan by a desperate government
4096	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation to foist upon the Canadian people a private monopoly in the name of political expediency to the glory and edification of private enterprise.
This chosen instrument of the Minister of Trade and Commerce is presumably too weak to do this job. Since 1951, when plans were mooted for the building of a trans-Canada pipe line, this company has repeatedly failed in its undertakings both with this house and with the government. However, under the tutelage of the Minister of Trade and Commerce the government intends to continue to foster and nurture this company wtih Canadian taxpayers' money. It will be bottle-fed to the tune of perhaps $80 million for its first feeding, and in all probability the later diet will be included so it will have approximately $130 million.
I want to say this, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, by the time this instrument of the government, this brain-child of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, has come into complete control of this utility, it will then begin to flex its muscles and no longer will need the aid of the government. It will then be in a monopoly position to exploit the people, the Canadian consumers of gas in this country, wherever it serves the Canadian public. So I want to discuss this afternoon the viewpoint which I take in connection with this important project, which I think should be a public utility.
I feel that the issue is the one which was pointed out just a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Churchill. The issue is whether this will be a private enterprise or whether it will be a public enterprise. I, together with my colleagues in the C.C.F. party, feel it is essential that this be a public undertaking, so the Canadian consumers of gas will not be fleeced by a monopoly in that field.
As far as I am concerned I am not blaming or casting reflections upon the people of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines or others who perhaps may be interested, on a private basis, in constructing this line. I think it is somewhat unfair to charge those people with having ulterior motives. I think it is up to this government to decide how much private enterprise and how much public enterprise we should have in this country. I think it is up to the elected representatives of this country to decide where private enterprise and where public enterprise fit into the economic plan of this country.
I for one support those who have suggested that here is a program for the transmission of gas from the fields of Alberta through to Winnipeg, as proposed under this plan, which should be under public control.


The plan is, of course, to extend that pipe line from the vicinity of Winnipeg. While nothing is said at the present time about the 110-mile line from the vicinity of Winnipeg to the Ontario-Manitoba border, I expect that once again this Liberal government will come to this house and ask for more public money to finance this 110 miles of pipe line. In addition, there is no question about it that the Canadian public will be obliged to put up the money, in the initial stages at least, to build the long pipe line through Ontario to Toronto. Hence I say that here is an issue that is of utmost importance to this house and to every Canadian citizen, namely whether or not we should at this time launch upon the proposal put forward by the minister and the government to put in the hands of United States investors the right to control the transmission of gas to the various consuming centres in this country. I say that it is a sell-out of one of the most important natural resources in this country.
I and the members of the C.C.F. party are not alone in our criticism of the government proposal. I have here an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star of March 17, 1956. It is entitled "A Canadian Tragedy?" and reads in part as follows:
Right Hon. C. D. Howe made a spirited defence of the government's pipe-line policy in parliament, but analysis of his arguments reveals them to be self-defeating. It becomes evident that the government is holding stubbornly not to the best of all pipe-line plans, but to the poorest of three alternatives.
Further on it goes on to say this:
But national policy is apparently as immutable as the Medean law on this point, so Mr. Howe discusses only two alternatives: the government's present plan versus outright public ownership.
Further on again it continues:
According to Mr. Howe, this plan has "a better chance of working" than public ownership.
It is now speaking of the proposal in the bill before us of building a private transmission line with public funds. The editorial continues:
But his arguments against public ownership of the whole line are singularly weak.
He says that gas is only one of several competing heat and energy sources, and it would not be in the public interest for the government to subsidize gas transmission and provide unfair competition to coal and oil producers.
What else is the government proposing now but to subsidize gas transmission? The difference is that its present plan would subsidize (or at least put up money) for the benefit of a private company, whereas public ownership would be subsidization for the benefit of the Canadian public.
I say that is what it should be. If we are going to use public funds on this important

matter, then it should be a public enterprise and any subsidization should be for the benefit of the Canadian public.
In addition I have here another clipping taken from the Ottawa Journal of May 11, 1956. It is entitled "Loans to Trans-Canada Makes a Bad Deal Worse" and it goes on to show that this is a bad deal, that the present plan of the government is not in the interests of the Canadian taxpayer but is an enabling measure to help United States promoters of oil and financiers build a pipe line. Hence we have criticism coming from newspapers and from sources usually supporting the Liberal party in connection with their programs.
I want to deal more particularly with the issue of public ownership. We know full well that this party stands for the eradication of the capitalist system of monopoly enterprise as we have seen it in the past. We believe in private ownership, we believe in co-operative ownership, and we believe in public ownership. We feel that in this country there is a proper place for all these types of ownership. In the province of Saskatchewan from which I come we have endeavoured, since 1944, to launch upon a program which would change our provincial economy from what it was at that time-which was 94 per cent dependent upon agriculture-to one which would be diversified. From the very time the people of Saskatchewan saw fit to elect a C.C.F. government in that province we had the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the former leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan, now the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) going up and down the province trying to scare away enterprise, trying to indicate that we had a government which was going to take over all the enterprise in the province and which would not allow private enterprise or anything but public ownership within the province.
After the dust had cleared away private enterprise knew full well that there had been a lot of misrepresentation, there had been a lot of lies told and a lot of half truths, with the result that in the past 10 years in the whole province of Saskatchewan we have had over 300 per cent more enterprise than in any previous 10 years. I want to go into some of the progress we have made in the province, because it has a direct bearing on what we are doing here.
Formerly we had in that province an economy under which, as a result of the vagaries of both prices and weather, our people were finding it very difficult to maintain any degree of prosperity. The planning we have done has encouraged private enterprise to come in, but the people of that province were assured that their natural 67509-260J
18, 1956	4097
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation resources would not be stolen from them. We now have private enterprise coming into that province as never before. I take this occasion to bring this matter before the house because I was in the chamber last evening when the Minister of Agriculture, with his usual misrepresentation of the facts, tried to indicate that the province had undertaken programs which had been complete failures and that our whole program was frightening away industry. On page 4058 of Hansard for May 17, 1956, the minister said:
Well, my hon. friends having tried the application of public ownership and control to making boots, to making blankets, to making a lot of other things, and having cast them all into the discard, have now come back to following exactly the same plan of organization that has been followed in order to set up part, and only part, of this particular pipe line. Therefore, I call their attention to the fact that they themselves have done all the answering that needs to be done; they themselves have given every answer.
On former occasions the Minister of Agriculture has seen fit to go through Hansard and make some corrections. I hope he will make an apology to this house when he comes back and will admit quite frankly that he was too all-inclusive in the statement he made in this chamber last night. In addition, anyone reading what he said or hearing him in this chamber could only come to the conclusion that the program the Saskatchewan C.C.F. government had undertaken had been a failure. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Before launching into that I just want to say there is a difference between what we are proposing to undertake in our province and this proposal. I sat in this house in 1945, after the war, and I saw plants sold that had been built with the taxpayers' money under public ownership. There was Research Enterprises which was sold to a firm at fire sale prices. There was a plant at Welland which was sold to the American Cyanamid people at fire sale prices, a company which had been indicted on three counts under the anti-trust laws of the United States. We saw one fertilizer plant after another sold to private industry so that we had a monopoly in the fertilizer industry of this country. Every program in which there has been any relationship between public and private ownership with which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has had anything to do has been one of selling out the rights of the people of this country to monopoly enterprise. There are a few exceptions; I want to be fair about this.
We have the fertilizer industry of this country now under monopoly control. We have the cement industry of this country under monopoly control, and about 85 per
4098	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation cent of it under the Canada Cement Company. We have a new plant that a company is proposing to construct at Regina.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my
hon. friend a question? When you had the opportunity and you were providing the money for the cement plant, why did you not keep it under government control?


