1956-05-30

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
[DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, May 30, 1956

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wished to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) but in his absence I should like to direct it to his parliamentary assistant. In view of the plentiful supply of feed oats in western Canada and the apparent shortage of this feed in Ontario, would the minister advise whether the government is planning some method by which direct sales can be made at lower prices than that presently prevalent, which is about $1.05 per bushel?


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, that matter comes under the Department of Trade and Commerce. I have asked the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to answer the question.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that it is the policy of the Canadian wheat board to move sufficient quantities of grain into position to supply the demand in the domestic market. There is no method, however, whereby the board can make sales at prices lower than those prevailing on the market at the time of purchase.
Direct sales from western producers to eastern feeders can be made under special arrangements with the wheat board. The quantity involved must be within the western producer's delivery quota and the difference between the initial payment and the prevailing selling price must be paid to the board. The selling price of such direct sales would be subject to agreement between the buyer and seller and there is no indication that any saving could be effected by adopting this method.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Would the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Speaker, see what can be done as soon as possible about putting an air conditioning unit in the parlia-67509-283
mentary cafeteria? The heat there is excessive, not only for those who eat in the cafeteria but I would think it would be unbearable for those who work there.


Hon. Robert H. Winiers (Minister of Public Works):: I will take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am rising very briefly to correct a statement I made that is recorded in Hansard for yesterday, May 29. In replying to a question of the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) regarding the cutback of Orenda Engines Limited, I referred to the F-86 aircraft as "becoming obsolete". In these days of rapid technical advancement in the science of aeronautics and aircraft armament, this statement is commonly applied to almost every military aircraft as it leaves the drawing board. I would, however, like to correct the impression which I may have left that the F-86 aircraft is reaching the stage of obsolescence at any greater rate than any other fighter aircraft now in use, since the opposite is the case. In point of fact, the F-86 Sabre with Orenda engines is recognized as possibly the best day interceptor now in a full operational role. The reduction in the rate of production of Orenda engines at Malton merely represents the fulfilment of current requirements for the Sabre VI, which is still in production at Canadair Limited.


Mr. Dufresne:: The minister is completely out of order.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: You are nuts.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps so, but this is a question of privilege.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Since I asked the original question about Orenda engines, perhaps I could ask a supplementary question. Does the government's contract schedule for supplies from Orenda indicate that the men who are being laid off now have a prospect of re-employment as a result of the continued schedule of purchases?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Orenda is a private enterprise but I would expect that when the new engine gets into production, that is the engine now being designed and developed,
4460	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry certainly the present staff can expect re-employment-at least I assume everyone now employed will have a priority when that time comes. On the other hand, while the immediate requirements for Orenda engines are satisfied, it is quite possible that further orders for aircraft will be placed which will call for further engines, but it is difficult for me to make a definite statement now in that regard.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the text of a letter made public in the Leader-Post of May 26 wherein the premier indicates the Saskatchewan government is strongly in favour of a publicly-owned pipe line and the suggestion is made that Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba be sounded out as to their support for this proposal. Can the Prime Minister state whether any consideration has been given to this proposal?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No, no consideration has been given to it.


Edward George McCullough: Can
the Prime Minister state what provinces, if any, have been asked as to their desires in connection with the method of constructing the pipe line?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There have been no consultations with provincial governments about that question, Mr. Speaker.


Edward George McCullough: Can the
Prime Minister say whether any governments besides Saskatchewan have indicated their wishes in connection with this trans-Canada pipe line, as to whether or not they favoured private or public ownership?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That question has not been directed to any provincial government.



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES    SALE PRICE OF GAS IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the figures tabled by the minister yesterday, does the minister concur in the statement made on the C.B.C. news broadcast at eight o'clock this morning that the prices to be charged by
IMr. Howe (Port Arthur).]

Trans-Canada for gas would be less on the Canadian side of the border than on the American side?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not hear the broadcast at eight o'clock, but under the terms of the pipe-lines bill the gas cannot be sold for export to the United States at a price lower than it is sold in a comparable position in Canada.


Daniel Roland Michener: The statement was that it would be less on the Canadian side, and that was what I wished to draw to the minister's attention.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have said several times the price would be less on the Canadian side than the price for export.



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES    PURCHASE OF PIPE IN BRITAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the dispatch quoted yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the effect that Trans-Canada has placed orders in Britain for $32 million of pipe, if this is true does that mean it is Trans-Canada which is now assured of building the pipe line across the northern Ontario section?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, Mr. Speaker. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines did place the order. They were advised that if they did not do so the position would be taken by another buyer. I have been anxious and I think all hon. members have been anxious that any pipe we had to buy outside of Canada would be bought in Britain and therefore I suggested to Trans-Canada that it place the order, which it has done with the understanding that if it is not in a position to build the line the government will take over the pipe. That is clearly understood. As a matter of fact, under the terms of the agreement the government will take over Trans-Canada.


