1956-06-01

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo), that the statements in the Ottawa Journal of May 30 and May 31 are derogatory of the dignity of parliament and deserving of the censure of this house.
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Usually the deputy clerk reads the order, but I rise at this moment in order to deal with this order which appears under "Motions" as follows:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo), that the statements in the Ottawa Journal of May 30 and 31 are derogatory of the dignity of parliament and deserving of the censure of this house.
I have read carefully the articles complained of and I have come to the conclusion that because of the unprecedented circumstances surrounding this pipe-line debate and because of the remarks that were made in this house by members themselves, it was and it is impossible, if we are to consider freedom of the press as we should, to take these two articles as being breaches of our privileges. It is my opinion that if it had not been for some of the insinuations or attacks directed perhaps to one another or the Chair or to the occupants of the chair, these articles may not have been written. I think we should settle our problems among ourselves and that those who outside of this house, either in editorial comment or by letters to the editor, write what I consider to be-and this is the case of these two articles-comments which do not go beyond the bounds of unfairness, I think they should be allowed. Therefore, I rule the motion made by the hon. member for Nanaimo out of order. Do hon. members wish to appeal?


George Alexander Drew: Are you prepared to hear any discussion on that, because-


Mr. Speaker:: No.


George Alexander Drew: -we had proceeded with discussion on this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a matter of privilege. Whether it is privilege or not, it is my responsibility to decide. Does the hon. gentleman appeal my ruling?


George Alexander Drew: Is it not possible to say something, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. gentleman appeal my ruling?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I appeal your ruling but I also suggest that you should accept this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition cannot go beyond appealing my ruling.


An hon. Member:: Dictatorship.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it; call in the members.
And during the calling in of the members:


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, are you not going to hear a question of privilege?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I draw this
to your attention-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully draw this to your attention, that you directed the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) to make that motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I protest against your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: There cannot be any debate at this moment. The bells are ringing and the members are being called in.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.

House of Commons


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the rights of parliament are more important than the bells. You drafted this motion, Mr. Speaker. You accepted the motion and the motion is now in the possession of the house and you have no right to hear anything that interferes with the discussion.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. McCann:: Get back in your seat.


Mr. Ellis:: Keep quiet over there.


Major James William Coldwell: -to the statement of Mr. Speaker Lenthall: "I am the servant of the house."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Dictatorship.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Why don't you throw away the mace?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to your own words last night, reported at page 4532 of Hansard-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did you change overnight? What is the reason that you changed overnight? Are you afraid today?


Mr. Rowe:: What took place in the dark?


Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):: You are a very good actor; you should be on the stage.


William Earl Rowe: You would probably close the stage.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
On the order under Motions, "Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo), that the statements in the Ottawa Journal of May 30 and 31 are derogatory of the dignity of parliament and deserving of the censure of this house," being called, I ruled that the motion of the hon. member for Nanaimo was out of order since in my opinion the statements in the Ottawa Journal must be construed as fair and reasonable comment on the house and its proceedings.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: "Garrotting parliament." Is that fair?


Mr. Speaker:: Whereupon Mr. Drew appealed to the house from the ruling I gave.


Mr. Bell:: No wonder they hang their heads in shame.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Speaker, I am voting against the dictatorship which you have imposed on parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.
After the taking of the vote:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the Speaker's ruling sustained.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight):
That the house do now adjourn.
An hon. Member:: For obvious reasons.


Mr. Knowles:: It should read that the house
be dissolved.


An hon. Member:: That is making a farce of parliament.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: You made a farce of it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Fleming:: Leave the matter to the people.


Mr. Speaker:: It is obvious that in this house there are feelings that are perhaps extraordinary. There is perhaps much more than what one would call the ordinary opposition to what may take place. I think there is perhaps on the part of some hon. members what I may term anger.


George Alexander Drew: There is.
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: I want to tell hon. members that I know what my responsibilities are and that I am fully conscious of every step that I am taking.


An hon. Member:: I wonder.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to take the responsibility before this house and the country for what I do. Hon. members know that it is within my jurisdiction-indeed it is my duty-to make a ruling whenever I consider that I must make one. The right of hon. members is to appeal a ruling. Once the appeal has been made, the house has decided. If hon. members feel that in the performance of my duty my conduct should be criticized they also know, as do I, that before six o'clock tonight they can put on the order paper a notice-48 hours' notice-of a substantive motion which I am sure will be brought up after the 48 hours have expired.
These days are not easy ones. On the one hand hon. members who favour a measure were in committee of the whole yesterday. An appeal has been made with respect to the chairman's ruling. I was called back to the chair merely to put the report of the chairman to the house. What happened? The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) asked me "Will you listen to a point of order?" The point of order was completely outside the matter which was the subject matter of the report and, in addition, that report was itself a matter of order. It was an appeal by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the house on the chairman's ruling. I was requested not to conclude my ruling at six o'clock but to do it at eight o'clock. As soon as I took the chair at eight o'clock and was about to conclude my ruling there was a motion made to adjourn the house. Then, other proceedings took place and at ten o'clock the house had not yet acted upon the chairman's report of an appeal made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, which is a right provided under our rules. Today we meet; I make a ruling.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Without hearing any argument.


Mr. Speaker:: That it should be met with criticism, or even with sincere feelings perhaps of indignation, is the privilege of hon. members. But the ruling on the appeal was submitted to the house. Now, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is moving that the house do now adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I said earlier that I am prepared to take full responsibility before this house and before the country for what I am doing. I consider-and I have thought very

Business of the House
seriously about this-that yesterday around 5.15, when I was called back to the chair for the purpose of receiving the chairman's report, I made a very serious mistake in allowing the point of order and the other dilatory motions; and I feel that the house should not suffer any prejudice or detriment on my account. I want to say this to hon. members- it has been said very often-the rules of this house are devised in order to protect the minorities; yes, they are. But I will add the counterpart to that. I will say-and the authorities support me in this-that the rules of this house are devised to protect minorities against the oppression of the majority and the majority against obstruction by the minority.
Now, the house is master of its own rules and it is my right to submit a matter to the house. I intend at the moment to submit to the house that, in my view, the house should revert to the position where it was yesterday when I was brought back to the chair to receive the chairman's report at 5.15. I submit to the house that the intervening proceedings should not be superseded, and it is up to the house to decide as to the situation which I take at the moment.
Those who are in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: I am rising on a question of privilege.


Major James William Coldwell: What are you doing, Mr. Speaker?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order-


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Alexander Drew: -I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe): That in view of the unprecedented action of Mr. Speaker in improperly reversing his own decision without notice and without giving any opportunity for discussion, this house resolves that it no longer has any confidence in its presiding officer.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition understands, of course, that this is a motion which must go on the order paper and receive 48 hours' notice.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


George Alexander Drew: With consent, this could very properly be discussed now because the motion is now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
IMr. Speaker.]


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that the question as to whether or not a motion to adjourn the house is in order at any time has been settled by yourself. As you know, I relied on a previous occasion on standing order 2, but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know what-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Standing order 25 makes it clear. In addition, you said last Monday that it is always in order-


Mr. Speaker:: I know what the hon. member says with respect to this motion is correct. I have indicated to the house I feel that the house should not suffer any prejudice for what I consider to be a serious mistake which I made yesterday. I say that the house is master of its own procedure. No one should contradict that; everybody knows that that is so, and it is my right to submit a matter to the house and that is what I propose to do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, there is a lot of heat around here and I am absorbing some of it. I will try to speak calmly upon the matter. My point of order is, if you take the position, on your responsibility, that my motion to adjourn the house should not be put, you have to take the responsibility for ruling that motion out of order. Whatever you may feel about any mistakes you made yesterday, the fact is that this is a new day and we are now on the order for motions. We cannot jump from motions to the position in which we found ourselves yesterday at five o'clock, or in the committee of the whole, without first reaching the orders of the day. That could not be done unless some motion were made, and I have no doubt there are those on the other side who would make it at the appropriate time. In the meantime, there is before the house a motion duly made and duly seconded, namely my motion to adjourn the house. Should you in your wisdom and on your own responsibility decide to go back on your own precise statement of last Monday and rule it out of order, that is your privilege, but it is also my privilege to appeal your ruling, if you so rule.


Mr. Speaker:: I will say this to the hon. member. I will agree with him that his motion was made before I had indicated my position, and I will allow his appeal and submit it to the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker,-


William Earl Rowe: Can you not let him state his point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before I make the appeal may I just say this further word? In the statement you made, sir, shortly after I made my motion, you indicated that there might be strong feelings in the house, including some feelings of anger. I am able to hold my temper fairly well, as I think most hon. members will recognize; but I admit that I did get some feeling of anger earlier today when, with citation 216 of Beauchesne, third edition, before me I realized what was happening. Citation 216 of Beauchesne, third edition, reads as-


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member not to go beyond the matter?


An hon. Member:: He is on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Either we have a motion to adjourn before the house or we have not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: It has to do with the motion to adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: A point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will accept the motion to adjourn. I have said I will accept the hon. member's motion to adjourn.


William Earl Rowe: You ruled it out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am finding it difficult to keep up with Your Honour's decisions. First you say, "yes", and then you say "no". Now you are saying, "yes, it is in order".


George Harris Hees: He is saying "maybe".


Mr. Speaker:: I indicated that to the hon. member a moment ago; I said it may be that I had not taken the floor to state the position which I intended to put to the house before the hon. member had moved his motion, in which case the hon. member's motion came before I stated my position, and I said that I would accept the motion.
Those who are in favour of the motion to adjourn the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take it from what you said prior to putting the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that you now propose to put to the house the appeal taken from the ruling of the chairman of the committee of the whole yesterday afternoon, because my point of order relates to that proceeding.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not intend to do that at the moment; the hon. member is ahead of me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps I can stake out a claim.


Mr. Speaker:: What I intend to put to the
house is that in neglecting-


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member is rising on a question of privilege, but at the moment he did so I was on my feet and in possession of the floor. What I intend to submit to the house is that in neglecting to submit at once to the house yesterday the report of the chairman of the committee on an appeal from his ruling by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I made a serious mistake and (he house should not suffer any prejudice or detriment on my account, and that the house, which is master of its own proceedings, should be placed exactly in the same position as it 
was when I resumed the chair yesterday to submit the chairman's ruling to the house. It is this action that I submit to the judgment of the house.


George Alexander Drew: Why not last Friday?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I submit that at this moment we are not in the proceedings of Thursday, May 31, but in the proceedings of Friday, June 1. We have reached the item on the order paper entitled "Motions" and are still there according to standing order 15. That standing order is quite clear. It reads:
(2) The ordinary daily routine of business in the house shall be as follows:
Presenting reports by standing and special committees.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
First readings of Senate public bills.
Government notices of motions.
I submit that so long as we are on motions the only thing that can come before the house is something in the form of a motion. Unless there are other ministerial statements which are permissible under motions or unless there are other motions or points of privilege to be raised, Your Honour has to take the house on through introduction of bills-there are none on the order paper-and certainly through first readings of Senate public bills and government notices of motions, which are on the order paper.
I submit that to introduce anything at this point which is not properly under the heading of motions would not be in keeping with the provisions of standing order 15 (2). I submit therefore that if it is Your Honour's desire to deal with the kind of proposition which you read out to us a moment ago, the only possible way it could come before the house would be by virtue of a motion. That is one privilege which is denied to Your Honour; you are not in a position to make a motion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I submit that under those circumstances notice would be required.


Mr. Speaker:: If a motion was made; but I am not submitting a motion because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has indicated quite rightly that I do not make motions, but whenever a matter of order arises I may decide it subject to appeal or I may submit the matter to the judgment of the house, which is the master of its own procedure and may do whatever it pleases to carry out its wishes. It is at this juncture that I propose not to make a ruling but to submit this position to the judgment of the

house. If the house decides in favour of it, then we shall govern ourselves accordingly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appeal against your right to do that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, may I put this to you, that the only time at which you could have done that was during the sitting of yesterday. If Your Honour says that you have the right-and I pass no opinion on that point at the moment-to make such a submission to the house, then I submit that the only time you can make that submission is in the sitting during which the situation arises. I submit that you cannot wait for another sitting and then at another stage of the proceedings say, "I now submit to the house that we should go back to where we were at a period in yesterday's sitting", because we are not now at the same stage of proceedings, and because this is another day's sitting. Therefore, if you feel that a submission could be made, first it should have been made at yesterday's sitting; and second, if you wish to make it today I submit that you have to wait until we are at the same stage of the proceedings as we were yesterday and then make your submission. As I say, I express no opinion as to whether you can do so at all, but it is quite clear that you cannot do it at a different stage and during another day's sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Let us not pursue an argument which is not going to take us anywhere. If it is the wish and feeling of hon. members, although it is my contention that this mode of procedure is available to me in the circumstances, I shall proceed with the routine proceedings and come to the orders of the day.


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I thought you had come to this point. In fact, I have already said that I supported the proposition that you were putting before the house, and I hope that you do put it before the house for the reasons you have given.


An hon. Member:: Who is going to move it?


Mr. Speaker:: There are certain doubts which necessarily must be entertained because of the routine proceedings that are provided for in standing order 15. I know perfectly well that in normal circumstances we would go through routine proceedings- I am sure there is nothing here to delay and that motions will be allowed to stand-and then we come to the orders of the day. But the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others have said, ''The proposal which you submit to the house is one that you have not the right to do." I contend that I have that right, but if we
Privilege-Mr. C. Cameron are to have an eternal discussion of it I shall go through with the routine proceedings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why should not the Minister of Finance make the motion that what you want to be done be the decision of the house?



PRIVILEGE


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of privilege. Last night you were good enough to instruct me as to the proper method of bringing a matter before this house.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member to inform him that last evening I did not instruct him? I outlined what the procedure was if he meant to do anything with the article that he proposed to read at that time.


Colin Cameron: You were kind enough to give me your advice as to the proper method of procedure.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to resume his seat?


Colin Cameron: Surely, sir, I have the right to make my point of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I heard the hon. member make his point.


William Earl Rowe: He has not stated it yet.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has said that last night I instructed him to make a certain motion. I told him that I advised him as to what the procedure was if he meant to do anything with the article about which he complained. That is the position.


Colin Cameron: That does not alter my point of privilege, sir. You gave me your advice. I followed it meticulously, as a reading of Hansard of May 31 would indicate. At that time you said this to me, sir:
If the hon. member complains about a newspaper, the procedure is to send the newspaper to the Clerk so he can read it and it will be inserted in the Votes and Proceedings, and he must conclude with a motion that the content of the article is of a malicious intent, in contempt of parliament and a breach of privilege and therefore deserves the censure of this house.
I then asked you this:
My proper order is to send this to the Clerk of of the house now, is it?


Mr. Speaker:: Provided that the hon. member wishes to go through with the motion I have indicated.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Colin Cameron: You then stated-

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member be good enough to come to his point of privilege?


Colin Cameron: I am coming to it, sir. I said:
Yes, I will do that. Do I send this to the Clerk now, Your Honour? Do I read it first?
You replied:
The hon. member was going to indicate what is the paragraph he is complaining of.
To this I replied:
It is the whole letter.
I proceeded to read those letters and then make the following motion:
Mr. Speaker, I move that these statements in the newspaper are derogatory of the dignity of parliament and deserving of the censure of this house.
I placed that motion in your hands in writing, properly seconded by the hon. member for Regina City. You accepted that motion at the time. The Leader of the Opposition then rose to debate that motion. At no time did you indicate that it was out of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member at this moment is not stating a proper question of privilege.



ALGOMA EAST


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to direct a question to the hon. member for Algoma East and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs extend his wise influence in regard to the hostilities now apparent in Algoma East between the government and the municipal government?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



REVISION OF SALARIES OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, referring to a question which was asked last week, I would ask the Minister of Finance if he is now able to inform the house whether the increases in salary have now been made applicable to the remaining group of employees of the House of Commons?


Walter Edward Harris: [ regret I am not but I will try to give an answer later in the day.



REQUEST FOR DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister of Canada. In view of the obvious fact that the government has lost its moral authority, will the Prime Minister now dissolve parliament and call a general election?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, that is not a question that can be answered or that should be put on the orders of the day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Especially if it is an embarrassing one.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY CORNWALL ISLAND    INQUIRY AS TO DREDGING OF CHANNELS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister any statement to make with respect to the arguments and disagreements between the St. Lawrence seaway authority and its United States counterpart over the dredging of the St. Lawrence river around Cornwall island?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minisler of Transport):: A statement was issued on May 29 reading as follows:
The Department of External Affairs announced that the question of responsibility for dredging the channels north and south of Cornwall island was thoroughly discussed at a meeting of representatives of the United States and Canadian governments in Ottawa today. The discussion will be continued between the governments and between the navigation and power entities responsible for the St. Lawrence project.
I should like to add to that statement just one word to the effect that there was no disagreement during these discussions.
[Later:!
On the orders of the day:


George Alexander Drew: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house as to the extent of the differences of opinion between Canadian and United States authorities with regard to the dredging of the St. Lawrence seaway channel near Cornwall and also whether the government believes that the United States will agree to dredging on the north side of Cornwall island sufficient to allow for a seaway channel on the Canadian side?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is a matter that is under
negotiation with the United States authorities at the present time.



POSSIBLE DELAY DUE TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES AUTHORITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport with respect to the St. Lawrence seaway project. Does the minister expect that the present negotiations which are going on with the corresponding United States authority will be likely to delay to any appreciable extent the opening of the seaway in 1958 or 1959?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that I do not expect that the matters under discussion will delay the opening of the seaway.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or, in his absence, to his parliamentary assistant. Would the minister give consideration to amending the Prairie Farm Assistance Act regulations in such a way as to make it possible for farmers who have suffered from recurring floods in Manitoba to supplement their incomes from casual employment off the farm without losing P.F.A. benefits?


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: The
hon. member for Brandon-Souris was good enough to give notice of his intention to ask this question.
Under the existing P.F.A. Act and regulations casual employment off the farm is possible without interfering with P.F.A. benefits. However, full-time employment during the crop season does deprive the individual of the status of a farmer under the act and regulations.

On the orders of the day:


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. I was referring to casual employment off the farm and not full-time employment off the farm. Would the parliamentary assistant give some attention to the financial difficulties faced by farmers who are working off the farm on a casual basis, because they have suffered substantial losses from flooding, in order to survive as farmers?


Robert McCubbin: If the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has any case he would like me to investigate I will be glad to do so for him.
Inquiries of the Ministry PIPE LINES



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES    PROPRIETY OF LETTING OF CONTRACTS FOR PIPE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he tell the house or produce any documentary evidence to indicate why Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited is placing contracts for the delivery of pipe before the house has approved the bill or approved any agreement concerning this matter? It seems to me it is a violation of the rights of this chamber that the company should act in this manner without authority. If there is any correspondence authorizing the company to do this before the house has come to a decision, will the minister please produce it since it is of interest in the pipe-line debate?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: There is no authority from the government. Trans-Canada desires to complete the line at the earliest date possible and on their own responsibility they have placed orders for pipe.


Major James William Coldwell: I understood the crown company was to advance the money to do this job, and we have not authorized the crown company to do anything of the kind. This house has not had the opportunity of doing it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Since the crown company is not in existence the crown company is not in a position to act and has not acted. The government has given no authority to Trans-Canada to place orders.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does this mean that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited has taken the place of the government of Canada?

On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question supplementary to that of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. If Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has funds so great as to be able to award a $45 million order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to hon. members that although I have allowed questions with respect to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines today, yesterday and on other days during this debate-


Some hon. Members:: Not yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: That is right. There were none yesterday because of the superseding motion. However, I allowed questions the day before and any other day when there were questions, although it is well known that according to

Inquiries of the Ministry our rules we should not put questions relating to a matter now before a committee of the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But the government will not answer our questions when we get into committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Complaints about answers to questions should not be raised as a point of order or a question of privilege.
[Later:!
On the orders of the day:


Alfred Claude Ellis: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister explain to the house the significance of June 7 now, in view of the announcement made earlier that Trans-Canada has already placed an order for pipe?


Mr. Speaker:: I have already indicated that these matters should be dealt with as soon as the house resumes in committee.



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES-DECISION OF FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to redirect a question to the Prime Minister. The other day I asked him whether or not any estimate had been secured by the government as to when it might be expected that a decision would be made by the federal power commission of the United States on the application of the Midwestern Gas Transmission Company. At that time the Prime Minister said he would look into the matter and would also ascertain whether or not, having regard to the great interest of the government in the decision to be rendered there, Canada had an observer to ascertain the progress of proceedings.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I did ascertain that the officials at the embassy in Washington were keeping in touch with what was going on there and that the position is that there have been motions submitted to dismiss the application of Midwestern for a permit to import, which motions have not been disposed of. If they are rejected I understand there will then be cross-examination and that it is not possible to make any forecast as to when that semi-judicial body will reach a conclusion.


John George Diefenbaker: But is it not possible, having regard to the number of briefs that have been submitted, for the federal power commission to give some indication or for the Prime Minister to be able to determine reasonably by way of anticipation when such a judgment will be secured? Is he of the opinion that it will take two or three years as has been estimated?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not of opinion that it will take two or three years. The hon. gentleman and I practised law, and I hope the hon. gentleman is still in a position where he can continue to practise law, and he knows from his experience and I know from mine that it is not prudent to forecast when a judicial or semi-judicial body will be delivering a judgment or making a decision.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES ALLEGED DEROGATORY STATEMENTS BY HEAD OF NATIONAL GALLERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: May I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will the minister investigate the derogatory statements Mr. Jarvis of the national gallery has been making to the press recently about the mari-times generally and Saint John in particular? Will he investigate his right to make these statements, the desirability of making them and also the desirability of travelling around the country in this way?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigraiion):: Mr. Speaker, I thought the opposition was claiming the right of free speech.


William Earl Rowe: You are a great champion of free speech.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilion (York West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the recent statement made by the head of the staff college at Kingston concerning the necessity of transporting troops by air, does the minister still feel that our armed forces are adequately supplied with transport type aircraft?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should think a question of this nature might be reserved for my estimates. I presume there will be a discussion then.

On the orders of the day:


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Does his answer regarding the transport aircraft situation indicate that he does not see any urgency in the problem in the armed forces?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No immediate urgency, no.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is his department making R.C.A.F. planes available to cabinet ministers for the purpose of travel in connection with provincial election campaigns?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Not to my knowledge, sir.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I have not given him notice but he can take it as notice if he so requires. Is the government giving consideration to amending the War Veterans Allowance Act so as to increase the amount of permissive income allowed recipients under the act?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the speech made yesterday, as reported in the press, by a representative of the state of Israel as to the serious situation in which Israel may find itself within the next six weeks or so involving an impending attack, has the government given any reconsideration to the question of the shipment to Israel or the permit to ship Sabre aircraft to Israel?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not read the report of the speech in question, but the matter of the shipment of aircraft to Israel is still under consideration by the government.



WEST GERMANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the impending visit next week of Chancellor Adenauer of the Republic of Germany to the United States, may I ask him
Inquiries of the Ministry whether any invitation was extended to Chancellor Adenauer to come to Canada on this occasion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: When we heard that the chancellor was coming to this side we had hoped he would be able to return to Canada; but his visit is going to take only two or three days and he will not be able to leave the United States during that time.



VISIT OF THE PRESIDENT OF INDONESIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement published in the press that the President of Indonesia was to address a joint meeting of the House of Commons and the Senate, would the Prime Minister state if that is so, because we have heard no word of it in the house?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, there has been no statement in the house because, though a tentative program had been arranged for the visit of His Excellency the President of Indonesia, it was frequently being changed, and, I understand, it was determined just a very short time ago and that the program is now printed and it does contain an announcement that he will be addressing the members of parliament, and others who will wish to take advantage of the opportunity of hearing him, on Tuesday morning at 10.20 in this chamber.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell the house whether any changes in the unemployment insurance regulations to provide unemployment insurance coverage for fishermen will be made prior to the end of the current session so that the house may have an opportunity to consider them?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I have nothing to add at the moment to the statement I made on the 16th of May.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister give the house the assurance that any increase that
4548	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry may be permitted by the board of transport commissioners with respect to freight rates will not affect the Crowsnest rates which have been long established?


George Carlyle Marler: The hon. gentleman is well aware that the so-called Crowsnest rates are determined by statute and not by the board of transport commissioners.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister now answer the question which I asked him a few days ago with reference to the hours of work of security guards at defence research board?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, Mr. Speaker; I am sorry that I cannot. However, the matter is being looked into.



DISABLED PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder whether the minister is in a position yet to indicate whether or not the regulations pertaining to disabled persons are about to be changed so as to include a larger number?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I answered that question about a week ago.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorkton):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has he been informed of a complaint to the effect that certain officers of his department looking after the health of Indians, I believe in the St. Clair reserve, have been advising Indians to purchase health insurance from line companies?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be glad to look into that matter.


George Hugh Castleden: The question is whether you have received a complaint.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. I will be glad to look into it.


George Hugh Castleden: I beg the minister's pardon?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; I have not. I will be glad to look into it.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to inform the minister to the effect-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to direct a question then to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Did the minister transfer to the Minister of National Health and Welfare the complaint that he received at the Indian conference the other day to the effect that certain officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare were advising Indians to purchase health insurance from line companies?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that is a correct statement of the proposition, Mr. Speaker. I had the officers of my department inform the officers of my hon. friend's department about this matter and it is under consideration.



GATT-INQUIRY AS TO TERMS OF RECENT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I direct two questions to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The first one is this. When will the minister be in a position to announce the terms of the agreement recently entered into with respect to changes in the general agreement on tariffs and trade? Second, will any of the changes require legislative action on the part of parliament to bring them into effect?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the release date is Thursday of next week. I understand that no special legislation is required by parliament other than the usual changes in the tariff bill that will be brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris).



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Was the increase in the interest rate, which was lately ordered by the Bank of Canada, made for the purpose of discouraging the inflationary trend?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada increased its own discount rate and I do not know of any other action taken.


William Earl Rowe: I should like to ask a supplementary question. If it was for the purpose I mentioned, why was the rate on savings not increased in order to encourage savings and likewise to discourage the inflationary trend?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I will study my hon. friend's question and give an answer later.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance? Was that step taken by the Bank of Canada in raising the rate, taken with the approval of the government?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, according to the statute the Bank of Canada takes the responsibility for its actions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask whether the
government was aware of the action before it was taken and did not the government approve it?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I gave my answer a moment ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not an answer.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. If this increase in the rate has as its objective the preventing of inflation, why is it that the government is authorizing the expenditure of $80 million by an American corporation in Canada, something which would presumably increase inflation? The money is not borrowed from the Canadian people. That is my point. If this money were borrowed from the Canadian people by means of a bond issue, the situation would be different; it would be antiinflationary.


Walter Edward Harris: As to the former question, I am quite prepared to say that I was informed of the action before it was taken. As to the latter question, I was also informed that the loan of $80 million would not be inflationary.


Major James William Coldwell: I wonder what the reasons were that were given for that advice? Would the minister tell us?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss this matter on my estimates.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister another question. He said he would take into consideration the idea of an increased rate of interest on savings as a prevention of inflation. Does the Minister of Finance not advise or give his recommendation to the Bank of Canada?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Edward Harris: As I say, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss that matter on the estimates. In the meantime, I think we shall make a bit of progress if my hon. friend reads the statute and sees the division of responsibilities between the bank and the government.


William Earl Rowe: I was asking the minister. I thought maybe he knew what his responsibilities were.



VICTORY BONDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. I should like to know why the government withdrew their support from the victory bond issues of 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not familiar with the problem; I will find out about it.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You ought to be familiar with it because the bonds are down to 85 cents this morning.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration arising out of a statement he made to the house some time ago to the effect that children of immigrant families would receive certain payments. My question is this. Are those payments now going forward? If not, when does the minister expect to start sending those payments to the children of immigrant families?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, we can expect them whenever this house gets down to business and deals with the estimates which will provide them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The schoolmaster speaks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question-


Mr. Speaker:: It looks as though the hon. member for Dauphin has a supplementary question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fine.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary question is this. Is it the intention of the minister to introduce any legislation in order to implement that policy or can

Inquiries of the Ministry it be implemented without further amendments to the Immigration Act?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The money will require to be voted.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I ask a supplementary question? The minister did not reply to my question. The question was whether that policy may be now implemented without any amendments to the Immigration Act?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have given my answer, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: No.



SASKATCHEWAN-REFERENCE TO AMOUNT OF FEDERAL RELIEF PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister state whether, in view of the hopeful generosity of the government in respect of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, the government has come to the conclusion that the paltry $100,000 paid by the federal government in respect of the colossal flood damage in Saskatchewan last year is quite discriminatory?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, there is no relation whatsoever between the two matters mentioned in the hon. gentleman's question.



BOX CARS-INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBILITY OF FILLING SPACE AT PORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Hugh Castleden: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister state what the present situation is with regard to the possibility of carrying forward shipping orders so that boats and other space at ports could be filled? What is the situation with regard to box cars within Canada at the present time and what is the backlog in shipping orders?


George Carlyle Marler: I shall take my hon. friend's question as notice.



SUGGESTED INCREASE IN PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL DISTRIBUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the United States Senate has just passed (Mr. Zaplltny.l
a law having to do with increased sentences, including the death penalty in some cases, for the illegal distribution of narcotics, may I ask whether this government is giving any consideration to increasing the penalties on those who illegally distribute narcotics for illicit purposes?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not the Acting Minister of Justice, but that matter largely concerns our department. The matter is receiving consideration.



BLIND PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister tell the house whether he will bring in a proposal at this session to provide a guide allowance without a means test for blind persons in Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows these matters are always under consideration. Much will depend upon the progress of debate here and further consideration.



PASSAMAQUODDY PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, on May 25 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question with reference to the appointment of a joint committee of the United States and Canada for the studying of the feasibility of harnessing the Passama-quoddy tides for hydroelectric power. I wonder whether the minister has a statement to make?


Lester Bowles Pearson: A joint reference on the Passamaquoddy tidal power project will be submitted to the international joint commission as soon as agreement on the terms of the reference has been reached between the governments of Canada and the United States. On receipt of the joint reference-
I hope that will be shortly-the commission will make arrangements for the appointment of the appropriate boards to assume responsibility for the surveys.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is the minister attending the biennial convention of the Canadian Legion in Vancouver, which I believe is to be held this month? Are any arrangements being made, as have been made at previous conventions, for members of the House of Commons to attend the convention?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the minister does propose to attend the convention, as in the past. I am not familiar with any arrangements that have been made previously to transport hon. members to the locality where the convention is taking place. Personally, the minister is travelling by Trans-Canada Air Lines.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the resolution passed yesterday at the annual meeting of the naval officers association of Canada with respect to subsidizing the merchant fleet, a copy of which I understand will be presented to the minister, is the minister prepared to reconsider this matter and make a statement on it?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to see the terms of the resolution before I make any statement.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: Government orders. Before the deputy clerk reads the order of the day, it is not because I want to anticipate the point of order which the hon. member for Eglinton indicated that he wanted to raise a moment ago that I want to state that it may be said that because the chairman's report was not placed before the house yesterday, the order "House again in committee of the whole" should not appear on the order paper; but, of course, what has happened is absolutely unprecedented. See standing order 7. No such
Business of the House
interruption has ever taken place. It is in the same category as the interruption which takes place when the Black Rod comes to tell us that a message is coming to us from the Senate.
Therefore I had to deal with the problem last evening before I left, and the matter which was before the house was, as provided in the rules, an appeal by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre of a ruling made by the chairman in committee, and that report must be submitted to the house and the committee must resume the consideration of its business at once. Therefore I gave instructions to the Clerk to put the order on the order paper and it is in relation to that instruction, for which I take responsibility, that I suggest the action I outlined a moment ago to the house. It is absolutely unprovided for; it is unprecedented; and the matter I outlined a moment ago is one which I thought I had the right to submit to the house at the time I did.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated doubts existed as to that. As a matter of fact, he said: "I challenge your right to do it at the moment", but indicated it could be done later. Therefore at this moment I am-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: I am putting words in the hon. gentleman's mouth?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: If I am, I withdraw them and I apologize. Now, in the execution of that-


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


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. gentleman says he rises on a point of order. The function of a point of order is to bring to the attention of the Speaker a matter which he did not himself perceive. I have perceived the matter. I have explained why it is happening the way it is. What more can hon. members ask than that the matter be left to them to decide? That is exactly what I propose to do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is rule by majority, not rule by the rule book. That is taking the will of the majority rather than following the rules in the book.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says that that is rule by the majority.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And not following the rules laid down.


Mr. Speaker:: All questions must be decided by a majority.

Business of the House


Major James William Coldwell: And I suggest to you that the demonstration in this house over the past week has shown that the majority has no respect for the views of the minority.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, we appeal to you to protect the minority against the oppressive majority.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Hitlerites.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The matter of order before the house at the moment is one that I brought up myself. Of course, hon. members would wish to debate this matter that I have raised myself. I do not know what more hon. members wish. I do not know what more they can ask for at this moment. I am submitting to them the matter of order which I believe it is my right to submit-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Mr. Speaker:: -and it is their right to decide. Well, the hon. member says no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the right of the government to call the order that it wants called and I submit that you should wait until the government decides what order it wants called. If it wants to call order No. 2 it is the government's right to do so, not yours.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows very well that if he looks at the business of the house for last evening it was indicated that the business would be to go back on the pipe-line debate with the house in committee of the whole. I rose at the moment the deputy clerk was to read order No. 2. He had said, "Order No. 2" and was proceeding to read it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does it say? What does order No. 2 say?


Mr. Speaker:: That is exactly the point I intend to submit to the house at the moment. I do not know why hon. members should discuss with me a matter of order which I raised myself and which is on all fours exactly with the one they want to raise themselves.


John George Diefenbaker: You are our protector, that is why.


Mr. Speaker:: What could be more democratic?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will you hear me on a point of order?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


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


Mr. Speaker:: There is a matter of order which I put before the house myself. What I intended to submit to the house is that in neglecting to submit at once to the house yesterday the report of the chairman of the committee on an appeal from his ruling by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I made a serious mistake and the house should not suffer any prejudice or detriment on my account, and that the house, which is master of its own proceedings, should be placed in exactly the same position as it was when I resumed the chair yesterday to submit the chairman's ruling to the house. Those who are in favour of this course of action will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


George Alexander Drew: But, Mr. Speaker-


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas
have it; call in the members.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hail, hail, the gang's all here.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that you will do nothing-


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the Prime Minister no control over his followers?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is organized disorder on the part of all Liberals in the house.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, are you not going to call order?


Mr. Speaker:: There is nothing before the house at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no house.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, this is a demonstration on the part of all Liberals in the house which shows a great disrespect for authority. I protest against this. Parliament has ceased to function.


John George Diefenbaker: Where is the Prime Minister? Is he silent in the face of this demonstration?


William Earl Rowe: Is he afraid to dissolve parliament? Why not do it yourself?-you are doing everything else yourself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You have delayed things for three weeks. You led it, too. Don't say a word.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it should be placed on the record that when an hon. member rose on a question of privilege you sat down and refused to hear him and the Liberals instigated such an outburst of disorder that no one could be heard. That ought to be on the record. This is the lowest moment in Canadian parliamentary history; the lowest moment. There has never been anything like it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I thought that was last night.


Thomas Miller Bell: This is black Friday, boy.


Mr. Lesage:: You brought it on; you did it yourself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How absurd can you get?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minority is not running this parliament.


William Earl Rowe: The majority isn't running it either; nobody is running it. The majority cannot run it, let alone the minority.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Hitlerism.


Some hon. Members:: There will always be a pipe line,
The pipe line shall be free;
The gas shall flow from west to east in each locality.
There'll always be a pipe line,
The pipe line shall be free-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not parliament.


Some hon. Members:: -for Fulton means no more to you than Fulton means to me.
There'll always be a pipe line, the pipe line shall be free-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Free to American investors.


Some hon. Members:: I've been working on the pipe line all the day through,
I've been working on the pipe line just to make the Tories blue.
Can't you hear the Tories moaning, getting up so early in the morn';
Hear the C.C.F.'ers groaning, for the pipe line's getting warm.


William Earl Rowe: He laughs best who laughs last; go to the country and And out.


An hon. Member:: You laughed yourself.


William Earl Rowe: No, I am ashamed of you; that is why I cannot laugh.
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed will
please rise.


George Alexander Drew: We are not voting because there is no question properly before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Are all other hon. members abstaining also?


Major James William Coldwell: I share that opinion.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question before the house is an appeal from a ruling of the chairman of the committee of the whole-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I rise to move-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member? I am now in possession of the floor and will not accept the hon. gentleman's question of privilege.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I move, seconded by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In committee of the whole Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) moved that at this sitting of the committee of the whole house on Bill 298-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before you put the question-


Mr. Speaker:: -an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, the further consideration of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, the title of the said bill, and any amendments proposed thereto, shall be-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before you put the question-


Mr. Speaker:: -the first business of this committee and shall not further be postponed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before you put the question-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member be
kind enough to resume his seat?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will you hear me? If you say you will hear me, I shall resume my seat.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Fulton raised a point of order that the motion was not in order on the ground that certain clauses of the bill had not been before the committee-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before you put the question-


Mr. Speaker:: -and also that other clauses were postponed before being considered by the committee and therefore, in accordance with standing order 33, the said clauses cannot come within the ambit of the proposed motion.
The chairman ruled that in accordance with the rules and practices of the house the motion was in order. Whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.
Those who are in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


George Alexander Drew: You have no right to sit in that chair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Thomas Miller Bell: There is the man there.


George Alexander Drew: His is the responsibility for this.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is the following one-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you said you would hear me before you put the question to the house. You gave me an undertaking this morning, Mr. Speaker, when I raised this question at an earlier point, that you would hear me on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: May I repeat what I said earlier and tell the hon. gentleman that I take full responsibility for what I am doing.


George Alexander Drew: Certainly you do.


William Earl Rowe: Why shouldn't you?


Mr. Speaker:: I know what I am doing. The hon. member has put some remarks on Hansard and he will also have mine on Hansard and he can take whatever course he likes. As a matter of fact, the course has been taken, and I may be dealt with in that fashion. I refuse to hear the hon. gentleman on a question of order at this stage.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: Do you not honour your word?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will you allow me to state the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is an important question based upon the authorities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You gave me an undertaking that I could do that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and now you are denying me that right, a right of all members of the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and you are doing it in defiance of what you said this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is the following one:
In committee of the whole, Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) moved that at this sitting of the committee of the whole house on Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, the further consideration of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, the title of the said bill, and any amendments proposed thereto, shall be the first business of this committee and shall not further be postponed.
Mr. Fulton raised a point of order that the motion was not in order on the ground that certain clauses of the bill have not been before the committee and also that other clauses were postponed before being considered by the committee, and therefore, in accordance with standing order 33, the said clauses could not come within the ambit of the proposed motion.
The chairman ruled that in accordance with the rules and the practice of the house, the motion is in order. Whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the chairman's ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the chairman's ruling sustained.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I move-



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, May 31, consideration in committee of Bill No. 298, to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) -Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Edmund Davie Fulton: -seconded by the hon. member for Lanark that this house do now adjourn. On a point of order, may I say that the order of the day for the house to go into committee has not been read.


The Deputy Chairman:: The house in committee of the whole on Bill No. 298. The question is on the motion made by-


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The order of the day has not been read.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The committee
knows full well that I have no duty that I can perform at the moment but to put the motion the legality of which has been ruled on. Those in favour of the motion will please rise.