Edward George McCullough: That is a good question and a fair question. It is because we do not believe in all public control.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward George McCullough: In our
province we believe there is a place for private ownership, there is a place for public ownership, and a place for co-operative ownership. If we can help it we are not going to allow monopoly in this country to operate in such a way that the consumer gets skinned. The whole need in our province was for a cement plant from which we could get cement for our Saskatchewan people at fair prices. I can remember when cement was bought for 50 cents a sack, and today you pay $1.50 for it. There should be lots of cement in this country, as the minister knows, but often you are skinned and have to pay $2 or $2.50 a sack for it. It was for that reason we tried to encourage private enterprise in our province. Here, the issue today is one of-


Mr. Mang:: Mr. Speaker-


Edward George McCullough: Sit
down.


Henry Philip Mang: Closure.


Edward George McCullough: Go
ahead.


Henry Philip Mang: If the hon. gentleman will permit a question, do I understand from the remarks that have just been made that he repudiates entirely the basic principle upon which the C.C.F. is founded, that is state ownership and state control of the means of production, distribution and exchange, which is the heart of the manifesto?


Edward George McCullough: The
heart of the manifesto is that the C.C.F. party will prevent monopolies in this country from exploiting the Canadian people.


Henry Philip Mang: You repudiate it.


Edward George McCullough: I answered your question.


Henry Philip Mang: You are repudiating it.


Edward George McCullough: I am
not repudiating anything. We are preventing the exploitation of resources or of any industry by monopoly. The Minister of Trade


and Commerce left the impression in this house last night that we had discontinued the program of public ownership in Saskatchewan, and that the industries undertaken by that government had been failures. I want to indicate to the house some of the figures in that respect.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I rise on a point of order. I said nothing about the industries under the control of the Saskatchewan government.


Edward George McCullough: Pardon me; I meant the Minister of Agriculture. As I said earlier, the program undertaken by Saskatchewan has been one of trying to bring about an industrial economic balance in that province. In the early stages of our government in that province in 1945 we did undertake the construction of certain industries under public ownership. We have a number of industries which have been under provincial ownership as crown corporations. I have in my own constituency, Mr. Speaker, a briquette plant which is not publicly-owned. It is a privately-owned plant at the present time. Two of the western provinces along with this federal government put into that plant over a million dollars and then turned it over to private enterprise for $1, another sell-out.
What we have tried to do is illustrated by the case of the brick plant which is in my constituency. We took over that plant and renovated it. We put money into it and put 50 or 60 men to work producing bricks for the people of Saskatchewan. Only about two years ago the issue came up as to whether or not it should be enlarged to meet an expanding market, whether they should continue on the present basis or perhaps discontinue altogether. I am going to tell this house that there was not a person at the meeting which was held in public in the town of Estevan, who when asked what he thought should be done did not think the brick plant should continue to operate as a crown corporation in that area. Today that brick plant, which was defunct under private ownership, is producing bricks and employing men, utilizing the clay and supplying the people of Saskatchewan with brick at fair prices.
Then, of course, we did have our boot and shoe factory. We started a boot and shoe factory perhaps too early, and as far as that is concerned it was a failure. But in the 1930's we had children in the province without shoes; we had hides that were not worth enough to transfer them to the tannery, and we started to make shoes for Saskatchewan people.

Here is another example of private monopoly, in the shoe manufacturing field. The Bata Shoe Company has a monopoly and gets a royalty on every last which goes into the manufacture of shoes. They did in ' fact prevent us from making that enterprise a success. We are on the march in Saskatchewan today. The industries we have are giving service to our people.
Then we have a woollen mill at Moose Jaw. This woollen mill is now operating under private enterprise, but it means that we have a garment factory in that province. It means that another industry is coming into our province and functioning, which we never had before. The net result is that from 1945 to 1956 the crown corporations in the province of Saskatchewan-I am including all the crown corporations, our power commission and our telephones-have had a total surplus to date of $8,118,000. The total accumulated deficits, including all losses to date, amount to $1,746,000 which leaves over $6 million of profit to the people of Sas-katchewn to give our people other services. In addition to that it has employed 3,000 or 4,000 people, with a payroll of over $1 million. These things bring businesses and other enterprises to the province, so the net result of these good undertakings are hard to estimate exactly. The hon. member for Saskatoon says that it is a better record than private enterprise. It is estimated that this year we shall have a net earning in these corporations of over $1 million, which is better than 10 per cent on the investment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my
hon. friend a question? Is he aware that the largest and most successful socialized industry is Saskatchewan is owned by the federal government?