Mr. H. O. While (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce somewhat along the same line as the question asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon. Would the government consider delaying the construction of the trans-Canada pipe line until pipe made in Canada by Canadian labour is available early in 1957?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the pipe that will be made in Canada is not pipe that can be used for the western section of the line in any event and the reason is that the widest steel plate that is rolled in Canada is steel plate that would be suitable

for 30-inch pipe. I sincerely hope that the 30-inch pipe from the projected mill in Welland will be available early in 1957 and I can assure the hon. member that every pound of pipe that can be turned out within Canada will be purchased and used in the trans-Canada project.


Harry Oliver White: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did I understand the minister to say that Welland Tubes were not able to produce the type of pipe which is required by Trans-Canada for the western section?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Whether or not it will be able to roll 36-inch pipe remains a question. I have had two contrary sources of information. I notice that the paper this morning said Welland will be able to roll 36-inch pipe. My point is that no steel mill in Canada can turn out plate of width sufficient to be rolled into pipe larger than 30 inches in diameter. The width of plate required for 34-inch diameter pipe is 110 inches and that width of plate is not rolled in Canada. As I said the other day, my information is that it is rolled in only three mills in the United States, one in England and one in Germany.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Speaker, I have a telegram in my hand from Welland Tubes Limited saying that they can roll it.


Mr. McCann:: Yes, but what about making the plate?



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES  REASON FOR USE OF

[Stage Direction]
34-inch pipe
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Damede Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact the latest available figures show that only 227 miles of gas pipe line in the United States are over 30 inches in diameter out of a total of some 100,000 miles, will the minister tell the house why it is important that this pipe line in question be of such an excessive size?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that 34-inch pipe has been purchased and is being rolled in two pipe mills in the United States in sufficient quantities to build the entire line from Alberta to the vicinity of Winnipeg. The pipe is on order and has been on order for some time and the orders are being implemented. The reason 34-inch pipe is specified is that the volume of gas that can be put through a 34-inch pipe 67509-283i
Inquiries of the Ministry is the volume of gas which we believe should be made available at Winnipeg when the line is built.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of tho action that has been taken in the other place ostensibly to make it possible to get interim supply through in one day, can the minister now say when he intends to move for interim supply?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: cannot, Mr. Speaker, but as is customary I shall consult with the opposition groups before making the proposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? Can he say whether there was any consultation between the government leader in the Senate and any other cabinet minister before the motion was made to suspend the rules in the other place?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, but in his absence I would direct the same question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that a radio commentator and newspaperman by the name of Jean-Louis Gagnon, who has been closely associated with Fred Rose and other well known Canadian communist leaders, is presently one of the main publicity agents of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec and chief editor of the party's official publication in that province? If so, would the Prime Minister at this time, in the interests of the people of Canada, care to comment on the serious accusations which he and every member of this house received a few days ago by registered mail concerning the said Jean-Louis Gagnon?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not care to make any comment.

Inquiries of the Ministry CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Did the hon. gentleman address a meeting of Indians at a conference yesterday afternoon in Ottawa?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The answer is yes, sir.


William Scottie Bryce: Did you say "yes"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker, arising out of that answer I want to raise a point of privilege. On May 4, 1956, I wrote as follows to the hon. gentleman:
Dear Mr. Pickersgill:
I have had some letters regarding a conference that is to be held in Ottawa very shortly in connection with the Indian affairs branch.
Would you be good enough to inform me of the date of this conference or convention, and who has been invited to it.
Thanking you in anticipation,
Yours sincerely,
W. Scottie Bryce.
I have the hon. gentleman's answer of May 8, in which he says:
I have received your letter of May 4. I have no knowledge, nor has the director of Indian affairs, of any official conference to be held in Ottawa, in the near future, to deal with Indian problems.
Now I find the hon. gentleman addressed that delegation or conference, or whatever you call it. I say, Mr. Speaker, that he deliberately deceived me when I asked for that information. The hon. gentleman has no right to refuse me such information. I again say he deliberately deceived me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think I can disabuse the hon. gentleman very easily. This was an annual meeting of a private organization. It was not an official conference at all, and it had no official connection whatsoever with my department. I was merely asked as a courtesy to come and speak to them, just as I might have been asked to go and speak to a Kiwanis club, and occasionally have been.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member for Selkirk, because he knows it is against the rules to say that an hon. member of this house has deliberately deceived another hon. member, to take the corrective steps? In the circumstances will the hon. gentleman be good enough to take the corrective steps?


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker, why should I take back anything that I believe is true?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Because the Speaker of the house-


William Scottie Bryce: I am going to stick-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. gentleman will take back the expression because the Speaker of the house is asking him to do so, and I understand him always to be respectful of the authority of the Chair.