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


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order-
During the taking of the vote:


Donald Methuen Fleming: I want to be heard on a point of order. You have no right to shut us up.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Have we come to fascism?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am standing on a question of privilege.
And the result of the vote having been announced: Yeas, 144; nays, 51.
I made it clear that I was remaining on my feet on a question of privilege, on which I had risen before you put the question. There are therefore now two questions before the committee. There is the original question of privilege on which I rose and there is the question of privilege with regard to the vote. With respect to the first question of privilege, I submit that you are improperly in the chair because the order for the committee was not read; because the Speaker left the chair-he ran away from the chair- even although a motion was before him which was perfectly in order. Hence on those two grounds, namely that the house had before it unfinished business and second, that the order of the day for you to take the chair had not been read, these whole proceedings and this vote are a nullity. Second, as I have said with respect to the vote itself, the vote is a nullity because I was counted on both sides although I made it clear at the time the Clerk pointed to me that I was standing on a question of privilege and not for the purpose of casting a vote. I place these matters before you and I require a ruling on both points, Mr. Chairman.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I will deal first with the second question raised by the hon. member for Kamloops. He states that through inadvertence-he being on his feet when the committee was being counted-although he indicated that he did not intend to vote, he was included in the vote when he should not have been. I will direct that the vote be adjusted accordingly. The other question which the hon. member has raised as a question of privilege is, I think, a question of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Very well, a point of order.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It is the first thing, now, on which I am not in a position to rule. He is calling in question proceedings of the house at the time when Mr. Speaker was in the chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am calling in question your assumption of the chair when no order had been read for you to take the chair.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Kamloops is raising a point of order that I am in the chair illegally?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare the motion carried.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege I challenge the vote. I was counted on both sides of the motion although


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Owing to action which took place at the time when Mr. Speaker was in the chair, I am not in a position to rule on the proceedings of the house prior to-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will you tell me how you came into the chair in the absence of an order of the house?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Will the hon.
member just wait-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will you tell me how you got into the chair in the absence of an order from the house, when no such order was passed by the house and no such order was put to the house?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I will be glad to tell the hon. member that, if he will kindly let me complete my sentence. I said, when I was interrupted, that I was not in a position to rule on any proceedings prior to my assumption of the chair. The hon. member claims that I am in the chair wrongly. While I understand that the house does not know officially what the committee does until it is reported to it, I think the reverse is not so and a committee of the house does know the proceedings of the house. There was a proposition put and voted upon earlier in the day that the house would revert to the position at which it was-


Some hon. Members:: No; there was no motion.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I did not say that there was a motion. There was a proposition which was put and voted upon that-


Major James William Coldwell: What was put? What was the motion and what was put?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If hon. members will kindly permit me to complete my sentence, there was a proposition put before the house and voted upon this morning-[DOT]


Edmund Davie Fulton: "Proposition" is right.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: -that the house would consider itself at a certain place at which it was yesterday at approximately 5.15, and that was carried. As a result of that-and it could not be otherwise than as a result of that-an appeal has just been voted upon from a ruling which I made yesterday in the chair and which it would not be possible for the house to have voted upon if we had not reached this order of the day. Clause 4.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appeal your ruling.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, before that appeal is dealt with, may I point out that if you, sir, were informed that through some inadvertence you had been called to take the chair and that no effective proceedings had taken place in this house before that 67509-289i
1, 1956	4557
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation time, I submit that you would be bound then to refer the matter to the Chair and ask for a statement from the Chair as to whether you are correctly acting as chairman of this committee.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the message is that you have received, but what I do want to point out is that when it is stated to you on the responsibility of a member-and this is stated to you on the responsibility of many members of this house -that no order was called and that no proceedings under our rules have been taken which justify your now sitting in the chair, it is not, I submit, within your power to decide that question. What I submit is that it is your duty, then, to submit the matter to the Speaker for a statement as to whether in fact the proceedings were properly followed. I now ask you to submit the question to Mr. Speaker as to whether you are properly sitting as chairman of this committee.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we can get a point settled because I at least am confused. I understood, in my time in the house, that we voted on a motion of this house and that when the motion was voted on and carried it was a decision of the house. But I understand now there is a new procedure and that we vote on propositions. If we do, what is the authority for it? No one moves it. Am I to understand that the Speaker takes it upon himself to put questions before the house on which he asks for a vote of the house? That, too, is something new. Let us be sure where we are.


George Hugh Castleden: Let us be sure where we are going.


Donald MacInnis: I do not know whether we can be sure where we are going or not, but of one thing I am sure: we are going in the wrong direction. Let us find out what is the authority for voting on a proposition, and, if there is no authority, let us give it the desserts it merits, the desserts of no authority; but let us not carry on this sort of thing any longer.
May I say that in my opinion it is no concern of the Speaker of the house what business comes up in this house. That is the concern of the leader of the house and of the Prime Minister. The concern of the Speaker of the house is to see that you and I and every other hon. member of the house are accorded all the rights and privileges that the rules of this house afford us. Beyond that he has no concern at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman-
4558	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I will see the hon. member for Eglinton later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before you make a firm ruling, or before an appeal is put, you, sir, might consider this additional point that I wish to lay before you. I listened with care to your contention that you cannot look beyond the fact that you were put in the chair; you cannot look to what happened when Mr. Speaker was in the chair. With respect, I do not think that position can stand up because this place is full of members who know that happened and are in a position to report it to you. But, in addition, Mr. Chairman, to the reasons already given why this committee is not properly or not legally constituted, I wish to draw your attention to a certain citation in Beauchesne, third edition, and also to a certain fact-you, sir, cannot deny it-recorded in the Journals. The Journals or Votes and Proceedings for a day such as Tuesday, May 29, read as follows, on page 656:
The house resumed consideration in committee of the whole of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, and further progress having been made and reported, the committee obtained leave to consider it again at the next sitting of the house.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: What page is that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was Tuesday, May 29, at page 656. In other words, Mr. Chairman, it is perfectly clear that on Tuesday, May 29, we followed the rules. The committee rose and reported progress and obtained permission to consider Bill No. 298 at the next sitting of the house.
On Wednesday, May 30, as recorded on page 657 of Votes and Proceedings, we had the same thing. I read it again:
The house resumed consideration in committee of the whole of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, and further progress having been made and reported, the committee obtained leave to consider it again at the next sitting of the house.
The committee did that on Wednesday. The committee followed the rules; the committee did what was right and proper. But if you look at the Votes and Proceedings for yesterday, Thursday, May 31, you will find on page 661 this notation:
The house resumed consideration in committee of the whole of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. And the house continuing in committee;-
You can search the pages of the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday from there to the end and you will not find at any point where the committee obtained the permission of the house to consider the bill again at the next sitting of the house. The proceedings of


the committee of yesterday on Bill No. 298 vanished into thin air at ten o'clock last night.
I draw your attention to citation 702 of Beauchesne's third edition which reads:
When a bill or other matter (except Supply or Ways and Means) has been partly considered in committee, and the chairman has been directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again, and the house shall have ordered that the committee shall sit again on a particular day, the Speaker shall, when the order for the committee has been read, forthwith leave the chair, without putting any question, and the house shall thereupon resolve itself into such committee.
It is exceedingly clear to anyone who might still have an interest in following rules of procedure that the only way a committee can resume consideration of a bill is on the basis of having obtained the permission of the house at a previous sitting to do so. No such permission was asked for yesterday and no such permission was obtained. Mr. Chairman, it is my submission that Bill No. 298 died at ten o'clock last night.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members can laugh and I am not surprised at their laughter because they have thrown the rule book into the filth of the Ottawa river; but it is a fact that can be confirmed by the Votes and Proceedings of this house which are clearly defined in our rules as the official records of the house, and I defy any hon. member of this house to show me anywhere in the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday that the committee obtained permission to consider Bill No. 298 again at the next sitting of the house.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if you were to try to tell me that we are acting in pursuance of what is on today's order paper, I wish to tell you that I sought with the loudest voice I could possibly muster to rise on a point of order while the Speaker was in the chair to make the point that order No. 2 on today's order paper is there illegally, but I was denied the right to make that point of order. The Speaker left the chair; but that does not do away with the fact that order No. 2 has no right to be on today's order paper.
We were told earlier in the discussion that the Speaker took the responsibility for putting it there but he did not give anybody a chance to question it at all and it is my submission that it has no right to be there.
Do not let the government say there is nothing the government could do about it, if they accept my contention that Bill No. 298 died at ten o'clock last night, because citation 695 of Beauchesne's third edition indicates certain other ways in which a bill that has been considered in committee can die. These other ways are if a motion is put that the chairman do now leave the chair or if the

committee rises for want of a quorum. In both of these cases a bill that a committee has been considering dies. Citation 695 makes it clear that a bill which has died in one of those ways, or in any other way, can be revived by an order of the house.
I am not attempting to say to the government that the death of Bill No. 298 last night is irrevocable and that there is nothing they can do to resuscitate it; they can, but it requires an order of the house to do it and this government which does not seem to care very much for rules has not taken the trouble to present a motion for an order of the house to revive Bill No. 298.
Mr. Chairman, because of your own failure-true, ten o'clock came round

but because of your own failure to get from the committee a motion that you rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again, you know that you cannot sit there now on Bill No. 298. This has nothing to do with looking back to what Mr. Speaker did, whether it was putting order No. 2 on the order paper or concerning his performance or lack of performance in the chair today. I am concerned about your responsibility as chairman of the committee of the whole.
You know, and you have not a chance in the world of trying to tell me that what I am saying is not true, that you did not get permission from the house yesterday to re-open this discussion today. You did not ask the committee. True, you did not know that time would run out and that you would not get the chance to do so, but we cannot help that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The fact of the matter is that ten o'clock came without that permission having been obtained and therefore if there is any semblance left of concern for the rules of the house the only way Bill No. 298 can be revised in the committee of the whole house is for an order of the house to be made.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I contend that everything that has taken place in this committee since Your Honour illegally took the chair is out of order including in particular the vote which you declared carried with respect to the Prime Minister's motion.
I do not want to confuse the point of order. At the moment I am sticking to my point that this committee is illegally sitting but I will add as a sideline that I think Your Honour was unfair when you refused to hear the point of order from me when you took the chair today. It is perfectly right that certain questions of privilege and arguments about the Prime Minister's motion might not have been in order but I contend that my attempt to rise on a point of order the moment you took
1, 1956	4559
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the chair today was just as proper as was the attempt of several of us to rise on the point of order yesterday to which the Prime Minister spoke. But no, today you arbitrarily said that you had nothing to do at that time but to put the question on this matter while several of us were on our feet trying to raise a point of order. I was one of those and the point of order I was trying to raise at that time is the same point I tried to raise when the Speaker was in the chair, and it is the point I raise now that you, sir, did not get the permission of the house last night to resume on Bill No. 298 today. Therefore, Bill No. 298 died last night and the sitting of this committee now is a nullity, is illegal, and I insist that you consider the point and rule on it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, my point is rather different; I think you had better rule on this one. I will defer mine which is quite different.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: As I understand it the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has raised two distinct points; one, that the question was improperly put and the other which he raised is that I am improperly here, or to make it less personal, the committee is improperly constituted.
In his argument in support of his contention that the committee is improperly constituted I think it is fair to say-and I would ask the hon. member to interrupt me if I misinterpret him but not if I do not-that what the hon. member is saying in effect is that government order No. 2, I think it is, is improperly on the order paper for the orders of the day, that it should not have appeared there because, according to the hon. gentleman's line of argument, it died for lack of continuance at the end of yesterday's session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, just so we can be clear that we are talking about the same thing, and in response to your invitation, I recognize that an attempt to ask you to rule on what is on the order paper of the house might lead you to say that is a point to be raised in the house, as I have indicated I sought to do.
I recognize that the only point you can rule on must relate to your actions. It is my contention that by your failure yesterday to get permission to sit again today, you in your capacity are now sitting in the chair improperly.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: In other words, the hon. member is not asking me to rule upon something which if it is valid should have been raised with the Speaker in the chair, and the existence or non-existence on the order paper of this government order No. 2
4560	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation is a matter which I consider is something to be raised wholly with the Speaker in the chair. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has suggested that I can go further, and on a point of order, not on the clause which happens to be before us, but on the existence of this committee, that I can rule- I know I am taking liberties with his words but I am not meaning it to sound that way- that I inadvertently closed out this committee yesterday by vacating the chair without asking leave to sit again.
There are more occasions than one when the committee rises suddenly and without notice; the best one I know of-I have the citations before me-I think it would be familiar to hon. members-is when a message is received from the Senate that His Excellency desires the attendance of this house in the Senate. We go over. The committee rises and the Speaker, if I remember rightly, just takes the chair without any formal proceedings at all. Standing order 7 reads:
At the ordinary time of adjournment of the house, unless otherwise provided, the proceedings shall be interrupted and the business under consideration at the termination of the sitting shall stand over until the next sitting day when it will be taken up at the same stage where its progress was interrupted.
Of course hon. members will point out that that has always been the case and that despite the existence of that rule, when we leave the chair at the normal closing hour we ask leave to sit again, but, if I may say so, I think there is a difference in the position. I do not expect the hon. member to agree with me, but I do ask him to listen to my line of thought.
When an ordinary appeal is taken from a chairman's ruling under normal circumstances and is heard, voted on and disposed of, that takes about an hour. It is not usual for the chairman who submits that appeal to rise and ask leave to sit again. As a matter of fact, theoretically he has no right to do so. He rises for the purpose of submitting the appeal to Mr. Speaker. In no instance in my recollection has it ever been raised that the chairman was wrongfully back in the chair. The appeal had been disposed of even though he had left the chair and Mr. Speaker had resumed his seat and the mace had been brought up on the table and to all intents and purposes for the time being the proceedings had come to a halt.
He is asking me to rule that because circumstances were such that it took from somewhere like ten minutes past five o'clock last night to ten o'clock to obtain a vote on my disputed ruling that the position is different. I am not imputing motives, I am
[The Deputy Chairman.]

asking him to look at this position. Let us suppose that a ruling is appealed and that a number of intervening proceedings, questions of privilege and so on, would have the effect of putting that appeal beyond the ten o'clock hour and therefore making it impossible to be heard. I submit, and I base my ruling on this line of thought, that it would be reading a wrongful intention into the rules to read into them that the Chairman can leave the chair, submit a ruling for appeal and return to the committee under certain circumstances validly, and under other circumstances invalidly.
I suggest to the committee that we might have an appeal taken at five minutes to ten o'clock. Is the taking of that appeal going to result in the disappearance of the order? I do not think it is.
I will say quite frankly that the other question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre causes me more worry because it affects me personally in its application. He has stated that I improperly put the question, that is Mr. St. Laurent's motion, in that I did not hear points of order which one or more members wished to raise at the time when I resumed the chair. For the purpose of this part of my lengthy discourse, for which I apologize, may we assume that I resumed the chair legally. The facts are as the hon. member stated. I was not unaware that one or more members were on their feet desiring to raise either points of order or questions of privilege, which I do not know. I did not hear them; I did not see them, let there be no doubt about that. I knew they were there but I did not officially recognize them. I consider that I was right in my action.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You deliberately ignored them.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I did not officially recognize them. I consider-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Put it the straight way and say that you deliberately ignored them.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If the hon. member prefers that expression I will not argue about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the chairman is accepting that as a statement of his position, that he deliberately ignored members, how can we continue on that basis?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member might perhaps permit me to complete my remarks. There are times in my opinion when the Speaker or the chairman has not a right to recognize a member. The most outstanding of course-hon. members will say that this is going too far-would be when

we are halfway down the line on a recorded vote. I do not think any hon. member in the house would feel that he had the right to raise any question after hon. members had started to rise.
In my opinion this is the situation as I see it. I had put to this committee yesterday an undebatable motion. We had discussed at length whether or not it was in order. I heard every member who rose to speak on the question of whether or not it was in order. I ruled that it was and several members did not agree with me and my ruling was appealed. We get back today exactly where we left off.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is where the error was made.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I beg your pardon?


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is a new day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said no, that is where the fundamental error has been made, before you precipitately put the motion.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: For the purpose of this very point, may we assume that we got back legally. I was in the process of putting the motion and the only point which could be raised before that motion was put was whether or not it was in order. That was debated to the fullest extent that every member of the house wished to participate in the debate. Therefore I was in a position where it was my duty, whether it was my desire or not to put the motion forthwith, and I did.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I understand it, there are at least two points of order before you, possibly three. I raised one as to your right to be in the chair and I gave notice of appeal from your ruling. Then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised two other points of order. I suggest that, to be in order-I do not know whether or not being in order matters any longer, because the government has given notice that it does not intend to care about the rules anyway-but so that we can salvage something from the wreck it has created of parliament, it might be appropriate if you would deal with these matters at least in an orderly fashion-one, two, three-instead of promoting the snarl-up the government has created.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Would the hon. member for Kamloops elaborate a little on his point that I am illegally in the chair? I thought that was the same point as the one raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If it was not, I am afraid I have not caught the difference between the two.
1, 1956	4561
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said you had no right to be in the chair because there was no order of the day read for the house again to go into committee. In the absence of that decision by the house, the house could not go into committee, because the house can only resolve itself into committee on an order read and agreed to in the house. Therefore this committee has no right to sit, because the house has not reached any decision that it should go into committee. When I use the word "decision" I do not mean that a vote has to be put from the Chair, because once that has been carried I believe we all know that it does not require another vote on another day; but it does require the submission of an order to the house, which the house then accepts and acts on. The house has had no opportunity to accept or act on the proposition. I use the word Mr. Speaker used. The "proposition" was never put to the house to go into committee.
That is a different point from the one raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who says that you cannot go into committee because you yourself, by your failure to report last night allowed the bill to die.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I say just a word on the point. In answer to your argument against my point that the bill died at ten o'clock last night, it seems to me, if I may say so with respect, that Your Honour has built your case on inadvertence, on the fact that because of what happened after five o'clock there was no opportunity for you to seek such permission. That, Mr. Chairman, is precisely what happens if a committee rises for want of a quorum. It is not of deliberate design; it is a matter of inadvertence; but the fact that something happens inadvertently does not give the committee power to change the rules in the middle of the game.
It seems to me that what we have to abide by is the fact that yesterday's Votes and Proceedings or yesterday's Journals made no reference to the committee rising, reporting progress and asking leave to sit again. Whether that is a separate point of order from the one raised by the hon. member for Kamloops or whether it is another argument in support of his point of order, I leave to you. But at least we are both contending: (a) because there was no order of the day read by the Speaker in the chair, (b) because of your failure, though inadvertently, to get permission yesterday to sit again today, the bill has died. For these reasons I contend that the committee is improperly sitting at this time. If you rule otherwise, I appeal your ruling.
4562	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think the hon. member for Kamloops figured that he had a priority of appeal.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not asserting any priority. I just want to have the matters considered separately. I understood you had ruled on the point of order or on the argument that I had raised. I indicated that I was not satisfied with your ruling. If you wish more time to consider the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, which I would be prepared to admit is an even stronger argument than the one I raised, sir, by all means I invite you to do so, because I hope that this time there will be shown respect for the rules which are so clearly stated and the precedents so clearly established, and that we shall not have once more to submit a matter to this house, not for the exercise of impartial judgment, but for the execution of a political verdict.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I do not know whether that is very much to our assistance in arriving at a point of order. I am not going to rule on a matter which I consider can only be raised in the house, as against the committee. I am not going to rule as to whether or not government order No. 2 stands correctly or incorrectly on the order paper.
I am making this assumption-and I do not expect every hon. member to agree with me but I think it has merit-that the fact that we are here indicates that notice of government order No. 2 was and is on the order paper. Whether it was properly or improperly on the order paper-I am sorry-it is not for me to say.
I wonder whether the hon. member for Kamloops would state his point of order. When I ask him to state it briefly, he will realize it is for the benefit of the Clerk, who has to put it in writing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My point in simple essence is this. The order for committee not having been read and put before the house, the house cannot resolve itself into committee, and therefore the committee cannot sit. Therefore you cannot take the chair, because there can be no committee before the order for the house to resolve itself into committee is read. I am not arguing that that order requires to be submitted for a vote of the house at this stage, because under our rules, once the first motion for the house to go into committee has been voted on and decided, then on successive days, provided the committee is still alive-and there I protect the point of order of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-then on successive days, when the order is read, the house goes into


committee without question put, but it still requires the order to be read, and the house adopts that order without vote. Sir, the house cannot cease to sit as a house and start to sit as a committee of the whole in the absence of some order to do so, and no order to do so was read and presented to the house. So the house had no opportunity to adopt it, and it could not cease to sit as a house and sit as a committee. Therefore you cannot take the chair of the committee, because this committee cannot sit. There is a vacuum in our proceedings.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Surely that is just the point I am trying to make, that I am being asked to rule now on the validity of a proceeding when Mr. Speaker was in the chair, as a result of which at least one recorded vote was held in the house. I am referring to the vote on the appeal from the chairman's ruling. If I, as chairman of a committee, were to presume to rule in accordance with the submission of the hon. member for Kamloops, I would be ruling that the question of my appeal had been improperly submitted to the house earlier today.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I would ask the hon. member for Kamloops how that question could have been submitted if we had not reached order No. 2.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We reached it but it was not read. Let me ask you, since you say you cannot look behind to see what happened in the house, then do what any other chairman may be asked to do at any time as I understand it, and that is to read your order of reference for today's sittings in committee. You will find that there is no order of reference because the house did not adopt one and there will not be any on the journals in front of you because the clerk cannot have written it down that the order to resolve into committee was read. Therefore we have no order of reference for today's sitting of this committee, and I say that you may search and search in vain but you will not find any order of reference there under which you are now sitting as Chairman in this committee.


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of National Revenue gave you one. Read it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kamloops, my hon. friend is quite correct. I realize we have two points of order here and we may reach the point where we will have to have two rulings to decide on what to do with them, but 1 think the memory of all members, including those on the other side, will confirm that when we finished questions on the orders of the day and it was time for the orders of the day

to be read, although the house leader did not indicate what was to be called the clerk assistant got up and started to read order No. 2.


Walter Edward Harris: May I interrupt just long enough on the point of order to ask this question? Do I ever indicate the order, except perchance where we have run out of business, when I have indicated it the night before?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is well taken. Shall I say that the Minister of Finance in effect asked for order No. 2 when he said last night that the pipe line would be the business of the house today? All right, let us assume then that the government had asked for order No.
2. The clerk assistant stood up and started to read it. He got out only two or three words when Mr. Speaker rose and said something to the effect that before this is done or on this order I wish to dispose-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -of the proposition, as we now know it, which he read to the house. I do not wish to bring in the names of any of the people who work for us and I am sure the clerk assistant does not mind my having mentioned the fact that he uttered a couple of words. I endeavoured to ascertain officially where we were at that point and the only answer I could get was that we were at the place that is sometimes indicated in Hansard or in Votes and Proceedings as "on the order" for such and such, in other words, that the discussion of Mr. Speaker's proposition took place on a certain order which had not yet been called. I was expecting that after Mr. Speaker's proposition had been disposed of and after the appeal of Your Honour's ruling had been disposed of the Speaker would then let the clerk assistant stand and read out order No. 2. But no, Mr. Speaker got out of the chair and left the chamber, and order No. 2 has not been read yet.
Therefore it seems to me that the point raised by the hon. member for Kamloops is a valid one, and in order to get this matter sorted out I think we had perhaps better separate it into two points. You had better rule first on the point raised by the hon. member for Kamloops and after that has been disposed of I will ask you to rule on my point that we are not properly in committee because you yourself did not get permission yesterday to sit again on Bill No. 298.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I should like to accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that we try to stick to one point. The report is not completed yet but I ask the hon. member for Kamloops if this is a fair statement of the point of order he raised.
1956	4563
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Mr. Fulton raised a point of order to the effect that the chairman was improperly in the chair since the order of the day for the house to go into committee on the said bill had not been read when Mr. Speaker was in the chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think that would be a fair statement of the point. I would perhaps prefer it to include more of the argument-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -but as a bare statement of the point of order I think it is correct. May I, by way of one more argument, suggest this to you? Speaking from memory, it is my recollection that the words that should be recorded on the journals, by the authority of which alone you and this committee can sit, are these:	"And the order of the day
being read for the house to resolve itself again into committee, Mr. Speaker left the chair without question put and the house then proceeded in committee with the further consideration .... "
That is how it should appear in the journals kept before you by the clerk. It should be: "And the order of the day being read for the house to resolve itself again into committee of the whole, Mr. Speaker left the chair without question put", etc. It is only when that has taken place and when you have that before you as your authority to sit in committee of the whole that you can sit, and therefore the order of the day not having been read I say that you will search in vain for the order of reference to the committee for this day's proceedings at this stage.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: For the information of the hon. member for Kamloops, I propose to add the following to what I previously read to him:
The chairman ruled that he was not in a position to rule upon the regularity of any proceeding which took place when Mr. Speaker was in the chair.
From which Mr. Fulton appeals?


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I say I have not asked you to rule on the regularity of what took place when the Speaker was in the chair. I have asked you to rule whether you have any authority to sit here as chairman of the committee. Have you any terms of reference? Can you find any terms of reference or authority for today's sitting? I am not asking you to rule on what happened when Mr. Speaker was in the chair.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I must have my reasons for making my ruling as well as the hon. member for making his appeal. I consulted him as to the wording of the report on the point of order which he raised, and that is my reason for not making a ruling. I may be wrong and the hon. member will
4564	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation no doubt appeal, but I regard it as requiring me to rule upon something which took place-


Major James William Coldwell: If you feel that you may be wrong then rule in line with British tradition and give the benefit of the doubt to the minority.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Major James William Coldwell: You have got the rights with your majority. You can do everything that you wish.


William Earl Rowe: You fellows would not understand.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Kamloops-well, I thought the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was addressing the Chair.


Major James William Coldwell: Somebody was addressing me from the other side and I was replying.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: We are having a little difficulty reducing the report to writing. We seem to have too many drafts. I will read what I have here.
Mr. Fulton raised a point of order to the effect that the chairman was improperly in the chair since the order of the day for the house to go into committee on the said bill had not been read when Mr. Speaker was in the chair; and further, that only when the order of the day for the house to go into committee of the whole is read can the committee of the whole be resumed. The chairman ruled that he was not in a position to rule upon the regularity of any proceedings which took place when Mr. Speaker was in the chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would you care to add one phrase-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -as to the point on which I asked you to rule, to the effect that in addition there is no order of reference or authority for this sitting of the committee.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Have we not got that clear? Is it not covered by the words, "and further, that only when the order of the day for the house to go into committee of the whole is read can the committee of the whole be resumed"?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh well, it will not make any difference to the vote anyway.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: From which Mr. Fulton appeals.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
In committee of the whole, when it was considering clause 4 of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation,
[The Deputy Chairman.]

Mr. Fulton raised a point of order to the effect that the chairman was improperly in the chair since the order of the day for the house to go into committee on the said bill had not been read when Mr. Speaker was in the chair; and further, it is only when an order of the day for the house to go into committee of the whole is read that the committee of the whole can be resumed. I ruled that I was not in a position to rule upon the regularity of any proceeding which took place when Mr. Speaker was in the chair. From that decision Mr. Fulton appealed.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
In committee of the whole, when it was considering clause 4 Mr. Applewhaite reports that Mr. Fulton raised a point of order to the effect that the chairman was improperly in the chair since the order of the day for the house to go into committee on the said bill had not been read when Mr. Speaker was in the chair; and further that only when an order of the day for the house to go into committee of the whole is read can the committee of the whole be resumed. The chairman ruled that he was not in a position to rule upon the regularity of any proceeding which took place when Mr. Speaker was in the chair.
Whereupon Mr. Fulton appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. Marlin:: I was	: paired. Had I voted,
I would have voted	in favour of the chair-


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to say a word? The chairman is continually sitting and, in the first place, he got that permission.


William Earl Rowe: When did you give it to him, Dan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I have your ruling, sir, rather than that of my friend the hon. member for Fort William?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Once again I
would ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to listen to me and to interrupt me if I am wrong, but not otherwise. He is making the point that the chairman at the moment has no right to occupy the chair of this committee because when we left this committee yesterday permission to sit again was not asked for and obtained.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: My ruling, of
course, is that I am legally here and that the committee is legally constituted because I feel the interpretation which the hon. member places upon the rules and the procedure of this house would of necessity result in absurdity at times and I would not take the responsibility of so ruling. However, I am not putting it at that length in the written report.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, because I
believe the Votes and Proceedings or Journals make it clear that no such permission was obtained yesterday and because on that basis I feel Bill No. 298 died at ten o'clock last night I appeal your ruling.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: For the information of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I propose to report that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised the point of order that the committee was improperly constituted since the chairman at Thursday's sitting failed to obtain leave to sit again and the chairman ruled that the point of order was not well taken.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
man's ruling.
And the house having resumed in committee:


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think it is not necessary for me to repeat my argument and my submission which I made to you earlier, but it is my view that this committee is improperly sitting because you, sir, did not obtain yesterday permission to sit again on Bill No. 298.
When in committee of the whole on clause 4 of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Knowles raised a point of order that the committee was improperly sitting since the chairman at Thursday's sitting failed to obtain leave to sit again. I ruled that the point of order was not well taken, whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed to the house from the ruling of the chairman.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows: Mr. Applewhaite reports that when in committee of the whole on clause 4 of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Knowles raised a point of order that the committee was improperly sitting since the
67509-290i

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation chairman at Thursday's sitting failed to obtain leave to sit again. The chairman ruled that the point of order was not well taken, whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed to the house from the ruling of the chairman.
Those who are in favour of sustaining the chairman's ruling will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the two points of order which have been raised already in the committee relate to the whole proceedings of the committee and your right to preside in the committee and the right of the committee to sit as a committee of the whole. The point I should like to raise now is that the business which has thus far come before the committee, which you purported to deal with from the chair, is a nullity.
I base this upon two aspects of the motion which you put so precipitately this afternoon, denying at the time the right of hon. members who were on their feet to address you on important points of order and questions of privilege. My point concerns both the motion itself and the notice which preceded it. The terms of the motion are found at

page 4498 of yesterday's Hansard. This is the motion of the Prime Minister:
That at this sitting of the committee of the whole house on bill 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, the further consideration of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, the title of the said bill and any amendments proposed thereto, shall be the first business of this committee and shall not further be postponed.
I draw your attention, sir, to the words, "at this sitting." The sitting to which those words had reference was clearly the sitting of May 31 and not the sitting of Friday, June 1. For that reason, sir, as well as for other reasons that I shall now lay before you, now that you are hearing points of order after your refusal to hear points of order at the time when they would have been significant, I am submitting to you that the motion is abortive and the proceedings that you have attempted to preside at this afternoon in this committee of the whole are abortive and a nullity. If the rules mean anything any more-


Stanley Howard Knowles: They don't.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and it is doubtful if anything remains of them after today but the merest shreds and tatters-standing order 33 provides, or did provide formerly, as follows:
Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the house be in committee of the whole, or of supply, or of ways and means, any Minister of the Crown who, standing in his place, shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his intention so to do, may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned, or that the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, shall be the first business of the committee, and shall not further be postponed; and in either case such question shall be decided without debate or amendment; and if the same shall be resolved in the affirmative, no member shall thereafter speak more than once, or longer than 20 minutes in any such adjourned debate; or, if in committee, on any such resolution, clause, section, preamble or title; and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before one o'clock in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
Let me boil down the language of that lengthy rule so as to confine the statement of it to the points that are strictly relevant to the point now raised in committee of the whole. The words, I think, remaining, would be these:
Immediately ... in committee of the whole . . . any Minister of the Crown who, standing in his place, shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his intention so to do, may move . . .
-a motion concerning the postponement of consideration of any clause. I would like
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation to be able to argue the question, but I take it that it is useless here arguing a question which was raised yesterday, in regard to the application of rule 33 to the kind of motion that the Prime Minister put forward. Whilst yielding nothing on the point that was raised yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops, I proceed from that point on the assumption that the action taken by the committee, in my opinion quite improperly, on an invalid ruling of your own prevents me from attacking the motion as such. I therefore argue the point now, sir, on the basis that, although such a motion may be in order in proper circumstances, it is not in order today. That is the point that I tried to put before you, when you turned a deaf ear to all such points. I was trying to say to you that, even though the ruling of yesterday, which was purported to be sustained by the Chair today, was a ruling that the motion was in order yesterday, that is not tantamount to its being in order today, because it was a motion relating to yesterday's sitting. It is not and never was a motion relating to today's sitting.
Note that language of rule 33. Notice that may be given by a minister of the Crown is notice given at a previous sitting of his intention to move. I take it that it is arguable, in view of the word "a" before "previous sitting", that it is not strictly necessary that the minister of the Crown giving his notice of his sectional closure should give it for the next day. He could give it for a later date. For instance, when the Prime Minister gave his notice on Wednesday, he might have chosen to give it for Friday instead of Thursday. That might be an arguable point, in view of the word "a" before the words "previous sitting." Whilst that may be an arguable position, sir, I submit to you that, if the notice is given for the next sitting of the house and if the motion is moved at that next sitting, its effect is immediate as to that particular day. In that respect it is different from other motions. This is a particular type of motion.
Rule 33 is the only code in the standing orders attempting to deal with the procedure on closure motions. We have a situation, undoubtedly, which is unprecedented, and in that unprecedented situation I say to you that to permit this motion to be put today means a wrenching of the provisions of standing order 33 out of all possible recognition.
If that motion had been resolved in the affirmative yesterday, its effects would be immediate as to yesterday. Immediately on its being passed, all speeches would be confined to 20 minutes, and the questions before
4568	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the house would have to be resolved at one o'clock a.m. following. The effects of such a motion cannot be postponed. Standing order 33 deals in terms only with the case where the motion is resolved affirmatively. There is a hiatus in this rule as to a situation, such as developed here last night, where the motion was not disposed of. In that unprecedented situation, sir, there being nothing in rule 33 to preserve the effect of the notice or to preserve life in that motion so that it should have some life beyond yesterday, I say to you that that motion perished at ten o'clock last night and nothing that has been done since could revive that motion. Indeed, nothing that could have been done yesterday or that might have been done yesterday could have given that motion life beyond ten o'clock last night if it had not been affirmatively decided prior to ten o'clock last night.
Let us look now, sir, at the effect of the notice because rule 33 attaches very great importance to the notice given. Indeed, the rules of this house place the highest importance upon notice of all motions requiring notice, and we have had many examples, some of them in quite recent days, where the chair has ruled on the importance of notice. Rule 33 is extremely important in its provisions with regard to the giving of notice. What was the notice under which the committee was proceeding to deal with this motion yesterday? It was the notice given by the Prime Minister the day before, May 30, and that notice is to be found at page 4465 of Hansard of that date in the first column. You will not find this notice in Votes and Proceedings or in Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day. Hansard is the only record of the notice given by the Prime Minister of the motion. After making that bogus offer designed to bring the opposition into line, to submit to the steamroller, he proceeded with these words:
Meanwhile, I have no choice, if the deadline which the government faces is to be met, but to give notice and I hereby do give notice pursuant to standing order 33 that at the next sitting of this committee-
Note, Mr. Chairman, the words "the next sitting".
-of the whole house on Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, I will move that the further consideration of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, the title of the said bill and any amendments proposed thereto, shall be the first business of the said committee and shall not further be postponed.
Note, sir, that the notice given by the Prime Minister was a notice that at the next sitting of the house he would submit this motion. The next sitting of the house was the sitting on May 31. It was not and is not the sitting of June 1, and there can be no doubt about


that in view of the terms of the motion itself when the Prime Minister followed up his notice by motion yesterday "at this sitting", namely, the sitting of May 31.
This was a motion, sir, for a day certain. It is not one of those general motions preceded by a general notice. It was a notice for a day certain of this particularly objectionable type of motion. If the motion was in order then the notice was correct in form for a motion to be submitted yesterday. The motion was moved in compliance with that notice so far as the notice was correct. Therefore, sir, the notice served its purpose and, indeed, its complete purpose. When the Prime Minister rose in his place yesterday and moved that motion the effect of the notice at that moment became completely spent. The notice was at that moment functus.
The requirement of the rule in regard to the notice had been satisfied at that moment if the motion was in order, and the motion having been moved nothing then remained of the notice. The notice had served its purpose. It had become spent. It became spent when the Prime Minister offered his motion. Therefore, sir, it cannot be relied upon as a basis for any other motion, so you see that if the Prime Minister had moved today a motion similar to the one he moved yesterday and had attempted to justify such a motion, so far as notice was concerned, by relying upon the notice he gave the committee of the whole on May 30 it would have been an invalid notice because that notice no longer existed. Its effect was fully spent. And, sir, a motion to apply the effect of standing order 33 now in this committee of the whole would require on the part of the Prime Minister today a new notice of motion for a motion to be put at another and later sitting, and the earliest one for which he could give notice today would be the sitting on Monday next.
Now, sir, had the Speaker been in the chair at this moment, when I hoped to raise part of this argument, I would have called to his mind, in the light of his experience at the bar, that the effect of a notice is twofold. Any notice of motion, whether in a chamber like this or in proceedings before some judicial tribunal, is twofold. It is designed to give notice that at a particular time on a particular day and usually at a particular hour a particular proceeding will be launched. The second purpose is to give knowledge of the content or purpose of that particular proceeding. The time that the notice Of motion gives knowledge of is just as important as the content of the proceedings or the purpose of the proceeding that is to be launched at the time set forth in the notice of motion, and the purpose of the time

element in any notice of motion is just as important as is the element of content.
This is an unprecedented situation, sir, and I say to you that, lacking any precedent, lacking any express provision in standing order 33 to deal with a situation where the motion is not disposed of on the day on which it is moved, you have no right to rule that the motion retains some life, some effect which standing order 33 does not declare it to possess or retain because if you made such a ruling you would be reading into the terms of standing order 33 provisions that are not contained there.
While there is no precedent on this matter, nevertheless there are some precedents in cognate situations that I think ought to be some guide to us. For instance, sir, in Beauchesne, third edition, page 126, citation 315, you will find two short paragraphs of one sentence each which I should like to read to you. It reads:
A modification of a notice of motion standing upon the notice paper is permitted, if the amended notice does not exceed the scope of the original notice.
A new notice must be given in the Votes and Proceedings, under standing order 45, when a material change is to be made to a notice of motion before it is taken up by the house.
A material change in this notice of motion would have been a change in the date because the date on which the motion is to be moved is just as important an element in the notice of motion as is the content of the motion that is to be moved. There you have a cognate citation. It is not under standing order 33 but it is a relevant and cognate citation as applied to any change in a notice of motion. It cannot be done without proper notice and there was no notice given here. The reference there is to the Journals of the house, volume 65, pages 200 and 201. I will just touch on that very briefly, sir. It is a ruling on March 26, 1928. The Speaker is dealing with standing order 45 which prescribes 48 hours' notice and he proceeds to say:
It is true that according to paragraph 363 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, a modification of a notice of motion may be permitted. That paragraph reads as follows:	"A
modification of a notice of motion standing upon the notice paper is permitted, if the amended notice does not exceed the scope of the original notice". The above reference is taken from May, 13th Edition, page 234, where the following is found:	"A modification of a notice of motion
standing upon the notice paper is permitted, if the amended notice does not exceed the scope of the original notice". The next sentence however, reads as follows: "If a motion is proposed, which differs materially from the terms of the notice, it can only be made with the consent of the house, or upon a renewal of the notice".
If the consent of the house is unanimous, such a motion may proceed. But failing
1. 1956	4569
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation unanimous consent and failing renewal of the notice, such a motion cannot proceed. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that a fortiori that rule applies with infinitely greater strength to a motion under standing order 33 than it does to the generality of motions requiring 48 hours' notice under the rules of the house.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I note that is the hon. member for Pontiac who likes to talk that way, who always does his talking sitting down.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. The hon. member's time has expired but I would be grateful if the committee would give unanimous consent for him to give me these other references.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall be brief. That paragraph at page 374 of May under the heading "Renewal of Notices of Motion" reads as follows:
A notice of motion standing upon the notice paper for the day's sitting, which is not brought on before the adjournment of the house, disappears from the paper, unless the member in whose name the notice stands, or a member in his behalf, gives a direction at the table for the replacement of the notice upon the notice paper for a future day.
That is not a citation, of course, under rule 33 because there is no British counterpart of rule 33. But it emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of that rule with regard to the requirement of notice. Further, at page 377 there is this paragraph under the heading of "Change of Day for a Motion": Should a member desire to change the day for which he first gave notice, he must defer the notice to a more distant day, it being irregular to fix an earlier day than that originally chosen: nor can this rule be evaded by changing the motion into an amendment to another question.
This is not a situation where an attempt is made to advance the day on which the motion is returnable according to the notice but it is an attempt to use a notice, returnable yesterday on a motion which was then proceeded with but not disposed of, as though it had some lingering or surviving effect.
The final paragraph is on page 379 under the heading "Change of Terms of Notice of Motion":
A modification of a notice of motion standing upon the notice paper is permitted, if the amended notice does not exceed the scope of the original notice. If a motion is proposed, which differs materially from the terms of the notice, it can only be made with the consent of the house, or upon a renewal of the notice.
Mr. Chairman, there was here no renewal of the notice. The motion died last night at ten o'clock. Any proceedings in this committee today purporting to be proceedings on
4570	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the motion moved yesterday by the Prime Minister or any motion purporting to be based upon the notice that the Prime Minister gave in this house on May 30 are a complete nullity.
Then there is the final point, Mr. Chairman, that where, in the absence of express words or a clear citation or the clearest kind of precedent, there is no provision in our rules or in the jurisprudence based upon those rules requiring the chair to rule that this motion has any surviving effect after ten o'clock last night until this day, it is the duty of the chair to give the strictest type of interpretation to any such rule as this, which is a harsh rule in the first place and which derogates from the proper rights of members of a free parliament. Far from this being a rule with which the chair can be fast and loose in its treatment, this is a standing order that requires the most punctilious respect for and the most meticulous adherence to every provision of it. That has not been given, Mr. Chairman. I say to you, on what I conceive to be as important a question of order as is likely to come before this house at any time in its history, that the entire proceedings in this chamber this afternoon in this committee of the whole are abortive; they are a nullity; and the conduct of the chair in arbitrarily refusing to permit even so much as a statement of this important question of order, let alone argument to the chair upon so important a question, makes the proceedings in this committee a travesty of democracy.
It may be late in the day, Mr. Chairman, in view of the action that you have taken in denying to members of this committee their proper rights to raise important questions on the proper interpretation of the orders that govern this house-or which once,
I should say, governed it, because we now must speak of the rules in the past tense-but I raise it. This is so important a question that it ought to be raised now. It ought to be raised to the humiliation of this committee of the whole today and to the humiliation of the government on whose shoulders, in the last analysis, rests responsibility for the travesty that has been committed upon parliamentary freedom and the integrity of the Canadian parliament this day. This is a point of order that affects everything that is going to happen in this committee from this point on. While you have gone so far-as far, I suggest, as any chairman can go, in view of your conduct at the opening of the committee today-to prevent a point of such great importance being raised when normally it would be raised and when I sought to 

raise it, as I had sought in the house to raise it several times already before the Speaker fled from the chair, I ask to raise it now because I say to you that it now being five o'clock-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I just finish; I was in the last sentence. I submit that this motion died at ten o'clock last night and that it cannot be revived today; and that the attempt to carry the motion this afternoon was a complete failure. At five o'clock this afternoon we proceed to private bills. At six o'clock the house rises. If there is any attempt in this committee to do anything to the contrary I submit that it will be abortive and it will be a nullity.