Edward George McCullough: That is all right. I am speaking now of the particular issue before this house, which is another matter which should be under public ownership and control. I am not arguing that there are not some things today under public ownership and federal control, but I am showing what can be done in a small way in our province, where we have undertaken to equalize and level out our economy so we shall have a balanced economy.
Now then, let us go to oil industry in the province. The Minister of Agriculture had the audacity to get up in this house and, either through ignorance or otherwise, say that he did not think the clay of Saskatchewan was suitable for making cement. I can only come to the conclusion that statements of this sort are trying to hurt our province. The present leader of the Liberals in Saskatchewan, I guess under the tutelage and
18, 1956	4099
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation direction of the present Minister of Agriculture, said this when he spoke to a Toronto businessmen's club:
We in Saskatchewan have missed the boat. We have not taken advantage of the opportunities for progress in the last 12 years. Investors hesitate to enter Saskatchewan while a C.C.F. government was in power.
What nonsense. I am going to indicate what is taking place in the province. I hold in my hand an article entitled:
Saskatchewan's southeast oil fields designated "hottest" discovery area.
This is an article by Leslie Orr Rowland, reprinted from "Oil in Canada". He is certainly not a supporter of the C.C.F. I think this gentleman is trying to report the facts of the case. He says:
Saskatchewan is practically bursting at the seams with crude oil productibility as the prolific southeastern corner has turned in the past 15 months into the hottest oil search and discovery region in the whole of western Canada outside of the Pembina field.
Then again, from the "Oil Era" we get this:
In writing of oil and gas development in Saskatchewan in the article reprinted on this page, the editor of "Oil In Canada" concludes his appraisal with this bright forecast:
These reserve figures, for both oil and gas, are the vital clue to the future of Saskatchewan development and further wildcatting. The province is entering an era of rapidly growing stature as a major oil reserve region, with important future implications for general industry as well as the cil industry. The construction of a pipe mill in Regina, to be completed this year at a cost of $3 million or more, is a symptom of this shape of things to come.
So we have people who wish to report the facts, Mr. Speaker, indicating that in our province there can be a program by the government to protect the rights of the citizens of that province; that we can have an economy which will lend itself to public, private and co-operative ownership. In the province of Saskatchewan in connection with oil we have undertaken to promote one of the finest ideas to be evolved in human relationships, and that is the co-operative principle of ownership. We have the federated co-operatives, who are producing oil at the oil fields under a crown contract. The oil is taken to the co-operative refineries at Regina and is sold, of course, to the farm people and other co-operators. So right from the fields to the consumer we have the handling of that very important product. That is the kind of thing we should endeavour to promote in this country, because the people who are the most important factor in connection with any program are given the opportunity of sharing on an equal basis in the exploitation of the natural resources of this country.
4100	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. Thomas:: Saskatchewan co-operatives have three producing wells in the Leduc oil fields.


Edward George McCullough: I think they have. In Saskatchewan in 1944 we gave notice that no private enterprise was going to come to our province and skin the people through the exploitation of the natural resources. On the other hand, people who are good businessmen are now coming in on what can be termed a fair basis, and in our province we have perhaps one of the greatest oil searches and oil booms taking place anywhere in Canada at the present time.
So far as public enterprise is concerned, Mr. Speaker, this is a thing which I believe should be in the interests of all members. I feel that when we allow those natural resources to be exploited, they should not be controlled by any private companies, whether it is a pipe line or anything else. If we do, we are doing a disservice to the Canadian people. It will mean, in the case of the trans-Canada pipe line when it is finished, that we will have no Canada power authority to see how much the gas is going to cost the consumer. Today the board of transport commissioners can only say where the pipe line is to go.
I think it is useless and futile at this time to argue in the house what is to be the price of gas bought by the consumers under the government's proposal. It will be whatever the traffic will bear. It will be the price they are able to exploit from the consumers of gas, and today that is not good enough.
The hon. member for Churchill said he believed that we should welcome American capital into this country. I do, too; but I do not think anyone outside or inside this country owning private capital should be given the resources of this country to build up a monopoly and then skin the public. It reminds me of a story which I think is quite applicable. It is said that a farmer found that his chickens were being killed nightly by the foxes. Some smart fellow said: "Why don't you get a skunk and put it in the chicken coop?" Well, he did, and very shortly he did not need to worry at all because there were no chickens.
That is the sort of thing that is happening to our natural resources. More and more they are being sold down the river to private enterprise. I believe private enterprise has a place in this country. As a farmer I am a private enterpriser, and I believe that small businessmen are also private enterprisers. We do not, however, want monopoly enterprise and that is the thing which is being aided and abetted by the federal government in proposing to give $80 million or 90 per
IMr. McCullough (Moose Mountain).]

cent of the cost of this western pipe line to this company. Then this company will have to come back to parliament and say, "We will have to have some financing for the leg of the pipe line from Winnipeg to the Ontario-Manitoba border." And we will certainly ' have to pay the shot for what is sometimes termed the uneconomic leg of the pipe line across northern Ontario. What a sell-out.
This government had already moved closure before debate had taken place. The government say we have to get this through by June 7. After five long years of hesitation and delay it is suddenly necessary to rush this thing through. I believe it is necessary to get the pipe line built as soon as possible, because I appreciate the situation of the Alberta oil producers. They have gas being flared off and wasted. I think the hon. member of the Social Credit party should have joined with the C.C.F. in advocating public ownership of the pipe line as a public utility.
There is no reason why the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with the powers vested in him, could not have obtained pipe for the pipe line. It is a lot of nonsense that this company has control of this pipe. We could get pipe from other places if we were unable to get it from that source. That is a pretty weak and feeble argument.
What we are saying is that if it had the will to do so, this government could do the job under public ownership. However, the government does not want to do this. It prefers to allow a private company to come in and use public funds which will be taken out of the public treasury for the construction of this economic line, something which was not heard of a few months ago. It suddenly popped up in this house just about a week ago at the same time closure was moved by the government, and now we have a deadline on the discussion and we cannot adequately investigate the merits of the case.
The government will not allow this issue to go before a committee of this house. After five years' delay the government say that this must be put through in a week or two. Well, I do not think the government is going to sell that bill of goods to the Canadian people. The government is trying to force its desperate plan upon this house and the Canadian people. This desperate government does not want the company which has been hanging on to its coat tails for five years to be still there when the election is called in 1957. The government wants to get the thing through. It is ready to take a chance, and it hopes that perhaps the public will have forgotten about it by election time. Well, that program must be sweet music to the old party members in this house and also

perhaps to my Social Credit friends because what this may become is a pipe line of party funds, election campaign funds. There is no doubt in my mind that after it is built a lot of political party funds will be coming the way of certain political parties in this country.
I remember the Beauharnois scandal. I think it was Mr. Sweezey or someone who made the statement to the committee that the company was always prepared to pay certain moneys to both the old parties. On that occasion I think the Beauharnois corporation paid $200,000 to the Liberal party and a tidy sum to the Conservative party.
We have instances-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I think the hon. member-