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker, I hope you understand that if I withdraw it is for your sake; it is not for the minister's sake. Never did I think I would be subjected to such a thing as that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. One should not generate more indignation than one can control-


Mr. Castleden:: Can't help it.


Mr. Speaker:: When I say something from the chair I would ask hon. members not to interject remarks that at times I do not hear and which I find later in many instances are remarks that are disrespectful, and which I should ask hon. members to withdraw. Now, this must stop.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, do I understand from your remarks that you are now suggesting that offensive words be not used in this house? If so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why it is that offensive words used in the past with respect to myself were not drawn to the attention of the house by the Speaker, nor asked to be withdrawn by hon. members who used them?


Mr. Speaker:: I have no knowledge of the incident to which the hon. member is referring. Is it one of recent date? Would the hon. member be kind enough to explain the incident to which he is referring?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I can
save time by saying that now the heat of the moment is over I shall quickly withdraw.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the news report over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation news this morning which referred to the remarks of a senior official of the Department of Transport made before the great lakes search and rescue organization in Toronto last evening, is the government contemplating the licensing of small boats on

the great lakes and also contemplating any regulations that apply to the movements of such boats?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was good enough to tell me that he proposed to ask this question. All I can say in reply is that I have been unable to obtain any report of the matter and I shall have to make inquiries.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Would the minister care to give the house any information he might have on the discovery and production of oil and gas in the province of Saskatchewan?


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I think that question could be very well discussed when the estimates come before the committee in the very near future.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I guess you don't know.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 29, 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.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Dauphin. As this is the second time I seem to have got myself into an embarrassing position, perhaps I might be permitted to make a short statement to the committee. When the committee rose last night the hon. member for Dauphin had not completed the 30 minutes which is allotted to him. I do not know, and I am making no statement, whether or not he is entitled to pick it up now, but I expected that he would claim that right. I saw him first for the simple reason that I was looking for him. I called
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation "the hon. member for Dauphin" and the hon. member will now address the committee.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Mr. Chairman, in the limited time still at my disposal all I can do is to summarize the arguments I was making at ten o'clock last evening and to point out the position in which we find ourselves at the present time in this debate. I think it is amply clear to all fair-minded citizens that the only way in which the public interest of Canada can be safeguarded and the whole project of this Canadian trans-Canada pipe line kept under Canadian ownership is to have it constructed under public ownership. It is now perfectly clear that the government has only one excuse which they have given to this house and to the country for having set this deadline of June 7 and for the way in which they have handled this whole measure before this house and the committee, and that is their claim that that is the only way in which the pipe line can be built. Of course that is a phony excuse because if there has been any delay in commencing construction of this pipe line that delay lies squarely upon the shoulders of the government.
They have had this project under consideration for the last five years. They have been told, at least by members of this group and perhaps by others, that the proper thing to do if we are to have a national pipe line, as it has been described by the government itself, is for the government to proceed to construct the pipe line without waiting for a private company to dip into the public treasury and then own the pipe line.
I think every excuse which the government has brought forward as to why they must meet this deadline of June 7 is full of holes and will not hold water. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited have been the recipients of all the favours from this government that one could dream up. The company has had several postponements when they were not able or were not inclined to meet deadlines which they themselves had agreed upon. Certainly this pipe line company does not have to hold a stick over the heads of the members of this house and of the government of this country by saying that either we put this through by June 7, or else. I think that is a shabby way in which to treat this parliament and it is a shabby way in which to carry on public business. Certainly the government should have the courage to say to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and to all concerned, "We consider this to be a national project of great importance. We are going to let the members of this house give their full and mature deliberation to the question, and then, when we have
4464	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation received the verdict of parliament, we shall proceed with the construction of this project."
Instead of that, they used this phony deadline and this excuse about the availability of pipe and so forth as a big stick to try to force members of the opposition, and incidentally the private members who support the government also; they are in exactly the same position as we are, they are gagged and bound, being forced to support a government on an issue about which they themselves are not very happy.
Thirdly, I would make this statement, that whether the government is successful in bulldozing this measure through parliament, in the manner in which they are attempting and have been attempting to do so, they have already lost on this issue. The people in the country are aroused and resentful. The people in the country are resentful not only of the fact that the government is asking this parliament to give them permission to dip into the public treasury to the extent of $130 million for the purpose of setting up a private monopoly but they are perhaps even more resentful of the fact that the government has the colossal nerve to come to this house and say, "We have made an agreement, which is not even part of the bill before us, we have made an agreement which can be changed and varied at the will of the government itself, without the wishes of parliament being consulted; and because we have made that agreement, then you who are the representatives of the people will have to be bound and gagged and, after a certain date, to have no more opinions to express."
The people of Canada are not going to stand for that and they are going to express their will in no uncertain terms when they have the opportunity to do so. I think the people of Canada also are resentful of the fact that the only role that has been played by the private members supporting the government and by my Social Credit friends to the left of us is the role of Murchison's minions and Tanner's tomboys.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, some hon. members who have spoken in committee have indicated that they did not fully understand what was really meant by the statement I made at the opening of the sitting on Monday about the time available for debate on the pipe-line bill when I used the words, "there will be all this week for it to be continued on its remaining stages."
The remaining stages of the bill were the consideration of all the clauses in committee and the third reading of the bill. In that connection I want to make it quite clear that it would have been possible, and it would
[Mr. Zaplitny.l