Mr. Cannon:: Mr. Chairman,-


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It is now five o'clock and I am leaving the chair in order that private and public bills may be proceeded with. The committee will resume its deliberations at this stage at six o'clock p.m. or when private and public bills have been disposed of, whichever is the sooner. Meanwhile it will be my duty to inform Mr. Speaker that the matter being considered in committee is under closure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, that involves a ruling on my point, I take it, and I wish to appeal your ruling.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: At six o'clock the committee will resume.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are several bills coming up for second reading. They are all divorce bills. Shall we take them one by one?


Mr. Henderson:: I would ask that order No. 46, second reading of Bill No. 366, for the relief of Ruth Carol Friedman Allen, be allowed to stand.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: We cannot hear down in this corner.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking that item No. 46 be allowed to stand. Shall it stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



SHIRLEY SUSAN MORRIS DUGGAN

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 374, for the relief of Shirley Susan Morris Duggan.


[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. 375, for the relief of Maureen Evelyn Allison Cooper.


[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. 376, for the relief of William Windsor Frewen.


[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. 377, for the relief of Ethel Hansen Echlin.


[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. 378, for the relief of Muriel Doreen Southall Fisher.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Mr. Speaker:: I see that all these bills are being carried on division without any debate. May I renew my request that perhaps these bills, if it is agreeable, be taken in one motion?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: May I ask whether Bill No. 380 is standing? There is a great deal of evidence in connection with this case and perhaps the hon. member would like this one to stand as well as Bill No. 366? It is a contested case.


William James Henderson: Bill No. 366 has already stood, and I concur in the standing of Bill No. 380 at the request of the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, order No. 53 will stand. Is it agreed that order No. 52 and orders Nos. 54 to 60, inclusive, be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that these bills be now read a second time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Criminal Code



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 379, for the relief of Paulette Lavallee Plotkin.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 381, for the relief of Peter Butler. -Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 382, for the relief of Ivy Umilta Gooding Joseph.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 383, for the relief of Margaret Lash Johnston.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 384, for the relief of Ethel Simon Baroff.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 385, for the relief of Golda Cohen Winter.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 386, for the relief of Henriette Les-sard Hughes.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 387, for the relief of Ewart Ernest Clouston.-Mr. Henderson.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Poulin for the second reading of Bill No. 149, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Beauce is unavoidably absent today and he expressed the wish that this debate be allowed to stand. Is it agreed?


Walter Edward Harris: I do agree, but I would like it understood that I intend to speak on it.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. Is it agreed that the debate stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Diefen-baker for the second reading of Bill No. 167, to amend the Criminal Code (payment of fines).
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Albert. If he speaks now, he will close the debate.


Walter Edward Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as I think my hon. friend knows, the Minister of Justice cannot be here today. Will he permit the discussion to stand, or, if the discussion continues, all I can say is that we want it adjourned so that the minister might speak.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced here some weeks ago, and the debate is one that I would like to bring to a conclusion.


Walter Edward Harris: Go ahead.

Criminal Code


John George Diefenbaker: For that reason I wish to proceed. A member supporting the government has already spoken on the subject. I would like to conclude this matter at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, if no other hon. member wishes to speak, the hon. member for Prince Albert will now close the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this matter was before the house on April 20, at which time I discussed the situation at some length. I was followed by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) and the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Enfield).
This bill has to do with the removal of one of those anomalous things that through the years have been on the statute books of our country and to a very large degree have made their contribution to our jail population. The amendment, if I might just refer to it in general terms, sir, suggested by myself, provides that where a fine or a pecuniary penalty or a sum of money is adjudged to be paid, before a warrant committing any person for failure to pay the fine is made, the court which passed the sentence must be satisfied that the individual in question is possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fine forthwith; or, unless no request for time is granted; or, finally, unless the court for any other reason expressly desires that no time shall be allowed.
In other words, it does not in any way encourage the commission of crime on the part of those who because of their financial position would be unable to pay a fine should they be convicted of an offence. It is no encouragement to anyone to commit a crime because there is a section under the amendment that I bring before this house whereby a magistrate may in proper cases deny to the individual convicted an opportunity of paying his fine or an extension of the time in which to pay the fine.
Over and over again in my own experience in the courts, and I am sure in the experience of hon. members of this house who are not members of the legal profession, I have seen men and women whose only offence was one that should have been subject to a fine and because of their inability to pay the fine they were placed under the stigma of imprisonment.
The amendment I suggest is nothing new under the British system of the administration of justice. I drafted the amendment I have placed before the house in almost identical terms with that which was introduced in Britain in 1914 in the month of
August. It was supported at that time, as many members know, by such outstanding members of the British House of Commons as Sir William Anson, one of the most renowned names in the history of British jurisprudence; Samuel Hoare, afterwards one of the ministers of the cabinet; Joynson-Hicks, who later became a cabinet minister; Robert Harcourt; Hamer Greenwood, that great Canadian whose birthplace was Whitby, Ontario; Sir John Simon, afterwards a Lord High Chancellor; Sir Stanley Buckmaster, afterwards a Lord High Chancellor; Augustine Birrell, later a prime minister; H. H. Asquith, also a prime minister; Stanley Baldwin and Ramsay MacDonald, both of whom in subsequent years became prime ministers of Great Britain. In other words, the amendment I suggest was introduced and passed in the British parliament more than 43 years ago and it had the result of reducing the jail population of Britain by approximately 80,000 a year. I am sure there is no one today who suggests that because a person is unable to pay a fine there can be any justice in imprisoning that person without giving him an opportunity of paying that fine by an extension of time or by instalment payments and thereby discharging his debt to society. There is gross unfairness, when a fine is a suitable and proper punishment, that a person who through no fault of his own finds himself unable to pay the fine should be stigmatized while on the other hand a person with adequate resources and an income sufficient to meet the immediate fine that is imposed is thereby protected from imprisonment.
I was unable to secure statistics from the various provinces in Canada in order to place them definitely before the house; but, as I stated in introducing this measure, with the exception of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario no provinces have kept any records. The best estimate I can make on the basis of the statistics I have is that each year in Canada 35,000 or 40,000 Canadians are in prison not because the offences they committed deserve jail but simply because they have been fined and have been unable to pay the fine.
As the law is at the present time, magistrates have the right if they so choose to grant an extension of time for payment. Because this is not obligatory it means that those magistrates who by reason of their own humanity desire to assure a larger measure of justice than some who have not that same degree of humanity find themselves subject to criticism when they do grant time in the jurisdiction under which they operate. In granting time they increase the degree of

Criminal Code
administrative work that otherwise is entirely removed by the simple expedient of saying that the fine is so much and the alternative is so many days, weeks or months in jail and unless payment is made forthwith a warrant of commitment is issued and the person is immediately incarcerated in jail.
To send people to jail because of their poverty is not only detrimental to the citizenship of the individual so stigmatized but it also adds immeasurably to the cost of keeping prisoners in jail which by the adoption of an amendment such as I suggest would be almost completely removed. It can be done with justice because the discretion still remains with the magistrate, after making an investigation, to decide that because of the seriousness of the offence a prison sentence is justified or because in his opinion the person, while pretending poverty, would be able to pay the fine if he chose to do so. The magistrate may then simply endorse a warrant of commitment indicating his reason why the individual in question is not permitted to pay the fine by instalments.
The amendment I suggest is supported by Chief Justice McRuer of the Supreme Court of Ontario, who on more than one occasion has pointed out the injustice that is being done today.
I maintain, sir, that the maintenance of this section of the criminal code in its present form is a denial of the advances that have been made in criminology in the last 40 years. It is a denial of simple justice. It makes justice a matter of the possession of dollars and cents. It makes imprisonment the alternative for failure to pay to the individual who is poor. It denies equality because the person who is able to pay escapes imprisonment but the person who is unable to pay is branded for the rest of his life as one unworthy to be considered a good citizen because of the imprisonment he has suffered.
One of the things that above everything else we endeavour to maintain today in our system of democracy is equality as between citizens. Democracy cannot live when a shameless sham is made of rules of conduct or when the law ceases to deal equally as between individuals. Above everything else the essence of democracy depends on the equality of the individual, whatever his station in life and whatever his financial condition may be. It depends as well on the equality of the individual's rights whether that individual belongs to a majority or a minority. It cannot survive when minorities are coerced by perversions or distortions or deliberate evasions of the principle of equality of all Under the law.
Generally speaking, this amendment has received the support of the press in all parts of Canada. In almost every case the attitude has been that this is a reform which is long overdue. The general summary of views is expressed in an editorial in the Edmonton Journal of April 24. I shall read only the portions that deal with the situation in question. After a very generous reference to myself in regard to my zeal for legal reform and the protection of civil liberties, it goes on to say:
He showed this again last week by introducing an amendment to the Criminal Code to eliminate, or at least largely reduce, imprisonment for nonpayment of fines.
This is certainly one of the outstanding abuses of the present administration of justice. In all too many police courts across Canada, the conviction of a defendant on a minor charge is automatically followed by the imposition of a fine with imprisonment as an alternative-the traditional "thirty dollars or thirty days". If the accused has the money to pay the fine immediately, he walks out a free man. If he hasn't the money he goes to jail-which involves not only loss of liberty for a month or more, but social disgrace and often loss of employment. This system is thoroughly bad and indefensible. It not only works great hardship on individuals who have been guilty only of petty offences; it also sets up a different scale of punishments for those who have money and those who have not-a thing wholly contrary to sound ideas of justice.
And again:
As far as it goes, however, Mr. Diefenbaker's amendment is a marked improvement on current practice. It should remove a serious source of injustice and inequality from our criminal laws, and also greatly reduce the number of men and women imprisoned for trivial breaches of law. It is to be hoped that the government will not obstruct its passage.
This is a reform which has been asked for by bar associations across Canada over the years. It has been asked for by John Howard societies. It represents an advance which Great Britain has found during the past 42 years to work successfully. In submitting this amendment to the house I ask the government to remove the whip and allow this matter to be considered, on the basis of a reform, by each individual personally. It represents a serious endeavour to assure and maintain equality of justice within our country and to remove one of the most serious anomalies in the criminal law as it is now administered.
It will pay dividends in good citizenship for it will assure that in the years ahead those who otherwise would be penalized because of imprisonment and who later on in life might desire to secure positions requiring bonds and the like would not find themselves denied those desires by the fact that some petty offence had been committed at some time in their lives for which a fine under the law was sufficient and for which

Criminal Code
a fine in the opinion of the magistrate would meet the ends of justice. It would also pay dividends to the Canadian people as a whole by reducing the numbers of those in Canadian jails, which numbers are as high as if not higher than those of any nation among the free nations.
You and I must consider that every year 100,000 Canadians go to jail, a considerable percentage because of their inability to pay a fine. We must realize that something should be done to remove from Canada's name a record which is unenviable and which is certainly not justified on the basis of modern criminology. It is not as though I were bringing to this house something that has not been tried. I bring to this house an amendment which has behind it more than 40 years' experience of trial experiment in Great Britain. It has been found to be successful; it has brought about an amelora-ion of conditions in Great Britain in a penological way. It has reduced the number of Englishmen, Scotsmen and Irishmen who find themselves at some time or another in jail. It has done something more; it has reduced the numbers in penal institutions of those who later in life under our system, because they have had a previous jail sentence, are often denied that consideration to which they should be entitled on the commission of a latter offence.
I commend this amendment to the attention of the house, not only in the interests of the individual who is unable to pay a fine but also in the wider sense of its contribution to better Canadian citizenship and its contribution toward the raising of our penological standards and the emptying of our jails of many who should not be there.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



INCOME TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Fulton for the second reading of Bill No. 52, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this debate to be allowed to stand?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: If not, hon. members could rise and speak to the motion. Do I take it that it is agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Girard for the second reading of Bill No. 159, an act to amend the Civil Service Act.
Mr. Speaker:: I was informed that the hon. member for Lapointe would be unavoidably absent and he has requested that I ask for unanimous consent in order to allow this debate to stand. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 211, an act to provide for annual holidays with pay for employees.
Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege, I would be happy to proceed with this bill but the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) has the adjournment and I am prepared to leave it up to him.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this debate be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Until next time.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand. Is it agreed that the other two be allowed to stand as well?


An hon. Member:: Which ones?


George Hugh Castleden: No.
Industrial Relations



FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Castleden for the second reading of Bill No. 350, an act to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to have the debate on second reading of this bill continued. However, I believe the debate was adjourned by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). I understand that the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act is administered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). If he would care to carry on, I should very much like to see the debate continue and the bill given second reading, if possible.


Walter Edward Harris: On a point of order, I would be glad to do that but, frankly, the Minister of Justice had the carriage of the matter in the house and, as the hon. member knows, the Minister of Justice is in the hospital at the moment. I will not hold up the hon. member and if by the next time the bill is called the Minister of Justice is not available I will be prepared to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the debate be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am hesitating only because I wonder whether the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) wishes to continue his speech or whether I may speak now and close the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo continuing his speech?


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I move that the debate be adjourned, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: That is really not speaking to the motion very long, but nevertheless-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He might have said a sentence or two before he did that.
4576	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. Is it the pleasure of the house that this debate be adjourned?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 298, to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation -Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 4-Body corporate.
The Depuiy Chairman: The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine.
Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Churchill:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, are you going to give a ruling with regard to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Eglinton?
The Depuiy Chairman: The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine is speaking on the same point of order as was raised by the hon. member for Eglinton.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: That is it, Mr. Chairman. I listened with care to the arguments that were developed by the hon. member for Eglinton on the point of order that he raised. I took note of his learned dissertation on notice and the objects of notice, which I found rather elementary. I also noticed his snide and unpleasant remarks towards you, Mr. Chairman, about which I shall have a few words to say, and I also noted his references to making a farce of parliamentary procedure.
His argument on the point of order itself left aside the most important thing that he should have discussed, and that, Mr. Chairman, was the matter that was placed before the house by Mr. Speaker this afternoon, and it was in these words:
That in neglecting to submit at once to the house, yesterday, the report of the chairman of committees on an appeal from his ruling by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I made a serious mistake, that the house should not suffer any prejudice or detriment on my account and that the house, which is master of its own procedure, should be placed immediately in the same position as it was when I resumed the chair yesterday to submit the chairman's report to the house. This action I submit to the judgment of the house.
The house voted on that, Mr. Chairman; and you will remember-and I am sure the public will take notice of it-that the vote


on that was unanimous. There was a unanimous vote in the house, 142 to 0.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What is the motion again?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I just read it to you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was no motion.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I said the matter that was submitted to the house.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You cannot vote on a matter.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I have read the matter that was submitted to the house.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You cannot vote on a matter.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I shall now say a few words on that text. The important words there are:
. . . that the house, which is master of its own procedure, should be placed immediately in the same position as it was when I resumed the chair yesterday to submit the chairman's report to the house.
At that time we were going to take a vote. We had been sitting in committee of the whole. We were proceeding in the committee and objection had been taken to a motion made by the Prime Minister. You, Mr. Chairman, gave your ruling on the objection. Your ruling was appealed to the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, if my memory is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Correct.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: And the Speaker was on the point of putting the question to the house but another matter intervened. If the question had been put to the house at that time, what would have happened? The matter would have automatically been referred back to the committee. The incident that consisted in your ruling and the appeal from your ruling came to an end and the matter that was being studied by the committee at that time- that is Bill No. 298-would have reverted automatically to the committee. I submit that the result of this vote of the house- which once again was a unanimous vote- was that after the vote took place this afternoon the same thing happened as would have happened if the vote had taken place yesterday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The majority is ruling that today is yesterday.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: The judgment of the house reads:
. . . that the house . . . should be placed immediately in the same position as it was when I resumed the chair yesterday to submit the chairman's report to the house.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What a silly statement.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: The house being placed immediately in the same position as it was yesterday, I say that automatically after the

vote took place this afternoon that should have taken place yesterday, the matter that was being considered by the house yesterday before this incident intervened was referred to the house again and the house therefore was in possession of the discussion of that Bill No. 298 in committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose that makes today Thursday and tomorrow Friday, because of a majority vote.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I have just explained to the hon. member that the result of the unanimous vote of the house was to put us in the same position as we would have been yesterday if the vote had taken place yesterday. That is clear. If the hon. member does not understand English or-I should say "if he does not understand this English,"-he can get a copy of the decision of the house or I can send this one over to him and he can read it. I say that is a most important point, Mr. Chairman, and that it was not covered by the hon. member for Eglinton in his argument. I draw the conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that on that point alone it is your duty to rule that the point of order of the hon. member for Eglinton is out of order and that you are properly in the chair and are presiding over the committee here today in a legal manner.
While I am on my feet I should like to say a few words about other matters that were referred to by the hon. member for Eglinton. First of all, I should like to refer to the way in which he made snide remarks and unpleasant insinuations about the way in which you have been carrying on your duties. I think that I will be expressing the opinion of all the well-meaning and clear-thinking members of this house when I say that the members of this house greatly appreciate the work that is done by Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker and chairman of committees and the deputy chairman.


An hon. Member:: You should.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: We all know that it is difficult and unpleasant work to do. It is particularly unpleasant when systematic obstruction is engaged in by members of the opposition. As was said by somebody previously in this debate-I think it was by Mr. Speaker-it is not only the duty of the Speaker to protect the minority against the majority but also to protect the majority against organized obstruction by the minority. While I am talking about the way some of the members of this house have acted towards the officers of the house-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Is this a point of order?
1, 1956	4577
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I am answering some arguments raised.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Is it a point of order, though?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: On a point of order I am answering arguments brought forward by the hon. member for Eglinton.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, may I ask whether this is on a point of order?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has raised a point of order that the hon. member who has the floor, namely the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine, is not speaking to the point of order.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: If I may say a word-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I would say that in these circumstances I do not approve the bringing into this debate of the conduct of the Speaker, the chairman of committees and the deputy chairman, even though the remarks might tend to be pleasing to me. However, I think I might point out that in bringing forward his point of order the hon. member for Eglinton made references to the duties of the presiding officers and I think a fair reference to his references is not out of order.


George Hugh Castleden: Six o'clock.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Mr. Chairman-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine has the floor on a point of order.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: To continue my remarks, Mr. Chairman-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Six o'clock.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: -may I say that the hon. member made attacks on the chair that he should not have made. While I am talking about attacks on the chair I wish to say that the same hon. member for Eglinton did a dastardly, unpleasant and wrong thing when, after doing his best to be put out of this house the other day-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: -and provoking the chairman into putting him out of the house, having it organized so that he had newspaper photographers with flashlight cameras at the door to take pictures-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I realize, as perhaps no one else does, the heat of this

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation debate; but particularly as, at the moment, the hon. member for Eglinton is not in the house-


Thomas Miller Bell: That does not matter to them.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: He should be here.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I think it is my duty to say that the arguments, statements or accusations which may have been made by the hon. member for Eglinton are open to answer but I think personal remarks about him go beyond that.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I wish to say just a few words about the point of order and I hope I shall not stray from that point of order. The hon. gentleman who raised the point of order submitted the terms of the motion of which I gave notice in the house on the 30th and then submitted the terms of the motion that I submitted to the Chair on the 31st. Though he had reservations about the validity of the motion that I was submitting, and though those objections were made the object of points of order that were discussed very learnedly and at considerable length, they were resolved and your decision was upheld by a vote of the house.
Now, the question that the hon. gentleman submits in his point of order is that because the motion was put before the committee yesterday and was not disposed of until today it had no further validity.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This sitting.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman who is interrupting says "this sitting". Well, "this sitting" means the sitting at which the committee makes the decision, and that is the terms of the motion, that at this sitting-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This sitting of the committee.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This sitting of the committee.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Page 4498.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That at this sitting of the committee of the whole house on Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, the further consideration of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, the title of the said bill, and any amendments proposed thereto, shall be the first business of this committee and shall not further be postponed.
Now, that is the motion that was adopted this afternoon by this committee and the sitting that we are continuing at the present time is this sitting to which the motion applies, and that is because of the general overriding rule that is in standing order 7 that if:
At the ordinary time of adjournment of the house, unless otherwise provided, the proceedings
[The Deputy Chairman.]
shall be interrupted and the business under consideration at the termination of the sitting shall stand over until the next sitting day when it will be taken up at the same stage where its progress was interrupted.
Now, there can be no doubt that there was business before the committee that was interrupted at the end of the sitting, and the ordinary time of adjournment having prevented that business from being completed, it was to be taken up at the same stage where its progress had been interrupted. Its progress had been interrupted by an appeal to the house from the ruling you had made in respect of the validity of the motion. That appeal went before the house and was disposed of by the house and the committee resumed and proceeded to take up the business which had been interrupted at the same stage where its progress was interrupted. You took it up at the same stage at which its progress was interrupted and the question you then put to the committee was whether or not the motion:
That at this sitting of the committee of the whole house on Bill 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, shall be the first business of the committee and shall not further be postponed.
And that was the decision that was made at this sitting and which applies to this sitting, and being applicable to this sitting, I submit to you, sir, that the point of order taken by the hon. member for Eglinton is not well founded, and that the contention that he put before you that any proceedings had today on this motion are a nullity is a contention that is contrary to the action of the house when it voted on the appeal that had been taken from the ruling you made on the validity of that motion. It was a recognition of the application to the proceedings of this general rule, standing order 7, and a proper application.
After all, you know, these rules are not made merely for the purpose of providing dilatory proceedings to prevent the business of the house from being transacted. They are made for the purpose of providing for an orderly conduct and progress of the business of the house.


William Earl Rowe: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes; I think we are all in full agreement on that.


William Earl Rowe: That is what they are meant for, yes.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is what they are meant for.


William Earl Rowe: But not abuse.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: And it is
certainly not an abuse of the rules of the house to apply standing order 7 to any business that has been interrupted by the arrival of the hour of the ordinary adjournment of the house. The language which was used in this motion is language which applies from the moment the motion was adopted, and it is language which applies to this session of the committee of the whole. We would have preferred to have it adopted yesterday and to have applied to yesterday's sitting as this sitting, but that was not made possible by the proceedings which were had under the rules of the house.
I was not surprised to hear His Honour, the Speaker, submit to the judgment of the house the course of action he proposed to follow, and that was to treat the matter from the point at which it was interrupted by what His Honour said was his mistake that had been made when he took the chair merely for the purpose of putting to the house an appeal that had been urged by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Rule 33 is not a separate rule; it is a part of the general rules which are applicable. It is one which fortunately it is not necessary to resort to very frequently, but when it is necessary to resort to it, it has to be construed according to its terms but in a manner that will allow it to be productive of the effect for which it was designed and for which it was put in the rule book.
Now, everyone knows that with respect to statutes, or anything that has legal significance, it is the language used that governs, and here the language used in this motion that was adopted this afternoon is that the further proceedings at this sitting of the committee will not be further postponed or adjourned. I submit to you, sir, that there having been a decision, confirmed by a vote of the house, the proceedings were still living proceedings designed to produce their effect; that they are producing that effect and that we are now regularly in committee to give further consideration to Bill 298.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman,-


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Mr. Chairman, I have not finished my remarks.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Just before the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine rises, I know that there is not supposed to be one point of order raised while we are discussing another. The question will be thrown at me at some stage of the game that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others have already spoken. I think I am justified in making this statement, that there is some
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation discretion allowed to the chair as to the advice he will take on points of order which I do not think can be regarded in quite the same category as debating points. I am not establishing any precedent. I am taking unto myself that right and will hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and then the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief on this-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I support the contention-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Would the hon. member permit me to apologize to the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine. I thought the hon. member had completed his speech when the chairman ruled that he did not wish to have comments upon the special points that the hon. gentleman was discussing at that moment.


An hon. Member:: He had not even got
around to the point of order.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: You need not apologize, Mr. Prime Minister. I simply sat down because the chairman was on his feet. We on this side of the house believe that is the proper thing to do.


William Earl Rowe: You are getting pretty good about observing the rules now. You have not used them for a week, so you had better start now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak about the emphasis the Prime Minister laid on the assertion that this sitting is whatever sitting we are in when the decision is reached. He also relied on standing order 7 which indicates that:
At the ordinary time of adjournment of the house, unless otherwise provided, the proceedings shall be interrupted and the business under consideration at the termination of the sitting shall stand over until the next sitting day when it will be taken up at the same stage where its progress was interrupted.
I wish to draw your attention to another instance where the words "this day's sitting" were used and different treatment was accorded the motion. On that occasion it so happened that the motion was mine and it also happened that the government would have liked to have seen my motion carried. I might also add that my hon. friends to the right did their best to defeat it and in fact they succeeded even though my motion did not come to a vote.


An hon. Member:: What a horrible state of affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The occasion was Thursday, December 20, 1951. We were in the midst of a hectic debate on the amendment to the
4580	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Combines Investigation Act and on that day I moved the following motion which was seconded as a matter of fact, by the hon. member for Peace River. It read:
That this day's sitting of the house continue without the usual intermission at one o'clock p.m. and at 6.15 o'clock p.m., and that the house shall not be adjourned at ten o'clock p.m. this day.
This reference appears at page 2253 of Hansard.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that motion which referred to this day's sitting was debated all day. There were several amendments made and there were some recorded divisions. In the divisions the Liberals and the Social Crediters supported us and the Conservatives opposed us and at the end of the day the Speaker adjourned the house because it was ten o'clock. The proceedings on that motion were interrupted. Did the house take it up the next day where it was left off?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did standing order 7 apply to that motion? No. It referred to this day; "this day" being Thursday, December 20, 1951. That day was spent so the motion never came up again.
I am just drawing that to your attention, sir. The Prime Minister in his motion wants this sitting of the committee to carry over from yesterday to today but on the occasion I referred to, "this day's sitting" in my motion was interpreted as applying only to the day on which it was moved and when the motion was not carried by ten o'clock that night it fell by the way, as I think the Prime Minister's motion should have done last night.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman-


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Well, Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to finish the argument I had started to make previously. My argument was to the effect that in my humble opinion the hon. member for Eglinton, after having manoeuvred in such a way as to get himself put out of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: -was not doing a very gracious thing in attacking the Deputy Speaker in the way he did for having done the very thing he more or less forced him to do. That was one point.
On the other point as to the making of a farce of parliamentary procedure, I might say it certainly is a farce to hear hon. members on the other side talking about making a farce of parliamentary procedure because that is what they have done, Mr. Chairman. They have, since the beginning of this debate-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This is in order as a speech but not as a point of order.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: It is in order because it relates to the remarks made by the hon. member for Eglinton. I am speaking to the point of order but in order not to hold up the decision on the point of order I will be willing to resume my seat now and then speak later on in the evening in this debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, one subject
only I think should be put before you by me and that is with reference to the Prime Minister's suggestion that standing order 7 governs the situation here.
The Prime Minister suggested that because the motion he made yesterday at the opening of the committee's proceedings had not been disposed of at ten o'clock last night, it came under standing order 7, which provides:
At the ordinary time of adjournment of the house, unless otherwise provided, the proceedings shall be interrupted and the business under consideration at the termination of the sitting shall stand over until the next sitting day when it will be taken up at the same stage where its progress was interrupted.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that standing order clearly applies only to debatable motions. This is a motion which the rules clearly establish must be put forthwith, without amendment and without debate. How can you report progress in the sense that is intended in standing order 7 on a nondebatable motion? If it is in order, that motion should be put forthwith. It is not the sort of motion on which you report progress.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will remember that.


Mr. Sinclair:: Too bad you did not make this point last week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Two-way Fulton.


An hon. Member:: Wrong-way Fulton.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The government was not able to get this motion through because of the tactics they had adopted and therefore the motion should fall at ten o'clock at night and it requires renewal. It is not the sort of motion on which you can say that you ask the Speaker to rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again and then have the same motion under consideration at the beginning of the next day's sitting. It is a sudden-death motion; that is clear. It is a sudden-death motion, and unless it is put by the end of the sitting day on which it is moved then it requires to be moved again. You cannot have it under consideration from day to day.
I submit that the Prime Minister's suggestion of the application of standing order 7 is not well founded.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I hope that the summary we prepared-when I say "we" I mean I had the assistance of the clerks-of the point raised by the hon. member for Eglinton is correct.
Mr. Fleming raised a point of order to the effect that the business before the committee was a nullity on the ground that the Prime Minister's motion consisted of the words "at this sitting of the committee" and since those words have reference to Thursday's sitting the motion was not valid at today's sitting, that the validity of the notice given Wednesday expired at Thursday's sitting. Further, it is essential that due notice be given of a motion to be made under the provisions of standing order 33.
I think that is a fair summary of the point raised by the hon. member for Eglinton. It boils down then to raising the point that the closure motion made by the minister and put-I think the hon. member said "so precipitately" by me-is of no effect for two major reasons. The hon. member who introduced the point of order admitted quite fairly that there is a hiatus in the rules in that there is no specific provision for what shall be done if a motion is not reached on the day for which it has been notified. So we have to endeavour to decide what the position is without the benefit of a rule to that effect.
There are two major attacks. One is that the Prime Minister's motion is a nullity on the ground that it applied only to the session of May 31, the day on which the motion was moved, that it applied only to that day. That point has been argued with considerable success and a great deal of weight. However, in my opinion there are perfectly valid arguments on the other side, although I do not expect the supporters of the point of order to admit their validity.
They are two in number. One is the literal application of standing order 7, which was outlined by the Prime Minister and contested by the hon. member for Kamloops. The other one is that we have by a recorded vote in the house this morning resolved that we would be placed immediately in the same position as yesterday. In any event I am of the opinion that "this sitting" as in the motion means the sitting in which we are at the moment, the sitting at which the motion has been put and carried. I know hon. members will say, "Yes, but it was put illegally." I respect their opinion. We have argued that and a decision has been taken; not acceptable to some I will admit, but still a decision has been taken.
The other point raised by the hon. member for Eglinton was that the Prime Minister's
1, 1956	4581
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation notice, which he gave two days ago, limited its effectiveness to yesterday. What is in the standing order? It says:
-shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his intention so to do, may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned-
I think we are faced with the necessity of deciding what is meant by "this sitting", what is meant by "previous sitting" and what is meant by "next sitting". Every hon. member has heard time after time the business of the house set for the next sitting of the house. That means the next sitting at which it is reached. I submit to the committee that if this notice had been legally given and if on the following morning the hon. member had risen and moved the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 and we had had a day-long debate on that standing order, the motion would not have been reached. It would not have been reached because the house had passed a superseding motion such as a motion that the house do adjourn with the obvious intention of killing it. It would not have been reached because some other members, not necessarily even opposed to it, would have decided that for that particular day some other matter should be under discussion.
Therefore, if I may say so with great respect for the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Eglinton, I have ruled that the notice given under standing order 33, which is apparently informal as the minister gives notice by standing in his place and announcing it, can be and is legally effective for the motion which we have before us today, and also that the motion moved yesterday by the Prime Minister and put to this committee by the chairman yesterday, but not reached for decision by this committee until today, was and is legally before the committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman-
The Depuiy Chairman: I assume that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in the absence of the hon. member for Eglinton is rising to appeal my ruling.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I appeal your ruling.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I read to the committee earlier the summary of the point of order as raised. As the hon. member himself is not here, I propose to submit it in that way.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report;
In committee of the whole when it was considering clause 4 of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Fleming raised a point of order to the effect

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation that the business before the committee was a nullity on the ground that the Prime Minister's motion consisted of the words "at this sitting of the committee", and since those words had reference to Thursday's sitting the motion was not valid at today's sitting; that the validity of the notice given on Wednesday expired in Thursday's sitting, and further it was essential that due notice be given of a motion to be made under the provisions of standing order 33. I ruled that the notice of motion given by the Prime Minister at Wednesday's sitting was effective, and that the motion decided on this day was and is effective in regard to the committee's proceedings. Whereupon Mr. Churchill appealed to the house from the ruling of the chairman.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
Mr. Applewhaite reports that in committee of the whole when it was considering clause 4 of Bill No. 298, Mr. Fleming raised a point of order to the effect that the business before the committee was a nullity on the ground that the Prime Minister's motion consisted of the words "at this sitting of the committee", and since those words had reference to Thursday's sitting the motion was not valid at today's sitting; that the validity of the notice given on Wednesday expired in Thursday's sitting, and further it was essential that due notice be given of a motion to be made under the provisions of standing order 33.
The chairman ruled that the notice of motion given by the Prime Minister at Wednesday's sitting was effective, and that the motion decided on this day was and is effective in regard to the committee's proceedings. Whereupon Mr. Churchill appealed to the house from the ruling of the chairman.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the chairman's ruling confirmed.	
And the house mittee:	having resumed in com-
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Brown, Essex	
West): Clause 4. Shall it carry?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr.	Chairman-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Brown, Essex West):: Clause 5.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr.	Chairman-


Donald Ferguson Brown: Does the hon. member wish to speak on clause 4?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There are those in Canada who are complacent enough to believe that the expression, "It can't happen here" still applies in this country. I hope that after the activities of the government during the last couple of weeks, which reached their culmination in this morning's and this afternoon's naked display of force, which force was virtually used to destroy the effect of parliament in this country, anyone who had any doubts about the old expression, "It can't happen here", will have had those doubts completely dispelled. The government and the Prime Minister personally are going to have to take the responsibility for this evil behaviour, and that is the only word that can describe it.
A day or two ago I was endeavouring to point out to the government certain historical precedents to show that the dictatorial methods imposed by formerly democratic states for purposes of efficiency and expediency destroyed democratic government in those same democratic states. At that time I cited the instances of ancient Greece and Rome. Today I should like to use a more modern example, although in passing I should like to mention that similar incidents took place in the Italian city states of Venice and Florence in the days of the Renaissance, which states at one time had republican forms of government. I suppose, however, that the most familiar and possibly the most cogent historical precedent is that of Oliver Cromwell. As hon. members will recall, after Charles I had been gotten rid of in England and the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, took over, it was thought at that stage in England that there would be a new form of democratic government. However, during the session of what has been known as the long parliament the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, had a great deal of difficulty in getting along with his parliament. So in 1649 the first thing he did was to expel the Royalists and then expel the Presbyterians. After that the parliament was known as the rump parliament until its final dissolution in 1660. After 1649, Mr. Chairman, the Lord Protector, even when he had only his own followers in there, could not get along even with them, so finally, as hon. members will recall, in 1660, when the speaker was about to put the question, the Lord Protector, accompanied by soldiery marched into the chamber and with the now famous expression "Take away that bauble", pointing to the mace, dissolved the long parliament.
I think hon. members may well take a lesson from this very disagreeable historical example. We have already seen some instances rather similar to those which I have just
1, 1956	4583
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation described take place in this very house. However, this government believes in being up to date. Oh yes; it certainly does! The Liberal government has put the jet-propelled engine of closure on its steam roller majority to speed the crushing of the opposition in this house.
The hon. member for Wellington South is the greatest living argument for mercy killing. The hon. member for Waterloo North-
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Brown, Essex
West): Order. I do not think the hon. member would like to have that statement stand on the record.


An hon. Member:: It is true.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Parliament has just been killed. What is the matter with it?


Donald Ferguson Brown: I leave it to the hon. member himself as to whether or not he wants to withdraw it.