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I am nearly finished. The hon. member can rise later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. The hon. member for Royal wishes to speak on a question of privilege.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said the Beauharnois company paid to the Conservative party certain moneys from their funds. It is well known that moneys were offered to Hon. R. B. Bennett and he refused to accept them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I
think it was decided earlier in this debate that this type of correction is in order but at the conclusion of the speech of the hon. member who has the floor.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say one further word. I think it is dangerous to have too much private ownership and monopoly control. When we consider the recent scandal in connection with the breweries in Manitoba, the investigation reveals that the three parties, Conservative, Liberal and Social Credit, did receive approximately $30,000 of campaign funds. When you have a large corporation such as Trans-Canada is expected to be there is a chance that graft and political skulduggery will occur. In a crown corporation the possibility of this occurring is somewhat reduced.
What is perhaps more important is the fact that if we were to have this set up as a public utility the government could decide on a price that would be fair to all, just as we are doing in our power corporation in the province of Saskatchewan. There are many people in that province who would like to get a cheaper rate if they live in a preferred area. Our government says it is going to treat all the people in the province on a fair and equal basis in connection with that power. We have a plan
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation under which our farm people and the people in our towns and cities get a fair deal. No great corporation is able to say it will give power at cheap rates to the main cities or to the big industrial centres, thus permitting the rural people to suffer or go without facilities. We are building our province for the people of Saskatchewan on the basis of equity. I wish the government would build for all Canada on that basis.
In conclusion I just want to say I am terribly disappointed that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the government refused even to consider letting this matter go to a committee, where different people would perhaps be able to put before the government a better proposal than the ill-conceived proposition facing us at this time.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate today with mixed feelings. It is the first time since I have been in parliament that I have seen closure used to bring about a useful debate. If I may do so for just a moment at the beginning, I would like to comment on some of the observations I have made. I feel these were brought about partly by the interesting topic before the house and partly by the rules of the house.
I shall begin by speaking in defence of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle). I would like to read the record of the hon. member, who was referred to by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough). The Canadian Parliamentary Guide outlines the hon. member's record as follows:
Publisher and editor, oil operator; president, C.O. Nickle Publications Limited; president, The Pump Room Limited; director general, Petroleums of Canada Limited; president, Conick Petroleum Limited; director, Superior Oils of Canada Limited; director, Selburn Oil Company, Limited; vice-president, Anglo-American Oils Limited; director, Calgary Y.M.C.A., 1951-52; N.C.O. 1939-44, lieutenant 1944-48, Calgary Highlanders.
I suggest to the hon. member for Moose Mountain that it is a good thing for this parliament that we have men of that calibre here. The hon. member went on to say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had sold out the rights of his country and that the pipe line is a sinister brain child. I would remind him that some of the boys who were overseas and had the opportunity of using the beautiful Bren guns the minister produced will not think well of him for saying that the Minister of Trade and Commerce would sell us out. The boys who flew the Mosquito planes, those marvellous planes which Canada supplied during the war and which were produced under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Defence Production, will not appreciate
4102	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the hon. member standing up and calling him a sell-out. Those of us who had the opportunity of going down to Montreal to visit the plant of Canadian Vickers to see that beautiful sub-chaser, a ship which is regarded around the world as one of the most modern pieces of fighting equipment for its size that has been produced by any country, really appreciated what was being done under the direction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How did the other nations come to have it?


Henry Alfred Hosking: This man who has done all these things has to sit here in the house and listen to a person who has made very little contribution to this country accuse him of being a sell-out.
Then the government are accused of putting on closure and we have heard all sorts of things said about closure. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked, "What is parliament without debate?" Then he answered, "Sterility." The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) in referring to the government, said it does not matter whether you destroy parliament in the process or that parliament be hanged in the process. Those are the terms which have been used in referring to closure.
Those hon. members who were here last Tuesday, and certainly the people who were in the galleries or who wanted to get in but could not, heard one of the best debates that has taken place in the house. This vehicle of closure has contributed more to the behaviour of parliament in the last few days than anything I can remember since I have been a member. I want to point out a few other things that happened last Tuesday.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) seemed to be interested in seeing that the staff got off at one o'clock and that they got paid for their work; and we then proceeded to sit here from one o'clock until four o'clock.


An hon. Member:: Five.


Henry Alfred Hosking: We saw obstruction in every shape and form, and the poor staff had to stay on. I just wonder whether there was any sincerity in the concern as to their welfare.


An hon. Member:: Lip service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not take any objection to the arguments or any adjectives the hon. member may wish to use but I do not think Your Honour should let an hon. member question the sincerity of another member of the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The
point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is not without merit. In the heat of debate there are quite often many accusations and a great deal of criticism, but I think it is pretty well understood that an accusation of insincerity is not regarded as parliamentary. I was listening carefully to the hon. member and I do not think he made the accusation of insincerity. He expressed doubt. I do not think it was the intention of the hon. member for Wellington South to go beyond the rules of the house and I have no doubt that he will take occasion now to make that clear.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I was merely pointing out how careful the hon. member for Winnipeg South was in looking after the welfare of the staff, and then how his actions in frustrating and applying all the rules he possibly could-


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the hon. member is going to criticize me he should at least use the right name for my constituency.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I am sorry; Winnipeg North Centre. Then when the Deputy Speaker was in the chair the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) said that he would not withdraw a statement. That was quite within his rights, but if there is anything that preserves parliament it is that members obey the rules of the house. When the Leader of the Opposition stands up and defies the Speaker he does more to destroy parliament


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: intervene at this moment with considerable hesitation and unsupported by citations or authorities, but I express the opinion that it is not in order on a debate on this motion to discuss in detail decided points of order which were raised previously in the debate. I may be wrong, but I do not think I am.
It being five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston) moved: the second reading of Bill No 300, respecting Ogdensburg bridge authority.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, may I point out that this bill was received only this afternoon. It may be that there will be no opposition to the bill, but I suggest to the sponsor that it be allowed to stand until we have had the opportunity to look at it.


William James Henderson: The bill is quite short, as it incorporates only small amendments to the

bill introduced in 1952. On behalf of the principals I would appreciate if it could be considered tonight, providing there is no objection by my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the sponsor could make his statement and then the debate could be adjourned so we would have an opportunity to study it.


William James Henderson: This bill will be sent to a committee where it can be considered. There are only three minor sections.


Howard Charles Green: I move the adjournment of the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: the house will permit me for a moment, the bill being on the order paper I could not order it to stand as a point of order, but of course the Chair will be glad to accept whatever arrangement the parties come to. I rose at this time to ask whether the hon. member for Kingston had concluded his statement or whether he was merely asking permission of the opposition to continue, because if he had not concluded his statement he should be permitted to do so before adjournment of the debate is moved.


William James Henderson: I had not concluded my statement. I only rose to support having the bill before the house now, and I would appreciate the opportunity to make a statement so that hon. members will fully appreciate the purposes of the bill.
This company, the Ogdensburg bridge authority, was incorporated by a special act of the parliament of Canada in 1952 for the purpose of building a bridge from Prescott, Ontario, to Ogdensburg, New York. At the time the act was introduced the best estimate of the cost of the bridge was in the neighbourhood of $10 million to $12 million. As a result of this estimate which, of course, was necessarily based on incomplete information, the right of the company to issue debentures was limited to $10 million under section 16 and $12 million under sections 12 and 17.
Since the company was incorporated plans for the construction of the bridge have been prepared and more complete engineering data have been obtained, with the result that it now appears that the cost of the bridge will be at least $15 million. I might mention the fact that the legislature of the state of New York has just approved a bill authorizing the sum of $15 million to be lent to the company to be secured by debentures and to be used in the construction of this particular bridge. In an abundance of caution, and to ensure that the principals will not have to return to parliament for a further amendment after the commencement of construction, this
Private Bills
bill has been brought before the house amending the three sections of the original act referred to above in order to provide for the issue of $20 million in debentures. The wording of the sections remains precisely the same except that the amount of debentures is increased to $20 million.
I might say that the company's act of incorporation provides that when the cost of building the bridge has been retired, that portion of the bridge over Canadian soil shall revert to the public authorities of Canada and that portion in the United States of America shall revert to the public authorities of the United States. In other words this is not an undertaking for the financial gain of private individuals.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, we have not had an opportunity to study this bill which has come to us from the other place, and I am hoping that the sponsor will have no objection to the adjournment of the debate until next Tuesday so we can look into the bill. It does bring up the question of just how the proposed bridge will affect the St. Lawrence seaway and where the St. Lawrence seaway authority fits into the picture. I am presuming that everything is all right and that the bill deserves support, but I would move that the debate be adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Green the debate was adjourned.