still be possible, for hon. members opposite by the simple expedient of postponing successively the consideration of the remaining clauses of the bill to bring the committee back, in a quite regular fashion, to the consideration of clause 1, if that is what they feel would be the most effective way to continue the debate.
Now, it must be apparent to all members of the committee that since the government did not give notice yesterday under standing order 33, we are not now in a position to bring on a vote on the third reading of the bill earlier than Monday evening, which is one day longer than the time I indicated on Monday last would be available. In other words, the opposition is now in a position to prolong the debate on the bill for one day of next week, whatever the government's wishes may be in the matter.
The government has been anxious from the moment this measure was proposed to give the opposition the maximum time consistent with the deadline the government has to meet to consider the bill in all its stages, of which consideration in committee of the whole is an important one. We had hoped to have the bill under consideration in committee last Wednesday, and at the close of Tuesday's sitting, hon. members will remember, the house had ordered it for consideration on Wednesday. And it was certainly no fault of the government that it was not considered on Wednesday afternoon.
But all that is past, and I want to tell the committee now that in order to increase the time available for the committee stage we, on this side, are prepared to sit this evening and to sit all day Saturday, if hon. members will agree unanimously to a special order of the house which would provide for the conclusion of the committee stage at the close of the sitting on Saturday and for the conclusion of the remaining stages of the bill at the close of the sitting on Monday next.
Such a procedure would provide another two days in committee stage, if hon. members opposite so desire.


Mr. Fleming:: On those terms.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I noted, with some surprise, what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said in concluding his speech in committee on Monday, as reported at page 4399 of Hansard in the following words:
I very sincerely hope, because it is not in the best interests of Canada, that the opposition will be strong enough to prevent this bill from going through before the deadline.
Now, sir, if all the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar meant was that he hoped the opposition would be able to convince, by its

arguments, those of us on this side of the house the bill should not be passed, I take no exception to that statement.
But if, on the other hand, he meant that he felt the opposition had a right to prevent hon. members on both sides of the house from expressing by their votes their opinions on this bill in time to make the bill effective, then I suggest, sir, he was claiming for a minority in this house the right to override the majority.	[DOT]
I am confident that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar will admit every member on this side of the house has just as much right as any hon. member on the other side of the house to express his opinion on this measure and I feel he should have an opportunity to express it in time to be effective.
I am not unmindful of what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway in his moving speech on Monday as reported at page 4377 of Hansard:
May I tell hon. members, government members, official opposition members, C.C.F. members and Social Credit members, that I favour closure. The government has a perfect right-not only a right but a duty-to invoke closure at the right time; that is, when it has been demonstrated that the business of the house cannot be carried on in any other way but b,y closure.
I hope it will be possible for the house to agree on this additional time for discussion of the bill in the committee stage, and I invite the leaders of the parties opposite to authorize those who customarily act for them to seek to arrange, through the usual channels, to make this additional time available.
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 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.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The axe again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
Mr. Sf. Lauren! (Quebec East): I hope, Mr. Chairman, that an understanding can be reached which will make it unnecessary for me to make this motion.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman-[DOT]


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. My point of order, which I am prepared to argue now or to argue at
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation another time if you think it more appropriate, is that the notice which the Prime Minister has sought to give is invalid and cannot be acted upon at the next sitting of the house. I am prepared to give my reasons based on the wording of standing order 33; based also on the explanation of closure given by Arthur Meighen in 1913; based also on three precedents, one of them in 1913 and two in 1917; and based also on my answer to the mistaken use of closure perpetrated by Mr. Bennett in 1932. Whether you wish to have that argument now or when the Prime Minister attempts to make the motion I leave in your hands. However, I felt that unless I registered objection immediately you might tomorrow say that I had no right to object. My point of order is that this motion could not be moved without the remaining clauses, namely 5, 6 and 7, having been called at least once and postponed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I realize entirely what the hon. member is announcing. I think he will agree with me that there is nothing before the chair except clause 4. I have no motion to put before this committee. The house has been advised that such motion will be moved at the next sitting at which time, of course, the question of whether or not it is in order and whether or not it falls out of any order because the preliminaries which are required to put it in order were out of order, will be the subject of debate. But I cannot rule out of order a notice of a motion which is not before the chair-it is admittedly before the committee of the whole under the standing order-as I think it would be fair to say perhaps that a motion or a question which appeared in the appendix to the Votes and Proceedings of today announcing that it was going to be moved the day after tomorrow would not be a fair subject for a ruling until such time as it reached routine proceedings and was presented to the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, that is quite satisfactory to me. I just wanted to be sure that you would recognize me on the point of order if the Prime Minister attempts to move that motion tomorrow.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Chairman, may I just rise on a point of privilege? The Prime Minister referred to a remark I made at the conclusion of my speech. May I say to him that I believe that, if one feels as strongly as I do that this is not in the best interests of the country, anything I can do to stop this going through, under proper parliamentary procedure, I am right in undertaking.
4466	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the notice that the Prime Minister has given reduces to a complete farce-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Sinclair:: Obstruction.