An hon. Member:: He has it in his prepared text.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Because of the interruptions by hon. members, including the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking), the remark was made. Possibly it was a little bit strong and I will withdraw it at the moment. The hon. member for Waterloo North was apparently horrified a few days ago at the so-called guillotine cartoon that appeared in the Globe and Mail recently. Personally I think this cartoon was most appropriate. I feel that I have at least as much regard for those who died in the two world wars as has the hon. member for Waterloo North. I would ask hon. members to consider just why it was that they died in those two world wars. Just what was the reason that they died? Why did they go to those wars? I know we hear the old trite expression, which is a sad thing, namely that they went the first time to make the world safe for democracy and on the second occasion also. Whether or not we consider this expression to be trite, it is the truth. That is the reason a great many of us went there and that is the reason a great many did not come back. We now have the spectacle in this house of what we have seen during the last couple of weeks and today in particular. We have this spectacle in this chamber itself, in the very heart of parliamentary democracy.
What has happened in the last few days is only a culmination of what this government has been attempting to do ever since the mid-1940's. First we had government by order in council. That was repeated time without number despite the objections of the opposition. Then finally last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce attempted to bring in the notorious amendment to the Defence
4584	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Production Act which fortunately was defeated. That has been not only the government's actual activities but their attitude. The famous expression of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, "Who's going to stop us?" has become all too familiar in this house and elsewhere.
It may be all very well for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the hon. member for Waterloo North and many other hon. members on the other side. These men are capable businessmen-no one would question that statement-and very able men. But running parliament is a different thing from running a grain elevator business or a meat packing business or whatever it might be. These men do not appreciate the difference between running the House of Commons and running a business.
They seem to have forgotten-if they ever knew-what the principles and traditions of parliament really are. If any of them ever knew them or understood them, they seem to have forgotten those principles long ago. The singing of songs in this house by hon. members of the Liberal party, while the government went about its evil business of attempting to destroy parliament, could only be likened to the fiddling by the Roman emperor Nero while the city of Rome burned around him. It has seemed to me that most of the hon. members who were doing all the singing had just about as little appreciation of what was going on or what was happening to our parliamentary democracy. Hon. members opposite must wake up, as I mentioned the other day, to this not so thin edge of the wedge and repudiate quite frankly-I hesitate to use the word but I cannot think of any more suitable one-this vile perversion of democracy. The so-called Liberal party is just about as "liberal" as are the "people's democratic" parties of the iron curtain countries. They are neither "people's" nor "democratic".
The rather shocking proposal presented by the Prime Minister the day before yesterday was certainly something that should not or could not be accepted by any hon. member who believed in parliamentary democracy. If reports that we hear on this side of the house are correct, we understand that the Prime Minister yesterday or possibly the day before was asked by members of his own parly to take a greater part in debate. We have now seen some evidence of his doing that since then and we are glad to have the Prime Minister taking his part again in the house. It seems a pity, however, that so far in this debate the only things we have heard from the Prime Minister are threats and announcements of the continued demolition

of the structure of democratic government. I cannot help feeling that personally these statements must be extremely distasteful to the Prime Minister himself. Just to show how far this country has gone along the road to becoming a one-party state, the government is now attempting to push this offensive bill through the other place in one day. Ordinarily such a bill-


Walter Edward Harris: Order. The hon. member
cannot talk about what happens in the other place.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Ordinarily the passage would take somewhat longer. I should like to make some comment in this regard which I do not believe is out of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has not happened yet. You can talk about the Senate. The only thing you cannot do is to reflect upon what happens there.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As a result of some of the comments I have heard to which I pay some attention, since I do not wish to be out of order, may I say this. When this bill comes before the other place, if the other place is not completely supine let the other place show the people of Canada that it is an independent body and that it performs some function. For years, Mr. Chairman, we have heard demands for the abolition of the other place on the ground that it performs no useful function. The other place now has its chance to prove its merits.
Here we have just about the most contentious piece of legislation in Canadian history. If the other place allows this legislation to go through in one day, the arguments for abolition are fully justified. On the other hand if the other place, despite its almost complete composition of government members, illustrates its independence and carries on debate despite the government orders, it will have fully justified its existence before the people of Canada for many years to come. It will have shown that it is not a rubber stamp and that it is performing its practical function, its traditional function of sober consideration of ill-considered, ill-framed and ill-advised legislation that is being hastily pushed through this very house.
Members of this party have been accused from time to time in this debate of not using their time at this stage of the legislation to ask a greater number of questions respecting the pipe line itself. Mr. Chairman, I have a question I would like to have answered, and I would like to have the Minister of Trade and Commerce answer it.


John Borden Hamilton: He probably will not be able to answer it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Will the Prime Minister contradict the statement that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines will not be able to complete the pipe line from Winnipeg to the Ontario boundary and from Kapuskasing to Montreal unless it gets permission from the federal power commission to export gas at Emerson, Manitoba, to the United States?
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, if the Liberal party really thinks the people of Canada are in favour of this unsavory legislation and are also in favour of the gag rule and the destruction of parliament, let them call a general election and get the judgment of the Canadian people. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the government will call an election because it is afraid to.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Mr. Chairman, while listening to the hon. member who has just finished his remarks I could not help thinking that he must be a comparatively new member because he referred to the fact that some members on this side of the house sang songs while the bell was ringing for a vote. He referred to that fact as if we were Neros fiddling while Rome was burning. If he knew the traditions of this house he would realize that that has been the custom for a great many years and it has never done any harm to anybody and it has never excited any indignation whatever except in the youthful breast of the hon. member. He also shows that he is rather young and is not conversant with the customs and proprieties of this house when he inserts in the text that he read so diligently several references to the Senate. He did not know in fact that it is not the custom in this house to refer by name to the other place. He learned.
His remarks about a general election also show that he has not had much experience because if he knew the temper of the people of Canada at this time he would realize that if there were an election there would not be more than 10 or 15 Conservatives reelected to this house.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to take but a few minutes to give my reason for voting for this bill and also for voting for closure. There have been so many remarks on other subjects, on procedural matters and the like, that it seems to me we have forgotten to a certain extent what this whole debate is about. The province of Alberta has great natural resources, great natural riches, I might say, in oil and gas and the eastern part of Canada needs those resources, particularly gas. I am told that in Alberta several of the oil wells are not exploited because the gas has not been disposed of. For several years now gas in the west has been going to waste. It is a terrible waste that should
1, 1956	4585
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation not be allowed to go on any longer. For five years, since Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was incorporated, all this gas has been wasted, and all this potential benefit for the east of Canada has gone to waste. This government has decided, and I think rightly so, that it is time to put an end to this intolerable waste, and the only way to do it is to pass the law that we are studying here today.
No one has been able to get organized to supply the gas to eastern Canada except Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. They have the pipe; they have the know-how; they have the right-of-way; they have the contracts to buy gas and to sell gas; they are the only ones that are organized.
We have heard a lot of noise about selling Canada down the river and giving away to United States buccaneers. Well, if my hon. friends on the other side who use those expressions will only reflect for a few minutes they will realize how silly, how futile and how childish they are. What is the government proposing to do by this bill? It is simply proposing to lend, note that, $80 million to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines at a good rate of interest, at 5 per cent and for 90 days. To lend at 5 per cent and for 90 days: since when is that selling out to United States buccaneers or giving control of the pipe line to Americans? And if they do not pay us back, if Trans-Canada does not pay the money back during the 90 days-


An hon. Member:: Ninety days?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Nine months. If it does not pay back the government in the 9-months period the government has ample security. The government has all the assets of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and will simply take over the project and build the line itself for the great benefit of the people of Canada.
What is this delay costing us? Every year of delay in constructing the pipe line increases the cost by $25 million. It will cost $25 million more a year every year it is delayed, and every day means a loss of $50,000 a day to Alberta. When I say "Alberta" hon. members can read "Canada" because Canada is made up of its several provinces, and anything that is good for any of our provinces is good for this nation of ours as a whole.
There has also been a lot of talk about selling out to Americans and giving the Americans control of this natural resource. If my hon. friends had studied the contracts- I know some have but others have made speeches without studying them-they will realize that when this thing is organized 51 per cent of the stock is going to be offered for subscription to Canadians. If Canadians do not take 51 per cent-it is possible they
4586	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation will not-how can it be argued that they would take 60 per cent, 70 per cent or 80 per cent? How can it be argued that they will take more if more were offered to them if they will not take 51 per cent? My hon. friends' argument is that they will not take 51 per cent. If they will not take 51 per cent they certainly will not take more, so there is no use offering them any more.
We have the evidence of all the experts that this pipe line bill of the government is a good one. All the interested parties support it. The premier of Alberta, Mr. Manning, supports it. The premier of Manitoba gave an interview to the newspapers just recently in which he insisted on the necessity of getting this pipe line built as soon as possible so as to bring the gas to Winnipeg as soon as possible. The premier of Ontario has left the hon. Mr. Drew on the issue. He also says that the policy of the government is a good one. The only ones who still think that the policy of the government is bad are the hon. Mr. Drew and the members who vote for him, and whom I would call trained seals if I was not more polite than he is. Their expert on that side, Mr. Nickle, whom everybody recognizes as an expert in gas and oil, left them on that issue and abandoned his party on that issue. I was told today by someone who was showing me a Calgary newspaper that all of Mr. Nickle's Conservative organization, all of his supporters in his constituency, had backed him on the decision he has taken on the issue.


Mr. Rea:: You are not supposed to call hon. members by their names in the house.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I say, Mr. Chairman, that we have won the battle of the pipe line and the Conservatives are simply trying to win the battle of procedure. Should they win it and they need not think they have won the battle of procedure-it would not do them any good with the people of this country. They should consider themselves lucky that they did not succeed in blocking this thing in the way they have tried to do. It is to their ultimate benefit that they have not been able to block Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. If they had blocked it they would get even fewer votes at the next election than they will get under the present circumstances.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you try it?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: The answer was given the other day by the Prime Minister that there was no reason for going to the people now. They think they know the thinking of the people of Canada. They think the people of Canada approve of what they have done. They think they will get the approval of the
[Mr. Cannon.)

people of Canada and therefore they say, "Have an election". Their reason for wanting an election is that they think the people of Canada are backing them, but I think the people of Canada are not backing them and therefore there is no reason to have an election.


Some hon. Members:: Quiet.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: On the matter of closure, Mr. Chairman, a very sound argument can be made. Most of my hon. friends on the other side of the house are educated people who have college educations and therefore they will realize what a syllogism is in philosophy. The rules of parliament are democratic. Closure is a rule of parliament and therefore closure is a rule of democracy.


An hon. Member:: Before debate begins?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: And the exhibition my hon. friends have put on in this house since the beginning of this debate is ample proof, if we needed it, that closure is an absolutely necessary rule of this house.
Spokesmen of the C.C.F. and Conservative parties gave notice to the newspapers before the debate started that they were going to put on such a filibuster as had never been seen before in this house. They said, "You think you saw a filibuster last year; well, you haven't seen anything yet".


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Well, have you?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: There goes my hon. friend across the way. He says, "Well, have you?" He agrees with me, evidently. He admits that they were going to put on the greatest filibuster that had ever been put on in this house. I say that completely justifies us in imposing the rule of closure. That was the only way we could have achieved constructive debate.
The rules of this house-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Rules?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: -were revised by an interparliamentary committee in which all the parties of this house were represented and on which the expert of the C.C.F., the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the expert of the Conservative party, the hon. member for Kamloops, and all the experts on procedure in the house served. They went through the rules of parliament with a finetoothed comb. They made all the changes they thought should be made, but they did not change the closure rule an iota. They left it just as it was before because they realized it was absolutely necessary for the orderly proceedings of debate in this house.

My hon. friends opposite claim they have not had time to debate this bill. Well, this is the twenty-second or twenty-third day of the debate-I am not sure which-


An hon. Member:: Watch your mathematics, Charlie.


Mr. Nowlan:: Two plus two makes twenty-two?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: There is nothing wrong with my remarks as you will see when you look at them. If you consider the proceedings of this house you will see that every year we have about 50 bills which go through parliament. Let us suppose each bill took ten days-which they do not, of course-that would be 500 days, more than a year. This bill has taken 20 days of debate-


An hon. Member:: Now it is 20.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: -and the 20 days of debate that have been given over to discussion of this bill is more than all the time given to all the other bills in this house since the beginning of this session. Despite this, hon. members opposite say they have not had time to study it. Why have they not had time to study it? Obviously it is because they have been wasting a great deal of time of the house on phony points of order and on motions to adjourn the house, simply wasting the time of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: The public does not realize and I think the public should be told that it takes half an hour for a vote in this house. How many votes have the opposition forced since the beginning of the debate on this bill? Up until May 25 last, according to the computation of the Montreal Star, we have had 35 votes.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How much time would you save if you did away with parliament altogether?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: If my hon. friend wishes to talk in this debate he can do so later on. The hon. member has no right to interrupt me while I am on my feet. Will you please keep quiet?


An hon. Member:: We are all speakers now, eh?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: We had had 35 votes up to May 25 last'. By now we have had 45 and out of that 45 possibly 10 were necessary in the ordinary procedure of this house; 35 votes were forced upon us by the opposition on phony points of order and on motions to adjourn the house just for the pleasure of wasting half an hour on a vote in order to defeat the motion. Therefore, you have 35 times half an hour
1, 1958	4587
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation which makes about 17 hours spread over 20 days.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What would you save if you did away with parliament altogether?


Donald Ferguson Brown: Order.


Mr. Tucker:: We would save having you around.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is the logical conclusion.


Mr. Dickey:: You would not know a logical conclusion if you saw one.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: That is not a logical conclusion because the rules of the house-


George Clyde Nowlan: What rules?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: -are made to advance debate and not to impede it and using the rules of the house as you have by moving motions to adjourn and so on just for the pleasure of wasting time is-if it is not too strong a word -a prostitution of the use of the rules, putting them to a use it was never intended they should serve.
I have just a few more remarks. I am sorry to see the hon. member for Eglinton is not in his seat but1 I am sure his friends will relay to him anything I have to say. I started to talk about him this afternoon but I was forced to conclude my remarks.
I remarked on the fact that he put on a good show, tremendous histrionics, and made quite a spectacle in getting himself removed from the chamber-


George Clyde Nowlan: Oh, cheap, cheap.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: -getting his picture taken and having the flag ready. How did that flag happen to be in this house or in the lobby?
*Mr. Dinsdale: It was an organized affair.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I would like someone to tell me that and also explain the organized meeting at the airport-
The Acling Chairman (Mr. Brown, Essex
West): Order.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I have a few quotations here including the two great financial papers of Canada. In its edition for May 19 last the Financial Post says:
The recent noise on parliament hill over the gas line should be recognized for what it is: a violent effort by the opposition parties to mislead and befuddle the Canadian public in the hope of making political profit for the next election.
So much for the Financial Post. The Financial Times of June 1 has such a good editorial that I should read practically the whole thing-
"For further reference, see page 4662.
4588	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Oh, good.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: -but it is too long.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No, go ahead and read it all.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: They are talking about this bill and they say:
The government felt it must get out of the impasse that has now lasted three years; it made an intelligent proposal that could stand lots of contradiction. It was one that needed to be debated and, by all standards, enough time was made available for such a debate.


George Clyde Nowlan: Is that the Toronto Star you are reading from?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: No, it' must be the Winnipeg Free Press.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There are only two newspapers in Canada.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I should read the heading. It
reads:
A Sad Show for Once Great Party.
I do not have to mention the party concerned. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will have recognized it.
My prize show piece, you might say, Mr. Chairman, is the Globe and Mail.


An hon. Member:: Hurray.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I should really congratulate the Prime Minister. I do not know whether he has read that book entitled "How to Win Friends and Influence People" but he has certainly succeeded in doing that by the way in which he has conducted this debate in this house.


George Harris Hees: So you are still hoping to be a a parliamentary assistant?


An hon. Member:: Stand up, beautiful.


George Clyde Nowlan: You have earned a front seat, Chuck.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I appreciate that you do not like to take this, but be men. When you were little boys you had to take castor oil and now that you are big men you have to take this. Why not take it like men? The editorial in the May 31 edition of the Globe and Mail reads as follows:
One reason for early completion of the line concerns cost; every year, the price tag on it goes jp by another $25 million. But the main reason is need-Alberta's need, to sell natural gas, Ontario's need to buy it. Alberta's situation is critical. In the five years that the cross-Canada line has been under discussion, that province has burned off 120 billion cubic feet of natural gas which it was not able to export to the east and not permitted to export to the United States. This is a criminal waste in a country which needs energy as badly as this one.


The Acling Chairman (Mr. Brown, Essex West): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I shall bow to the inevitable.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I think after the storm and fury of today it has been a good thing to have a bit of light comedy touch such as we have had lately. I was highly entertained to hear the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine doing with more magnificent skill what the right hon. Prime Minister did earlier. It will be remembered that the right hon. Prime Minister attempted to telescope two days today and to make yesterday today, but the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine has done an even more magnificent job, he has telescoped ten months into 90 days. I was very curious when he chided the members on this side for not having read the contract, and yet he stated repeatedly that this loan was for 90 days when it is firmly stated in the contract-


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: If my hon. friend will allow me to give an explanation, it was just a slip of the tongue.


An hon. Member:: You cannot take it.


Colin Cameron: The contract
firmly states that the loan is to be repaid before April 2, 1957, some ten months from now. As I say, it gave us a light comedy touch when the hon. member spoke. However, I am interested in the views he expressed which have also been expressed by more august members of the government about the role of the opposition in parliament. Apparently the concept is that the opposition must in no way impede the passage of legislation of which it does not approve, that it must confine its efforts merely to polite commentaries on the legislation presented by the government. Of course we are then faced with this curious situation, that the members of the Liberal party and the members of the government are so witless that they are unable to use the rules of the house in order to achieve their ends and they become extremely indignant because of their lack of capacity to change the rules in order to obstruct the obstruction of the opposition. I think when it comes to obstruction the honours are very even, although I would suggest that the opposition has confined itself to playing with the rules as they are, not changing them in the middle of the game.
As I listened to the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine I wondered if he could be speaking about some other project. I almost said some other proposition, but I would not like to use that word. I wondered if he was

speaking of some project other than the actual bill which is before us. He spoke of the intention of the government by means of this legislation to bring gas from the oil and gas fields of Alberta to the markets of eastern Canada. Curiously enough we have nothing before us, either in the bill now presented by the government and forced through by illegal closure maintained by illegal means, or in the agreement which was tabled although not made an integral part of the bill to provide in any way for bringing gas any further than the city of Winnipeg. There is nothing whatever there. Of course there may be some other secret and confidential agreements about which we have not been informed. It would not be surprising. But certainly on the basis of the information we have, all we know is that there are plans to bring that gas to the city of Winnipeg.
I have been puzzled, and I suspect other hon. members as well as many of those sitting on the government side of the house have also, about the tremendous pressure and haste by which this bill is being pushed through the house. I believe we find the answer on May 28 when the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce made what to me was a very moving statement, and I say that in all sincerity. He asked this rhetorical question of the house: "Why are we pressing this? Well, I don't know, I don't know." If the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce does not know then, who in heaven's name does know and can tell us? The right hon. minister went on further to say, and this is the part I want to deal with:
I have been working on sizeable projects all my life, and somehow I reach a point in the development when I think a project is important; and if it is a serious enough project I begin to think it is the most important thing in the world and it does seem to me it is important that we do not lose a year in undertaking this pipe line.
I have every sympathy with the right hon. minister's point of view in this regard. I want to say that I would be the first, not only to admit but to proclaim that the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has made splendid gifts of service to the Canadian people. I shall go further and suggest that he is a man with most unusual and extraordinary capacities and abilities. The tragedy is of course that he is surrounded by pygmies and because he is surrounded by pygmies one can readily understand the Godlike proportions he assumes in the eyes of those pygmies to which the hon. member for Dauphin referred the other day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The twentieth century
"Gulliver's Travels"?
1. 1956	4589
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Colin Cameron: Is that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration? We on this side of the house have been puzzled as to just where the asinine advice with regard to procedure given to the government could have come from. Some of us think we know where because there is an hon. minister who has displayed a talent amounting almost to genius for ineptitude in the handling of his own department. One would assume that he would be admirably qualified to offer the insane advice that quite obviously he offered the government with regard to this bill.
As I say, I think it is a tragedy that the minister has been so poorly served. None of those who have served him has had the wit or the courage to suggest to him that there was something tragic in his, shall I say, resorting to some of the measures which have been resorted to in the last few days to push this measure through the House of Commons, when as anyone knows who has even the most modest knowledge of the rules of procedure there were methods by which this could have been put through without so seriously damaging the reputation of the government and of this house.
As I say, he was poorly served. I wonder sometimes just what the right hon. minister would do in relation to that field in which he is so eminent, the field of engineering, if some of his advisers were to present him with inaccurate estimates as to quantities, with inaccurate calculations as to stresses and strains, with hopelessly faulty estimates of the length of time required for a production project. I think I know what he would do; he would fire them very quickly. Unfortunately he has been served by people who have advised him in a field in which, shall I say, by his own admission, he is not very well versed in the methods by which measures can be brought safely through the House of Commons. He has been served by people of the sort that in his own field of engineering he would fire out of hand.
I sympathize with the minister. I can realize that he envisages this pipe line across Canada as a tremendous national project which will be the cap-stone of an extremely eminent career.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Colin Cameron: One can sympathize with that. I think I might say, having myself reached rather mature years, that I can readily understand how the minister feels with "Time's winged chariot drawing near." I can realize only too well how, when one moves into the sixth or seventh decade, those years pass quickly by, and periods which people who are fortunate enough not
4590	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation to have drawn so heavily on their bank account of time would consider modest periods into the future, at certain ages seem to be intolerable lengths of time which may frustrate a worthy and certainly understandable ambition.
I am also not among those who consider that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been deliberately trying to sell us out to the Americans. I do not think he has. I think, on the other hand, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce may perhaps have been intending to use some of those American gentlemen for his own purposes for the building of this tremendous national project and that he had obstacles in the way of bringing that to fruition and reality. Those with whom he dealt, even as those with whom he dealt with regard to parliamentary procedure, have been not worthy of his confidence or his trust. I can only think that we have in this instance of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines bill cases of what almost appear to be repeated blackmail.
As I recall, at the beginning of this session, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce placed his resolution on the order paper for the introduction of the bill to build 675 miles of pipe line in northern Ontario, it was generally considered at that time-and I presume, since the minister presented it to this house, that he considered

that this was all the concession that those who owned and controlled Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited would require to carry out the undertaking of the pipe line from Alberta to eastern Canada. Then later, within a few weeks, he placed another motion on the order paper, and we found that the ante had been raised and that not only must we build 675 miles in northern Ontario but we must advance them $80 million for the construction of the western section. As I say, that appears to me to be a case of raising the ante. One of the difficulties when one submits to extortion on one level is that one finds oneself confronted with a further demand on another level, and I believe that probably is the case in this instance.
We are told that the western section must be built this year. We are not told how soon the rest of the line is going to be built. We are not told what arrangements have been made with the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines directors, who have so often either gone back on their word or found themselves incapable of fulfilling their promises. We are not told just what firm undertakings this government has from that company that it will proceed without delay to the construction of the line from Winnipeg to the Ontario border from Kapuskasing to Montreal.


True enough there have been reports, which were referred to today in the house-I think it was today-with regard to orders that were alleged to have been placed for pipe by the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company. Like the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, I was puzzled at the placing of these orders, not merely because of the implied contempt of parliament, but also I was puzzled to know where these people suddenly were finding the $45 million when they could not find the $80 million for the western section. I wondered whether there are other advances they are going to demand from the taxpayers of Canada if and when they are confronted, as they may yet be, with a refusal on the part of the federal power commission of the United States to grant them a permit to export gas into the U.S.A. I think that was one of the obstacles the minister faced to the realization of this dream of his.
Then, I think, he faced another obstacle. In fact, he mentioned it to us in the house. That obstacle is to be found in the province of Alberta. Certainly the comment made by the minister about Mr. Manning's statement to him that he insisted upon this government giving export permits to the United States before giving the go-ahead for export permits from the province of Alberta would indicate that the government of Alberta has also held a gun to the head of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: That is nonsense.


Colin Cameron: I am only going on the word of the minister himself, which you can find in Hansard, where he told us-


Charles Edward Johnston: Where is it?


Colin Cameron: -that Mr. Manning stated that he would require to have exports of gas from Canada before he would go ahead with the deal. The hon. member asks, "Where is it?" I am not going to waste time looking it up. He knows it is on Hansard. Yes, it is here, Mr. Chairman. Since the hon. member for Bow River wants to be formally confronted with what his beloved government has done-


Charles Edward Johnston: They have done a wonderful job.


Colin Cameron: They have indeed. Premier Manning, according to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as recorded on page 2164 of Hansard, put it to him in these terms: I would, however, point out that when Premier Manning first brought the project to our Prime Minister he made it a condition that a market in the United States be arranged, in addition to markets in eastern Canada.
He made the conditions. He held the gun at the head of the Minister of Trade and

Commerce. I would imagine too, from comments that were dropped by the hon. member for Peace River, that there may be other interests in the province of Alberta, perhaps closely linked with the government of Alberta, who not merely view with concern the necessity for exporting gas from Canada but also view with concern the possibility that they might make a deal with a government owned and operated pipe line. There was a suggestion made that the producers of gas and oil in Alberta were not prepared to deal with any organization in which a government body has a deciding vote. In fact, as I recall it, I think it was Mr. Clint Murchison who was reported as having made some such observation.
These are the obstacles which, I think, the Minister of Trade and Commerce faced when he first began to consider this new, vast project which he quite understandably wished to place alongside his other achievements of Trans-Canada, Polymer and Eldorado and alongside his achievements during the war as Minister of Defence Production. I suggest that it is tragic that, in order to realize that dream within a very short period of years-and understandably he wants to do it within a very short period of years-he has been driven to these shifts, to these devices, to these obviously cobbled-together schemes for building a pipe line from Alberta to eastern Canada. I noted when the Minister of Finance spoke on this issue-


Donald Ferguson Brown: Order. I regret having to draw to the attention of the hon. member that his time has expired.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Nickle:: Mr. Chairman-


Donald Ferguson Brown: The hon. member for Calgary South.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet before the hon. member for Calgary South and I called "Mr. Chairman."


Donald Ferguson Brown: I regret very much that I did not see the hon. lady. However, I have seen the hon. member for Calgary South.


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Chairman, it was heartwarming to me tonight to read in the Ottawa Journal a Canadian Press dispatch from Calgary quoting a newspaper opinion poll by the Calgary Albertan made of the eleven executive members of the Calgary South Conservative association. The only paragraph I want to quote from that dispatch is this one:
1, 1956	4591
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
The newspaper said that the executive members not only expressed complete confidence in Mr. Nickle, but also endorsed his stand on the pipe line.
I think it is fair comment to say, Mr. Chairman, that the members of the executive of the Calgary South Conservative association and the many thousands of Calgarians who elected me to this house on two occasions did so in large measure because of two things. One was their feeling that over a good many years I had acquired quite an extensive knowledge of an industry which is rather vital to western Canada and I think increasingly vital to all of Canada. Second, I think these Calgarians, all Canadians, also had in mind their belief, which I hope has been substantiated, that I was quite prepared to call the shots as I saw them without fear or favour with regard to anyone.
My purpose in rising tonight, Mr. Chairman, is partly to state again why I support this particular government measure by speaking, with reservations, in favour of it. But the main reason I rise tonight is to state why I have voted for the measure on first and second readings and why I intend to vote for it on further occasions. I am doing so because my right to vote on this measure has been questioned on the ground that I am presumed to have a direct pecuniary interest. The mover and seconder of the motion to disallow my vote, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Assiniboia, contended that I was barred by standing order No. 11.
This order is one which, so far as I can ascertain, has hitherto in its very rare application been applied only on private bills, for example, to bar a member from voting on a private bill for incorporation of a privately financed company in which that member may have a direct financial interest. It has never been applied to any public bill, whether for incorporation of a crown corporation such as Northern Ontario Pipe Line, or whether for authorization of use of public funds for payment to wheat farmers, old age pensions, family allowances and so on, for all members of parliament could be construed as having a direct pecuniary interest by reason of their being taxpayers, and many members of parliament could be construed as having a direct pecuniary interest by reason of being recipients of a portion of such public funds.
I will leave it to parliament itself to resolve the question as to how, if at all, standing order No. 11 can or should be applied to public bills in general. So far as this particular public bill is concerned, I intend to prove there is no direct pecuniary interest
4592	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation involved that would bar me from voting on the measure and, indeed, to prove that personal financial gain plays no part whatsoever in the various policies I have urged, the speeches I have made, and the votes I have joined in in this house.
I do not question in any way the right, the duty or the purpose of the hon. members in raising the question at 2.17 a.m. on May 23. I do say, however, that the reply I am now going to give is the one I would have given at that time had I been an expert on rules and procedure or a lawyer, neither of which I am, or had I had advance notice of the question as to my eligibility, which I did not, or had the question not been raised at the end of an extremely long sitting under circumstances requiring some immediate answer from me without opportunity to consider fully or prepare a detailed factual answer. Since then I have flown west to Calgary, and have gathered the necessary documentary evidence, all of which will be made available to the appropriate house committee and to the members who raised the question. Since, sir, it is unlikely that the committee can sit in the near future because of pressure of work in the house I will now present a short summary of the evidence and reiterate that, with a completely clear conscience, I intend to vote again on this bill.
Personally I would regard as "direct pecuniary interest" barring me from voting any shareholdings in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, the company to be directly affected by this measure. I have no such interest, and as I said on May 23:
I state unequivocally that I have no share interest whatsoever in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and no shares whatsoever in any company which is a shareholder in Trans-Canada.
I will now quote from a document dated May 25, 1956, from the head office of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, which document states in part:
Carl O. Nickle . . . does not own any shares in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and has no other rights, title or option, direct or indirect, to acquire any shares in this company. The books and records of the company do fully substantiate the above statement.
The move to bar my vote, however, was not based on any claim that I had a direct interest in Trans-Canada but rather that a company of which I was a director had entered into a contract to sell gas to Trans-Canada. Thus this presumed "indirect pecuniary interest" should be construed to be a "direct interest".
If even the slightest measure of indirect pecuniary interest may be deemed to bar a member from voting on this measure, then


perhaps all members in the following categories might be disallowed: (1) All members from Alberta, on grounds that every Albertan will gain from revenues to the provincial treasury from royalties on gas produced from crown lands; (2) All members from communities, including Winnipeg, that will be served with gas through Trans-Canada, unless they are prepared to commit themselves not to use gas, because otherwise they would be direct beneficiaries of lower costs to consumers made possible by the government assistance involved in this measure; (3) All members who are shareholders of any company with gas reserves in Alberta, or shareholders in any gas distribution system in the five province area to be served by Trans-Canada; (4) in fact, we might bar all members because all members of this house are taxpayers.
I will now comment specifically on the grounds advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his contention that my vote should be disallowed. It would appear that he believes the degree of presumed pecuniary interest should determine whether or not a member's vote should be disallowed and that he assumes I have such a greater degree of pecuniary interest than other members because of associations with oil and gas companies that I should, therefore, be singled out.
When he raised the question he stated, as found at page 4241 of Hansard of May 22:
The information on which I raise this point is found in documents which are matters of record. I refer to the Parliamentary Guide, and I also refer to the Financial Post's directory of boards of directors. One can ascertain from these documents that the hon. member for Calgary South is the president, the vice-president or a director of at least nine oil, gas or pipe line companies.
His statement was misleading. My positions with these companies are a matter of public record, and always have been, partly because I have as a matter of policy tried to ensure that parliament, the public and the readers of my publications should not be under any misapprehensions as to my business relationships and partly also because shareholdings of directors of public companies are required by law to be matters of public record. Had the hon. member cared to examine other documents of public record, he could have given to the house complete details as to my shareholdings, gas reserves, contractual relationships with Trans-Canada, and so on.
To overcome that omission, I have obtained from each company of which I am a director or officer a document setting out, first, my shareholdings and percentage equity, second, their gas reserves, if any, and my equity in them and, third, their relationships with Trans-Canada, if any. These are available


Like other members of Canada's parliament, I do have a sense of public responsibility and a social conscience, together with a strong faith in the future of our country and its people, and a desire to help realize that future. In this parliament, and in the years ahead when I am a private citizen again, a clean reputation is important to me and to the objectives I still have in life. I trust that the house, after its careful appraisal of all the facts in the rather distressing case involving my honour, will help restore something that I value more than money.
Meantime, Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I advanced in this house on May 15 and May 18-and for those reasons only-I again voice my support for this government measure. On the remaining occasions when votes are registered on this measure, I intend to cast my vote for it. I trust there will be no further challenge of that right to vote.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I must
admit to having been extremely interested in the words which have just been spoken by the hon. member for Calgary South. I must also admit to having had a great deal of sympathy for the hon. member because of the position in which he found himself, where interests undoubtedly conflicted with interests.
I have only this to say. The hon. member has made quite a point of the amount of income tax he has paid and his charitable donations. All of us, Mr. Chairman, pay income tax according to our income, and it hurts the least of us as much as it hurts the richest of us. With respect to charitable donations also, if we have a public conscience, as I think most of us have, they are likely made in proportion to the amount of revenue we earn. I must say, Mr. Chairman, in behalf of myself and my colleagues, that the hon. member might have accorded us the courtesy of admitting that the rest of us are in precisely the same position.
This has been a difficult debate, Mr. Chairman, what there has been of it. Those of us who have fought, probably not in the debate itself because there has been too little of that, with the only means at our disposal have been fortified by the interest that has been taken in that fight as shown by the letters and telegrams which have come to us from our constituents and from others across this country. It is largely because of the interest which has been shown in this measure, not only, I might say, in the measure but in the incidents which have taken place in this house, that I feel it would be difficult for any of us to convince even our most well-meaning constituents that what has taken place here today could actually have happened. Hansard will not show it.

Hansard will show words; Hansard will not show emotions. It has been said many times of things that have happened in this world of ours in the last 25 years that it could not happen here. Mr. Chairman, it could happen here.


Mr. White (Hasiings-Fronlenac):: It has
happened.


William Earl Rowe: It has.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: On what is our government founded?


Mr. Purdy:: On democracy.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: "Democracy", my friend says. It got a death blow this afternoon. You might as well just get out; you are no use in this house. Mr. Chairman, I would not have said a word to the hon. member had he not interjected.


An hon. Member:: Do you not believe in the majority rule?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I agree the majority rules, my friend; I do indeed. But when that majority abuses the use of the rules, of procedure and of precedents that have been built up in this country over hundreds of years, then it is not a case of majority ruling; it is the old steamroller tactics, the very type of thing that robbed Europe of democracy. I admit, Mr. Chairman, to feeling strongly on this subject; I admit to feeling so strongly that it is difficult for me to speak upon it.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Don't say "oh, no". Possibly the hon. gentleman has not had in his family the history that I have had in mine. In the last 500 years, as I think I have mentioned in this house before, Mr. Chairman, my family has fled from persecution in two countries and it is here today in Canada, and has been here for five generations, thinking that in this country we had freedom. If this freedom is taken from us, Mr. Chairman, where do we go for sanctuary? Where do we go?


An hon. Member:: Not to me.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Not to you; you're not fooling. The type of thinking which prompted that remark, the type of thinking which prompted the votes which have taken place in this house today, Mr. Chairman, is the type of thing that has robbed free peoples of their freedom over this world many, many times.
I say to you advisedly that threats face us. There are so many kinds of people in this country. The people of the North American continent, and the people of the world, have been warned of threats of physical extinction 67509-292
1. 1956	4595
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation by reason of atomic bombs or hydrogen bombs. But, Mr. Chairman, there are other types of extinction. To die; we all come to it eventually. If we live the proper kind of life we do not fear death, but a living death is a different thing. I say to this house that there are things to be feared worse than the death which may come to one from an atomic or a hydrogen bomb. I did not hear that last interjection from my friend. If he would like to repeat it I would be very glad to hear it. There have been a good many interjections in this debate.
I had intended to speak tonight specifically upon the gas pipe line. If events of this day have prompted me to depart from my intention it is probable that hon. members will understand that there are some things that need to be said under stress. We have heard a great many excuses given for the procedure which is now proposed on Bill No. 298. We have had quoted to us the words of many persons. As a matter of fact, almost always when anybody speaks in this house he refers to so and so who is an expert in his field. Experts! Many of them have been quoted to us. I do not know under what conditions they become experts, Mr. Chairman. I only know that just the other day, in the course of my reading, I found a modern definition of the word "expert" which said that "ex" is a has-been and "spurt" is a drip under pressure. We have been suspicious of those experts and I think it is only natural that we should be suspicious. All the circumstances have been suspicious.
The hon. member for Nanaimo made some excuses for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Well, I am quite willing to go along with them. Possibly, in the words of the street, he was "had". It seems to me there are a few things we should bear in mind, and I would like to mention three or four around which my own suspicions have centred.
In the first place there is the length of time which has elapsed since the first charter of this company was procured. There has been a great deal of talk about the necessity for haste. It seems to me, however, the necessity for haste is something that has developed in very recent days. There seemed to be no necessity for haste back in 1951; and even granting that some hon. members of this house might think this thing really only started in 1953 after the company was forced into it's present alliance, it seems to me there was no particular need for haste in 1953 or 1954 or 1955.
The early assertions of financial competence on the part of this company, which made a very fine plea before the committee when it was endeavouring to procure its charter, have
4598	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation fallen by the wayside and now, rather than standing solidly on their own two feet, they are appealing for help.
The Prime Minister made some reference to what he termed "the amusing speech" of the hon. member for Peel. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I have made an error. It was not the hon. member for Peel and I apologize to the Prime Minister. It was the hon. member for Spadina who made the statement that he had seen Mr. Murchison on television some time ago and the interviewer asked Mr. Murchison if what he had heard was true, that Mr. Murchison had not put his own money into the ventures. Mr. Murchison replied laughingly, "not if I could help it." Apparently he does not intend to put his own money into this venture nor the money of the company with which he is associated.
I am impressed by the reluctance of the company to proceed with the northern Ontario section, the section which they took in their stride when they were applying for a charter. After it was made easier for them they found it was still too difficult for them to undertake. I wonder that' the minister did not call them to task on that occasion because of their misrepresentations. Again they came along and said that now they had received help for the northern Ontario section they could not proceed with the easiest part of the line, the part from the Alberta border down to the vicinity of Winnipeg.
Then, Mr. Chairman, we had the spectacle of this company which had bragged that it was quite capable of financing its endeavours applying for this loan to finance the western portion, a loan which it has been admitted in this house can only be liquidated if this company can sell gas in the middle states. Meanwhile the bottleneck to such a sale has been created by the opposition presently being irgued before the federal power commission.
I say once more, Mr. Chairman, that a most suspicious circumstance has developed out of this very situation, for here we have the spectacle of a large, powerful transmission company with heretofore a good public relations record which now departs from its usual methods of operation in these established markets and antagonizes distributors quite contrary to their established practice, to the extent that they are accused before the federal power commission of raiding an established market presently served also by reputable distributors.
I say if the transmission company had at its disposal contracts for the importation of large quantities of natural gas it would be quite natural for it to try to distribute that gas through recognized channels. Why would it attempt to antagonize the people already


established in that field, unless it hoped by antagonizing them to stir up such resentment on their part that they in turn would do just what they have done; namely, appeal to the federal power commission not to give the permission which they sought? Mr. Chairman, it is a most suspicious circumstance.
I cannot see why in the face of all the suspicion anyone could fail to wonder whether this great, powerful and wealthy Trans-Canada corporation wants to get out from under, as appears to be the case.
I cannot help but be suspicious concerning the minister's position when he presses this company to go ahead with its plans despite the repeated actions on their part which dictate the very suspicions I have mentioned. The Minister says these people are the only ones who have contracts. He says they are the only ones who have the pipe, and that we cannot purchase this pipe in Canada. Oh, no? Apparently Welland Tubes got into operation a little sooner than the minister expected.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, on a point order, Welland Tubes have not broken ground for their plant yet.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: All right; but they have accepted orders for delivery this year of 20-inch pipe.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: They have accepted
orders for pipe to be delivered to firms in western Ontario this year.


William Earl Rowe: For 30-inch pipe. He knows that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister says no, Mr. Chairman, but I am much too suspicious even to accept a "no".


George Harris Hees: Attagirl.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I submit that if the Minister of Trade and Commerce had put one-tenth of the energy into supporting the plans of a Canadian plant to produce pipe in Canada that he has put into trying to force a United States corporation to accept a Canadian loan which he will get from the Canadian taxpayers, we probably would have had 34-inch pipe before this time.


Mr. Byrne:: Why manufacture pipe if we can't have a pipe line?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Too bad I did not hear you.


William Earl Rowe: You did not miss a thing.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Considering what has
happened in the past, Mr. Chairman, and what has taken place in this house today,

yesterday and within the last two weeks during which the opposition has been gagged and stifled, when discussion has been prohibited, when questions have been unanswered and, generally speaking, parliamentary privileges have been prostituted-


An hon. Member:: Whew!