GRAND PALLS CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 301 (letter Y-9 of the Senate), intituled:	"An act to incorporate
Grand Falls Central Railway Company Limited".- Mr. Ashbourne.
Mr. T. G. W. Ashbourne (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that copies of this bill have not yet been received from the printer and thus have not been made available to hon. members, I suggest that the bill stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



LA CORPORATION DU PONT DE TROIS-RIVIERES

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 302 (letter Z-9 of the Senate), intituled: "An act respecting the construction of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river near the city of Trois-Rivieres".-Mr. Boisvert.
Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that copies of the bill have not been distributed yet but I should like to have the same privilege as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and, after making a few remarks, move the

Private Bills
adjournment of the debate on the bill until next week. If I am permitted to do so, I should like to present the explanation this afternoon.
Some lion. Members: Agreed.


Maurice Boisvert: the second reading of Bill No. 302, respecting the construction of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river near the city of Trois-Rivieres.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to obtain authority to build a bridge over the St. Lawrence river between two points, one on the north shore above Three Rivers and the other on the south shore below Nicolet. As the bill concerns my riding, which is 100 per cent French in origin, I intend to give my explanation in French, which before this house has equal standing with the English language, the learning of which I enjoyed very much.
(Translation) :
Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the bill now before the house, I should like to give a bit of history.
The proposed bridge will serve two very important districts, that of Three Rivers and that of Nicolet.
Historically speaking, the city of Three Rivers is one of the oldest in Canada. It was the second one to be founded after Quebec. Originally it was a fur trading post. That trade led two men from Three Rivers, following their expeditions into the far north and into the Hudson bay area, to go to London and set up, with British capital, even under the French regime, the Hudson's Bay Company which contributed to the development of the far north and the Canadian northwest.
Later, Three Rivers was the site of the first iron working industry, under the French regime. Everyone has heard of the Three Rivers ironworks. As everyone knows, iron developments in the province of Quebec are getting more and more important; it was at Three Rivers that a powerful ironworks industry was born and its memory is perpetuated by one of the Canadian Iron Foundry plants.
Later on, the city of Three Rivers became a railway centre and one of the main pulp wood centres of Canada. Today, its mills are among the largest and most important in the country.
Around Three Rivers, such cities as Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Grand-Mere, Shawinigan and La Tuque, have developed, and all are located in central Quebec.
Now, on crossing the river to the south shore, we find the county of Nicolet, which also dates back to the early days of colonizafMr. Boisvert.]
tion; it has always been a wholly agricultural district. However, at one time there was a little seaport there known as Port St. Francois, operated by a company located at Sherbrooke, with an office in London. For many years, immigrants from England landed at Port St. Frangois. This sea port has now disappeared following the construction of highways and of a railway line.
On the south shore, the district serves and will continue to serve Victoriaville, Thetford Mines, Richmond, Sherbrooke, Drummond-ville, St. Hyacinthe and Sorel. Therefore, we readily see the importance of connecting the two shores of the St. Lawrence river at the points I indicated a few moments ago in English, that is one on the north shore a little above the city of Three Rivers and the other on the south side, some ten miles below the town of Nicolet.
We hope, for the county of Nicolet, that the Imperial Oil Company, which for many years has made explorations for gas and oil, will eventually make borings to a greater depth and find such research profitable.
We also look forward to the day when the little port of St. Francois, which has played an important part in the historical development of our province, will be able to resume its former activities. The channel on the St. Lawrence river is but a few hundred feet from the bank and there is there a site ideally located for the establishment of a sea port.
The construction of that bridge is urgently needed. In fact, last year, almost a million pedestrians and 400,000 vehicles had to take the ferry boats, in the middle of the summer and in extremely difficult conditions, to cross the river.
When this bridge is built, it will connect the eastern townships, the county of Nicolet and the'city of Three Rivers with the American boundary, which is only 120 miles away from this town, apart from the fact that construction of a highway between the important harbour of Portland, on the coast of Maine, and Three Rivers, will make this a shortcut from the United States to the heart of Quebec.
The bridge is to be built by a private company. It will be 5,000 feet long and will cost almost 15 million dollars. It will be a toll-bridge, but experts who have studied the project are in no way worried about the future of this bridge, and claim that even now they are sure to obtain the required building capital. The structure is a necessity

for the local farmers whom I represent, and also for the development of the city of Three Rivers. Sixty per cent of the food products brought into Three Rivers come from the county of Nicolet-Yamaska and, thanks to this bridge, farmers will certainly benefit considerably.
Hon. members know that it is generally not possible to build a bridge in a province. Within a province, bridges, like highways and railways, are recognized to be under provincial jurisdiction. When a bridge is to be built on the St. Lawrence river, under chapter 140 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, no permit may be awarded unless an act is passed by parliament, authorizing the construction of this bridge over the navigable waters of the St. Lawrence. This hill aims at obtaining this permit. According to plans already prepared, the arches of the bridge will have to be high enough not to impede navigation, and plans thereof must be approved by the governor in council.
We are confident that, if this legislation is passed, the Three Rivers and Nicolet area will be provided with a highly modern bridge that will facilitate the heavy traffic which, especially in the summer months, goes through that area which is at the very heart of Quebec and, in addition, is one of the finest of the province.
Three Rivers is half way between Montreal and Quebec city on the north shore, while Nicolet is half way between Montreal and Quebec city on the south shore.
The Three Rivers harbour is increasingly important. It ranks fifth for the volume of shipping and the bridge will only serve to increase its traffic. In my opinion, the reasons I have given in the course of my explanation-I could give a thousand more if it were necessary-warrant the passing of the bill now before the house.
(Text):


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is the intention here, as in the two previous cases, to adjourn the debate. May I move its adjournment?
On motion of Mr. Macdonnell the debate was adjourned.