George Alexander Drew: -the earlier suggestion that he was in fact making any proposal that had behind it any earnest desire to have a discussion of this measure. In effect what he says is this: "Look at this nice sharp axe. I shall withhold that axe if you submit to the terms I place before you". The velvet which he places over the edge of the axe renders the edge no less sharp. I would hope that there is no hon. member on this side of the house who would be prepared to follow the course of action suggested,-


Mr. Fulton:: Or on the other side.


George Alexander Drew: -and I would hope that there were some on the other side of the house who would not be prepared to follow it;-


An hon. Member:: You will not find very many.


George Alexander Drew: I would hope there would be some on the other side of the house who would not be prepared to follow a course of action suggested by the Prime Minister when it is backed by a threat of closure of this kind.
We have had different kinds of closure already. We first of all had closure moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when we had before us the motion that it was expedient to introduce this bill. The notice of that closure was given before a single member of the opposition had been given an opportunity to indicate in any way what his position was here in this house. Then we had closure on second reading. Then when we came into the committee stage we had a type of closure never even attempted before in this or any similar parliament, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce rose on the calling of section 1 and moved postponement of the consideration of that section.


An hon. Member:: Further consideration.


George Alexander Drew: I should say further consideration of that section. That was indeed an affront to this house. There had been no consideration and therefore there could be no further consideration. We were allowed no consideration of any kind on section 1 where the opportunity presents itself to elicit information by direct questions. We were offered no opportunity to consider section 2. We were offered no opportunity to consider section 3. We were then given the opportunity to consider section 4 which, in a large


measure, had become a futility because we had already passed over the definition and operative sections of the act.
Now, the Prime Minister suggests that we agree to sit tonight and Saturday, provided we will agree to their terms.


James Sinclair: Just sit and talk.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Fisheries has interjected, "Just sit and talk".


James Sinclair: That is all you have done for the last 19 days.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the difference is that I have stood in order to make my speeches whereas the Minister of Fisheries has sat and made his interjections.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And rather senseless interjections too.


George Alexander Drew: May I add that there have not been 19 days of discussion or anything like that. I would suggest to the hon. member he go back and examine Hansard to ascertain the limited opportunity there has been.


James Sinclair: There have been 19 days of filibustering by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Kamloops, and the country knows it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the man who fell off
the ladder.


George Alexander Drew: There have not been 19 days of discussion, as the minister knows quite well. I simply place on the record the fact that his statement is without any foundation whatever.
We have before us here perhaps the most offensive proposal that has been made yet. Under the guise of a gesture of generosity to this house the Prime Minister says you can discuss this until the end of this week as long as you abide by our terms as to how we will force this bill through. Well, Mr. Chairman, we are not going to accept any terms of that kind. This government has taken the responsibility of making these proceedings completely ineffective from the point of view of a proper discussion of this bill in committee. I repeat, never before in this House of Commons have the members of this house been denied in this way the opportunity to proceed. Do not let any member opposite refer back to precedents where sections were bulked in one motion made as is now suggested. On the one occasion where something of the same nature was done, section 1 had been discussed and the opportunity had been presented to ask questions and to get answers. We were denied that opportunity which is the very beginning and the real foundation of the discussion in committee. This was denied

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
for the deliberate purpose of preventing us from obtaining the kind of information which might have brought out some of the facts the public in this country have a right to know about this strange procedure which has not yet been explained to us in any way.
This, Mr. Chairman, is adding insult to injury. Parliament has been denied its ordinary rights. Parliament has been injured by the course followed by the government on this occasion, and now to add insult to injury we are told, if we will meekly submit to the terms now imposed by this arrogant government you will be permitted to debate this to the end of the week. Then, what happens? We are going to have one day next week for the discussion of third reading. Mr. Chairman, this government cannot stop us discussing this until the end of the week. We are going to discuss it until the end of the week. They must accept full responsibility for whatever course is followed. Any pretence that we had it in our power at any time to guide the course of this debate through our actions is misleading.
What does the Prime Minister mean when he says it would have been possible for members opposite to have let the sections pass so that we could have got back to section 1? How much control have we been permitted over these proceedings? We asked the Prime Minister to give us an opportunity to get back to section 1. I asked that immediately when I pointed out the other day that his gesture meant nothing unless he was prepared to say immediately he would take the appropriate steps to return us to a discussion of section 1. When the Prime Minister's willingness to see a real discussion of this bill was tested by a vote, he voted against our opportunity to discuss section 1. What utter pretence it is for the Prime Minister to come here this afternoon and in this way suggest that we, in some way, could have obtained a discussion of section 1. We made one proposal that would have made that possible. We offered a vote on the subject which the Prime Minister might have supported and we could have been discussing section 1 for the last two days and perhaps actually getting the rights in that way to which we are now entitled. No, it was not within our power at any time to escape the shackles placed on this parliament by this arrogant government in the course that has followed.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there may be a number of hon. members opposite who have forgotten that they are members of a party which still describes itself as Liberal. They may be willing to submit to arrogant terms of this kind but we are not. There will be
no consent to any arrogant proposal of the nature that has been put before us.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman-