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have one last remark to make, and that is that it might well happen that before this whole thing is over what has been Howe's pipe dream may well become Canada's nightmare.


Mr. Hunter:: Mr. Chairman, I am going to speak as a Toronto member. I think all hon members will recognize it as a rare occasion when a Liberal from Toronto speaks as a Toronto member. Normally that position has been arrogated by the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Broadview. Therefore it is to that extent a special occasion. However, I do doubt very much whether the power of the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Broadview will continue after this terrific display of political legerdemain which they have put on during the last few weeks. I hope also that I shall not be as emotional as the previous speaker, because I think her remarks about the hon. member for Calgary South were tawdry to say the least.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Emotion is born of fright, my friend.


John William Gordon Hunter: The matter of the pipe line has not been considered very much by the opposition, whose members have spent their time in making innumerable motions and raising points of order and questions of privilege. They have done everything they could to keep away from the pipe line. They have not a leg to stand on, and even stupid as they may appear to be they have found that out.
There is a great deal of gas in Alberta. They cannot use it, while we could use it down here. There is an incipient shortage of power in Ontario. I should like to quote from the submission by the government of Ontario to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. At page 56 they had this to say:
Added to this will be capital expenditures for the development of electric power in the order of $125 million to $150 million a year, or from nearly $1-3 billion to $1-5 billion over the ten-year period.
In addition to that I am assuming that the premier of Ontario and his provincial treasurer know something about the province where they head the government. It has been read before, but I should like to read again the letter written by Hon. Dana Porter. The 67509-292J
1. 1956	4597
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Tories talk about there being no urgency, but I wish they would listen to what the Conservative provincial treasurer of the province of Ontario had to say, and I quote:
Generally, in view of our rapid industrial expansion, coupled with the fact that our hydroelectric power resources are now approaching their maximum limits of development, the necessity of new sources of fuel for our industries and our domestic consumers is becoming increasingly urgent. We agree with you that further delays in the construction of this project would have very adverse consequences. Time has become of the essence. Every day's delay invites the most serious consequences to the development of Ontario, and to the national economy. In these circumstances, it would appear essential that the western section of the line be completed during the year 1956. To accomplish this, we understand that actual construction must be commenced not later than July 1.
I hear it reiterated time after time by these great experts over here that there is no hurry. I cannot think of a more negative or obstructive or reactionary or destructive outlook. These people apparently do not want the pipe line built. They say they do, but their actions indicate otherwise. They have been objecting to the application of a thing called closure, and have been trying every dodge in the books to prevent it. I think it is high time this small group of political misfits began to realize that there is a government here and that it is going to run the affairs of this country.
I should like to refer to an editorial which appeared in the Financial Post of May 19, reading as follows:
Here is an important piece of national business to get done. Weather in this country limits the construction season.
One of the main reasons for the government going to the help of the pipeliners at all is to make certain that at least the Alberta to Winnipeg part of the line is built this season.
It would be an outrage to let mere gas-bagging in the House of Commons result in the waste of another construction season.
And this is important: All the political parties say they want a pipe line fast. There is no longer any argument as to what route the line should take. The only argument turns on what company shall do the job.
One very disreputable effort at confusing the public relates to the financial help which the government is giving the pipeliners.
One C.C.F.er gave his hearers the impression that the government loan to the pipeliners would be a charge on taxpayers' pockets the same as hospital bills or additional pensions.
If this man had wanted to give his hearers the truth of the situation he would have pointed to the difference in the investing of money in a sound loan repayable with interest in a year and the spending of money for goods to be consumed-like ice cream cones.
The fact of the matter is the government's help to the pipeliners is unlikely to cost the taxpayer anything. Either the loan is repaid with interest, or the government will own the line.
The recent noise on parliament hill over the gas line should be recognized for what it is: a violent effort by the opposition parties to mislead and

4598	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation befuddle the Canadian public in the hope of making political profit for the next election.
That is from a paper which has not always been friendly to this government. May I also refer you to another article which appeared in the Financial Post of June 2, reading as follows:
The Case for Speed is Clear and Urgent
The loud and lengthy row in Ottawa about the gas pipe line is not serving the national interest.
Opposition M.P.'s would like the public to believe that they are a platoon of John Hampdens saving parliament from executive tyranny and defending a Canadian natural resource against foreign exploitation.
What they are really doing is endangering a project that will be greatly to the advantage of the Canadians in the west who want to sell gas and the other Canadians, mainly in the east, who Want to buy it.
It is unfortunate that negotiations with Trans-Canada did not mature fast enough to let the government present its plan earlier in the session. To announce closure before the debate began may have been ham-handed.
But the case for speed is clear. Actually the key purpose of the government's proposal was speed-* to get the job going this summer.
If action in this construction season were not a matter of concern, the government would not be making its present proposal and Trans-Canada would be left to continue its hunt for loans in the normal places. So a lengthy filibuster which would prevent action this construction season would be just as much a frustration of majority will as defeat of the measure itself.
This is not a Sell-Out
The trouble with the opposition is not that it has been gagged but that it has been unconvincing and unconstructive.
Canadian taxpayers, it is said, are being asked to pay Americans for laying the pipe line. The fact is that the government is merely proposing a loan repayable with interest. And if the pipe line were any such sure-fire profit bonanza as some opposition speakers imply, there would not be five minutes' delay in getting the required loans. Actually, the pipe line itself is at best a very modest profit proposition.
Wildly extravagant and ill-founded statements have been made that this is a vicious sell-out of natural resources to foreigners.
Natural resources are of only hypothetical value until they can be sold. The pipe line will give western Canadians a lot of revenue for something they can't sell now. Their raw material sales will serve the interest of eastern Canadian industries and householders first.
Gas which is surplus to Canadian needs will be sold in the United States.
Do we hear cries of "sell-out to foreigners'' when Canada makes gigantic sales of forest products and minerals to Americans, often through United States controlled companies? Of course not.
Let parliament stop this politics-playing, get this matter settled and get ahead on this and other pieces of important national business.
Of course, the C.C.F. want to nationalize the pipe line. I do not blame them for that. They have always been a socialist party, and they would like to nationalize all the means of production. Anybody with any common sense knows that if we can get a natural re-

source from Alberta to eastern Canada without paying for it with taxpayers' money, we would have a hole in our heads if we paid for it out of the taxpayers' money. This line is not a national asset; it is a construction job. If we can get private industry to pay for that construction job-


An hon. Member:: 


John William Gordon Hunter: -we would be unworthy of our positions here if we spent the taxpayers' money on it. They keep on saying, "We have sold our birthright." The only thing we have sold to the Americans is some surplus gas. What do they want us to do with it? Should we burn it or cap it? It is absurd to say we are selling out to the Americans when we are selling surplus gas to the Americans. The Americans sold us large quantities of oil during the war. They did not cut it off. They let us have it because they are friends of ours.


An hon. Member:: You do not live in
southwestern Ontario.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: They did cut it off during the war.


John William Gordon Hunter: You are a little emotional; keep quiet. Not only that, but this pipe line and the energy that comes from it will in turn provide employment for many thousands of Canadians who would never get that employment if they depended on this handful of misfits over here to my left. I wonder if they suggest that we should send back to the United States American subidiaries in Canada such as General Motors of Canada, Chrysler Corporation of Canada, Ford of Canada, Canadian General Electric, Westing-house, Bell Telephone, International Business Machines, National Cash Register, Goodyear, C.I.L., Imperial Oil, International Nickel and Anaconda Brass? Would you send those companies back? They provide thousands and thousands of well-paid jobs to Canadian citizens.


William Earl Rowe: Whose policy brought them here?


John William Gordon Hunter: This is a very large scheme. In fact it is so large that the people in that part of the house cannot even understand it. The Leader of the Opposition brought up a new slogan the other day. How did it go? "On guard for Canada." I should like to suggest a more apt slogan than that for the Tories: "Obstruction always; construction never."
As far as this marriage of convenience between this so-called Conservative group, the great reactionary group, and the socialists is concerned, it is going to be very interesting to see what the progeny will be. One thing

is sure. The C.C.F. had better take note that the Leader of the Opposition is so famous for his boners that they are making a terrible mistake in going near him.
I wonder where the Leader of the Opposition gets his ideas. I have often wondered that. I certainly know where he could have got this one, and that is straight from Moscow. I have a pamphlet which reads:
Stop, Look, Listen, Premier St. Laurent!
That is signed by Tim Buck. Everything in it is what the Leader of the Opposition has been talking about for the past two weeks. It is rather amusing that the Leader of the Opposition could fall for this communist propaganda. It is not only inept; it is ludicrous. It just shows where political expediency can land an unwary politician. Anti-Americanism as a political platform is a tawdry and sordid affair.


William Earl Rowe: You should know; you have used it for 25 years.


John William Gordon Hunter: It took the Leader of the Opposition a long time to find out that under section 155 of the Companies Act the majority of directors had to be subjects of Her Majesty resident in Canada. First of all, he criticized the government very strongly for not providing it in the bill. But I understand the Leader of the Opposition has been out of the practice of law for many years and had forgotten the contents of part 3 of the federal Companies Act.
In conclusion I wish merely to say that this country and its citizens in the days to come are going to thank God for the Prime Minister of this country and for the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Mitchell (London):: Mr. Chairman, this Grit gag has been rammed so far down my throat-


An hon. Member:: Good.


Robert Weld Mitchell: -that I do not know whether I can speak.


An hon. Member:: You never could.


Robert Weld Mitchell: Even if I cannot, I am not sure it is worth while voicing my words in the tattered remnants of what was once a free parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Weld Mitchell: We have heard in the last few days some most amazing statements in this house.


An hon. Member:: That is for sure.
L 1956	4599
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Robert Weld Mitchell: We have seen some amazing incidents. I have been blessed with a strong stomach which has seen me through quite a few revolting occasions, and I have been able to stand a number of revolting statements. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this afternoon in this house occurred the most revolting thing I have ever heard:	On the
one hand, in an effort to drown out the speeches which could properly have been made, I heard a song, "Hail, Hail, the Gang's All Here; What the Hell Do we Care?" From the choir to my right I heard something I thought I would never hear in these hails- a travesty, a sacrilege-when they attempted to sing a song I have always loved. I think there are many members in this house, on all sides of the house, who resent the singing of that hymn in this house.


An hon. Member:: You call it a song?


Some hon. Members:: Name it.


Robert Weld Mitchell: I do not want to bother them any further than they are bothered now. They are so worried over there that they cannot even sleep. It was "Onward, Christian Soldiers", if you must have the name. The hon. member for Park-dale, who stands up with such righteous zeal, was one of those who participated in it.
We are discussing here not one pipe line but two pipe lines. One of those pipe lines is projected in the mind of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The other pipe line is completed; it is the pipe line that runs from the desk of the leader of the house to the Chair. The only difficulty with that pipe line is that it sprang a leak on one occasion, and the Chair did not know; but the leader of the house was directing the Chair what to do.


An hon. Member:: You have a filthy mind.


Robert Weld Mitchell: I have eyes too, and I can see what goes on, and I saw the nod that was missed. I saw the passing of papers from the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, pure and simple evidence that the pipe line exists.
We heard some quotations-as a matter of fact, we did not hear very much but quotations-from the hon. member for Parkdale. I should like to refer him to a quotation from a speech made in the house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is piloting this bill, if you can call it piloting. As found at page 4405 of Hansard of May 28 the minister said:
. . . why are we pressing this? Well, I do not know-
4600	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
That is one of the most significant statements, Mr. Chairman, despite what the member for Parkdale may say, that has yet been made in the house. "I do not know". In effect he says, "I do not know why we are ramming this down the throats of members of this house". Then he went on to say:
-perhaps I get overenthusiastic . . .
Well, Mr. Chairman, I have no objection whatsoever to enthusiasm. I get enthusiastic myself, and I think each and every one of us does. But I suggest that overenthusiasm is just as bad a fault and in many cases worse than a negative approach. It leads to trouble. Here we are with a bill on which debate has been closed off at every opportunity. There have been no second looks, and I suggest that second looks are often advisable, even for the omnipotent and all-powerful Minister of Trade and Commerce.
It was possible some weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, to have an honest and open examination before a committee of the provisions of the resolution and the bill. I admit that because of the tactics that have been followed by the government that is no longer possible. But we should at least have such answers as the Minister of Trade and Commerce can give us, and we should have those answers given to us here. I refer to another statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce found at page 4404 of Hansard of May 28, where he is reported as saying:
I have spoken three times in this debate-
You will recall what he did on each and every occasion when he spoke.
-and my purpose in rising now is to attempt to make this a committee where questions that are asked can be answered.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And he is not even here tonight.


Robert Weld Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that he has not answered the questions. In fact, one of the amusing things is that the only question he answered he answered incorrectly. At page 4475 of Hansard of May 30 I find these words of the minister:
I have a correction that has to do with the figures I gave on the cost of gas.
That is the only time he has intervened to answer any questions that have been posed to him during the course of the debate. You say: All right, what questions have been asked that he has not answered? I refer you to the remarks which were made by the hon. member for St. Paul's. I refer you to the questions which were asked by the member for Peel. I refer you to the remarks which were made by the member for Spadina. All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that with the exception of this one time when the minister


intervened to correct a misstatement he had made, the minister has not deigned to answer the questions which have been posed to him.
I now propose to refer to some remarks made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce last session. During a somewhat similar debate I made some reference to the unemployment and farm relief act, which has also been referred to during the course of this debate. The minister interposed during the course of my remarks to say, as found at page 5028 of Hansard of June 20, 1955:
Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend would like to amplify a little. I do not recognize the legislation. Was that the blank cheque legislation?
Subsequently, Mr. Chairman, on the next occasion when I had the honour to be addressing the house the minister again referred to that remark to which I replied, as found at page 5796 of Hansard of July 6, 1955:
Referring to blank cheques, what could be more of a blank cheque than this present legislation?
At that time, Mr. Chairman, I had no idea just how far the present Minister of Trade and Commerce would go. Standing here tonight I am reminded of a musical that I have enjoyed witnessing and listening to on many occasions but which has now ceased to have the same enjoyment for me because it contains a certain song I would love to sing but for lack of voice will not do so. The words are, "He's gone about as far as he can go." The present minister has certainly gone about as far as he can go; but who knows, apparently there are no limits to the arrogance and the imagination of the person who holds that portfolio at the present time. I say further that, politically speaking, the government has not only gone about as far as it can go. It has gone as far as it can go.
What about this blank cheque? I propose to examine what are the normal requirements of a cheque. No. 1 is the date. We have before us a cheque in the form of a bill, a bill which is placed before us for signature. The only definite thing about that bill is its date. Usually the person drawing the cheque, namely this parliament, has something to say about the date. This cheque was dated long before it was ever placed before the drawer for consideration. The payee came to the government with a gun in its hand and said "either or else". I want to know what vicious circumstances lie behind the fact that the government has the unmitigated gall to bring to parliament for signature a cheque which was dated long in advance of the time we had any opportunity to consider it.
The tragedy of the matter is that the drawer is dying in the process, and only the future will tell how bad indeed was this cheque. The drawer will die of the fetters that

shackle him, just as surely as free men and free parliaments have done elsewhere; and you and I, Mr. Chairman, have seen them so die.
What is the second requirement of a cheque? I suggest that it is the name of the payee, and I ask who is the payee of this cheque? On looking at section 4 of the bill I find the name of the payee. We have not been permitted to discuss sections 1, 2 or 3. Section 4 is the first opportunity we have had to consider the nature of the person to whom this cheque is going to be made payable. Who is the payee? The minister talks of blank cheques. This cheque is not only blank, it is bunk.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to examine clause 4. In clause 4 I find that the payee is named on about five occasions, namely "the corporation." Who is going to negotiate a cheque made payable to "the corporation"? We have had no opportunity to discuss the nature of the corporation, what its assets were, what its liabilities were or what its possibilities of building this project were if we signed this cheque. As far as this minister is concerned I can only say this; how blank can he get?
Let us now look at the next requisite of a cheque. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps the amount is something which should be considered. In this case the government contends that it is presenting to us-


Edmund Davie Fulton: More instructions via the pipe line?


Robert Weld Mitchell: Yes; the pipe-line corporation is in action, I see. The government presents to us a cheque which it says is for $130 million. I look at section 6, in which it is said that the amount shall not exceed $130 million. Mr. Chairman, I ask you this question. Is that a proper cheque?
I ask that question for two reasons. One is this. May the amount be less? But by far the most important one is this. What is going to happen if this chosen instrument of this all-powerful minister fails to raise the necessary financing? Then this cheque is going to be raised. This cheque is going to have to be raised.
Mr. Chairman, may I now turn to what is perhaps one of the other most serious requirements of a cheque and it is this. On whom is this cheque drawn? Who is the banker who is going to pay this cheque when we are forced to sign it? I suggest that it is the Canadian taxpayer, as each and every one of us knows, and that once again he is being put in the position so well depicted in various cartoons as "UNO Who". What does the average taxpayer know about what is taking
I. 1956	4601
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation place on this particular occasion? We have been throttled here. We have had no opportunity of calling witnesses before us, as was done when this chosen instrument received its charter-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Robert Weld Mitchell: Somebody says
"oh, oh"; and that very somebody was present, I believe, in the committee that examined and cross-examined the witnesses when they established to the satisfaction of that committee that they were able to finance and to build this line completely in Canada. Now he says "oh, oh". What has happened? Why have we not been given the opportunity, by examination and cross-examination of competent witnesses, to find out why this company that was the chosen instrument is no longer able to finance and build this line completely in Canada? Why have the Canadian people not been told through the medium of that committee and through the medium of answers-however inadequate-given in that committee what the proposition is? Not only are the Canadian people not being told, Mr. Chairman, but we have had closure thrust down our throats at every step.
I suggest to the minister that he could have saved himself and his government a great deal of trouble if he had gone into this matter on a businesslike and reasonable basis, and had applied closure if necessary instead of as of right. If he was interested in having the public, who are going to foot the bill, know what was going on, why did he not permit reasonable debate at all stages? Why did he move closure immediately on the resolution? Why on the second reading? Why on clauses 1, 2 and 3 in committee?


An hon. Member:: For concealment.


Robert Weld Mitchell: Why did he do that? I submit, Mr. Chairman, that all he had to do was permit the debate to take its normal course. Then if he found that the debate was not taking a normal course, if he found that the opposition were obstructing and being unreasonable, that was the time to introduce closure and no one could have criticized him for doing so. But here he had a date set long before the people who are going to be called upon to sign this cheque had even heard of it. He had a date set, and he is determined to ram this thing through this house in the quickest possible time. Then he is amazed, hurt and dismayed to find that Canadians who sit on this side of the house are not prepared to be treated in that way.


William James Henderson: May I advise the hon. member that his time has now expired.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. Stuarl (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, the official opposition seem to have had two things in mind all through this debate; first to get as far away as possible from discussing the bill-and we have had some very good examples of that tonight-for the obvious reason that they had nothing better to offer; and second, to use every means at their disposal to prevent those who wish to debate the issue from doing so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is this another Cockfield Brown speech?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: For five years in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and in this House of Commons they built up the hon. member for Calgary South as an expert on oil and gas.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, we didn't. You did.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: All their problems in connection with oil and gas were taken to the hon. member for Calgary South for his approval or disapproval, and not a single decision could be taken without his endors-ation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Did you have your eye at the
keyhole?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: His word was the final answer for the Tories during those five years. During this debate, however, the Tories who are so critical of closure being applied imposed a rigid type of closure. They speak so often of freedom of speech. In so far as the hon. member for Calgary South is concerned, not one single word could he have uttered in this house if in any way they could have stopped him. The only way he was allowed to speak was for some of the other parties to give him the floor in place of one of their own members. It was not the Tory party which gave him the privilege of expressing his views. After this privilege had been provided, however, his friends-those who had been boosting him as an oil expert for five years-after he was given an opportunity to speak in place of a Liberal, tried to stop him from speaking.
Another great worry among the Tories is United States domination. We hear that so often.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hear, hear. Read the current issue of Maclean's magazine.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: They object to United States capital coming into this great country of ours to develop the industries that provide employment for Canadian people. They have always advocated Canadian raw materials for Canadians first, and no export of any raw material until every Canadian
[The Acting Chairman (Mr. Henderson).]
from coast to coast has been satisfied, regardless of how unrealistic this might appear from an economic standpoint. One of their group, however, takes a far different view. The hon. member for Broadview, speaking on this matter on May 18-and these remarks will be found at page 4090 of Hansard-was asked by the hon. member for Halifax if he supported the McMahon proposals. The hon. member for Broadview replied:
The McMahon proposal looks like an excellent one. Yes, I certainly do.
The McMahon proposal was designed to export 80 per cent of the capacity of the pipe line outside of Canada. That statement came from one of the greatest flag-wavers I have ever seen in the House of Commons. Not 20 per cent was he going to export; he was prepared to export 80 per cent. I for one-


Mr. Michener:: What is the capacity of the pipe line?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: -have little worry with regard to United States capital coming into this country. In fact-


Daniel Roland Michener: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I sat quietly here for three weeks while you were yapping.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the courtesy you get from the Liberals.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I can think of no better capital that can come from anywhere. I might also suggest I can think of no finer people that I would like to have as neighbours.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We do not mind them as neighbours; we do not want them as owners.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I would not mind having them in my house. I have brothers and relatives in the United States and I consider that they are as good United States citizens as I am a Canadian.
Much of the# criticism that we have had to listen to as well has centred around the fact that the government was lending money to a company which originated outside Canada. That has been a great worry to our Tory friends. One would be led to believe that the Tory party had never supported such a proposal, and would fight any such idea just as long as they could stand on their feet.
In looking over the record of that once great Tory party since the turn of the century-and I am thankful we have had very few Tory governments in that period-I find that order in council P.C. 2490 of November 29, 1933, under the Bennett government,

guaranteed a loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway of $60 million; and at that period less than 13 per cent of the stock of that company was owned in Canada.
This government has been called the "government by order in council", or the "order in council government". That loan was granted by R. B. Bennett by order in council. He did not bring it before parliament, and it was not tabled until the next session. I suggest that $60 million is an enormous amount of money because in that period, 1933, it constituted 20 per cent of our total federal revenue, and today it would be the equivalent of over $900 million, based on today's revenue.
I wish to make it abundantly clear, however, that I am not criticizing the loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Your government permitted inflation.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I would suggest that under the Tory party of that time God knows anyone who could get a loan needed it, individuals as well as large corporations, because I went through that period with my two hands in salt water trying to make a living and I know how hard R. B. Bennett tried to make it for me to live at all. Therefore I can realize why large corporations and individuals would need a little help. But might I say of this period that while a $60 million loan out of a total revenue of $300 million was granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway, R. B. Bennett could find only 20 cents a day for the poor working man who could not find a job. The amount involved in this bill that we have been trying to discuss here is less than 2 per cent of our total revenue; in fact, 1 * 7 per cent.
We have heard all this talk about United States domination, lending money to a company that is not owned within Canada, but here is an example of the great government of R. B. Bennett that lent 20 per cent of the total revenue of 1933 to a company that was 83 per cent owned outside this country of ours.


Lester Bowles Pearson: By order in council.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I should like to take a few minutes to deal with some criticism that was handed out by the hon. member for Eglinton. I understand that for some cause he was called out of order. Tonight I noticed that the hon. member for Hamilton West used these words when speaking of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, "under suspicious circumstances". Well, now, in my opinion and in the opinion of a great many in this house, the drama that was put on last Friday, a week ago today, was prearranged and premeditated well in advance. It came to a conclusion, however, as a result of what
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation was called the refusal of the chairman to allow the hon. member for Eglinton to speak.
I have gone over Hansard of three days only, May 23, 24 and 25. I find that the name of the hon. member for Eglinton appears as speaking 118 times during that three-day period. If the 264 members had taken the same amount of time we would have had 31,152 speeches, and if the average length of their speeches had been five minutes, not 15 minutes or 20 minutes, it would have taken 155,760 minutes or 2,596 hours.
Now, we all know that the average hours of sitting of this house over the week are five hours a day. If this is broken down I find it would take 519 sitting days to provide all the members the same privilege accorded the hon. member for Eglinton during those three days. With a five-day week, which is what we have been working, it would take- and I want hon. members to remember those figures-104 weeks or exactly two years without any recess at all to give all members of the House of Commons the same length of time that was given to the hon. member for Eglinton. He is the hon. gentleman who spoke over the radio and over television and was quoted in the press and had parades in the city of Toronto. I understand that thousands turned up at the airport.


Some hon. Members:: Twenty-six.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I leave it to the house and to the citizens of this country to judge for themselves whether the hon. member for Eglinton was denied the right to speak in the House of Commons.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Get the figures accurately; don't distort them.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Was there some question? I would like to say at this point, for the benefit of the hon. member to my left, that he should remember those figures. Those 104 weeks, or two years, would take us to clause 4 of this bill; that is all. It would take us 104 weeks to reach clause 4 because that is where we were when the flag was put on the hon. gentleman's desk and he bowed out of the House of Commons. I leave it to the house and to the citizens of this country, as I have said, to judge whether the hon. member for Eglinton had been denied the right to speak in this house.
I want to say just a few words about closure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When are you going to get to the pipe line?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Over four months ago this government and the people of this
4604	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation country were warned by prominent members of the official opposition and of the C.C.F. group over the radio, in the press and wherever they could find a chance to speak, that they were going to filibuster the pipeline bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What a panic you fell into.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: We knew that early in January. Over this 4-month period they kept the threat before the public continuously that they were going to filibuster, and it was suggested that the filibuster of last year was but a drop in the bucket.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Panic, panic.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Closure is a rule that originated in the mother of parliaments, and we hear that quotation from the Tories quite often. It has been used 122 times in the past five years at Westminster.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They do not have a closure rule there like this one.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Why should the
Tories object to the use of a device of their own creation, because it was their own prime minister who used it first in this country. I want to suggest that I am one who believes that closure should have been used long ago, and I want that to go on the record right here tonight. One case was during the debate on the wheat bill a couple of months ago, when we sat here day after day and heard the same thing over and over again.
I say that for this reason. The very people whom we were trying to help were the ones who were filibustering. We who come from eastern Canada and from the far western part of the country suggest to you that it gets very tiresome when we have done everything we can to try to assist that particular group and we have to sit here and take abuse for doing it. That is why I am suggesting tonight I only wish that we had used closure before, and I hope we use it more often in the future.
I have one other thing to say. I see my time is getting short. I hope the day will never come in a democratic country when the majority are unable to rule. I believe in an opposition.


Alfred Claude Ellis: When are you going to say anything about the pipe line?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I have said more about the pipe line than all of your group put together since the debate started. I believe in an opposition, surely, but I do not believe in minority rule. That section of the British North America Act quoted by the 

hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George on Tuesday night is a very appropriate and a very good reminder.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What has that to do with the pipe line?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The section he referred to was section 49, which reads as follows:
Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of voices.


William Earl Rowe: Voices?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: And when we get away from that fact we are getting a long, long way from democracy.


William Earl Rowe: You did say voices?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: There would have been voices heard in every case if your group had not' forced recorded votes. If you had not done that about two-thirds of the votes would have been standing votes; but no, you wanted to waste more time and keep your whip in the corridors and up in the rooms.


William Earl Rowe: You said voices but you won't let us talk. You tell us we can vote but not voice.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Constructive criticism is a fine contribution to any debate, but when one criticizes without at the same time suggesting some alternative proposal one is wasting one's own time and the time of the house.


William Earl Rowe: So you say.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The opposition have stated many times that they have been denied the privilege of discussing the first three clauses of this bill. Surely they will not insist they have discussed clause 4 after this debate is over, because we have listened to a discussion concerning everything in the wide world except the bill itself. They have, without interference from the chair-they have never been called to order-strayed as far away from the subject as they liked. We have had a rehash of elections in Quebec and Saskatchewan and in other places, and no one was called to order.
The last thing in the world that group wanted to do was discuss this bill. Why? It is for one reason and for one reason alone; they do not have a single constructive suggestion. There was not an idea in their heads, any more than there ever was. The only thing they wanted to do was discuss procedure and waste time in an effort to delay this thing.
I will mention one other matter briefly. We have been told on many occasions that this is one of the most important debates

in the history of this country. Well, I sat across there last Tuesday afternoon and for one hour there were never more than eight Conservatives in their seats, and for quite a long period there were only three. These are the gentlemen who inform us this is one of the most important debates that has taken place in the history of this country. If it is as important as they suggest, I am still eagerly waiting for some of them to discuss it.


An hon. Member:: They have gone home.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: However, they do not want to discuss it because they have nothing to offer. They are just stumbling around in chaos. That is exactly the position they are in at the present time, I would say.
In closing I want to say, regardless of what has been said in the heat that has been generated since this debate began, the minority in this house may believe they should be running the show but that just cannot be so. The majority must rule. It is all right to obstruct to a certain point, but when the obstruction gets to the point where we have demonstrations such as we have seen here in the last ten days it is going too far. I might also say without any thought or fear of contradiction that crass statements that should have been withdrawn have all come from that part of the house.
I have been here for 11 years, and I believe I have made some friends in the city of Ottawa. In conclusion, I do not know how long I will be here but as long as I am here I pray I will never say some of the things that have been said during this debate, and I hope they will never be said again in this house. Let us get down to business and do the work we were sent here to do, and forget about wasting time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Tell us about the pipe line.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Let us forget
about defeating one another-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Come on, tell us about the pipe line.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Davie, I will say this to you in closing. I have listened patiently to you during all the time you have been on your feet and some of the craziest ideas I have ever heard-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Tell me about the pipe line.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: -have come from you.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Tell me about the pipe line. That is what I want to hear. Tell me about the pipe line.
1, 1956	4605
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Yes, I will tell you about the pipe line. The pipe line will be built and this government will get credit for supporting it


Edmund Davie Fulton: Where?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: -and you will be damned for opposing it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I am going to start out very quietly but I am not sure that I will be able to control my pitch and my volume to the end.


George Clyde Nowlan: Pep it up a bit.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In the first place I want to say how proud I am of my colleagues.


William James Henderson: Order. Could we kindly have quiet.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I want to say how proud I am of my colleagues who have been fighting this legislation from the first opportunity we had to do so but I want to pay a special tribute to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Shouldn't we all rise and pay tribute to the hero who is leaving the house?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway and the Liberal whip are the senior members in this chamber. I telephoned my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway this morning, after reading the article in the Gazette written by Arthur Blakely. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was especially moved that a brilliant young correspondent would devote his entire column to discussing him under the title "The man from Glen William". This is a little community down in Prince Edward Island which my colleague left over 50 years ago, and it really touched him to have been associated with this interesting part of the island.
However, I think when the history of this period is written the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will be remembered as the hero of this occasion. I think it was a week ago last Saturday night when we were working on our homework until practically midnight. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre came bursting into my room and said, "I have found it at last," and then he proceeded to read as follows:
Can that be dealt with without the consent of the provincial legislatures? Legally, I say it can. The situation appears to me to be this. There are persons and nations who reach a high estate in the affairs of men, and the high estate they reach imposes upon them high obligations. There was no obligation on the Tribune Festus to say to King Agrippa that he could not deliver Paul to the Jews when they requested that he be put to death. It occurs to one. however, that they also

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation had reached a high estate, which imposes a corresponding obligation. I copied out of the Bible on the table of this house, from the acts, the quite natural statement of Festus:
"It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him."
At this point I broke in. "What are you reading?" I asked. "Wait till you hear the rest of it", he said; and he continued:
There was no statute; there was no law which required that this be done; but there was the concept in the Roman conscience that it was the proper thing to do.
If it is fair; if it is just; if it is proper according to the standards of human decency, it will be done; if it is unfair; if it is unjust; if it is improper, all members of this house will say, "It is not our manner to do such things".
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, "That was our Prime Minister; don't you remember back in 1946"? I must confess I had forgotten about the incident-I do not know of any person in Canada who would have remembered that speech for ten years and would have thought of finding it and using it in this particular debate other than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I recall the incident. Our late friend Art Smith from Calgary directed a very difficult question to the then Minister of Justice, the present Prime Minister, who without any preparation and without any notes made this remarkable reply.
I must express real sympathy for the Prime Minister of Canada for having had to go through experiences which I am sure have been most distasteful to him during the past two or three weeks. I have a similar feeling for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. They both entered public life after they had done their share of the world's work. They both had achievements of which they could be proud. The only explanation I can give is that they have had very bad advice.
The hon. member for Nanaimo said that the only person he could think of on the government benches or in the cabinet who could conceive and give such poor direction was the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I cannot think of anyone else either on the government benches who could use such poor judgment and who could convince his elders to pull so many boners. I think the majority of the government members are embarrassed as a result of the leadership they have been forced to follow during these difficult days. I am sure the majority of them were unhappy when some of their colleagues made no contribution whatever to this debate except to stand up and vote and call out "Shame" when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was performing his

duty. I am also convinced that when the committee has made its report it will be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was right as usual.
Another thing; when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar mentioned the fact that three of our colleagues had gone to hospital since this started, hon. members on the other side laughed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is on the record. Two members stood up and said, "I did not laugh." I am sure there is no hon. member opposite who will stand up and identify himself as having said "Shame" on May 22 when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was performing his parliamentary duty, not one. I am sure that hon. members who said "Resign" will not stand up and identify themselves as having made that remark. It is a sorry day for Liberalism when the only contribution some hon. members are prepared to make is to cry "Shame" when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is making the outstanding contribution that he is.
My second point is to pay tribute to the press of Canada. The press of Canada has been able to do what the elected representatives of the people were unable to do. The elected representatives of the people pleaded with the Prime Minister to give extra time, but what were they told? The answer was "No." But as a result of the press reaction across Canada the government has been forced to give us two extra days. Is it not significant that although two members have placed on the record tonight press dispatches which prove from their point of view that the government has the press behind it, only two papers were quoted, one article being quoted by both hon. members, the Financial Post and the Financial Times.


An hon. Member:: The Globe and Mail.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, I shall come to the Globe and Mail. But what about the Winnipeg Free Press?


William Earl Rowe: The Toronto Star.


An hon. Member:: The Calgary Herald.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Referring to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the Winnipeg Free Press had this to say:
All political differences can be set aside to say of Mr. Knowles, in his home city of Winnipeg, that he is the hero of the present debate and that the position he has taken on the parliamentary issues-on the way to do things, as distinct from what is being done-is the position in which any liberal and democrat must rejoice to be with him.

That is what appeared on the editorial page of the famous Winnipeg Free Press, one of the greatest papers in Canada. Here is what Grant Dexter, a very able correspondent who for years on every possible occasion presented the behaviour of this government in the best possible light, had to say writing from Ottawa:
Through all of this hubbub, the most arresting figure on the government side of the house was Prime Minister St. Laurent. He sat, impassive, expressionless, chin in hand, an open book on his desk, silent. His aloofness is almost unbelievable.
Especially at a time of high controversy, prime ministers, regardless of who the house leader may be, always dominate proceedings and lead their own party. Mr. St. Laurent does neither.


Walter Edward Harris: Would my hon. friend be good enough to refer to the speeches the Prime Minister has made since that date.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I would, but unfortunately my time is limited to 20 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The Prime Minister was dishonest yesterday-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -in representing to the house that Mackenzie King accepted closure in 1932 without protest. I have not the time to read what the Prime Minister said yesterday and what Mr. Mackenzie King said in 1932, but anyone who wants to read Hansard will come to the conclusion that the bright boy, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who was a professor of history, did not brief his leader adequately before he spoke yesterday.
I am sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare has left, but I am sure he will agree with me that the Windsor Star is a most reliable paper. Last Saturday the Windsor Star had this to say:
Sorry Spectacle in Commons
It is well to recognize, however, the government is to blame. By autocratic methods it is forcing through the house legislation which is not in the best interests of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is the hon. gentleman reading from?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The Windsor Star of Saturday, May 26. Also from the Windsor Star by Lum Clark, who is a close friend of the minister-Mr. Chairman, I must draw your attention to the fact that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is trying to cut down my time limit of 20 minutes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nothing would give me greater pleasure.
1, 1956	4607
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Lum Clark had this to say:
During debate on the emergency powers act, Right Hon. C. D. Howe said: "If we want to do it, who do you think is going to stop us?"
Who is going to stop the government ramming through the pipe line loan?
If the Liberals want to do it, they can vote it through. Party discipline will see to that.
Th Windsor Star also said:
The late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King had his faults. He had, however, a respect for the Commons and an ability to handle it. He would never have resorted to closure-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, oh.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: One member of the government, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, is the only one who is applauding.


An hon. Member:: Mackenzie King is communicating with him.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is the message, I suppose. I continue:
-it being alien to his concepts of Liberalism. And Mr. King would never have been trapped into the deal in which the present government has got itself.
I must finish, Mr. Chairman. Mr. King would never have been trapped into the deal into which the present government has got itself.
What has happened in the Commons during the past few days always will be a stain on the Liberal party's banner. It is impossible to reconcile true Liberalism with the methods of autocrats.
Of course I must not pass over the Toronto Star. There are a number of other newspapers that I have here, but the Toronto Star, which has so loyally supported the present administration-


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is the date of that?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This is dated Saturday,
May 26:
The government made its mistake in resorting to closure before there was any justification for it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read some of the editorials this week.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It continues:
If it admits this error now by permitting several days of unfettered debate, it can help to wipe out the bitterness that has developed and get the pipe-line debate back on a serious and constructive plane.
The London Free Press says:
Respect for the Speaker is vital to the survival of parliament, but this respect must be earned and maintained by impartial use of the powers which parliament vests in the Speaker.
I see the minister is following this very closely. This is in the London Free Press of Monday, May 28.
One of the most unfortunate aspects of the present situation is the position in which it places the Speaker and the difficulty he faces in maintaining anything like an impartial attitude under current conditions.
4608	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
The pipe line may be an important issue and speed may be essential in implementing it. But the preservation of parliament and its rights to investigate is much more important.
May I conclude with the words of a great Canadian, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. When he was in a situation such as we have had here in the past short time, he said:
We introduced the reciprocity measure on January 26, and on July 29 we had not yet been able to obtain even a preliminary vote upon it. We had been met at every step by obstruction from the Conservatives, then in opposition: dilatory motions of every kind were made, speech after speech was delivered day in and day out, even in the dog days of summer. I did not complain. X did not whine. Two courses were open to me. I could have done as is done today by the prime minister, I could have introduced the closure and said that we must carry on the business of the government and that consistently with our dignity, we could not allow obstruction. But there was another course open to me and that was an appeal to the people: and I advised my colleagues to give the hon. gentlemen of the opposition the opportunity of appealing to the people. We appealed to the people and we were defeated. Heaven is my witness that I would rather stand here today, defeated and in opposition by that appeal to the people, than stand over there in office by the power of the gag . . .
I challenge the Prime Minister of Canada to prove himself to be worthy of a great Canadian and take this issue to the people of Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: As is usual in such serious matters, there is a bit of humour or satire in certain things that have taken place. I am reminded of that said humour when I pick up a newspaper I received today and see the headlines, "Howe Says Sabre Best for Interception." There may be some argument as to whether it was a sabre or a guillotine, but I think we all agree that the interception was very good. I also notice that the same newspaper has a headline saying that we are watching Russian tactics. I do not think any comment is necessary on that headline.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps they should be watching ours.


Thomas Miller Bell: Seriously, I want to say at the beginning of my remarks in this serious debate that I appreciate, as a younger member of parliament, the opportunity to witness these historic days in our Canadian history.
I have been fortunate or unfortunate to come from a political family and for that reason, perhaps more than any other, it has been a great privilege to have been here and to have witnessed what has gone on. I appreciate also that there are two sides to every argument, and I appreciate that probably decisions will be made during these great days; but I say without any fear of contradiction that it has been an honour for me and they are days that I shall never forget.