DIVORCE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: There are several divorce bills on the order paper. Shall they all be considered in the one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, there are 36 divorce bills. I have some comments to make
Private Bills
on 12 of them. I shall either make my comments now or as you call the bills individually, whatever is the pleasure of Your Honour and of the house. My remarks will be fairly short, but I am anxious to oblige you.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member be good enough to indicate the number of the first bill to which he wishes to address some remarks?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Bill No. 308 is the first one, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Then let us deal with the second reading of Bills Nos. 303, 304, 305, 306 and 307.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 303, for the relief of Dorothy Nesbitt Ward Pratt.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 304, for the relief of Nichita Tomescu.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 305, for the relief of Lilly Katoffsky Schwartz.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 306, for the relief of Rita Beryl Gwendolyn Scott Darlington.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 307, for the relief of Dorothy Christie Bradley Cunniam.-Mr. Henderson.

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 308, for the relief of Samuel Marks Stirling.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, now that Newfoundland is a province of Canada we have some additional problems which are brought to our attention. This divorce case is one that involves a petitioner who resides in the city of Montreal but the respondent lives in Corner Brook, Newfoundland. The evidence in this case indicates that one of the detectives who appears frequently in connection with these cases apparently had an interesting trip to Newfoundland. The divorce was granted on the evidence given by this detective who works for an agency known as the Reliable Detective Agency. He features here quite frequently. He made certain discoveries.
However, it is a little difficult to understand why the father of five children-the father lives in the city of Montreal while the children are in Newfoundland-is not more concerned about the welfare of his five children. If the information given by the detective is correct, it would appear to me that the father should have been quite concerned about leaving these five children in that sort of environment.

Private Bills
1 do not wish to impose upon the house but I did not want this bill to pass without mentioning the fact that one party lives in Montreal and the other in Newfoundland, and that this fact poses some new problems for us.


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

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 311, for the relief of Shirley Ann Joss Le Boeuf.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, Bills 311, 312, 313 and 314 are of a similar nature and if it would accommodate the house I would be glad to make all my remarks on these four at this time. I think it would probably save a few minutes. All the bills I have mentioned are going through by a new streamlined process that is interesting.
In this case before us it would seem unnecessary to engage detectives. Those who read the evidence find that the two housewives who came there really gave as satisfactory evidence as the detectives who sometimes get their stories twisted. Here the respondent also came. It now appears to be quite a simple matter, if both parties are agreed that the divorce should be granted, and if both will come and tell the truth and indicate that there is no collusion but that they are not living together and they do not forgive one another. If it is impossible to repair the damage, then the divorce can be granted.
The chairman of the committee, His Honour Senator Roebuck, thought to begin with that the petition was inadequate. He said it was utterly unfair to the respondent because it did not tell him when he was accused of the offence, nor how, nor where, nor anything else. Under the circumstances, when the respondent was there to establish the fact that everything that was charged was true, there was not much argument.
In so far as Bill No. 312 is concerned, the co-respondent appeared and the respondent also appeared. The respondent indicated that he just got tired of living with the woman he had undertaken to support for better or for worse, and then he started living with another woman. By the time the case was heard apparently two children were born. The mother of the two children appeared and admitted that she was the mother and the respondent was the father. They were living happily together, and apparently if this divorce is approved it will be possible for the respondent and the mother of these two children to become married.

Bill No. 313 is also concerned with a similar case in which there were not any hired detectives. The respondent appeared in person. There has been a good deal of travelling involved in connection with this particular case, but it would appear as if the respondent got tired of living with his wife and started living with someone else.
The same is true with respect to Bill No. 314. There were no paid detectives in that case. In connection with Bill No. 317, His Honour Senator Gershaw tried to find out what seemed to have been the trouble in this particular case. Here you had both the petitioner and the respondent appearing and judging by the evidence they were both quite intelligent, bright young people. His Honour Senator Gershaw asked:
Q. Tell me something more. You are young, your wife is young. Why could you not get along together? What was the trouble between you?
A. I cannot coptinue to live with her after what she did to me.
Q. But that was before. How did you get along together from 1952 to June 1954, were you quarrelling?
A. We were quarrelling because I knew about-
Mr. So and So. Bill No. 322 is another case in which there was no paid detective. Bill No. 327 is concerned with a rather unusual case. Again, the petitioner did not appear. The petitioner is living in Sweden. This couple apparently were married in England and the respondent is living with another woman and has been living with this other woman for some time. Last year he travelled to Sweden to see the petitioner in this particular case. It does not come out in the evidence what the discussion was all about, but she has proceeded to petition the Senate and the House of Commons to grant a divorce. The respondent very obligingly came along and his lady friend also came along, and she established the fact that she had been living with the respondent. I would gather that when this divorce is granted they too will be married and I hope they will be able to live happily, more happily than this man lived with his first wife.
Similar comments might be made on Bills 334 and 337. In summing up, I think there is a trend away from the hired detectives, which is to be commended. I think there would be people who could find some of their neighbours who are familiar with the problem to come here and tell a straight story so we would get away from the fabrication of evidence which was so apparent in many of the cases which previously came to us.
I am not asking for a recorded vote on any of these bills, but I think we should pause here to commend the new trend where the evidence is provided by the correspondent.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 309, for the relief of Violet Ethel Stanway Sharpe.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 310, for the relief of Elizabeth June Robertson Fraser.

Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Marguerite Catherine Evans Macfarlane.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 313, for the relief of Agniete Stra-vinskaite Paskevicius.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill 314, for the relief of Joseph Marc Bernard Levesque.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Kenneth Wilfred Morgan.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Mary Helen Norah Whelehan Gondos.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Roger Paul Rene Hilaire Varnier.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Sarah Abra-movsky Gordon.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Ruth Shirley Churchill O'Neill.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Edgar Ferland Theoret.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 321, for the relief of Therese Laure Turgeon Garson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Marie Jean-nine Lucette Poirier Legault.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Marie Rose Therese Allain Gauvin.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Marie Therese Murielle Audelin Blemur.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 325, for the relief of Frantisek Horsky, otherwise known as Francis Horsky. -Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 326, for the relief of Anne Campbell Hogwood.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 327, for the relief of Maud Virginia af Ugglas Marchant.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 328, for the relief of Annie Eva Lewin Sutcliffe.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 329, for the relief of Vanda Vainoraite Lebedziunas.

Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 330, for the relief of Ivy Hutch-craft Fawcett.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 331, for the relief of Charles Edouard Racicot.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 332, for the relief of Jeanine Yvonne Pinatel Wells.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 333, for the relief of Georgina Mary Elizabeth Forcade	Sheehan.-Mr. Henderson.
Canada Elections Act
Bill No. 334, for the relief of Bridget Ann Hamilton Limoges.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 335, for the relief of Mildred Jane Clendenning Dephoure.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 336, for the relief of Elizabeth Marie Hartwig Bensinger.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 337, for the relief of Beatrice Mary Lucretia Glassco Bishop.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 338, for the relief of Marie Therese Justine Georgette Spinard Migneault.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 339, for the relief of Vera Florence Gilson Shehyn.-Mr. Henderson.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 205, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (hours of polling).-Mr. Noseworthy.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I ask unanimous consent of the house to have my name substituted for that of the original sponsor of this bill so that I may move the second reading today.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave Mr. Knowles moves, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, that his name be substituted for that of Mr. Noseworthy as sponsor of this bill. Is the motion agreed to?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 205, to amend the Canada Elections Act (hours of polling).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the house for agreeing to the substitution of my name as the sponsor of this bill which was introduced and given first reading on Monday, March 19, by our late friend and colleague, Mr. J. W. Noseworthy. As hon. members will realize, the bill seeks to make a very simple change in the Canada Elections Act, but we feel it is one of those changes that are desirable. The proposal is simply that with respect to by-elections that happen to be called during the period of the year when daylight saving time is not in effect the polls should not close until seven o'clock in the evening.
The situation with regard to general elections seems to have taken care of itself so far as the problem raised by this bill is concerned. The reason I say that situation seems to have taken care of itself arises from the fact that six out of the last seven general elections in Canada have been held during the period when daylight saving time is normally in effect. There are in the papers once again today rumours about the next election.

Canada Elections Act
As a matter of fact, rumours of that kind are quite common around here, and I think it is to be noted that everyone seems to expect the election to be held next year, and everyone expects that it will take place during the time of year when daylight saving time is in effect. In fact the general expectation now seems to be that it will take place on June 17, 1957.
However, may I point out what happens so far as general elections are concerned with respect to employees who are at work and have to take advantage of section 47 of the Canada Elections Act regarding time off for voting. Section 47 makes a slightly different provision than was in effect for quite a number of years. As hon. members will recall, the elections act used to provide that every employee had to be given two hours off on election day for purposes of voting. Many difficulties arose, difficulties of interpretation, as to what was meant by that two-hour clause. That ambiguity and uncertainty were cleared up to some extent when the provision was changed to read as it now does that every employee must have three clear hours during the time the polls are open in which he can vote.
It is clear from the provisions of section 47 now that if an employee has three consecutive hours of his own time during the period that the polls are open he does not get any time off work; but if he does not have three clear consecutive hours his employer has to give him whatever time is necessary so the total time he will be off while the polls are open adds up to three hours. Thus, if the polls close at six o'clock and an employee would normally get off work at five o'clock it is considered that he has one hour of his own time. The employer has to give him another two hours. If there are cases where the employee is at work during the whole of the period that the polls are open, of course he has to be given three consecutive hours by his employer. Any such time off has to be given without loss of pay.
Now, with general elections taking place during the period of the year when daylight saving time is in effect in most parts of Canada, the pattern is reasonably satisfactory. There are always complaints about these matters, but I think it is correct to say that the pattern is reasonably satisfactory in that during the period when daylight saving time is in effect the election is still run on standard time. Therefore the requirement that the polls close at six o'clock standard time turns out to be seven o'clock daylight saving time. Accordingly, that means that for most employees it is simply a matter of being let off, under the provisions of section 47, at four o'clock.

Now, there are a great many factories, shops and stores where five o'clock, or 4.30' o'clock, is the normal closing time. Perhaps five o'clock is more general than 4.30 o'clock but, at any rate, in the cases of shops and stores where the normal closing time is five o'clock all the employer has to do is let his employees go at four o'clock so those employees have the three clear hours between four o'clock and seven o'clock.
I suppose that in reciting this picture I am conscious of the fact that that is what obtains to a very large extent in my own constituency, indeed in the city of Winnipeg as a whole. For example, the railway shops which employ a large number of workers in the city of Winnipeg have accepted it now as pretty routine practice that on election day the shops close at four o'clock so that employees get the three full hours to which they are entitled by virtue of section 47 of the Canada Elections Act. Actually, the employer is giving his employees only a half hour or an hour, depending upon what time the particular shop is normally closed down; but at any rate, that pattern seems to have established itself and is reasonably satisfactory so far as general elections are concerned because of the fact that they usually take place when daylight saving time is in effect.
However, Mr. Speaker, when a by-election is called, particularly when a by-election is held during the winter season, during the period of the year when daylight saving time is not in effect, actually two problems arise. In the first place, since standard time is in effect it means that the polls do close at six o'clock instead of at seven o'clock. That means that if an employer is going to let his employees off in time to get the full three hours he has to let them off at three o'clock in order to meet the requirements of section 47.
Well, employers do not go around looking for ways to let employees off even for the exercise of the franchise; but it becomes a particular problem in by-elections, particularly when they take place in an urban area, because working in a plant or in a factory will be a few employees who live in the constituency where the by-election is held, whereas the majority of the employees probably live in other constituencies in that same area, and in those other constituencies a byelection is not being held. That applies particularly when a by-election is held in an urban area like Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg or Vancouver. As a result of that situation employees are a little reluctant to ask for

time off when they know their fellow employees cannot make the same request, and employers put up a certain amount of resistance to it as well.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this problem could easily be solved if a provision such as is proposed in Bill No. 205 were written into the Canada Elections Act. The proposal is simply that during the period when daylight saving time is not in effect, in the case of a by-election, the polls should remain open until seven o'clock in the evening. If that were done then we would have the same situation that applies in most general elections. Section 47 could be met by letting employees off at four o'clock rather than having to let them off at three o'clock in the afternoon. To be sure, the employees would rather be off at three o'clock than at four o'clock, but the fact is that in by-elections they do not get off at all in many instances. Reluctance and resistance go together, and the result is that the rights granted under section 47 of the Canada Elections Act are not enjoyed by those voting in a by-election.
It might be argued by anyone who sought to oppose this bill that provisions such as these should be made to apply to general elections as well as by-elections. I would say, Mr. Speaker, if it were at all the rule for general elections to be held in the winter months the change should perhaps be made to apply to general elections as well as byelections, but as I have already pointed out six out of the last seven general elections in this country have been held during the months when daylight saving time was in effect and the chances are the same will be the case for the next election year.
It might also be contended that in making special provision for a by-election one is paying too much attention to the exceptions rather than the rule, since after all the act is for general elections rather than by-elections. In answer to that I would point out that the Canada Elections Act already contains a number of special provisions that apply to by-elections but do not apply to general elections. One or two occur to me immediately. First of all, the period of time during which the enumerating takes place is two weeks shorter in the case of a by-election than it is in the case of a general election. Indeed, there are even some other provisions with regard to the lists of electors that apply to by-elections which are different from those which apply in the case of a general election.
There is also a special provision in the section of the act as to what would happen if the Monday chosen for an election turned out to be a holiday. In the case of a general election that holiday would have to be a national holiday before the result would be
Canada Elections Act
the putting off of the election until Tuesday, but in the case of a by-election regard is had as to whether the holiday is national or provincial in character.
I need not go into any further detail on that. I just mention those one or two things to point out that the act already contains a number of provisions that are exclusively for by-elections as distinct from general elections. Indeed, the definition section defines general election and it defines by-election, and there are differences running through the act. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me it is not only a simple request but it is a very justifiable one. The suggestion that a change like this be made, as a matter of fact, has come out of the experience of certain byelections that were held recently, when a number of employees found they could not get to the polls by six o'clock for the very reason I have given; namely, that it was difficult to get sufficient time off. In fact there were many people, so I am told, in one recent by-election who did not get to the polls because they had become accustomed to the idea of federal elections closing for all practical purposes at seven o'clock because of the fact that general elections are usually held when daylight saving time is in effect.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is an extremely reasonable and sensible suggestion to put forward, and I hope it will be given consideration by the house. I remind hon. members again that when we are dealing with the Canada Elections Act we are dealing with something that is in a particular way not the property of the government nor even the property of parliament. In a particular way it is the property of the people of Canada. It seems to me that on as sensible and rational a basis as we can, we should make it an act that will make possible the fullest exercise of the franchise not only at general elections but at by-elections as well.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in commending the provisions of Bill No. 205 to the house.