James Sinclair: What you mean concisely
is that you do not want to talk about the pipe line bill.


Major James William Coldwell: If the Minister of Fisheries
wishes to speak, I will sit down and give him my place.


James Sinclair: I do not want to filibuster
on the bill. I would rather vote for the bill than filibuster on it.


Major James William Coldwell: Would the hon. gentleman
care to stand up and say what he has to say?
I will sit down while he does it. I am going to support the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Chairman, in his approach to this proposal which has been placed before us by the Prime Minister. I do not think in the 21 years I have been in the House of Commons I have felt quite as keenly about this parliament as I have during the last week or 10 days. As I said the other evening, I am one of those who have always respected this institution, because I believed it to be the very best kind of institution that was yet devised for our self-government. But when, on the initial stages of this bill, at the very first opportunity, the Minister of Trade and Commerce when speaking on the resolution introduced closure, and then on the various clauses of the bill made a motion to postpone further discussion, I felt we had come almost to the end of this institution as a democratic parliamentary institution. I today am saying that we will not consent to sitting tonight nor, under the threat of closure, will we consent to sitting on Saturday.
The tension in this house has been severe on all of us. Already three members on this side of the house have broken down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: Hon. gentlemen opposite
laugh. That shows the extent not only of their democracy but of their human feelings. That is the kind of thing that you would expect to see, as I said the other day, in the old German Reichstag when they rejoiced as men broke under the persecution of Hitler in Germany.
I say this debate has got to the stage where I hope the people of Canada are taking some notice of it. This government has been in power so long that it has become arrogant, and the time has come when the people of this country should have an opportunity of exercising some judgment over what has been done in this house over the last while. If the government believes that the Canadian
4468	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation people are taking this, then let it test it out in a general election. I am convinced that this is, as I said, a travesty on democratic procedure, an abomination, an outrageous thing, and I am surprised that the Prime Minister, for whom I have had, through the years he has been in the house, the very deepest of respect, would come here this afternoon with a proposal of this description and over the last two or three weeks would have allowed this kind of thing to happen that has been happening in this house. Mr. Chairman, I can hardly say any more so I will sit down.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, during the time when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking and more recently while the leader of the C.C.F. was speaking the house gave them ample opportunity to say what they wanted to say with very little interruption.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Solon Earl Low: I am sincerely hoping-


Mr. Palleli:: You are supposed to tell the truth there, you know.


Solon Earl Low: I am sincerely hoping that the two parties on this side of the house who feel so keenly about this situation will grant me the same privilege.


Major James William Coldwell: Hear, hear.


Solon Earl Low: It is not my intention at the moment to enter into any recriminations; but I do think it is necessary at this time to consider the Prime Minister's proposal calmly and sensibly and not attempt to generate a whole lot of heat and no light.
I know that the two opposition parties who have been fighting this thing right from the beginning feel very keenly. In fact, I have never in all my 25 years of experience in a provincial legislature and in the parliament of Canada seen so-called well-trained minds allow themselves to be whipped up into the kind of frenzy that I have seen here. For the life of me I cannot understand how grown men, so-called mature men, can possibly justify the attitude that has been taken.
The Prime Minister today started out by putting a proposition before the house and I thought I understood him to say-
Mr. Pallet!: The word "proposition" is sometimes, as here, associated with evil deeds.


Solon Earl Low: If the brilliant young man over here who likes to say so much would just contain himself for one second he will have his chance to get up and speak.
Mr. Pallet!: No, I will not.