Coming from the maritimes, I want to begin by considering the maritimes aspect of this so-called all-Canadian issue. Many references have been made to British Columbia and the maritimes, and to the fact that they will not benefit from this pipe line. Probably the most important was the reference the Minister of Finance made in his very good speech the other night. I think he will probably agree that the weakest part of it was the part when he came to the maritimes-


Walter Edward Harris: Are you speaking of me?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes; I said it was a good speech.


Walter Edward Harris: Thank you.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not know whether it was good in comparison with the other speeches made by members on your side who have spoken, or the fact that you do not speak very much; but it was a good speech. However, the weak part of it-and the minister knows this, because when the hon. member for Royal and I interrupted him he knew we were on a strong point-is that the maritimes are going to get absolutely nothing out of this so-called all-Canadian pipe line.
The question I would like like to ask is. How much have the maritimes been considered in the investigations that have taken place with respect to the said pipe line? Was it the same as the St. Lawrence seaway, this all-Canadian seaway that will never help us one bit, this seaway for central Canada? We were not considered for one minute. There are no figures available. There are no records of investigations or all the various inquiries that might have been made into the economy of the maritimes.
Are we going to get a pipe line down there some day, in 1960 or 1970? Is it going to end at Montreal? How about some statements on that? I have some natural gas in my constituency right now. I think Albert county has about 177,000 MCF. I should like to know whether the government at some time is going to assist with a pipe line. Those are the questions we should like to ask with respect to the maritimes.
Now I come to my second point, and it is a point that means a great deal to us in the east. That is the issue of United States interests. I shall try not to be too emotional, though it is very hard after a day like this; but I shall say this, and the hon. member for Charlotte can take note of it. We have a tradition and a loyalty in the east, and I mean the far east, not the east that stops at Montreal. We have a tradition and a loyalty that is first in Canada, and I am not ashamed of it. We have the Loyalists, we have the Acadians, we have the Scotch and Irish immigrants who came out to Canada because

things were tough at home. We are paying a price to be in confederation, and we want to know that things are being run well and run from an all-Canadian point of view.
The last issue, and I feel it is the most important, is one that is bigger than the pipe line. It is bigger than anything we have considered here. It is the issue of closure and the associated rights of parliament. I have my thoughts on the matter. Some people may say that it is a sinister move of the government to bring into Canada an evil form of government that is not known on the North American continent. In a recent report from Ottawa, Norman MacLeod said in an article:
Canadians can expect the use of closure on an increasing scale. For it is about to become, so far as the St. Laurent government is concerned, an accepted and routine feature of the machinery of parliament. That is something that very few among the M.P.'s themselves realize, most taking it for granted that the current resort to closure in connection with the pipe lines bill is a one shot performance.
But the other evening a senior cabinet minister commented:	"There is one really big thing that
the government has done in its handling of the legislation in parliament; it has revived closure as a part of the normal legislative process."
How evil are these thoughts, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: As I said, there will be various reasons given and various explanations made why the closure motion was introduced, particularly why it was introduced in the committee stage at the first shot, an unprecedented move in our history. That, Mr. Chairman, was the day the great Liberal newspapers of Canada turned against the present government. The Winnipeg Free Press and the Toronto Daily Star, in editorials that have continued until today, have criticized as strongly as they can the use of closure at the committee stage in the unprecedented way it was used.
What is the reason for this, Mr. Chairman? I will tell you the reason I think it was invoked. The reason is that the members of the present government, particularly those who sit on the front benches, have not the respect for the traditions of parliament they should have, and I will tell you why they have not. Because they have not any political background.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: All right, I will back that up. There are eight members of the present cabinet who had no political savvy whatsoever when they were appointed to the cabinet. More than that, they were not even members of parliament. I am going to take a minute to deal with this point, because I think it
L 1956	4609
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation goes to the root of the whole problem. They have not the respect for British traditions that they would have had if they had been interested in politics before they became members of parliament. Let us look at the record. The Prime Minister was appointed to the cabinet on December 10, 1941. He was elected a member of parliament on February 9, 1942.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Miller Bell: How about the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


James Sinclair: Twenty-one years in parliament and you have been in parliament three years.


Thomas Miller Bell: How about the time before that? How about the time he was in business?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: All right, this is my point, Mr. Chairman. He was elected in 1935 and appointed to the cabinet on October 23, 1935.


James Sinclair: Twenty-one years.


Thomas Miller Bell: What do these people know
about grass roots politics in Canada? What do they know about our traditions?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: Hon. members laugh, but I wish today that Edmund Burke could come into this house and see the flagrant use of closure that has been made. I would love to bring Disraeli and Gladstone here and show them a silent Prime Minister on one of the most important days in our history. These members of the cabinet do not have that appreciation of the traditions of politics that mean so much to us, or the early training that would have prevented such action at this time. To sum up this point, I say that is one reason in my opinion why we are having trouble today, because in the cabinet there are eight men who came up the easy way.


James Sinclair: Jimmy Gardiner?


Thomas Miller Bell: They did not win their spurs in politics in any respect before they came to the glorified positions of members of the cabinet. I can name them, too. There is the Minister of Labour sitting there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Miller Bell: I shall not go into his background. In fact perhaps I should say that he did have an interest in politics. How about the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Miller Bell: How about that other civil servant, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?
4610	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that I know nothing about politics?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, after the smart remarks that have been made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration today and on previous occasions, I wish he would take one of these loose closure motions that are lying around and use it on himself. But that is what is the matter with this government today. They have not the feel of politics in their blood. They have not taken the time to find out what is going on at the grass roots level in this country today. Most of them have been in business or in the civil service, and they were fortunate enough to be around in the wartime days of that great mediocrity of Canadian politics.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that the days are coming when these giants of the war days will pass. But those are the reasons we are in this state. It is not the opposition; it is not the Liberal backbenchers, it is these eight men in the cabinet who came up the easy way.


An hon. Member:: How did you come up?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: He came up in the merchant navy, and none of you fellows had guts enough to get in it.


Thomas Miller Bell: I mentioned when I began that in the maritimes we have a very proud tradition and history, and we are paying a price to be in confederation. Make no mistake about it. When the director of the national gallery says that Saint John is the ugliest city in Canada and the maritimes have the least social and cultural development of any area in Canada I do not like it, no matter how untrue it may be.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: I say there is a responsibility on the Prime Minister to do something about that and not throw out the smokescreen that he did at the labour convention in Toronto a few days ago. He knows that was a smokescreen. We have been trying for a long while down our way to get some assistance, but what happens? It is the same old smokescreen, and the Minister of Finance knows it. He knows why we are waiting.
As I say, we respect our part in confederation. We have a proud old motto down our way which is-I am not too sure of my Latin -spem redwcit. It means "bring back to life". I should like to throw that thought out in this house tonight, because I say the opposition are bringing back to life the real parliament that was known only by those early British parliamentarians whom the cabinet ministers have not even heard about.


The other night I read in the Toronto Star of May 28 a report of a meeting in North Bay, at which the hon. member for Timiskaming is reported as follows:
Of the closure motion taken by the government she said "I can't repeat here, at a ladies' meeting, the words that I have heard in the house about it. The screams and roars have been terrific. We're back in the days of Sir John A."
In view of those words of the New Brunswick motto, I hope we are moving back to the days of Sir John A., because I think it would be a great contribution to Canada. In closing I want to say one thing more. Hon. members have made light of the fact that we took a Canadian flag and draped it over the desk of the hon. member for Eglinton.


An hon. Member:: Where did you get it?


Thomas Miller Bell: I want to say this. The worst part of it as far as the government were concerned was that for an hour and a half they had to look at the flag that a great many of them had not even seen before, much less appreciated.


Mr. Habel:: As the member representing a riding most vitally interested in the construction of the pipe line I would feel remiss in my duty if I did not take part in this debate. However, it is my intention to try to talk about the pipe line.
I was much impressed by the speech made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. In the last part of his remarks he referred to the flag incident. I may tell him that it did not have on me the impression it had on him, and I shall tell him why. It was the second time I had seen the flag act. I had seen the same thing done in the Ontario house by the Tories. When they are cornered they have recourse to the flag. Whenever they find themselves in a bad spot they say, "O, Canada; we stand on guard for thee". But when it comes time to sing the national anthem they do not want to listen to it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I regret, Mr. Chairman, as much as does any other member in this house the illness of certain members of the Conservative party. But if we wanted to dig a little bit to find out the reason for their illness, it might well be that we would find the reason in the report in the Ottawa Journal dated January 17, which reads as follows:
Tom Bell. M.P. for Saint John-Albert, newly elected president of the young Conservatives of Canada, said his organization had renewed its pledge of loyalty to Mr. Drew-"We are going out united, strong and eager to do something for this party and the easiest thing to do is just 'get mad at the Grits' ", said Mr. Bell.

No one who saw what' has taken place in this house in the last few weeks on this pipeline issue will say that the Conservatives did not heed that call; and mad they are in the true sense of the word. On checking the meaning in the New Century dictionary I find the following definition given of that word; "Disordered in intellect; insane; senselessly imprudent", and many others I would not dare use. That may be the reason for the illness of some of their members, which I regret as much as they do. However, I think it would help a great deal were they not to get that mad in talking about the pipe line.


An hon. Member:: Does that include the Minister of Justice?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I want to congratulate the cabinet most sincerely for having taken the position they have taken on this issue. The pipe line is a vital issue to the whole of Canada, but it is a main and vital issue to the riding which I have the honour to represent. We heard the hon. member who just took his seat refer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and say that he had come up as minister the easy way. May I read just part of a clipping that I have from the Timmins paper, the Daily Press. The Timmins Daily Press is a paper which belongs to the Thomson company; and if I am right, Thomson himself was a candidate in 1933 under the Tory banner. Therefore no one will ever say this is a Liberal paper. Here is what it says about the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
There is no doubt that when the passing of the years shall have permitted a detached, impartial review of Canadian events in the past two decades, historians will ascribe to Mr. Howe major credit for the sweeping changes which are lifting Canada from an agricultural economy to a giant combination of both agriculture and industry, and are rapidly raising the nation to the status of a great world power.
Those words are very different but they are written by a Tory. Then in the Timmins Press as well, dated May 5, 1956, there is another editorial. I shall not read the whole thing but just the heading. I repeat that the Timmins Daily Press is owned by the Thomson Company Limited, and everybody knows how Tory that company is. Here is what they have to say in the headline:
Government deserves praise for actions on the pipe line.
We in the northern part of Ontario have been looking forward to the day when a government would seek to help us to develop new industry and also to supply the power needed for existing industry. We are absolutely satisfied today with the stand the government is taking on the construction of
1, 1956	4611
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation a pipe line. I hold here in my hand a clipping. The hon. gentleman who immediately preceded me-I refer to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert-quoted from the Toronto Star. I will quote from the Toronto Star of May 18, 1954. The heading is:
Despite Drew stand, "We need pipe line gas''- Porter.
I happen to know Mr. Porter, and I know he is in the Frost government in Ontario. The Toronto Star goes on to say "Howe's pipe line policy only one making sense".
We hear a great deal about United States capital. Here is a clipping from the Toronto Star of May 1, 1956. The heading is:
Rapping investment of U.S. funds "biting hand that feeds you".
Here are the words of D. W. Ambridge, president of Abitibi Power and Paper Company:
D. W. Ambridge, president of Abitibi Power and Paper Company, yesterday said he had no sympathy for critics of expansion of U.S. capital into Canada.
I doubt very much whether Mr. Ambridge happens to be a strong supporter of the Liberal party. Yesterday, on getting my newspaper of May 30, I was surprised indeed to read the report from Ottawa written by Patrick Nicholson, who, I understand, is a reporter for the Daily Press. Here is what he had to say:
George Drew, leader of the Conservative opposition in parliament, has an unequalled talent for snatching disaster from the jaws of opportunity.
Independent comments-if anyone in Ottawa can remain truly independent during the current pipe line wrangle-suggests that Drew has unerringly picked a dud again. Just so in the 1949 election he vainly strove to make the North Star aircraft a successful election issue. Just so in 1953 he vainly tried to win the electors by the wild proposal for dramatic tax cuts, which one of his more puerile advisers here dreamed up.
We heard a lot about closure, Mr. Chairman. I should like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that he himself used closure once in the provincial house. During this debate I have seen in the gallery every day throughout this week the very man against whom he used closure at that time. He was glad to see the tactics of the Tory party, because they were exactly what he was trying to do himself in the provincial house at the time he was turned down by the Tories.
That goes to show, Mr. Chairman, that they are not able to speak about the pipe line. They have vainly talked about closure, rules and procedure. If I had a certificate to issue to hon. members of this house, it would be issued to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I would give him a certificate for being a master of the rules and regulations.
4612	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
At the present time we need the gas for industry up north. I have been told that we need it also for new industry. No less than the minister of mines of Ontario, who happens to be a Conservative, said on November 25, 1954:
Months of effort ended, pipe line through north- Kelly.
Lately Mr. Spooner, the provincial member for the riding of South Cochrane-and by the way, he is a Conservative member as well-is reported as follows:
Spooner stresses need for gas in the north
Already the Ontario municipal board has given the gas company the red light to start installing the pipe and all the needed accessories in towns like Hearst, Kapuskasing, Smooth Rock Falls, Cochrane, Iroquois Falls, and so on. In my home town of Kapuskasing we have the Spruce Falls Power and Paper Company and Kimberly-Clark. By a mere coincidence all their production is going to the New York Times, and we do not oppose that at all. That company will be using 2J million cubic feet of that gas- a day, and they are in dire need of it because, on account of the dry weather last summer, they were very much afraid they would have to curtail their operations. In fact, if one should know about gas it is the Leader of the Opposition himself. He is aware that to supply that company with the necessary power in 1953 a line was built from Crystal Falls to Kapuskasing, a distance of something like 250 miles; otherwise they would have had to close down.
There is another Abitibi Pulp and Paper Company mill at Smooth Rock Falls. There is one also at Iroquois Falls. The Abitibi production is going to the Chicago Tribune. We do not oppose that at all; we are satisfied with that. They are also in need of power.
As the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys said the other night, northern Ontario is one of the richest storehouses of mineral wealth in the world. I was glad to hear the minister say that. To justify that statement, may I say I hold in my hand an editorial from the Timmins Daily Press, dated July 7, 1955, which reads:
Ore Find Near Kapuskasing of Tremendous Interest
A report, which may have important economic repercussions in the north, came from Kapuskasing last week. It was to the effect that Algoma Steel, Bethlehem Steel and United States Steel are bidding on iron ore deposits found 30 miles north of the pulp and paper town.
The report said that the first drill core from the deposit had assayed 50 per cent magnetite and 2 per cent titanium. The presence of titanium, it is stated, means that the ore is easily refined and is thus more valuable.
While information at this stage is sketchy, "reliable sources" believe that the deposits could be vast. One informant has described the assay from first drilling as "richer than Steep Rock's richest".


At Kapuskasing, in fact, a company paid $1 million for a claim in the north about three weeks ago. At Hearst lately, seven big firms have become interested in copper-nickel showings discovered last summer. I find this report in the Northern Tribune:
Seven important mining companies are interested in the property in Scofield, Ebbs and Talbot townships, which is said to contain extensive deposits of copper and nickel.
So the north is growing with all these things, and we need the gas as soon as possible. We do say with a certain assurance that we shall get it with the construction of that leg of the trans-Canada pipe line this year. It would also help in the decentralization of industry, which is one of the things in which the hon. member for Saint John-Albert is interested in.
It may also be of interest to the committee to know that as far as fuel is concerned, in the north, in the riding I represent, we pay as much as 25-8 cents a gallon for oil and as much as $32 a ton for hard briquettes. When you think of that you know what it means to us to have gas for heating, and we are looking forward to getting it as soon as possible.
I had intended to talk tonight about the obstruction of the opposition. In fact what they have done in the house is not to oppose; it is pure obstruction, but I shall refrain from talking about that. One thing I want to say is that the Leader of the Opposition always takes the stand that all government policies are wrong and everything should always be done his own way, either by select committees or by royal commissions. Then he complains of the supremacy of parliament being ignored. Well, in this instance parliament will express its will and I hope the Leader of the Opposition will understand that once the majority has voted for a measure it is parliament which has spoken.
There was also the question of United States capital. I am not going to dwell on that, but one thing I want to dwell on is this. What will be the stand of the opposition a year from now if we have to take over the trans-Canada pipe line. It is a loan that we are authorizing in this bill; it is not a hand-out. This loan is guaranteed by the assets of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. Where will you be next year if the assets have to be taken over? If that happens will you then stay with your friends of the C.C.F. party who are for public ownership? Will you follow the motion which the young Conservatives passed, asking that it should be built under public ownership? I just wonder about the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, who

suggested that he did not believe in the Ontario hydro because it cost too much to administer.
I conclude with these remarks, Mr. Chairman. I happen to be on the Liberal side. I was elected as a Liberal in 1953. I am going to say that even if the riding I represent today was represented by a Conservative on the other side of the house, instead of one Tory member bolting his party there would be two, because any Conservative who represented a riding in the north would not dare oppose such a necessary measure.


Mr. Stanton:: Mr. Chairman, it has been initimated by many hon. members both in the house and throughout Canada that the Conservative party is opposed to the trans-Canada pipe line. Nothing could be further from the truth. I repeat, nothing could be further from the truth.
I tell my hon. friends on the government side of the house that we have not been stalling them; they have been stalling themselves. They have sought to put through the house in three weeks' time what they should have done in the last three years. They have been trying to cram this bill down our throats, to run it through the house within three weeks' time.
It is now five years since Trans-Canada Pipe Lines got their franchise to build the line across Canada, and what have they done? The government have been playing around with this company in a way worse than one would expect from a knock-kneed old man.
We have been told here in the house that we are to be blamed for obstructing the passage of this bill. That is not the case; we have not been obstructing the passage of this bill. I can tell my hon. friends on the government side of the house that if the Leader of the Opposition had been the prime minister of Canada five years ago with his Conservative following he would not have played around with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. He would have insisted they get down to work and I am sure the western section of the line would have been completed by this time and he would be ready to go on laying the line across the province of Ontario to its destination at Montreal. He is a man who is willing, ready and insistent about getting jobs done.
My mind goes back to the time he was premier of Ontario, at which time he insisted that United States pulpwood industrialists build their mills in Ontario. At first there were delegations coming down from northern Ontario insisting that the export embargo should not be put on pulpwood because it would mean that many men would be
1, 1956	4613
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation deprived of work. What happened? The embargo was put on and that industry came up from the United States and established mills in Canada. At the present time that industry is supplying work for many thousands who are engaged in the manufacture and processing of printing products.
As I said, we are not opposed to the trans-Canada pipe line but we are opposed to the contents of this bill. Why? First, Trans-Canada came to the government and told them, "You must build the line across northern Ontario from the Manitoba border to Kapuskasing". We know at that time many of the government supporters were opposed to that project. But apparently the Minister of Trade and Commerce overruled them and said, "There it is, you must take it," and like the sweet little boys they are they took it.
Then Trans-Canada came back this winter and informed the government that they would have to finance the line across the prairie provinces. The government swallowed that too, hook, line and sinker. What will happen when the line is built to Winnipeg? There are about 110 miles between there and the Ontario border. The company will come back and tell the government-this company with its millions of dollars-that the government must put up the money. The government will be told they must furnish the money for that 110-mile stretch of the line and the government will do it because they do everything Trans-Canada tells them to do. These rich oil magnates appear to have a way of wrapping our government around their little fingers. The government toes the line, just as private members of the Liberal party toe the line at the crack of the Liberal whip.
We have been told that Canadians cannot finance this line. How do we know? The government has never given Canadians an opportunity to finance it. I am sure if Canadians were given half the chance that is given to the rich oil magnates to the south they would put that line across Canada just as is being done in British Columbia where a line is being built without any government assistance whatever.
What about the question of raising money? Canadians surely have the money. Canadians have raised millions for housing. This government can extract money from Canadians in the form of taxation in the sum of approximately $5 billion. If Canadians were given a chance and were treated decently I am sure the pipe line could be built without government assistance.
Some hon. members have asked what opposition members will say when they go back to their home constituencies. I would like to
4614	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation read from Hansard for May 22 at page 4215, the comments of the hon. member for Kingston:
I have been gratified to note that in this house on the votes on the introduction of this legislation, the Liberal members in the big market potential area along the north shores of lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river have voted unanimously in favour of the introduction of this bill. In other words they have voted for the immediate transmission of natural gas to their areas as an alternative source of energy.
At the same time the Conservative members for Ontario, Prince Edward-Lennox and Leeds constituencies have voted against it. Why? Can they go home and say to their electorate. "Your need for an alternative source of fuel is different in Oshawa than in Belleville, is different in Napanee than in Kingston, is different in Brockville than in Cornwall," or can they say, "You do not need natural gas until years from now."' I am sure we will note with interest their explanation to their electorate of their objections to this legislation.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the trans-Canada pipe line, but I know the citizens of Leeds county-knowing them to be the true Canadian citizens they are-would not tolerate my supporting this legislation. If I voted for the bill as it stands at the present, and if I voted for the closure motions that have been brought into this house, I would have to hang my head in shame when I went back to my own constituency.
The closure motion has created a rebellion amongst people across Canada. Every place we go we hear of it. Even Liberal newspapers have voiced disapproval of the government's action. I have in my hand a list of Liberal papers which are drastically opposed to this legislation and to closure. This list includes the Winnipeg Free Press, The Saskatchewan Star-Phoenix, the Toronto Daily Star and many others. Closure is something which has been wrongly perpetrated upon hon. members of parliament. It is a disgrace to the government which is ruling us at the present time. When I use the word "ruling" I mean it, because the government is ruling us in these proceedings just as Napoleon ruled his army.
Social Credit members have voted with the government, but I can understand their attitude. I specifically mention the Social Credit members from Alberta, because I believe the Social Credit members from British Columbia are just trailing along. They are anxious to sell their gas and they do not care how they get it out of Alberta. They do not care by what means they get it out or who pays the shot. They are adopting a dog in the manger attitude in order to get it out. They do not care who has to finance it.
If the Social Credit government of Alberta has so much money, as they are always saying; if that government is such a wonderful government, if they are in such good financial


circumstances as they say they are, if they are making as much money as they say they are, why do they not furnish the money to build this trans-Canada pipe line across the prairie provinces? They are the ones who are so anxious for it. If if is such a good investment let them invest their money in it and not ask other parts of Canada which will receive no conceivable benefit from it to invest their money.
After listening to and watching the proceedings of the Liberal government and the Liberal cabinet and the Speaker of the house during the past two days, especially today; after listening to their remarks, I should like to quote from a speech made by Edmund Burke on March 22, 1765, during a debate on conciliation with the colonies, when he said:
A great empire and little minds go ill together.
As I said before, many people across Canada and many organizations are protesting against this closure motion and against the pipe-line bill. I wonder if the members of the government and government supporters have telegrams and letters piled up on their desks, as many Conservative members have, congratulating them on the attitude they have taken on this bill and on this closure. I think not. Church organizations which have prided themselves on staying out of politics have attacked this closure motion, and in this connection I quote:
The session of Olde Davenport United Church in midtown Toronto voted last night to petition Governor General Massey to dissolve parliament and call a general election over the natural gas pipe line dispute.
The petition was based on the contention that:
1.	Many Canadians are opposed to the loan because it is to be made to an alien firm for a domestic project.
2.	Canadians haven't been given a chance to express their attitude.
3.	That a cabinet minister, not named in the petition, has opposed putting the measure before the people.
4.	The government is due to expire shortly anyway.
"We are sending this petition because we feel our democratic rights as Canadians are being misused."
No words could be truer. Last year we had the big debate on the ridiculous defence production bill, and this year we have the Trans-Canada bill, this vicious bill. No doubt next year, if this same Liberal government is here, the citizens of this country will wake up some morning and read in the press-that is the only way we can get any information from this government; we get it in the press next day-that this cabinet has passed an order in council inviting the Russian government to come over here and man the D.E.W. line for which they will be paid magnificently.


Mr. Henry:: Mr. Chairman, it is indeed an honour and a pleasure to support this legislation in this chamber this evening. As I see it, it is both financial and administrative. It works toward a most laudable national result, in that it will provide for Canadians our first natural gas pipe line. This result is all the more laudable because it will be an allCanadian route. To obtain this program of national development in 1956 we in this house are asked to approve the setting up of a crown corporation and the making of the necessary arrangements that go with it to provide for a lease-basis operation in northern Ontario in the hands of private enterprise. In addition we are asked to approve of a money-lending arrangement, on a shortterm basis, to cover the western section.
Our policy is not new on the Canadian scene. It is a blending of both public and private enterprise. It gives first chance to private enterprise and second chance to public enterprise. I summarize it in this way: "It is public enterprise if necessary, but not necessarily public enterprise".
My approach in this debate is to discuss the area of agreement which I think is discernible on both sides of the house. This pipe-line bill in my view is a good thing for Canada, and I think hon. members on both sides share this view. It is a good thing in principle for Canada at home as well as abroad. I look at the problem in principle from Canada's position in NATO, the United Nations and the commonwealth. We are grateful in this chamber for the presence here of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, a former president of the United Nations. We have valued the analysis he has given us of our external affairs, and of late we are particularly pleased with his analysis of our relations with the communist bloc. I would refer to his statement that we are in a period of competitive peaceful coexistence. I think all will agree that we have come through a hot war, a cold war and that now we are in a period of a cold peace. Our freedom from fear has not lessened in any remarkable [DOT]degree, and indeed we are proceeding to *keep in a very firm position our NATO program of war prevention.
Let us turn now to the communist Russian viewpoint on natural gas. It is the policy of the communist bloc to try to crack the west economically without force of arms. In Canada the communist party has resorted to the principle of "divide and rule" in order to discourage Canadians from developing the *seaway. Now they are adopting the same tactics in relation to this, our great national program for a natural gas pipe line.
1. 1956	4615
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
We have two notable broad basic economic problems in Canada. I refer to the fact that in the first place we have to try to maintain a competitive low-cost economy, and in the second place we are now starting an increased program to increase our secondary industries. On the North American continent there is a position which is well known as to the question of natural gas and reserves thereof. The United States, Canada and Mexico have a monopoly of the western world's supply of natural gas. We have then the same problem on this continent, to provide low-cost energy to our many industries. This is a function our neighbours on this continent and ourselves perform in relation to the development, marshalling and distribution of natural gas. It is a low-cost fuel, and it will help to maintain the industrial supremacy of the North American continent in the world struggle for competitive coexistence, as described by the past president of the United Nations.
There are two approaches, that of technology and that of diplomacy, in the development of natural gas. I have no doubt that all members in this chamber on all sides were pleased when they heard of top level conferences in which Hon. L. B. Pearson, past president of the United Nations, and our Prime Minister, the father of the NATO pact, conferred with the President of the United States and the President of Mexico. These three countries monopolize this low-cost energy fuel. It is the duty of the western world to operate in diplomacy and technology as to this matter. The meaning of low-cost natural gas in the United States has been very great indeed because that great natural gas industrial nation consumes 88 per cent of all the gas in the world. I refer to 1953 published statistics in this connection.
How long are the gas pipe lines of the United States of America? They are reliably reported to be longer than their railways and longer than her oil pipe lines. In 1953 the figures showed that there were over one quarter of a million miles of natural gas lines in the United States.
The Russian approach is indeed worthy of serious consideration. In the last pre-war five-year plan of Russia, the orders were that natural gas developments were to be doubled. We have not heard much since then, but we can depend upon it that Russia is not going backward in the development of natural gas but rather forward. When we consider the present position of the communist party of Canada and we see those tactics employed of "divide and rule" in this great nation of ours, are we not reminded that Russia knows the

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation value of this great asset on this great continent? Should we not be warned as to what is the real aim of our enemies in this part of the western world?
Technology speaks to the western nations. I would refer to the Woytinsky report on world population and production, covering as it does, as of 1953, trends and production in this field. This is a well recognized report published by the twentieth century fund and financed by the Rockefeller Foundation. The words to the western nations in this report are that we should develop all available oil and gas now, without delay.


Colin Cameron: On a point of
order, I wonder whether the hon. member would identify the document from which he has been reading?


Charles Henry: I would be very glad to do so, and I have already done so. If the hon. member looks at Hansard, it will be adequately identified tomorrow.


Colin Cameron: Hansard of tomorrow is not yet published. Can the hon. member identify the document from which he is reading?


Charles Henry: I am not reading from such a document, and I wish to go on, as the time is short enough.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whose fault is that?


Charles Henry: I have been impressed, as have other members in the chamber, with the approach taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to this subject. I think he has taken the proper approach, and it is the world approach, which appeals to me. He has a true vision of the position, as has his colleague the Prime Minister, father of the North Atlantic Pact. He has a true vision of our position in the United Nations, and indeed in the commonwealth. Are we not discharging our obligations toward our NATO partners in admirable fashion?
To maintain competitive coexistence abroad, we must consider what this means in Canada. It means-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On a point of order, it is a well known rule that speeches must not be read in committee or in the house. In view of the fact that a great many members are denied the right to read speeches, surely hon. members on the government side should not read their speeches.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jutras):: I think that point of order has been ruled upon on previous occasions, and very wide latitude has previously been given in this debate. At any rate, the hon. member is referring to notes, and that is quite permissible at any stage of the proceedings of the house.


Charles Henry: I can quite well understand the restiveness of my socialist friends, who are linked so closely to the policy of the communist party in this matter before the house. Mr. Chairman, you were quite correct; I am referring to several notes, referring closely to my notes, as you have said. That is why I now wish to refer to the Toronto Star Weekly which contains an article by Robert Taylor, a very distinguished journalist in the press gallery of this house. There he has stated for all Canadians to read that there is invested in Canada $13 billion of foreign capital, which has produced, according to his investigations in this field, one million jobs for Canadians.
In this natural gas pipe line, we have a very conservative estimate, I would say, of a $1 billion investment, which should produce 75,000 jobs for Canadians. We all know that the seaway represents a similar investment of about $1 billion, and that means another 75,000 jobs. That makes a total of 150,000 jobs for Canadians. I say to my socialist friends opposite that we have heard from them that they wanted a program of works not on the shelf but off the shelf, and here we have 150,000 jobs, a program of capital investment for Canadians off the shelf, and they do not like it. What can we think of them on that account?
A Liberal estimate of the cost of the pipe line would be $1 billion, but we all know that there is a multiplier effect attached to such an investment. If it were two dollars for every one dollar in direct capital investment, I think I would be satisfied because one distinguished Dutch economist, Van der Valk, says that in connection with developments of this kind the multiplier effect of the original investment may well be in places $9 for $1. I take it at least on a basis of two for one because I am a Liberal and because I have faith in Canada. There is $1 billion in the direct investment and, let us say, $2 billion in the indirect position, making a total of $3 billion. I confidently expect that it will produce no less than a quarter of a million jobs for Canadians.
We hear talk in this chamber about unemployment and relief and that sort of thing. They ask from the socialist quarter what are we doing for Canadians to provide job security. I say this is the greatest measure in the history of Canada from the standpoint of job security. I say that to my socialist friends tonight, and I ask them how they like it.
Freedom is a many-sided concept. We have to consider our position and the fact that we are within NATO and within the commonwealth. We have to consider freedom at home and job security for Canadians.

Some reference has been made in this chamber to the fathers of confederation. I trust they are looking at us from some place other than here, because it has not been very pleasant to be here at moments I have experienced in this debate, but I venture to say that they are looking down here on the father of the North Atlantic pact and his distinguished Minister of Trade and Commerce, and that they wish they were back with us on the government side of the House of Commons.


Mr. Jones:: We are asked tonight to approve an extraordinary policy of the government to provide 90 per cent of the capital for a private company. What I would like to know from the minister or one of the members of the cabinet is this. What is the policy of the government toward private enterprise in general; or have we a new policy for certain types of private enterprise, in this case a United States controlled company; or have we a policy?
I feel that under the present financial policy of the government we are encouraging everybody but our own people. On the one hand we are encouraging Americans to come to this country and control our natural resources and our industries, while on the other hand our own Canadian companies are being starved for funds and discouraged. Yesterday I received a telegram from a small but very progressive firm in my riding, most of whose dealings recently have been with the United States. They have been shipping heavy equipment which is selling well in the United States, but because of the financial policy of the government I received this telegram yesterday:
Present bank credit restrictions forcing us and many other firms to brink of bankruptcy . . . Bank of Canada cash reserves requirement forcing us to restrict operations far below last year's. Last year 80 per cent our production exported mainly to United States. Serious complications will result if bank restrictions not eased immediately.
This is what I suggest. If we can be so extraordinarily generous with a United States firm as to advance 90 per cent of the required capital, surely we can ease the restrictions to make it possible for our own factories and concerns to function properly and export at a reasonable rate. I am amazed at the frantic haste displayed to get this bill through, and I have often asked why. This gas has been stored for millions of years under the ground and nobody knew about it. It was only found a few years ago, and now we have found it we are in a terrible haste to get rid of it.
What are we going to do with it? Burn it? I presume that the first thing we think about is burning it, and I often think that
1. 1956	4617
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation to burn a valuable commodity like gas is a repetition of what happened when this country was first opened up, when the farmers and settlers went ruthlessly through the forests, cut down wonderful black walnut and other hardwoods to make stake fences and pile up as wood for use in the stove. We are doing the same thing today with a priceless heritage. We are preparing to get it to the furnace as quickly as possible.
But by burning it do we get the best value? I should like to quote from the seventh report of the natural resources conference, page 266, where I find the following with respect to the petrochemical industry:
The most fascinating aspect of natural gas is not in its use as fuel but as the base for a petrochemical industry. The list of useful products manufactured from methane gas CH4 which comprises 95 per cent of natural gas is long.
However, a few examples will excite the imagination and indicate the rich potential. From one million cubic feet of natural gas can be produced 20 tons of ammonia, enough to fertilize 500 acres; 80 tons of nitric acid, this will produce 200,000 pounds of dynamite; thirty thousand gallons of carbon tetrachloride, enough to fill 120,000 standard hand fire extinguishers; 7,500 gallons of ethyl-grani-alcohol, sufficient to make 85,000 26 ounce 70 proof gin.
One million cubic feet of natural gas would make approximately 16,000 pounds of acrylic fibres, known under the names of orlon, dynel, acrilon, etc.
This suggests to me, Mr. Chairman, that we should pause to think if our present policy is right. We should pause to think if this natural resource belongs merely to our generation and should be dissipated and exhausted in this one generation alone, or whether we have a responsibility to conserve some of it for future generations. I claim we have that responsibility. But in our frantic haste to convert this gas to dollars we overlook the greatest value possible from that commodity. This is an asset that will not replenish itself. You cannot sow seeds to grow gas in the same way that you can sow seeds to grow wheat and other commodities. Once it is gone it is gone forever, and we seem to be determined to use this stored gas at once.
If that is our policy, let us make sure that Canadians get the full benefit of it first. Instead, we are preparing to create a monopoly for merely a 10 per cent investment. What a splendid gift to someone. I believe that if the government had announced its policy a year ago, two years ago or even five years ago, when they were still searching for someone to build the line, and had said they were willing to finance the proposed line up to 90 per cent of its cost, there would have been thousands of Canadians willing and qualified to carry out the project. We would not have had to wait this long. I believe it is not yet too late to remedy the evil we are about to perpetrate on unborn generations.
4618	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
I understand that the present deal will be called off it it is not completed by June 7. Why not call it off? Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has not proved itself a very reliable company up to date, and may not prove itself reliable when it tries to complete the building of the line.
I should like to deal briefly with some of the objections that have been raised against government ownership of the pipe line, as I personally believe that a combination of the federal government, the provincial governments and municipal governments would be the logical body to operate a utility of this nature. The gas itself is a natural inheritance of all the Canadian people, not the people of one province but of all Canada, and should be used for their greatest benefit and not exploited for profit.
I know that one of the difficulties mentioned earlier in the debate was the inability to get pipe, but according to recent articles in the press that has apparently been overcome. Now you can get all the pipe you want. However, it was suggested that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines had access to sufficient pipe to complete the project. I venture to say that the most anxious company or group of people during this debate are the people involved in the company that owns the 34-inch pipe and has it stored, if they have it. They have far more money invested in stored pipe than Trans-Canada intends to invest in this project at the present time. They have millions of dollars tied up in stored pipe. It is not a paying proposition. It does not earn interest and it costs money to store. Therefore I feel sure that anyone willing to pay the price could get the pipe.	'
I do not know of another market that could use nearly 2,000 miles of 34-inch pipe. No such project is proposed anywhere else in the world except in Canada and the company that has the pipe would be only too pleased to supply the pipe to the government, any other company or anyone at all who had the money to pay for it.
The government has challenged the opposition to show an alternative way to build the pipe line. We in the C.C.F. group naturally believe in and have proposed public ownership. The proposed pipe line is not a free enterprise proposition at all. Trans-Canada only has a 10 per cent investment in it. It is already a socialized concern. Ninety per cent of it belongs to the people of Canada and only 10 per cent will eventually belong to the pipe-line company. When the taxpayers of Canada are putting up 90 per cent they should have control of this utility, and I am suggesting that the logical thing to do is to put up


the other 10 per cent and take over the pipe line completely, and then convey Canadian gas to Canadian consumers.
The history of gas pipe lines is a fine one from a financial point of view. I never heard of a single pipe-line company conveying gas that was in difficulties financially. They have all made handsome profits. There is always an abundance of money to go into that field when necessary. Of course if they can get someone to finance them, as our government is doing, they are going to go out and borrow cheap money.
I believe that these profits that can and will be made on this particular pipe line should accrue to the Canadian government and not help to make more American millionaires, or Canadian millionaires for that matter; they are both the same. These profits could be returned by selling cheaper gas and by giving better service to the people. The profits could be used either to improve that service or they could be turned over for education or for national health insurance.
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited is naturally interested in the profits to be made. The government would be interested not only in the profits but more in the service that could be rendered to the people of Canada. While we talk glibly of free enterprise being in this field, I notice that they did not enter the field when the St. Lawrence seaway was proposed. That project stood in abeyance for 20 years, but I never once read of a single private enterprise group coming to the government and suggesting that they build it. Why? Because they were doubtful if any profits would be made on that particular seaway. However, they are sure in the case of the gas pipe line. They therefore leave the government to carry on the non-profit venture of the seaway.
I feel that there are certain services that are natural for public ownership such as gas, electricity, water and so on. I would point out that other services that we now enjoy in common were at one time under private ownership. They have been nationalized or, as you call it, socialized for so long that we have forgotten the origin of the institution or the concern; and they have been socialized so successfully that private capital has been withdrawn entirely.
I refer, for instance, to the carrying of mail. At one time mail was carried by private enterprise. We all know the story of the Wells Fargo company that used to carry mail from the Pacific coast to the Atlantic coast. It cost you two of three dollars for a letter. We had stage coaches in England carrying out the same function on a private basis, so

that only a few people were able to mail a letter because of the cost; the others could not afford it.
What happened? We socialized that service. That was all we did; we socialized it. The people own it and control it. The cost was brought down so that all people have access to it at very low cost. That is an instance of the socialization of a former private enterprise that we would never allow to go back to those hands again.
Another instance is highways. It is only a little over 100 years ago since most of the highways and bridges were toll highways and bridges. If you had not the money, you could not go very far from home. You had to have threepence or sixpence to pay for going over a stretch of road through some squire's domain or maybe across a bridge. But what happened? The thing was so silly-the people were not getting the best use of the roads because they were privately owned-that the government stepped in and socialized them.
The roads of Canada have always been socialized. We have therefore not had that problem. We have become so accustomed to the socialization of roads that we would never hand the roads and bridges back to private enterprise again; we are happy with the socialized state of the roads and bridges.
There are several other things that I could mention, but I see that my time is coming to a close. One is education. I well remember my grandmother telling me that in the village in which she lived education was all private. There were no public schools. You had to have your threepence or your sixpence a week or you could not get an education. All the schools were privately owned. There are still some that are privately owned, namely the profitable ones. The non-profitable ones went out of business very quickly, because the government of England at the time socialized education and made it available to all the people. We all appreciate it, now that it is socialized, and we would not go back to private enterprise or turn all the schools back to private enterprise. We know it functions to the benefit of all the people, so we keep to socialism. In the same way we have libraries that were private libraries.
We even had private armies in England. Various barons had their private armies and sometimes they grouped together to make a bigger army. Nevertheless they were still private armies paid by the baron or the lord of the manor, whatever the case might be. Eventually the stupidity of the situation struck the people and they socialized the army. Now it belongs to and protects the people as a whole. Those are some of the things that fall into the natural category of 67509-293
1, 1956	4619
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation socialism. I think the gas pipe line is in exactly the same category and should be socialized and financed by the federal, provincial and municipal governments in order to give the best service to the people of Canada as a whole.