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in introducing this measure on behalf of the late Joseph Noseworthy, who was the original sponsor of this bill. I think I may take advantage of this opportunity to again express sincere sympathy on behalf of us all. When we heard during the last Easter recess of the death of the late Joseph Noseworthy a sense of great loss was felt by every hon. member of this house.
The fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has accepted the sponsorship
4110	HOUSE OF
Canada Elections Act
of this bill is a further demonstration of his interest in the Canada Elections Act, because the hon. member already has on the order paper another bill which also provides suggested amendments to this act.
I must say first of all that I am in agreement with what the hon. member said at the conclusion of his remarks, namely that the Canada Elections Act is not the property of the government. It is a matter which belongs not only to parliament itself but to every hon. member of this house. For this reason I would think an amendment such as the one which is now being proposed, even if it is very simple, should first of all receive the attention of the members of the house in committee when the time comes for the committee on privileges and elections to meet and study the revision of the act. On the other hand, and I do not think I am mistaken in saying this, the subject matter of this amendment has never been discussed by the members of the committee on privileges and elections to my knowledge. Possibly it has not been discussed because it does not appear, to me at least, to be a necessary remedy.
Under the act as it now stands there is a very clear provision which applies both to general elections and by-elections. In section 47 to which my hon. friend referred are to be found both the obligation and the right of the employer and the employee. The section provides that three consecutive hours will be made available by the employer to the employee in order to exercise his right to vote. These hours must be consecutive. This applies to both general elections and by-elections. The section also provides that:
... no employer shall make any deduction from the pay of any such employee nor impose upon or exact from him any penalty by reason of absence from his work during such consecutive hours.
In subsection 3 of section 47 is provided a penalty for the employer who does not allow the employee the benefit of three consecutive hours in which to exercise his right to vote.
I am afraid I did not understand very clearly the distinction the hon. member attempted to make between a general election and a by-election. It seems to me the fact that general elections have been held in the last four or five instances during that period of the year when daylight saving time is in effect is not a reason for making a distinction between the two. In other words the voter has as much right to vote in a by-election as he has in a general election, and the employer must carry out his duty in both cases.
To say that in urban districts it may be difficult in some cases for the employer to make these hours available to the employees to me is not enough to justify the amendment


of the act to cover by-elections only. Surely the time elapsing between nomination day and polling day, a period of 14 days, should be sufficient for the employer and employee to discuss arrangements so the employee may be allowed time off as provided by the act in which to exercise his right to vote. A by-election in itself creates interest, and that should be enough to make the employer aware that among his employees there are one, two or possibly a greater number who have the right to vote and who should have time off. Arrangements can be made so the employee will have the benefit of the three consecutive hours provided by the act.
It is the duty of the employee who wants to vote to see to it that he is given the necessary time in which to exercise his right to vote. I do not think my hon. friend will contradict me on that. If the employee does not make the necessary arrangements with his employer, if he does not want to take advantage of the fact that he is entitled to three hours and that the employer must make those hours available to him, I do not think he will exercise his right to vote simply because the act is amended to give him an additional hour on polling day.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: What about the situation where 25 per cent of the employees in a certain plant are entitled to vote in a by-election and the remaining 75 per cent are not? The act is quite clear that the 25 per cent must be given the right to vote, but is it not so that the 75 per cent would have no protection under the act? The employer might decide that as 25 per cent of his employees were going to be away for part of the day he might just as well close down his plant, and the 75 per cent of the employees would lose a certain amount of pay and would have no recourse under the act.


Roch Pinard: My hon. friend has given an example. In a general election 100 per cent of the employees would most likely have the right to vote and the employer must make it possible for them to vote on polling day. Under such conditions he makes arrangements so there will not be too great a disruption in his operations. He arranges for his employees to go and vote without disrupting the whole operation.
To my mind the extending of the period by one hour in the case of by-elections will not create any more interest on the part of the employer or employee. If the employee is not convinced that he should exercise his right to vote, I do not think that giving him another hour on polling day will change his mind.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That may be quite true, but would the minister not agree that if an employee knew that by exercising his right

to vote his pal Jim or Bill might lose three hour's time he might decide not to vote?


Roch Pinard: I do not think that consideration is strong enough to warrant an amendment of the elections act. In any event I submit that this should be submitted to study by members of parliament in a committee. When the committee sat last year on the revision of the act it would have been an excellent time to have brought up this matter. I do not say that I am absolutely opposed to the amendment, but I submit there should be no distinction made between a general election and a by-election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister not realize that that is precisely where there may be a distinction? We want the polls to close at seven o'clock in by-elections just as they do in general elections. The effect of the law is to make a distinction. When by-elections are held in the wintertime the polls close at six o'clock, but in the case of general elections they usually close at seven o'clock.
Canada Elections Act
elections will always be held when daylight saving time is in operation, but a general election might be held in the wintertime and then we would have amended the act to cover by-elections only and would find ourselves faced with the situation where in a general election you would have the same inconvenience, if the inconvenience exists. In other words, I submit that both general elections and by-elections should be covered. However, I do not say that should be done, because I feel that it would not create any interest for an employee who had decided not to vote by merely extending the time for voting by one hour.
On motion of Mr. Pinard the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: On Monday we shall continue with the pipe-line discussion and any other second readings we may have time for.


Roch Pinard: 


[Stage Direction]
My hon. friend is basing his At six o'clock the house adjourned, without statement on the assumption that general question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 21, 1956