Solon Earl Low: As his leader so eloquently said a moment ago, he likes to speak standing up; 

so do I. If they have the courage of their convictions, let them stand up and speak instead of sniping and trying to stop someone else from speaking.
When the Prime Minister put his proposition before us it seemed to me that what he was saying to us was this,-and I believe he used these very words: the leaders of the parties might get together, or representatives of the parties, and discuss whether or not an arrangement could be made to extend the time of this debate by sitting tonight and by sitting on Saturday and on Saturday night. He said that if an arrangement of that kind could be made it might not be necessary to apply any unusual rules to the debate, and I looked at it in that way. I felt that here was an opportunity if the members of this house really want to get down and discuss the pipe line and get the details of all the questions that may be in their minds. Here is a chance for them to have ample opportunity. If they do not want the information and if they do not want to discuss the pipe line, then, of course, they will not accept it.
I am indicating my determination to give every member of this house every opportunity he desires to discuss this matter and to get the information that may be available and that he wishes, and I am certainly indicating right here the stand that our party will take. We would like to join in such an arrangement as this if for no other reason in the world than to make it abundantly clear to the people of this country that we are anxious to give these parties every chance they want to discuss the pipe line and not something else.
Mr. Pallet!: Are you voting for or against closure?


Solon Earl Low: There again we have our brilliant young sniper over here who has not sense enough to keep his mouth shut. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there is some good judgment that can be exercised in this committee by way of keeping quiet. I never saw anyone listen himself into trouble yet, but my young friend can easily talk himself into it if he keeps up his interruptions.
I was very much interested in listening to the Leader of the Opposition speak of things that he and his party were not able to get by way of answers to questions. There were so many things they wanted to get, and he said that if clause 1 had been before the house for discussion there was so much more that they would have had on which to base a judgment. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition can name one single thing relative to this pipe line bill that he and his colleagues have had no opportunity of discussing that they would have been able to

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
discuss if clause 1, 2 and 3 had been before the committee? I challenge him to bring forward one single thing. He cannot do it. It is easy to stand up here and say, "Now, I have said before and I repeat. Let me point out. I put on the record", and then expect that that makes it true. But it does not make it true. I think the Leader of the Opposition should be the last man in the world to expect that would make it true. I deny that the things he has been repeating and repeating and saying and putting on the record are true. They are not.
If these people are sincere in their desire to want to discuss the pipe line and all its ramifications, realizing that the government is up against the necessity of getting the thing through by a deadline, then they will show their good intentions by accepting the Prime Minister's proposal to sit tonight and to sit on Saturday and Saturday night. If they do not, there is no sense standing up here and calling it a travesty of parliamentary procedure, an abomination and all that sort of thing. It is easy to stand up and use exaggerated terms and try to get the press interested, but it does not make the thing true nevertheless.
I am just as anxious as anybody, Mr. Chairman, to have the freest and fullest discussion of this whole matter. I want to see this parliament given every opportunity to consider every part of this proposition, but I wish they would do so. We sit here day after day and listen to the worst claptrap and constant repetition of things that are simply silly for grown men to utter, and we do not hear anything about the pipe line.


An hon. Member:: Except untruths.


Solon Earl Low: 
Mr. McGregor:: You voted for it.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, and there are some of the Conservatives who have been lying all over the country saying that we voted for it the first time.


Robert Henry McGregor: Perhaps they are following your example.


Solon Earl Low: They are not doing anything of the kind. The hon. member for Eglinton stood up and said we voted for closure the first time it was proposed. We did not because we felt at the time it was too early.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it quite clear that I did not say they voted for it the first time. I said they voted for it every time except the first time.


Solon Earl Low: You did not. If you go back and look at Hansard you will see that what I said is true. Anyway, let me explain, Mr. Chairman. We felt that the first time closure was moved in the house on this matter it was too soon. The hon. members of the opposition had not been given ample opportunity to consider the pipe line. We waited to see if they would take the opportunity and they did not. They discussed everything but the pipe line. They horsed around, they played with the rules, they brought up points of order and questions of privilege in every effort that could be made to destroy the chances of getting this thing through by the deadline, and when the next move came to apply closure we supported it then for the very reason the Prime Minister mentioned; namely, that no opposition group has the right to continue indefinitely to try to impose its will upon this whole parliament.
There comes a time in any parliament when it may be necessary to apply closure and I think in view of subsequent events the government quite rightly applied closure to start with. I believe the government, recognizing that it has to take the full responsibility for this measure, has proceeded step by step in the only way that was left to it by an obdurate and ornery opposition, and that was the reason, Mr. Chairman, that we felt we should support the government in
4470	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation their move. We want to see this pipe line built because there are tremendous things at stake not just in Alberta but in relation to the whole country. This is a national issue. This is a thing that is good for the whole of Canada and I think we should look at it from that point of view as we in this group are trying to do.
I sincerely hope that good sense will prevail and that the representatives of the three parties on this side of the house and of the Liberal party will get together and agree to sit tonight, Saturday and Saturday night in order to see if we can obviate the necessity of a further application of closure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, as one of the whips who might be called to such a meeting if it were held I wish to give the answer to the Prime Minister's proposal in the form of a very brief answer that was made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on April 9, 1913.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know that my hon. friends are sick and tired of hearing quotations from Sir Wilfrid Laurier but they are going to hear more of them before this is over.
On that occasion Sir Robert Borden speaking on closure said:
. . . that the mere existence of the rule will itself prevent the necessity of its being brought into practice, at least very frequently.
And what was the reply of Sir Wilfrid Laurier? It is recorded in column 7407 of Hansard for April 9, 1913, and I throw these words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier back in the face of the present Prime Minister:
Holding a terror above our heads.