Mr. Carrick:: Mr. Chairman, I had the honour of speaking in this debate on second reading. At that time I confined myself entirely to a discussion of the merits of this project. Tonight I should like to speak on the issue of closure, because this debate has been converted into one on the question of closure and the propriety of the government applying closure.
Before I came to this house I thought members generally confined themselves to the issue. In my opinion the issue in this case is the wisdom of building the trans-Canada gas pipe line. One is not here very long before he finds out that issues are created for different purposes entirely, not having to do with the real problem before parliament but designed to attract votes. That is exactly what has happened. In this case there has been a probably unparalleled attempt centred on the question of closure. The opposition parties, the official Conservative opposition and the C.C.F., have described the oiosure issue as dictatorial conduct, totalitarianism, the gag and other extravagant epithets of that kind.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Donald D. Carrick: My hon. friend says, "hear, hear".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where did we find those adjectives? Where did we get them? From Mackenzie King.


Donald D. Carrick: I should like to have an opportunity to put my views before the committee. My friend has taken the time of this committee on a number of occasions in order to speak, and I do not ever remember interrupting him. I would expect him to extend the same courtesy to other members of this house.
I should like to put before you, Mr. Chairman, because I think it has not been made clear, what is the government's position with regard to closure. The real facts came out on Wednesday, when the Prime Minister made an offer to the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. party. He proposed to them that the house should sit on Wednesday night, something which it does not ordinarily do, and that the house should sit on Saturday if they wanted to have additional time to debate this issue. That offer was flatly refused, and in the course of the discussion the leader of the C.C.F. party, the
4620	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation hon. member lor Rosetown-Biggar, rose in his place and uttered words to this effect, "Feeling as I do about this legislation and having hostility to it, I am justified in using any	means	within	the	rules	to	block	the
legislation".
I put that to you again, Mr. Chairman. He said in effect, "We are justified in using any	means	within	the	rules	to	block	thelegislation". I want to put this question to you because I think it is fundamental to this issue. If it is fair for the opposition to use any	means	within	the	rules	to	block	thelegislation,	is it not equally	fair for	the
government to use any means within the rules to put the legislation through? I put it in another way. If it is proper for the opposition to use every means within the rules to block the legislation, can it be improper for the government to use every means within the rules to put the legislation through? I think it is fundamental that, in point of fairness, if it is open to the opposition to use the rules to block the legislation, it must be open to the government to use them to put the legislation through. If the public of Canada know the attitude that has been taken by the opposition on this matter they will realize the fairness of what I say.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: When did we debate clause 1?


Donald D. Carrick: Did I not explain that to you? If you do not mind, I did not interrupt you. Now you have made closure the issue in this election. You should give me the opportunity to answer you.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There is no election yet.


Donald D. Carrick: It is a fairly shabby trick. I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that people who understand the situation know that these rules are designed to give the minority, as well as the majority, the opportunity to debate issues; but the rules are also designed so that a minority cannot obstruct legislation and prevent the government from putting legislation through. That is exactly why the closure provision is in the rules.
There has been some misunderstanding on the part of the public as to exactly what closure is. If they knew there were four stages of a bill their views might be different. If they knew that there is a debate on the resolution stage, there is a debate on first reading-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Second reading.


Donald D. Carrick: On second reading; thank you. There is a debate when the matter is referred to the committee of the whole house and a debate on third reading. Closure may be applied on any of those four occasions, but ordinarily debate is allowed on all four.


What happened in this case? The question is, have the opposition had a fair opportunity to debate these issues? Let me take you through the dates. We will start with the week of May 14; I shall skip the two or three days that preceded that, when there were blocking resolutions put through designed to prevent this matter from coming before the house. I shall start with the 14th, when the resolution was introduced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We had four days during that week when the whole issue could have been debated. In the week beginning May 21 we had five days; in the week beginning May 28 we had five days. Thus we had 14 days, beginning with May 14, when this bill could have been debated. We will probably have two or three more days after this week, which will make a total of close to 20 or 21 days.
I tried to make an estimate as fairly as I could of the amount of time that was spent during those first two weeks, the nine days. I went through Hansard and I eliminated the time taken on questions on the orders of the day and all that sort of thing, and I found to my own satisfaction that approximately 50 hours of time were allotted in this house in the first nine days. Of that 50 hours, 18 hours were taken up with what I call blocking resolutions. The time of the house was taken up on matters in which there was no opportunity for anyone to discuss the merits of the pipe-line bill. There were 32 hours during that time when there was an opportunity to debate the pipe-line bill.
Probably it requires some explanation of why I say there were 32 hours to debate the pipe-line bill. I want to take you back to what has happened in this house. This issue has been converted into an issue of closure, and the pipe line aspect has taken a subsidiary position. That is not accidental. As a result of that, a large part of the 32 hours was devoted to discussing not the pipe line but the closure aspect of this procedure.


An hon. Member:: Whose fault was that?


Some hon. Members:: Yours.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Order.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Who invoked closure?


Donald D. Carrick: If the opposition had been in any way desirous of debating this bill, is it reasonable to suppose that they would not have accepted the offer of the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister said that if you would sit Wednesday night and Saturday as long as you wished, if you wanted that much more time to debate the bill, you could have it.


George Clyde Nowlan: Was he not generous?


Donald D. Carrick: May I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, what is the situation in connection with this debate? We calculate that 20 or 21 days could have been devoted to this issue. Will the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre deny that in the rules last year we adopted a form of closure when we assigned 10 days to the important speech from the throne debate? Ten days are all that are considered necessary for that. Will he deny that last year we adopted a closure vote of eight days on the budget debate? Eight days are considered sufficient for that. Can my friends sitting over there seriously try to tell us that 21 days are not enough to debate an important issue of this kind?
Many things happened in this house that I wish the public could have seen, because I am a great believer in giving the public the facts and I feel that when the public know the facts they will arrive at the right decision. I wish they could have seen what happened when hon. gentlemen opposite imposed a vote upon this house. Remember, on every occasion the whip would walk out and would take not five minutes or three minutes, but 10 minutes, the maximum time, every time.


An hon. Member:: Seventeen minutes.


Donald D. Carrick: Ten mimJtes to call in the members and 17 minutes, 18 minutes and 20 minutes every time the vote was taken, and all that time we were here waiting for the members to be brought in. The public should know that in this House of Commons the practice is that when all the members are in the house and a vote is taken, and very frequently another vote has to be taken, the Speaker says: "Shall we consider that the members are in the house?" What do they say? Generally, they say "Yes", but in this debate what did they say?


Edward George McCullough: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Clyde Nowlan: There is closure; you cannot ask questions.


Donald D. Carrick: What is the question? We have had nothing but dilatory proceedings. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that if the public of Canada could have been watching what the Conservatives and C.C.F. opposition were doing in this house they would have been ashamed of them.


An hon. Member:: You had 21 days.


Donald D. Carrick: You asked me what the
opposition should have done? I shall tell you what they should have done. They should have recognized that the majority in this house have the right to rule this house, and closure is a-
67509-293J
1, 1956	4621
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald D. Carrick: They shake their heads. The other night the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George quoted Magna Carta and section 49 of the British North America Act, which says that our constitution is founded upon the rule of the majority in this house. It is fundamental that the majority have the right to vote, and indeed the majority rule within the meaning of the constitution. We have closure today, and they should have recognized it. What they should have done is this. They should have recognized the right of the government to apply closure, and that they were going to have every opportunity to debate the merits of the pipe-line loan within the closure limits. Surely that is not an unreasonable request to make of hon. gentlemen opposite if they desired to debate the bill. When they were given that opportunity why did they not take it, instead of wasting time?


An hon. Member:: Talk about the pipe line.


Donald D. Carrick: Yes, I will tell you something about the pipe-line right now. I am going to tell you the reason you do not want to debate the pipe-line issue, and that you know you are in a hopeless position.


George Clyde Nowlan: Speak to the Chair.


Donald D. Carrick: I will tell you why, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you in a hopeless position, Mr. Chairman?


Donald D. Carrick: I will tell you why the Leader of the Opposition gave up on this pipe-line issue. A while ago the treasurer of Ontario came out and said that time was of the essence, the pipe line had to be built. At that time the premier of Ontario, the Conservative leader in Ontario, came out and said the pipe line had to be built.
Where did that leave the Leader of the Opposition in this house? He had hoped to have an election issue. As a result of what happened he knew that he had nothing on the pipe line; he knew that his position was hopeless. He is a very astute gentleman. He has been in politics a long time. If he cannot get where he wants to get in one way he can make a turn and get there another way, and there is no one quite so fast on footwork in the ring as the Leader of the Opposition.
What happened? Extravagant claims were built up. The supremacy of parliament was suppressed. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar spoke of abomination, outrage, and all that kind of political claptrap that they have tried on the people of the country in
4622	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the last few elections and they have always been rejected. Now they are building up this closure issue.
Mr. Chairman, some people may think that what has happened was not premeditated. I tell you that this has been one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the Canadian people, and I shall tell you why. I am not going to dwell upon it because it is a shameful incident. It is the destruction of a man who might have been the leader of the Conservative party, and they have left their mark upon him. They perpetrated this hoax upon the country. I am not going to go further than that. A man who up to this time was respected in the country, refused to obey the rules of the house and take his seat when the Speaker called upon him to do so.


Thomas Miller Bell: The government has gone just about as far as it can go.


Donald D. Carrick: The Speaker requested him to sit down and he refused to sit down. I say he is a sacrifice for the ambitions of somebody else and I am sorry it happened to him-


An hon. Member:: Look after yourself.


Donald D. Carrick: The Leader of the Opposition knows very well what has happened. He is a very experienced lawyer. Let me tell you what happens in court. Counsel sometimes are representing an accused and know they have a hopeless case. What do they do? They know if they can impress the jury that the judge is siding with the crown representative they increase their chances of an acquittal.


An hon. Member:: They will never get you.


Donald D. Carrick: The Leader of the Opposition knows he has a hopeless case.


An hon. Member:: What have you?


Donald D. Carrick: He has challenged the authority of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, and somebody has indicated tonight they are going to do the same thing with the committee chairman. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, this kind of thing should not be tolerated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald D. Carrick: One of the leading members of that group has been suspended from the house. One wonders where this will end. We are on the road to anarchy. They are the ones who are destroying democracy in this country. That is where it will end.


An hon. Member:: You said it.


Donald D. Carrick: I have a moment in which to tell you why this is important to the C.C.F. and the Conservative parties. They know if this pipe line is built they are through in the next election, and I will tell you why. If the


western section of the pipe line is built and the loan is repaid to the Canadian government, it will mean they are finished in the next election. They sit there and know it like we do.
Suppose the loan is not repaid. The federal government is in a position to take the line over for 90 per cent of the cost, as the C.C.F. are demanding we take it over now. Where would that leave the C.C.F. in an election? Where would it leave the Conservatives in an election? That is why there is such a desperate effort to block this legislation. They know their fate in the next election is hanging on this very matter, and that is why there is such a desperate effort to block this legislation.
The sordid party purposes which lie behind the efforts of the opposition will be best described in the scathing words of Sir Francis Bacon who said about a similar group of men: "They care not what happens to the ship of state so long as they save the cockboat of their own fortunes."


Edward George McCullough: You
scuttled the ship.


Mr. Monteith:: Mr. Chairman, we have just heard quite an oration from the hon. member for Trinity.	,


An hon. Member:: An oration is right.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I was watching the clock and the hon. member spent exactly 14 minutes speaking on closure and on other subjects that are entirely out of order, and eventually he finished up by spending one or two minutes on the pipe line.
He intimated, Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister as of last Wednesday offered us an opportunity of speaking all Wednesday evening and all day Saturday, and he asked us why we did not take it. You know very well, sir. The Prime Minister said that in one breath and in the next breath he gave notice of closure in the committee stage. As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned following that, what was that other than a nice, keen sharp axe with a velvet cover over it? That is all it could possibly be. How long are we going to have to put up with that sort of thing?


Mr. Hosking:: We have put up with it for 21 days.


Jay Waldo Monteith: When I first came here, Mr. Chairman, I considered it a great honour to be elected by the citizens of Perth county to represent them in the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Don't you now?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I considered it a great privilege to be here in this twenty-second parliament of Canada. What do we see today? A

shambles caused by government rulings. I just hope these rulings that have been given today are not used as precedents as time goes on. What could be worse than a House of Commons like this? Any opposition party would have three strikes against them to begin with, let alone two.
I have made many friends here in all parties and I hope to retain those friends, but I must say I have been greatly disturbed by the subservient bowing of whatever Liberal friends I may have had to the will of this government, as exemplified by what has happened here in the last few days and particularly today. I would like to pass on an admonition to the government, Mr. Chairman, in the words of Angelo-


An hon. Member:: Michael?


Jay Waldo Monteith: -in Shakespeare's "Measure for Measure": "O, it is excellent to have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant."
In the short time I have been in the house I have found that the committee stage was a sort of round table conference, or at least I have always thought of it in that way. I considered it a period in which one asked questions and one had a right to have them answered. What have we found in these past few days? We have not had that opportunity at all.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You have not taken it.


William Earl Rowe: You did not give it to us.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We have not had an opportunity of asking questions. Let me tell you, Wellington South, that you could stand to have a few questions answered too. The hon. member for Peel the other night asked a great many questions. Has he had any answered?


Henry Alfred Hosking: He also told the minister he could get 34-inch pipe within 14 miles of his riding, which is not true.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Look, Wellington South, you could do a lot better than you have in this debate, too.


William Earl Rowe: Get up and make your speech.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member for
St. Paul's brought up an important item the other night. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was pleased to get to his feet and say he would look into it because if it existed as suggested it would be illegal. Are there not many other things which may be in the same boat? It is very reasonable to suppose so.
When any bill comes before this house we have an opportunity of sitting down and discussing it, much like the situation which I
1. 1956	4623
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation experienced when I sat on the municipal council. You sit around the table. In committee you discuss things, you thresh them out and you get to know what it is all about, despite the fact that you may not be the chairman of the committee or a member of the committee. You have an opportunity to find out what it is all about before you finally vote. We have not had that opportunity at all.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You would not take it.


William Earl Rowe: What are you talking about? The government announced closure.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, this is probably the most important bill that has come before this parliament in a great many years. I would like to have one question answered. On page 4428 of Hansard for Tuesday, May 29, the Minister of Trade and Commerce tabled some figures concerning the selling price of gas. I am going to use the 100 per cent load factor figures as set out on this page.
This table indicates that gas is to sell in Saskatchewan at 21-3 cents per thousand cubic feet; in Manitoba, at 26 cents. That is a difference of 4 [DOT] 7 cents. I am assuming that the difference arises because this is the delivery cost. That may be all right, and I have nothing to say about that at the moment and I will go on.
From Manitoba to western Ontario, up in the Nipigon district, it is now increased to 34-5 cents, an increase between Manitoba and the Nipigon district of 8-5 cents which is the delivery cost. Then we go on down the line until we come to the Cobalt-Whitby district, which I suppose is the line from Cobalt to Whitby. There it is to sell for 44-5 cents. The net difference between the selling price in Saskatchewan and in the Cobalt-Whitby district is 23-2 cents. I should like to read an item which appeared in Canadian Business of March, 1956, by H. G. Cochrane, who had this to say:
An interesting sidelight to the Westcoast-Pacific Northwest-El Paso deal is found in the economics of the plan. Pacific Northwest will buy Canadian gas at 22 cents per thousand c.f.t at the border, will sell an equal volume down south in the San Juan area for 25 cents. Thus, in effect, gas will be transported some 1,500 miles down the continent at a cost of only 3 cents per thousand.
It is not logical on the face of it, and there may be an answer. If there is an answer I certainly think we should have it. I think we should be given the opportunity to ask for an explanation, and we have not had that opportunity.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would you like that explanation now?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Clarence Decatur Howe: The San Juan basin-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Will I be permitted to get up again?


Donald Ferguson Brown: If there is consent.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand I would not
have consent to speak again once I have resumed my seat.


Donald Ferguson Brown: If the hon. member prefers to proceed he may do so.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There are a few things in the bill which I think could stand some explanation. I do not know whether we can discuss clause 3, but I think we have been wandering far afield and it may not do any harm.


Donald Ferguson Brown: We are now dealing with clause 4.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think we have been dealing with everything tonight. I believe I have been closer to clause 4 than most speakers this evening. Clause 4 reads:
(1) The corporation is a body corporate having capacity to contract and to sue and be sued in the name of the corporation.
(4) Actions, suits or other legal proceedings in respect of any right or obligation acquired or incurred by the corporation, whether in its name or in the name of Her Majesty, may be brought or taken by or against the corporation, in the name of the corporation, in any court that would have jurisdiction if the corporation were not an agent of Her Majesty.
That is perfectly all right, and possibly some legal brain devised it. I am not a legal man, but I would like to have answers to some questions. Ordinarily in committee we are allowed to ask questions. Section 5 (2) reads:
The corporation shall net enter into a lease of the northern Ontario section with Trans-Canada unless it is approved by the governor in council and unless it provides for rentals during the period of the lease and for a purchase price that, in his opinion, are designed to recover not less than the cost of the northern Ontario section and interest thereon at a reasonable rate.
Does the government expect there will be a higher interest rate? It says "not less than". Is it to be that interest rate, or might it be higher? We have the right to know. We should have the opportunity to ask these questions and get answers. Subsection 3 reads:
(3) Subject to this act. the corporation may do such things as are expedient for or conducive or incidental to the attainment of the purposes set forth in subsection (1) and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the corporation may, for the purposes of this act, buy, sell, lease, contract, acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property of every description and expend or

administer all moneys received by it from loans to it, rentals, disposition of its property or otherwise.
I suppose that refers to the building of the northern Ontario section. I would just like to ask some reasonable questions in the committee stage. Section 6 (2) reads:
(2) The Minister of Finance, at the request of the corporation and with the approval of the governor in council, may from time to time out of the consolidated revenue fund lend money to the corporation on such terms and conditions as the governor in council approves, but such loans to the corporation shall bear interest at a rate that is not less than three and one-quarter per cent per annum.
Might it be higher? How much higher might it be? What is the procedure? What is the method of setting the interest rate? It says "not less than three and one-quarter per cent". Might it be more than that? Under what conditions might it be more? Then we come to part II, which is an important part of the bill. Section 7 (1) states that the loan is to be 90 per cent of the cost, with a maximum of $80 million. Let me go on down to subsection 2 which reads:
(2) If, with respect to the construction of the western section, the repayment of the loans or otherwise, Trans-Canada is in default under the loan agreement or any security given pursuant thereto, the corporation may, upon giving notice to Trans-Canada, of such default,
(a)	take immediate possession and control of any or all assets, rights and undertakings of Trans-Canada and conduct the business and operations of Trans-Canada with respect to such assets, rights and undertakings.
What rights, undertakings, assets and all the rest of it are there expected to be? Maybe they do not know exactly, but what do they expect? We have a right to ask that question and we have a right to receive a reasonable answer. Paragraph (b) reads:
(b)	declare that any or all of the assets, rights and undertakings of Trans-Canada be vested in Her Majesty, and thereupon all right, title and interest of Trans-Canada to or in respect of such assets, rights and undertakings, shall be vested in Her Majesty and Trans-Canada shall cease to have any right, title or interest to or in respect of any such assets, rights or undertakings.
Paragraph (e) reads:
(e) pursuant to any agreement in that behalf made, with the approval of the governor in council, before or after the coming into force of this act, between Her Majesty and Trans-Canada and any shareholder of Trans-Canada and any holder of an option to purchase shares of Trans-Canada, acquire shares of the capital stock of Trans-Canada.
Are they going to go out and buy shares? They have $130 million and perhaps will loan only $80 million; are they going to use the remainder temporarily until they get into the construction of the northern Ontario bridge to buy shares? What do they intend to do? This gives them power to do that. Have

they any intention of doing it? We have a right to ask for that information and we have a right to get an answer. Subsection 5 reads:
(5) The aggregate, outstanding at any time, of the amounts advanced by the Minister of Finance to the corporation under this section together with the loans made by the Minister of Finance to the corporation under section 6 shall not exceed one hundred and thirty million dollars.
I am not too familiar with this as I have not had a chance to ask sufficient questions and get answers, but it has been my impression that the provincial government was going to put up $35 million. I do not know whether that is part of the $130 million, and I would like to get some further details on that. I have other questions to ask. Why not give us a reasonable time to consider this bill in committee?
We have many more questions. I have another one as to the urgency of this. We have been waiting for five years without one step being taken. On last March 15 the first resolution appeared on the order paper; the first day of debate. It never appeared again. Finally, some months later, we got into the second resolution, which by the way incorporated an entirely different proposition from the first one. Just as a common sense question, why this company and no other? I am not saying there is any other that can do it, but I should like to be told why this company only? Why 90 per cent of the loan to Trans-Canada to build the west coast section? Why not 80 per cent? Why not 100 per cent? We have a right to ask those questions. Why next March 31 as the deadline? Why not February 28 or April 30? We should have some answers to these questions.
Why has not the whole cabinet known what is going on, instead of only the Minister of Trade and Commerce? Can Trans-Canada get another mortgage if the crown corporation permits it? I think it can, as I read the bill. We are entitled to know if it can, and under what conditions it can, why it might need it and that sort of thing. What proportion of membership on the board of directors in this crown corporation will be appointed by the Dominion of Canada and by the province of Ontario? I do not know, and I do not think anybody else does. I think we are entitled to know.
I should like to say one word about that hatchet man from Charlotte. He reminded me very much of the daring young man on the flying trapeze. He skipped all over the lot, but mentioned not a thing about the pipe line. He was talking about wheat, the B.N.A. Act, Canadian early history, and in fact everything, including a dastardly attack on the hon. member for Eglinton.
1, 1956	4625
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Very briefly, the evidence of 1951 when Trans-Canada was set up indicated that this was to be an all-Canadian route. It was to be an all-Canadian project. It was to the effect that adequate markets in eastern Canada would consume all the gas that could be produced and moved through the line. That evidence was given. Engineering presented no great difficulty whatsoever. Finance, independent of government assistance, was no trouble at all. That evidence was given by Mr. Shultz on pages 9 and 10 of the proceedings of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines in that year. In 1954 evidence to the same effect was given in the committee, at pages 45 and 46.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Daniel Roland Michener: I wonder if the minister would permit a question?
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Brown, Essex
West): Order. The minister has not been making a speech.


Mr. Hanna:: In spite of the heat that has been generated in this house during the past few days, the fact still remains that Ontario needs Alberta's natural gas. The province of Manitoba badly needs Alberta's natural gas, and there is every indication that before very long Alberta's natural gas will be needed for the fast-expanding industries of the province of Quebec.
It has been established in the debate so far that there is available for immediate export a very large quantity of the world's cheapest and most usable fuel in the province of Alberta. It has also been established, I believe beyond question, that the absence of an export market for Alberta's surplus gas is very seriously hampering the development of oil and gas in that province. I am convinced that what hampers the development of the great province of Alberta also hampers the development of Canada as a whole.
I would like to congratulate the opposition for finally permitting this house to get down to discussion of the pipe-line bill. This bill has been before this house now for three weeks, and I can say that one of the biggest tasks of the government has been trying to get the opposition into a corner so the terms of the bill could be discussed. In this connection I should like to quote briefly from an editorial that appeared in the Edmonton Journal of May 25, a week ago today. It says:
No doubt this is legitimate parliamentary tactics for an opposition determined to block the passage of a measure. It is equally legitimate, however, for a government to counter by invoking the closure rule so as to bring the issue to a vote. That is what the closure is for.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
The charge of stifling the debate seems singularly inappropriate. Parliament has been discussing the trans-Canada pipe line, with little intermission, since May 9. In that space of more than two weeks-
May I interject that it is now three weeks. -Mr. Drew, Mr. Diefenbaker, Mr. Coldwell, Mr. Knowles and many other opposition spokesmen have spoken repeatedly against it, and the house has seen some of the liveliest exchanges in its recent history. The arguments against the project have been fully presented. Since this is an undertaking in which "time is of the essence," the point has surely been reached for parliament to decide for or against it.
This great project, in my view, is just as much in the national interest as it is in the interest of the province of Alberta which I have the honour to represent in this house.
I should like to commend the hon. member for Calgary South for the stand he has taken on this issue. We have been told that he is an expert in the gas and oil business, but there is always a chance that an expert might be wrong. Therefore it was most interesting to have the information given in the house this evening that the Progressive Conservative executive of Calgary South supports the member for Calgary South 100 per cent on this issue. I think that is a tribute to him and to his courageous attitude, and a tribute also to this Liberal government from the Progressive Conservative executive in Calgary South. One wonders where the member for Calgary North really stands on this issue. I should like to know what his executive committee is thinking about the stand he has taken.
I come from an area which has experienced the benefits of natural gas for well over 30 years. I was glad when my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, who also represents an Edmonton constituency, placed on the record a few days ago some of the history of natural gas and oil development in the province of Alberta. This unequalled source of energy has long been recognized as the trump card in Alberta's truly remarkable store of national resources. Following the discovery in the past 10 years of truly amazing amounts of natural gas, the growth of industry in the province of Alberta, and particularly in the city of Edmonton, has amazed even the experts. But at the moment the growth of further new industries in our province, particularly petrochemical industries, is being stunted and hampered by Alberta's inability to export its surplus gas. Industry in Alberta has been doing its best to get along with various conservation measures, but in spite of their best efforts we have been told here that hundreds of millions of cubic feet of natural gas are being wasted daily. I submit,

Mr. Chairman, that in the interests of Canada as a whole this waste must be stopped at the earliest possible moment.
In the constituency of Edmonton-Strath-cona hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested within the past 10 years as a result of gas and oil discoveries, and most of that industry has been established with the assistance of United States capital which, by the way, the members of the opposition profess to scorn. I should like to read a very brief quotation from an official booklet put out by the city of Edmonton. It says in part:
The $60 million petrochemical colossus of the Canadian Chemical Company, a subsidiary of the Celanese Corporation of America, is in operation on Edmonton's eastern outskirts. It is one of the few plants of its kind in the world, producing many new chemical products never before manufactured in Canada. "Waste" petroleum gases are one of its basic material requirements . . . Wood pulp, the other basic material, comes from the Prince Rupert plant of an associated company.
I should like to comment that this is only one of several petrochemical plants in the city of Edmonton, and I think I should add for the benefit of the opposition that the taxes that are paid by these petrochemical industries, which are largely American owned, have made the municipal district of Strathcona one of the richest municipalities in Canada in the past five years. I wish the members of the opposition could go out to Edmonton and see what outside capital has done and is doing there.


An hon. Member:: And in Calgary.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: And in Calgary; and what is good for Calgary and Edmonton is good for the other cities of Canada. I wonder whether our Tory friends think the good Canadians of Edmonton or Calgary would vote against a proposal to exclude foreign investment. I certainly believe they would not, and I would feel very sorry for the politician who would go out there in the next election and suggest it.
The growing industrialization of the province of Alberta is one of the highlights of Canadian development today. This industrialization is good for all Canada, particularly for western Canada which has had practically no industry until the recent discoveries of vast quantities of gas and oil in Alberta. It amazes me to hear our C.C.F. friends from the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba opposing what is good for western Canada. They profess to be the great champions of the west. Then why are they opposing so vigorously a development that can do nothing but good for their own provinces? I am particularly interested in what the members from the city of Winnipeg, who

are so vigorously opposing the bill, will tell their people by the time the next election rolls around and they have the benefit of natural gas.
A few days ago the Leader of the Opposition quoted the Calgary Herald as being opposed to Bill No. 298. I should like to quote an extract to him from another great American newspaper-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: Alberta newspaper.


Charles Edward Rea: You were right the first time.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: I refer to the Edmonton Journal of May 17.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Soul-mates, at any rate.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: It has this to say:
This open breach between the Progressive Conservatives and their own gas and oil expert is bound to weaken the opposition's case on the pipe line issue. It will strengthen the widespread suspicion that the Progressive Conservatives, and the C.C.F. too, are more concerned with playing on nationalism and latent anti-Americanism lor political purposes than they are with the efficient utilization of Canada's natural gas resources. Indeed, amid all the din in Ottawa these days one can discern echoes of that old war cry of half a century ago:	"No truck or trade with the
Yankees!"
The gentlemen of the Kremlin are no doubt taking considerable warm comfort from the anti-American campaign that is being waged in this parliament by the members of the cooperative conservative federation sitting in the rows opposite.


An hon. Member:: What about the Liberal-socreds?


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: In my view these gentlemen are doing serious injury to Canada by their emotional anti-American campaign. They have challenged us to an election. I believe it is lucky for them that the Prime Minister announced a few days ago that there will be no election at the present time. If our Tory friends are realistic at all they must surely recognize that Canada is expanding under a Liberal government today at a much faster pace than Canadian capital is either able or willing to keep up with. Canadians are either unable or unwilling to supply the risk capital that our orderly development demands at the present time, and had it not been for the capital we have received from the United States in the past ten years we would not have enjoyed the spectacular development throughout Canada today of which we are all so rightly proud. Is there anyone here, I wonder, who would like to see less development in Canada just because a good deal of United States capital is involved?


Charles Edward Rea: Page 5.
1. 1956	4627
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that most Canadians realize that Canada has been enriched by the free admission, even the encouragement, of capital and private enterprise not only from the United States but from other countries. Such foreign capital has been very much to our advantage, just as the admission to Canada of skilled immigrants from various foreign countries has been to our advantage. Such people and the capital they have brought with them have contributed and are contributing immensely to our rapid industrialization. They have added strength and stability to our whole economy. Canada needs both more people and more money if our standard of living is to be kept continually on the upgrade, and I believe that the people of Canada have confidence in the government which has given us such a rapidly and steadily increasing standard of living.
A good deal of nonsense has been put on the record about Canadians having to pay more for gas that will come through the pipe line than will Americans on the other side of the border. Here again I am sorry to say that the opposition has resorted to distortion of the facts. They have confused what are generally called wholesale prices with retail or consumer prices.


Charles Edward Rea: Page 6.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: For example, they seek to
prove that the gas export price at Emerson, Manitoba, is less than the price that will have to be paid by Winnipeg consumers. Purposely or otherwise they overlook the fact that once the Americans buy the gas at Emerson they have to pipe it hundreds of miles and then distribute it to the various consumers in different cities in the midwestern United States. The opposition simply either do not understand the facts of gas distribution or they are purposely trying to confuse the issue in the public mind.
As for Canadian consumers, Mr. Chairman, from the talk of the opposition you would think the people in eastern Canada were going to be compelled to buy gas that comes through this pipe line. Of course nothing of the kind will happen. This western gas that will come through the trans-Canada pipe line will have to be competitive in price with other fuels that are being used here in eastern Canada. No one will have to take it if he can find and is using a better and cheaper alternative. I go further than that, Mr. Chairman, and suggest that this additional competitive fuel from western Canada being introduced into the markets of Ontario and Quebec will have a very beneficial effect on the prices that consumers are obliged to pay for their present
4628	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation supplies of coal and oil, because Trans-Canada Pipe Lines will certainly offer some competition.
I see that my time has almost expired, Mr. Chairman. A few minutes ago I noticed a headline in one of the Ottawa evening papers "Frost is possible on Sunny Week end". I believe that headline refers to the week end weather; but I should like to comment that I believe Premier Frost of Ontario will also have a sunny and cheerful week end because, in spite of the most strenuous opposition by the federal Ontario Tories and our friends of the C.C.F., Premier Frost and the people of Ontario are almost certain to get Alberta natural gas and get it as quickly as this government can bring it to them.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, we are at clause 4 of an iniquitous bill which I can only describe as a disgrace to Canada. We had closure forced on this house when the resolution was brought in. In the very speech in which the minister introduced the resolution he announced that closure would take place the next day. That was something that had never occurred before in Canadian history. We had closure announced in this house on second reading. We had closure announced on clause 1, clause 2 and clause 3 of this bill. This house has had no opportunity to debate or discuss these clauses. We have now reached clause 4. This morning at one o'clock a vote will be taken on this bill without further discussion, one hour from now. Without a full opportunity for discussion, whether the opposition has anything to say or not, this bill is to go through. The Canadian parliament' never saw anything like this before in the history of Canada, and pray God it never will again.


Charles Edward Johnston: Discuss the bill.


George Hugh Castleden: We shall be glad to do that. This bill is the most flagrant sell-out of Canadian interest's that Canada ever saw. It is a selling out of our interests to United States oil kings. They have Alberta oil; they have Alberta gas. Now we build a pipe line and practically hand it over to them and give the control of distribution to them as far as the line goes.
This company came to the Canadian parliament in 1951 and gave a solemn commitment to this house and to the committee of this house that this was to be an all-Canadian pipe line, built all in Canada, with 100 per cent Canadian consumption. Was that a promise or was it not? Was it a commitment? Was it a commitment by the member who introduced the bill? Was it a commitment when the bill was introduced and a commitment when the bill was passed?


Then a sudden change took place. Shortly after the big Texas oil kings moved in and got control of the company. We were gold-bricked. This parliament was laughed at. This parliament was tricked, and we sit idly by and accept it. We were tricked.
The first guarantee is that it shall not be all-Canadian consumption, but that 200 million cubic feet per day shall be sent out through Emerson to the American market. That is No. 1. Now these great Texas oil kings in control of this company say, "We are not even going to build the eastern end of the line; we will get the Canadian government to build it"; and we do it. Under this bill the Canadian government builds the portion of the line from Manitoba to Kapus-kasing, rents it to the oil company and says, "You have the option to buy it. If you make money on it, if it is profitable, you hang onto it; if it is a dud, we are stuck with it." They are telling the Canadian people that we are stuck with it.
As if that were not enough, now they say, "You lend us the money to build the western part of it". So we get the bill here to lend them the money to build the western part of it. How far does it go? Have these Texas oil kings no money? Are they not taking the risk, or they going to risk Canadian capital?


An hon. Member:: The taxpayers' money.


George Hugh Castleden: And then we hand it over by this bill to the Trans-Canada Pipe Line company. As if that were not enough, the Minister of Trade and Commerce makes an agreement with these people on May 15 and comes in here with a bill and says, "Get it through parliament by June 7 or else." You have not only tricked Canadians; you have not only sold your Canadian birthright. You have now destroyed Canadian democracy. The scenes we have witnessed in this house in these last two weeks are a sign of what is happening, namely the destruction of the procedure of this house, the violation of these orders by the government, and the destruction of one of the most promising Speakers who ever came to this house. This government has lost the moral right to rule.
When you destroy these standing orders by arbitrarily bulldozing the people of this house by your majority, you destroy the very basis upon which this parliament can govern. Contempt, disgust, bitterness replace what should be proper reason. Parliament cannot function with that type of thing happening. When this Speaker was told what he should do yesterday; when the action was taken today, and when that Speaker says, "I give this house this proposition", we are being governed by proposition now. There

are no more rules; we have Speaker's propositions; and with four members of the opposition standing in their place raising points of privilege and points of order,-


An hon. Member:: Read rule 7.


George Hugh Castleden: -the Speaker says, "Those in favour of my proposition" and "Those against" and you steamroller the thing, you set aside this rule book and you destroy parliament.


An hon. Member:: Have you read rule 7?


George Hugh Castleden: You read it. Look at what is happening in this house. Democracy is being destroyed in this house.


An hon. Member:: What do you know about democracy?


George Hugh Castleden: I have not heard you try to protect it very much.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Why not get up and make a speech instead of interrupting?


George Hugh Castleden: The issue in this house tonight is not the pipe line.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Hugh Castleden: The issue in this house tonight is democracy and the democratic rights of the people of Canada. Pipe lines will come and go. One hundred years from today the pipe line will probably be forgotten. But the rules and precedents which you have set down today will be the rules whereby this house will be misgoverned. You are taking away the rights of parliament, the rights of members to speak. You are destroying the opposition.
You might as well say to the opposition that they can go home because now, under the precedents set in this house today, the opposition from here on is to be wiped out because they can say, "This was the precedent of June 1, 1956". Built on what? Built on the precedent of 1932, only made much more drastic, completely wiping out the opposition. The government says, "The deadline which we set of June 7 shall be met, irrespective of what happens in parliament."
Where is the seed of it? Where did this come from? I lay the blame on the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I respect his ability as an administrator and as a builder. If I wanted a job done in Canada, a big job in engineering, I believe he would be the man to do it. But I say in the same breath that the man has no right to be within a thousand miles of the House of Commons. Here is his own statement, and I give it to him exactly. I am quoting from page 4405 of Hansard of May 28:
Now, why are we pressing on; why are we pressing this? Well, I do not know; perhaps I
1. 1956	4629
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation get over-enthusiastic about a project. I have been working on sizeable projects all my life, and somehow I reach a point in the development when I think a project is important; and if it is a serious enough project I begin to think it is the most important thing in the world . . .
Yes, it is the most important thing in the world. To him it is more important than parliament. I tell him in this house there is something more important than the project of the pipe line, and that is democracy and the rights of the people, the rules under which democracy operates. They are being destroyed today, and that is why we had the exhibition that we had today.
I want to say it will be a sad day for Canada when people in this House of Commons will not stand up and protect those rights when they see them being violated. I want to say that the rights and the freedom of this parliament can be pushed back 100 years tomorrow unless someone stands here and says "Stop".
As far as we in the opposition are concerned, we refuse to submit to the violation of those rights. Those rights were bought after hundreds of years of fighting, war, struggle, years of imprisonment of men who refused to knuckle down, men who said "this is wrong" and stood up against it.
When I see the docile Liberal backbenchers to a man standing up and condoning what has happened in this house, endorsing it, supporting it, without one word of protest, I say this can happen. I say it is a sad day for Canada, not only to have the opposition wiped out but all the rules and all the symbols of this house and what this house means. That mace should be placed on the desks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister of Canada as a symbol of government. It should rest between the opposition and the government as a sign of what is right, of the rights of the minority, of the rights of individuals to speak in Canada's parliament. Otherwise this House of Commons becomes the home of subservient slaves who bow to the will of a person who becomes overly enthusiastic and thinks his project is the most important thing in the world. Under such conditions there is one important matter, and that is freedom.
The disgraceful conduct of the Chair in doing the apparent bidding of the cabinet was the final act of shame. By riding rough-shod over the rules we have destroyed a part of Canadian democracy. The most important words that I could find were from the letters of Junius. I shall read those words:
We can never be really in danger until the forms of parliament are made use of to destroy the substance of our civil and political liberties-[DOT]
4830	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
And that is part of the right of people to speak in this house. I continue:
-until parliament itself betrays the trust by contributing to establish new principles of gov-'-nment, and employing the very weapons committed to it by the collective body to stab the constitution.
That is what we witnessed today. Let us remember that the acts of today become the precedents of tomorrow. That is the dangerous thing, and that is why we must protest if we have any conception of freedom and any conception of the position of parliament as representing the Canadian people.
I want to pay tribute to a private citizen of Canada, one who exemplifies the thing upon which democracy is built. Democracy is built in the hearts and the minds of the private citizens who are alert and alive to the dangers to democracy; who are constantly on the watch and, when they see something happening that is wrong, do what they can and what they should about it. An unknown lady, whose address is Ottawa, wrote a letter to a local newspaper. She was apparently stirred. This unknown individual, sitting in her little home-I do not know where her home is-did a service to democracy. She did what little she could. She was a Canadian. She wrote to the Ottawa Journal as follows:
On May 15 Canada was sold "down the river" and democracy went with her, perhaps forever.
This colossus of a government however, does not fear any adverse fate because it knows, as past elections have proved, that Canadians are incapable of moral indignation.


An hon. Member:: She must be a Tory.


George Hugh Castleden: You ought to know. I am sure she could not be related to you. I continue:
There is no scandal big enough to shock the Canadian people. Shackled by an inertia sedulously cultivated by a wartime government, transfixed by their T.V., captivated by their comics, eager only for their monthly baby bonus (soothing syrup divine), they are completely indifferent to the political scene and the methods employed by their rulers.
It means nothing to them that debate in the house has long been a farce, with the cat-calls and jeers of the Liberals, and the systematic garroting of the opposition by Mr. Speaker, making a mockery of this democracy for which so many of their fathers have died. They cannot see that for this they will pay, and in coinage even more bitter than that just minted on parliament hill.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: May 1 ask a question?


George Hugh Castleden: I pay tribute to the one who wrote it. You would not understand. After I get through you may ask all the questions you like. This lady was stirred by injustice.
I am sorry to say you are not. She was very stirred because she saw the loss of freedom. She picked up her pen and wrote a protest.


It is very little. She did what she should; she sounded a warning. So long as Canada produces such citizens we need not be afraid of democracy; we need have no fear for it. So long as we elect and send to parliament members who will fight against the breaking of the rules of parliament we do not fear.
"The nation which values anything higher than its own freedom will lose that freedom". There is the lesson to us all. No Canadian worthy of the name should fail at this time to utter his protest. Knowing Canadians as I do, when they learn what has happened today they will within the year, I predict, relegate this infamous gang of dictators, the government over there, who have violated Canadian democracy, down to the abysmal depths of oblivion from whence they never should have come.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, it is my purpose to take only a few moments. It has been said many times that there has been no opportunity to ask questions and have those questions answered. I want to make it clear that we have had 19 days of debate in discussing this bill.


George Alexander Drew: That is not so.


William Earl Rowe: That is not true; you are wrong again. You have had only 14.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What did we do on the other days; discuss points of order?


George Alexander Drew: You cannot count the days. There were but 14 days.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Fourteen days is quite a time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A lot of days were taken on those undebatable motions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have had my officers here before me for several days, and tonight I have kept them up far later than their usual bedtime. I have had two questions to date, which I shall endeavour to answer. A short time ago the hon. member for St. Paul's wanted to ask a question. Through a misunderstanding the chairman did not give him an opportunity. If he would care to put the question now I would be very glad to deal with it if I can.


An hon. Member:: He has gone.


An hon. Member:: No, he is right there.


Thomas Miller Bell: Ask him, Roily.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Careful! If you sit down you can only speak once.


Thomas Miller Bell: The first and only question will now be asked.


André Gauthier: Dumb "Bell"
again.


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Chairman, the question I had in mind related to the position which would exist when the 34-inch line, the construction of which is provided by this bill, has been completed. It has to be completed by December 31, and it would leave the 34-inch line from the Alberta border to the vicinity of Winnipeg. The bill does not seem to advance the matter beyond that. I wanted to ask the minister what the program was from there. Presumably that line would be used to provide Winnipeg. Where would the gas be taken from? There are no gathering lines in Alberta to bring it to the Manitoba border.
At the Winnipeg end, there is a market in Winnipeg and nothing more. I believe Winnipeg could be supplied with a very small quantity of gas, perhaps 35 million cubic feet per day as compared with a line capacity of 100 million cubic feet. I would like to know for what purpose the line would be used when it was finished, how much gas would go through it, and what amount of time would elapse before additional use would be made of the line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, in a line as long as the contemplated trans-Canada line and of those dimensions it would be quite impossible to think of completing the whole line in one season or, I think, in two seasons. It takes more equipment than I think could be gathered together for the purpose. It may be possible to build to Toronto in two seasons, I am not sure; but the point is that in building to Winnipeg we have built the first 600 miles of the line which will eventually go on to Toronto and Montreal; the most difficult part, because of the larger diameter than the other portions of the line, 34 inches as against 30 inches.
You say there are no gathering lines in Alberta. Well, that province has made arrangements with Tennessee Transmission for the necessary pipe for that purpose. That has been ordered, as well as the line pipe.
Chemical plants are being built in Alberta to clean the gas, and we are quite certain that gas can be delivered into the pipe line as soon as it is completed to Winnipeg. The main urgency is to get the whole situation moving; in other words, to get work going on in Alberta to open up the gathering end of the system; and to advance the pipe line; and to give some security to prospective customers that they will receive the gas for which they contract at a foreseeable time in the future.
1* 1956	4631
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
The great difficulty about starting a pipe line from an area that has never sold gas and extending into an area that has largely never used gas is that it is extremely difficult to make firm contracts at either end. It is difficult to tell the customer when he will get his gas and it is difficult to tell the supplier when and how much of his gas can be sold into the pipe line.
There has been a great difference in the sales situation since this bill has been before parliament. I received an interesting memo a day or two ago which I might read to hon. members. This is in answer to a question that was asked as to whether the line could be financed without export at Emerson. Assuming that the bridge section-the northern Ontario section-will be built and owned temporarily by the government, it would require a throughput of about 300 million cubic feet per day in order to finance the line. With that throughput the line would carry itself and the problem of financing would not be difficult.
This is the memo:
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited informs me that of their total expected Canadian sales, they now have about 50 per cent under firm contract. Since, aside from the proposed export at Emerson of 200 million cubic feet daily, they have available from Alberta about 300 million cubic feet daily, this means that their firm contracts now cover about 150 million cubic feet daily.
Trans-Canada informs me further that another 35 per cent of expected Canadian sales are covered by contracts which are now within one to four weeks of signature. In these contracts, the principles have been agreed upon, and only matters of detail remain to be negotiated.
As regards the remaining 15 per cent of Canadian sales, Trans-Canada states that negotiation for contracts awaits such things as issuance of local franchises in a number of communities in which sales can be expected when a duly franchised utility is established.
It should be noted in connection with the foregoing that the term "expected sales" does not tally with the amounts that the utility companies are contracting to take or pay for.
In other words, the load factor.
All utility companies insist on a safety margin in their contracts. For instance, if they expect to sell 50 million cubic feet daily, they may contract to take or pay for 40 million cubic feet. The proportions I have stated make what Trans-Canada considers a conservative allowance for this customary understatement of demand, to arrive at a normal estimate, by gas transmission company standards, of expected sales.
The essential point of these calculations is that Trans-Canada now has under contract or clearly in sight, from Canadian customers only, about 75 per cent of the income required to service the debt involved in building its whole Canadian gas transmission system. By the end of its second full year of operation, Trans-Canada now expects to be able to come very close to meeting all debt service obligations on Canadian sales alone.
What is needed to secure the additional contracts that will protect all debt service is the assurance that the pipe line is under construction. This is the purpose of the legislation now before
4632	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the house. Once this legislation is passed, and the pipe line under way, it is quite within the bounds of possibility that the company can demonstrate ability to meet its debt service. Under normal circumstances a gas transmission company would then expect to be able to raise by normal means the funds it requires under those circumstances.
In other words, the question the line can be financed without export is being largely-answered by the volume of sales that are being booked by the transmission company. I have very little doubt that by autumn it will be possible to finance the line in Canada independently of export.
I was asked what the government's policy is regarding public investment. I think that policy has been made clear over the years. If there is a job which needs to be done that private enterprise is unwilling to undertake, it has been the policy of the government to do that job as a government enterprise. I can think of several examples; for instance, Trans-Canada Air Lines. No private enterprise was willing to tackle that job at the time. Polymer is another. I can name several other jobs that have been done by the government for the reason that private enterprise was not willing to undertake them.


An hon. Member:: And done well.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We believe that private enterprise can usually do a job better than the government.


An hon. Member:: In the case of T.C.A.?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps if private enterprise had started T.C.A. it might have done better.


An hon. Member:: The C.P.A.?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The C.P.A.
started with a rich uncle. In any event that is government policy. If the only way of getting this pipe-line project built should be to build it as a public enterprise, the government would regard that as its responsibility. But the government believes that a gas pipe line is peculiarly a project for private enterprise, for the building and operation, and the government is doing its utmost to keep this project in the hands of private enterprise.
It has been represented that this will be a great gold mine for the owners of the shares. I hope so, because, as I have said, we are making sure that slightly more than half the shares will be sold to Canadians. If there is a gold mine in the project, I want to see Canadians benefit, but I would not buy shares myself with any expectation that they represent a gold mine.
This is a very long pipe line, and while I am satisfied that it will be a fair investment I think it is most unfortunate when the hon.


member for Winnipeg North starts counting up the millions of dollars that will go to the owners of the common shares. Every common share outstanding represents an investment of at least $8. The original shares were sold at $8 per share, and since then they have been sold at $8 plus interest from the time the first shares were sold. When the line is financed, shares will be issued to the distributors at $9. The cost of distribution will probably be $1 per share, and they will be offered to the public at $10.
This idea that the insiders are making a killing is absolutely wrong. Many times the men who have been working at this problem, working their hearts out trying to get it moving, have said to me, "If we could get $8 back and have a chance to buy the same shares at $9 or $10 when the line is in operation, it would be the greatest transaction we have ever made."
It has been said that this is an improvident transaction, that it is a sinister transaction. I would just like to say that I have been working for the government for 21 years and I have been working as an engineer in private practice for another 20 years, and I think I have a pretty good record. I do not think anyone can point to any particular project and say that through bad judgment on the part of Howe he lost money in the transaction, or at any government project carried out under my direction and say that is a project in which the government of Canada did not get back a proper return.
The point I am making is that I am getting on in years and this may be the last big project I will be called upon to undertake for the government of Canada. I want to assure hon. members that it is not my purpose to close my years of engineering practice and public life by undertaking a project that is an improvident project for the government, a project which will stand to my discredit over the years.
I am confident that this project will work out to the advantage of Canada. Hon. members have referred to the crisscross networks of pipe lines in the United States. It is true that pipe lines take gas to every corner of the United States, to almost every town and village in the United States. Are we in Canada to carry on in competition with that great country without the advantages of natural gas being brought to various communities? For the communities where the gas originates, there will be the possibilities of petrochemical works, and then there will be the advantages that the delivery of gas will bring to industry and the comfort it will provide to home owners.

This is a necessary project. It is said we could put it off for another year, but these projects if long delayed fall to pieces. I became interested in this project directly a little over two years ago, two years and one month exactly. Hon. members talk about five years, but I did not have anything to do with this project five years ago or four years ago or three years ago. I became interested when Premier Manning came to Ottawa and asked the assistance of this government in marketing Alberta natural gas.
Those two years have been well spent. I think the progress that has been made by the company in working out its engineering, in acquiring rights of way, in acquiring production contracts and in signing up markets has been such as could reasonably be expected to take two years. But the project has come to the point where we may say, "True, you have signed up all the gas, and you have arranged sales contracts for more than half the capacity of the pipe line, but just hold another year and probably things will work out all right." When these things reach that point they do not hold through another year. These purchase contracts in Alberta are not going to hold for another year. The sales contracts are not going to hold another year, because people have to make up their minds about the kind of fuel that will be available to them.
It seems to me that the greatest possible compulsion is placed on everyone connected with this project to get the construction started this year. I am hopeful that this bill will pass in due time and the project get under way. I still believe that if this is my last project, it is still a project with which my children will be rather proud that their father had a hand in getting it going.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest, as I know every other hon. member did, to the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. His last notes were most touching. I hope his children are never ashamed of him, as I hope my children will never be ashamed of me. I hope this will not turn out to be the flop which the minister seemed to indicate he almost thinks it might. It does amuse me to hear one who has had such long experience in parliament tell us that his judgment has never been in error in building these great things in the past, and that he is building a monument now of which his little children will be very proud in the years ahead.
I have also been in politics a long time. You know, some men are born to greatness, some men achieve greatness, and some men, like the minister of immigration who laughs at everything, have greatness thrust upon
1, 19S6	4633
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation them, but still when they get up they hardly know whether they are going or coming. In the house you would wonder what is on. You hear a snigger here and snigger there, and you look around and you find it is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
As I have said, almost since I was old enough to vote I have had experience in municipal, provincial and dominion politics. One of the first things I learned in the county council was to respect parliamentary procedure. Never in all those years have I witnessed what I have witnessed in the past two weeks. Never did I dream in the wildest stretch of my imagination that I would ever sit in any parliament that would disregard British parliamentary principles as they have been disregarded here.
This government, led by the man who never makes a mistake, by the man whose children and grandchildren are going to be proud of him, is going to create a crown corporation to construct this pipe line across northern Ontario. Yet they tell us how much they love private ownership. That man comes into the house and tells us that this is the most important project that has been brought into this house in the last quarter century. In one hand he holds the resolution and in the other he shoves out closure, almost ahead of the resolution. It would shock the most modest county council and disgust the smallest legislature in Canada, let alone the parliament of them all. This is the most shocking treatment we have ever seen.
The Prime Minister, who is as much concerned with his nephews and grandchildren as the Minister of Trade and Commerce, sits in sanctimonious silence and says it is all right as long as he sees a strong majority but he says, "We dare not go to the country now, for we may not come back like this." The Minister of Trade and Commerce gives us the resolution with one hand, but he puts on closure with the other. The Prime Minister says, with quiet, grandfatherly affection, "You can speak now for the rest of the week; and you know I will not stop you from voting."


James Sinclair: That is what parliament is for.


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of Fisheries thinks that is very generous. We have seen closure after closure, for the sake of closure alone. The greatest project to be considered by this house has been brought here in a cloak of secrecy. At no other time in our history has any project been so deliberately hidden from the consideration of the House of Commons as this particular project. In haste and fear this important question has been rushed into the house and then hidden by this carefully
4634	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation beclouded and clumsily befuddled plan of closure. Never in history have we seen closure applied like this.
You talk about 1932. I was sitting on the government side of this house at that time. True, we had closure, but we were not very proud of it. Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was not proud of it. It was not the greatest project that had been presented to Canada. It was a case where men were starving in this country and farmers could not find sales for their products, and the Liberal party had lost every market in the world. It had lost the British market, it had lost more markets than any government since confederation. Yet they wanted to put the government in a spot and for 21 days they went on and debated. Finally Right Hon. R. B. Bennett did bring in closure. He said to me, "I hate to do this, for it establishes a bad precedent, but farmers are starving." That was because of what the Grit government had done in the years before. It was not an issue like the one in 1912 about the dreadnaughts going to Britain. But here we have a picture we are all in favour of.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: We are all in favour of the development of Canada. I am not confused by your applause. You applauded a member who said we had been speaking for 21 days, when the truth is that we have been speaking for only 14 days. You applauded another hon. member over here, the hon. member for Charlotte, when he told us how many years it would take if everybody talked as much as some of the members talk. He talked about everything except the issue before the house. These men who thump their desks and laugh so much, in this particular issue that threatens the freedom of parliament, have not even seen the insects that infect the carcass. You gentlemen seem to be lost.


An hon. Member:: Is that your horses?


William Earl Rowe: I have listened to you in this house for a long time. I have prayed for the day when you might rise. I notice that the backbenchers opposite have demonstrated they have more brains in their seats than in their feet. We have seen the spectacle of these desk thumpers applauding the government, and today applauding the Speaker. Today the Speaker came in and said he was wrong yesterday. They said, ''That is all right; we will support you today too." These gentlemen will support anything. If a longtailed rat came in that door they would not shoot him. Never was a more subservient crowd in power in Canada. I have watched them in power for a long time. I remember the Minister of Trade and Commerce saying, "If we want to do it, who is going to stop


us?" and, "I never was much for rules." He has proven that now. They have thrown out the rule book and run over it with a steamroller. If I were sitting behind this tired, smug, old government, I would hide my head in shame rather than pound the desks. Let them go back to their constituencies. The Minister of Finance laughs.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


An hon. Member:: Who wouldn't?


William Earl Rowe: Let him tell the people-


Walter Edward Harris: Tell us what happened in 1935?


William Earl Rowe: Come on to Dufferin-Simcoe. The weather there is good there too.


Walter Edward Harris: Then hogs were about 3 or 4 cents, and now they are 26 cents.


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of Finance laughs with reckless glibness, and he speaks just about as glibly and just about as recklessly. The other night he told us that if nobody wasted Mr. Howe's time debating this bill, Alberta gas would be delivered in the city of Winnipeg before winter. More than that, the Minister of Finance said:
The completion of the line from Kapuskasing to Toronto and Toronto to Montreal may very well be done in the next construction season. Bear in mind what I have said.
At the same time we find that the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company says that the first delivery on their purchase of 30-inch pipe in England will not get here until 1957, and the completion of delivery will not be until 1959. What are you going to run the gas through? I suppose you will get the pipe from a blacksmith up in Grey-Bruce-


Walter Edward Harris: They are far better there than in Dufferin-Simcoe.


William Earl Rowe: Certainly I would expect the Minister of Finance to be a little more sure of his facts before he tells us these things so glibly. I never saw a man struggling harder to bail out another colleague. If he had not struggled so hard to bail him out in the last few years he would not be in this mess now. I wonder what they will be like in the future if he has to struggle so hard now. I hear the rustling in the mulberry bushes, and the Prime Minister seems to be getting ready to retire from the leadership. I wonder if there is something in mind for the future.


James Sinclair: Tell us about Premier Frost now.


William Earl Rowe: That is the sort of proposition we have with respect to this great project.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tell us about Premier Frost.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


William Earl Rowe: Oh, your little voice does not been dealt with for 21 days, an entirely dif-bnther me one bit	ferent situation from tonight. Do not let
me one on.	anyone tell you otherwise. It is just like your


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: But you do not misrepresentation of the Leader of the
answer.


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of Trade and
Commerce says this is the greatest project we have had in the last generation. Why is it now brought before us in a mixture of haste, fear, uncertainty and secrecy? Why is this government so afraid of the facts? The minister tells us the facts in a trembling and almost apologetic voice, hoping he has told us enough and not too much so that even his children will not be ashamed of it. Why should these gentlemen be afraid of the facts? Why should they be afraid of parliament? Why should they be so afraid of discussion? Why are they so afraid of opposition? Why are they so afraid of going to the country? You have been bound to your desks for three years. Go out on the green and see what the people think about you. Read the Toronto Star. Read the Winnipeg Free Press.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read the Globe and Mail.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, when I heard these gentlemen talking tonight I could not help but think what a great thing it was that we still had freedom of the press, because there is little freedom left in this parliament. Never have I seen the rights and privileges of individual members of parliament so blunted. This Friday will long be a black Friday in the history of parliamentary freedom in Canada. You people were so buoyant in time of critical depression when men and women were suffering. Who is suffering now for want of gas in Ontario? Who is starving for your gas? Who is starving for it now?


An hon. Member:: Ask Premier Frost.


Some hon. Members:: Tell us about Frost.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tell us about Frost. Tell us about your premier.


William Earl Rowe: You pipsqueaks sound like men on a frosty morning. You have hoarse voices. I cannot tell what you say. Who is suffering but you gentlemen, you great philanthropists, you great advocates of human rights, you great sympathizers with the babies and the aged? In 1932-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: Oh, you boys who pound your desks the most were not even here then. You were not even thought of, but your cohorts in those days said that they would not give a five-cent piece to any Tory province in Canada. You would not give a five-cent piece; and when we tried to do something you opposed it so long that we had to put in a form of closure after the first clause had
Opposition in this debate. You talk about him not being for the development of Canada. Who developed northern Ontario more than the Leader of the Opposition?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: You say we are not in favour of the development of this country, whether it is the gas line, the C.P.R. or anything else. Why, you young pipsqueaks, your grandfathers voted against the building of the C.P.R. and tried to hamper it by building another line to run parallel with it. It was Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald who formed the national policies that brought about the beginning of industrial development in Canada. It was the Leader of the Opposition who put $200 million into the development of northern Ontario. You men who laugh should laugh less and read more.


James Sinclair: Who gave us the blackouts, the brownouts and the power shortages? George Drew.


William Earl Rowe: You are a long way from being right. It was Hon. Mitchell Hepburn who was responsible for the shortages that brought about the blackouts. You do not know what you are talking about, coming from Vancouver. This picture is a sad picture for this house when we see the steamroller we have at the present time. Tonight the hon. member for Charlotte and the hon. member for Trinity both complimented the government on its steamroller tactics. They said that closure was a good thing, and hoped that it would be used in the future. They criticized the leader of the C.C.F. party, an older parliamentarian. I differ with him in politics, but he is a much finer parliamentarian than anybody I see across there. When he says this is an abomination you backbenchers laugh at him because you do not understand what he is talking about.
Yes, it is passing strange that this great project could be brought in hidden in secrecy, so carefully beclouded, so clumsily befuddled, so cautiously brought in, so hastily brought to the fore and so carefully planned. Somebody has said that we have talked 21 days. You are 50 per cent wrong in the number of days, but you say that we should have been talking about the pipe line. Your Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that we could not talk about the pipe line.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: He put closure on debate; and when we are trying to fight for the rights
4636	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
of parliament this government, these hon. be done because a deadline was set. I do not members, especially the backbenchers, seem know whether if was set by the federal power to disregard parliamentary principles. Prin- commission of Washington, by Murchison, by ciples in anything are eternal, but pipe lines Trans-Canada, by Tennessee or by Gulf Oil. are only pipe lines. I say in all sincerity, I do not know who helped to set the deadline. Mr. Chairman, do not think that this great I do know that the bill was mentioned in the champion of free enterprise who has built speech from the throne and was mentioned in
more crown companies than anyone else is the only man who can build the pipe line. He says, "I have never made a mistake in my life. I will put on closure. None of these boys knows what he is talking about." He seems to think we may have a dictator some day and, if so, who could be better than himself?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have learned long since that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts completely, and I never saw a government so completely corrupt as this government that is trying to corrupt parliament. I say in all sincerity that never since confederation has there been in any British parliament greater destruction of the rights of the individual and the privileges of members in one week's time; never in the whole history of government in the British commonwealth. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is the attitude of these backbenchers, and I include the little Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who flaps his flippers and pounds the desk. I would be ashamed to be a pupil of Mackenzie King and learn as little as he has learned.
The hon. gentlemen talk about the supremacy of parliament, and not one of them has risen and made an intelligent observation about the rights of parliament in the last week. They know so little that the Speaker is the only man who can argue their case. He makes a decision one day, and then is so afraid of what you may think that he comes in and corrects it the next day and you all vote for that 100 per cent.
Have you ever seen a more subservient group hiding behind the iron curtain of secrecy, behind a smug, complacent, tired old government, eight members of which, as someone has said, were never in parliament1 before they came into the cabinet? They had greatness thrust upon them. None of them had ever been in the opposition. I do not think any of the eight were ever in a county council. If they ever had been and had behaved like they have here, they certainly would not have been very popular. What has gone on here would never be seen in any provincial legislature, any municipal council, any county council in Canada. I urge the government not to follow their own precedents.


An hon. Member:: Time.


William Earl Rowe: Someone calls time. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says that this has to
IMr. Rowe.]
the house. I do know that the company was incorporated five years ago and that the government spent four months considering the matter before they hastily brought in the measure and imposed closure so we could not debate it.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, the last hon. gentleman has not only been a distinguished member of this house for many years but at one time was the leader of the Conservative party in the province of Ontario. He belongs to the same political party of which the premier of that province is a member.


George Harris Hees: What about the pipe line?


Murdo William Martin: He belongs to the great political party of which the Leader of the Opposition was both the leader and premier in the province of Ontario. In a debate of this importance one would have thought that the views of the premier of Ontario would be of great significance and relevance. It would be interesting to know why the hon. gentleman who has just spoken has ignored our questions as to whether or not he agrees with the views expressed by the premier of Ontario. It would be interesting to know whether the grand conspiracy which he has been talking about tonight includes a conspiracy among the premiers of Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario and the federal government.


An hon. Member:: And the Speaker.


Murdo William Martin: It would be interesting to know why the Leader of the Opposition, throughout this debate, has persistently refused to make any reference whatsoever to one of his friends, one of his political colleagues, with whom he served as head of the government in which the present premier of Ontario served as his provincial treasurer. Mr. Frost, the premier of this province, had this to say about this question:
We have taken a generous view with the federal government and recognize their position in this matter has not been simple or easy. I have no intention here of making it more difficult for the federal government to carry its arrangements through. If I did that, I would be doing a disservice to this country.
Does the hon. gentleman who has just spoken agree with the premier of the province of Ontario who says that this matter is one of urgency, that he could not take a position in opposition to this measure because

he would be doing a disservice to Canada?
He goes on to say this:
Apparently the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines agreement provides for the quickest and most effective way of bringing gas to Ontario.
Does the hon. gentleman who has just spoken agree with that statement? Then Premier Frost goes on to say this:
Since the very beginning of this country we have recognized there is a price to pay for Canadian independence. If we had not recognized that, certainly there would be no Canada today. In addition to what has been said about the control of this company, whether the Canadian shareholders had the opportunity to take 51 per cent of the stock, or anything of that sort, the fact of the matter is that the construction is in Canada, wholly within the jurisdiction of our country, and is subject to the legislative enactment not only of the government of Canada but of the provinces through which it passes. That in itself is the real essential of control.
Those are words of a man who is not a supporter of this government but who supports the party of which the Leader of the Opposition is leader; and not one word have we had in this debate from anybody sitting behind the Leader of the Opposition for or against the statement of the premier of Ontario. Is it any wonder, then, that the Globe and Mail, which has supported the Leader of the Opposition throughout his period as Leader of the Opposition in this house, writing of the attitude of the provincial Conservative party and then directing its attention to the party that sits behind the Leader of the Opposition in this house, the other day carried the following:
What of the Conservatives in Ottawa? They, too, dislike Mr. Howe's method of providing the line. But they do not offer any practicable alternative to it, any alternative which recognizes the need to get the line started and finished without further delay.
Then the Globe and Mail goes on to say this:
Mr. George Drew . . . would submit the house scheme to a Commons committee-a sure way of holding up the pipe line for at least another year.
We may well ask "why this opposition?"
I am not going to suggest the motives that have inspired the Leader of the Opposition, before this measure was initially discussed in the house, to indicate what he and his colleagues proposed to do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And you have been panicking ever since.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not going to spend much time in reminding the house what the hon. member for Prince Albert said about what he was going to do by holding up the business of the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You have been panicking.
1956	4637
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Mr. Martin: I hold in my hand, Mr. Chairman-


John George Diefenbaker: That statement is as false as your promises about health insurance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hold in my hand-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Look at the minister panicking.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hold in my hand the reason for the attitude of the opposition. Here is a report that appeared in the Toronto Daily Star. These are not my words. These are not the words of a supporter of the Prime Minister. These are the words of a supporter of the Leader of the Opposition, a man who served as a loyal worker contributing his energy and his support to the cause which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating.


John George Diefenbaker: What did the Windsor Star say?


Murdo William Martin: Here are the headlines:
Drew Plays Politics for East, U.S. Money Vital-Western Tory.
Here is the story:
Calgary, June 1-(CP)-Opposition to the stand of Progressive Conservative leader George Drew on the pipe line issue was voiced yesterday by J. I. Haw, treasurer of the Calgary South Progressive Conservative association, who charged Mr. Drew is "playing politics to maintain his stand in the east".
"He forgets that we in the west must have money from the United States," he said. "What is good for the U.S. is good for Canada, and vice versa. There should not be one bit of argument in that respect-it doesn't hurt Canada one iota."
He says in effect, "My leader should stop playing politics".


Edmund Davie Fulton: When are you going to stop playing politics?


Murdo William Martin: We were told by the hon. member for Assiniboia, who stated on March 7, as reported in the Ottawa Journal: "The government ain't seen nothing yet in the way of filibusters, Argue warned last night. He served notice that his party intends to prolong debate on the Trans-Canada gas pipe line issue until the bill is amended. "We are going to stage the biggest filibuster that we have ever had in this country". Having in mind that background, Mr. Chairman, one would want to go back to the words of a respected and senior member of this house, namely the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who said this on Thursday last.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Read' the whole quotation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He said:
May I tell hon. members, government members, official opposition members, C.C.F. members and Social Credit members, that I favour closure. The
4638	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation government has a perfect right-not only a right but a duty-to invoke closure at the right time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: At the right time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: To continue:
-that is, when it has been demonstrated that the business of the house cannot be carried on in any other way but by closure.


William Earl Rowe: Oh, yes; but that was not
demonstrated. Debate had not started.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen opposite
have quoted Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Panicking in advance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says I am
panicky. May I say that I am not so panicky is my hon. friend is right at this minute.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, no?


Paul Joseph James Martin: And this debate is not through yet. Sir. Robert Borden, the great constitutionalist and prime minister of this country and leader of the Conservative party, was the first hon. gentleman in this house to propose closure, and we all recall the circumstances. Let us remind ourselves tonight of the words he used on that occasion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What did Sir Wilfrid say?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am coming to him in a minute, if you will just be patient.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What did your party say about it at that time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will come to that in a minute. This is what Sir Robert Borden said:
The resolution which I have the honour to move this afternoon touches a very Important subject, because It must be apparent to all hon. gentlemen in this house that unless we have such rules as permit the reasonable transaction of public business, and prescribe the ordinary and proper conduct of debate, parliament must fail in its chief function, and the proceedings in this house are liable to be brought in to disrepute and contempt.
No one is more ready than I to acknowledge that liberty of speech and freedom of debate must be preserved, but I venture respectfully to suggest that these privileges must be observed and maintained under such conditions that they shall not be allowed to degenerate into licence and obstruction.
My hon. friends have quoted Mr. Mackenzie King in the debate of 1932, which saw a motion moved by the then prime minister, Mr. Bennett, for closure. Here is what Mackenzie King said. Hon. gentlemen opposite did not quote this when they were talking about him in the same debate:
If you strike at the foundation of parliamentary government, you cannot do anything at all in parliament, because everything done by parliament is based on the assumption that, by the common agreement and consent of all assembled 

together in a parliament, you have regard and respect for the conventional foundations of parliamentary government.
That was at page 1627 of Hansard, volume II, 1932. Then at page 1631 of volume II of Hansard of 1932 he went on to say: Obstruction is, in reality, nothing less than a repudiation of the existing constitution of the country.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Mackenzie King never said any such thing on page 1631.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have sat in this house when the-[DOT]


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Mackenzie King said no such thing on page 1631.


George Harris Hees: You are caught out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Freedom of speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, you have in your hands now-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. In the last few moments of this limited debate I would ask the committee to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When the hon. gentleman was discussing the debate of 1932-


Some hon. Members:: You have not read it right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend can holler. He has not the slightest appreciation of the value of free speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This committee is entitled to have the page reference from which the minister is quoting, and I am simply saying that Mr. Mackenzie King made no such reference on page 1631 of Hansard. We do not find a quotation from Mr. Mackenzie King on that page.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think I must rule that even if the minister was misquoting, it is not a question of privilege. The Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When Mr. Bennett was introducing his resolution in 1932 this is what he said.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He said, as reported at page 1404 of Hansard:
That statement, together with the statement I made a minute ago as to the fundamental principle-


Edmund Davie Fulton: What page?


Murdo William Martin: Page 1404. I continue:
-under which parliamentary institutions obtain, is the rule of the majority which constitutes the case we make today for the measure that is standing in my name. Those principles I believe cannot readily be questioned.
Listen to what Mr. Bennett said, then the leader in this house, of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. The hon. member sat in this house when this was said:
Is it a crime against the state, as Mr. MacDonald thought it was, wilfully to oppose and maliciously to consume time in personal attacks, maliciously to consume time in making statements which must be known to be untrue, making statements which must be known are wholly beside the question? Is it not, if his statement be correct-


George Harris Hees: It is three to one on Walter. You have not a hope. You may as well sit down.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


George Harris Hees: Walter has it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member's time has not expired but it very shortly will expire, and he is entitled to be heard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Here is the final sentence of Mr. Bennett, and I am sure my hon. friends would like to hear what Mr. Bennett said:
Is it not, if his statement be correct, in the true and just sense of the term, a crime against the state that this sort of thing should continue?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The sort of thing you are doing is a crime against the state.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say we have precedent and justification, if ever a parliament had, for closure. Hon. gentlemen have had 14 days in which to debate this matter. They talk about the denial of free speech, and every time some member on this side has risen in this house they have not given him a chance to be heard.


William Earl Rowe: Twenty-one days' difference.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They attacked the Prime Minister; they attacked-


George Harris Hees: You are running third; you are through.


James Joseph McCann: Come on, you are just a windbag.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order, please. May I suggest to hon. members on both sides of the house that the minister who has the floor is entitled to the same courtesy that has been extended to the other speakers tonight.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe was speaking we gave him the attention he deserved.
1, 1956	4639
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We did not agree with what he said, because we knew perfectly well that he himself did not agree with what he said. If I have said anything out of place, of course, I withdraw it.


William Earl Rowe: You had better withdraw it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Because whatever the hon. gentleman said was really not worth referring to at all.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said I was saying what I knew was not correct; in other words,-


An hon. Member:: He withdrew that.


William Earl Rowe: He simply said that if he said anything he should not. I would assume that he would withdraw his whole speech, because he is really 21 days out in the whole thing.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I understood the minister to withdraw the statement I heard him make, that the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe did not really believe what he said. If the minister has not withdrawn that statement, he must do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I gladly withdraw it. I am sure the hon. gentleman really did mean what he said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The page I was referring to is 1627.


George Harris Hees: You had better withdraw your whole speech.


An hon. Member:: Why not withdraw
yourself?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I simply want to close what I have to say by quoting from the Toronto Telegram.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


William Earl Rowe: Does closure not apply to you?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Here is what is said about the Prime Minister of this country by the Toronto Telegram:
Louis St. Laurent; World Statesman
The second French-Canadian Prime Minister in Canada's history, Mr. St. Laurent's integrity, honesty of speech and fairness of mind are qualities in which Canadians take pride.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is Canada's destiny that her Prime Minister shall henceforth walk among the leaders of the world and it is a happy omen for this country that in Mr. St. Laurent we have a man of incisive vigor of intellect and courage of convictions to speak for Canada on the great problems of peace and progress in the world.
4640	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


George Harris Hees: I just received a tip. Walter is first, Bob is second, Pickersgill is third and you are fourth, Paul.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. It is now past one o'clock and under standing order 33, the last few lines of which I propose to read:
. . . and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before one o'clock-
Order.
-in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
It therefore becomes my duty to put the questions to the committee. The first question is on clause 4. Shall clause 4 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Chairman, I move-


Some hon. Members:: No debate.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: With deference, I am unable to hear because of the noise. I am unable to receive a motion from any hon. member. I heard the hon. member for St. Paul's start to say "I move". I have read the standing order which is binding. I submit just this to the committee. I did not write this order but I have been given the duty of carrying it out, and what it says is that:
... no member shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debateet cetera.
-shall be decided forthwith.
I have no alternative but to put the question which is now before the committee. The question is shall clause 4 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Those in favour of clause 4 carrying will please rise. May I say to hon. members on both sides of the house that those who are not in front of the line of curtains will not be counted.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: There are a couple coming in over there now.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Keep out, Hollingworth.


Thomas Miller Bell: If you want to vote for closure, come on in, Al.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Those opposed to clause 4 carrying will please rise.
Clause 4 agreed to: Yeas, 130; nays, 41.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare clause 4 carried. Shall clause 5 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Alexander Drew: It has never been before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have never discussed it. It has not even been called yet.


John George Diefenbaker: The railroading continues.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Those in favour will please rise.


An hon. Member:: Outside, the hon. member for Pontiac.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Those opposed to clause 5 carrying will please rise.
Clause 5 agreed to: Yeas, 132; nays, 41.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare clause 5 carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Without it having been before the house.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 6
carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Those in favour will please rise.


Major James William Coldwell: What a farce.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You have made it one.


George Clyde Nowlan: At one time this was a parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has never been called.


William Earl Rowe: We have had 14 days of closure.


Edward George McCullough: Democracy down the drain.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Those opposed to clause 6 carrying will please rise.
Clause 6 agreed to: Yeas, 132; nays, 41.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare clause 6 carried.
Shall clause 7 carry?


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


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Unless the hon. member is rising to contest the vote on the last clause he may not be received. I would not be able to hear him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order with respect to the calling of clause 7.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am unable with
regret to hear the hon. member's point of

order on clause 7 because my instructions under the rule are that I have-


An hon. Member:: Closure.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: -to put the question on clause 7.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are we denied the right to speak to a point of order? This is the second time today you have done this, Mr. Chairman.
Clause 7 agreed to: Yeas, 134; nays, 40.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare clause 7 carried. Shall clause 1 carry?
Clause 1 agreed to: Yeas, 134; nays, 41.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare clause 1 carried. Shall clause 2 carry?
Clause 2 agreed to: Yeas, 134; nays, 41.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare clause 2 carried. Shall clause 3 carry?
Clause 3 agreed to: Yeas, 134; nays, 41.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare clause 3 carried. Shall the title carry?
Title agreed to: Yeas, 134; nays, 40.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare the title carried. Shall the bill carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. That is not included in the Prime Minister's motion. You are under no instructions to put the question on the carrying of the bill.
Bill agreed to: Yeas, 133; nays, 41.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare the bill carried. Shall I report the bill?


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


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I am going to repeat my instructions once more to the committee. My instructions are to be found in standing order 33.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And that is all.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Standing order 33 says:
. . and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before one o'clock in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was in the Prime Minister's motion? I ask you to read the Prime Minister's motion under which you are operating.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: In my opinion that includes reporting the bill. Hon. members in favour of the chairman reporting the bill will please rise.
1, 1956	4641
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Motion, (Mr. Howe, Port Arthur) agreed to: Yeas, 132; nays, 41.
During the taking of the vote:


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who put the question? Who can get the floor to put the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You would not let the hon. member for St. Paul's make a motion, and you would not' let me rise on a point of order. Yet in effect you have allowed the government to make a motion. In 1913 Mr. Pugsley and Sir Wilfrid Laurier cursed the government for doing this.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You do the same.
After the taking of the vote:


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Bill ordered reported.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Goodbye.
Bill reported.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, the people in the galleries have seen a farce tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Joseph McCann: Looking at you. You are the farce.


Major James William Coldwell: This is the worst proceeding that has ever been seen in this parliament, Mr. Speaker. The chairman has tried to muzzle the committee.


An hon. Member:: The Speaker is on his feet.


Mr. Speaker:: This house stands adjourned until Monday at 2.30 in the afternoon.


William Earl Rowe: Why not dissolve it and go to the country?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: On Monday we will take up third reading of the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We cannot hear.


James Sinclair: If you would keep quiet you would.


Walter Edward Harris: I was announcing that the business on Monday would be the pipe-line bill.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the first order will be the debate on the motion with regard to the conduct of the Speaker.


Walter Edward Harris: I was only announcing the government's intention with respect to government orders. I have no comment to make on the other point.


Thomas Miller Bell: You have to have another breakfast party with the Speaker.


James Sinclair: The audience has seen the biggest ham actor in Canada before it right now.
It being 1.47 a.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Question



ANSWER TO QUESTION

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

Mr. Follwell: What quantity of live fish was exported to the
United States from Canada in the years, 1945, 1950, 1954, 1955, (aj by provinces; (b) by species from each province?
Answer by:	Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Information not available. Live fish are not separately classified in Canada's trade statistics.

Monday, June 4, 1956