Mr. Marlin:: It does not even deal with the point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister implied and the hon. member for Peace River asserted that we are being obdurate and ornery and trying to defeat and obstruct the passage of this legislation.


An hon. Member:: It is true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They suggest that is something we have no right to do.


Mr. Lennard:: What are we here for?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Prime Minister, the present member for Quebec East, to read again from some of the words of the former member for Quebec East, that great Canadian Liberal, Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


An hon. Member:: He was the only one of his kind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is what he said about the duty of an opposition:
. . . there are occasions, I repeat, when an opposition or a minority owes it to itself, on account of the strong views it holds upon some public measure, to oppose that measure with all the force at its command.
This is not a modern doctrine. This doctrine has been in force at all times in the British House of Commons. It goes back to the days of Charles I; the books are full of references to it. The leaders of the house in the time of Charles I, in the struggle against the king to uphold the constitutional rights of the people of England, presented to the King what they called the Grand Remonstrance, and the presentation of the Grand Remonstrance was opposed all night by some members until, it is stated in the books, the house looked like a starved jury. That was an occasion when obstruction failed of its purpose.
I ask the Prime Minister to note the next few sentences in particular. This is Sir Wilfrid Laurier speaking, that great Canadian Liberal whose kind we no longer seem to have. He said:
On another occasion in 1771, the majority of the house-


An hon. Member:: Whoops!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -did not want to allow the publication of the debates. That strange position was opposed by a minority headed by no less a man than Edmund Burke, and Burke by whole days of obstruction succeeded in defeating the object of the majority,-
These are the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the former member for Quebec East, which I now direct to the present member for Quebec East:
-and, as he himself said afterwards, 'posterity will bless the pertinacity of that day'.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the day will come when posterity will bless the pertinacity of those of us in this house who believe that parliament is still free and that we are not called upon to bow our necks to the tyranny of a despotic government.
After a few more choice instances from British history-hon. members who know the life and times of Sir Wilfrid Laurier know how heavily he drew on British history in his defence of the rights and privileges of parliament-he said this,-but before I give this quotation may I say that I support the challenge given by my leader that the Prime Minister take this matter to the country. I say that on the basis of what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, and I quote:
As I have said, there are some occasions on which there is a cleavage between the majority and the minority, and then there is an easy remedy, an easy solution. The remedy is not closure;

How many times have we to quote those words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier to get some Liberalism into the souls of hon. members opposite?
The remedy is not closure; it is not the application of brute force.
If I may interject and use those other words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, it is not holding terror over our heads.
The remedy is an appeal to the people. The people, after all, are the judge and the jury. The people, after all, are the parties to pass judgment as between the government and the opposition, as between the majority and the minority.
I say to the Prime Minister that if he feels the minority in this house is seeking to obstruct the will of the majority his answer can be found in the words of his revered predecessor. That great Liberal said that the solution was not to impose closure, was not to use brute force, was not to hold the terror of the guillotine above our heads, but was to follow the only democratic, parliamentary and Liberal course-take this issue to the country. I join in that challenge which my leader and others have made to the Prime Minister-dissolve this house and take this issue to the people of Canada.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, after having heard during the closing hour of last night the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, who as a big corporation lawyer represents millionaires and defends them, I think it is only right that I as a representative of a labour riding should quietly interject the views of the people. My people being French-speaking, I shall continue my remarks in my mother tongue.
(Translation) :
Mr. Chairman, to remove any misunderstanding on the part of those who would believe that Quebec members have nothing to say about the bill now before the house, I would like to follow the example set by my colleague from Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and bring my modest contribution to this debate.
In my humble opinion, not for years had a bill so momentous, of such far-reaching consequences, been introduced in this house. And although, in an attempt to prevent the opposition from properly debating this bill a motion for closure has been voted by a majority skilled in the abuse of its overwhelming power, we feel it our duty to use our few remaining minutes of freedom to express our opinion.
This pipe line project, a huge or even colossal undertaking, will entail an expenditure of $90 million, 90 per cent of which will be paid, for the present at least, by the Canadian taxpayers, while the remaining 10
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation per cent will be contributed by a foreign company chosen, designated and desired by the government.
Parliament is therefore asked to approve a loan of $80 million for a project which will cost $90 million, a loan that will bear interest at 5 per cent and which has to be refunded on April 2 next, that is April 2, 1957, by the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, because that is the company concerned in the bill.
Mr. Chairman, this brings me to denounce at this time the blatant contradiction of our friends opposite; they seem to be fond of contradictions whether they be at Ottawa or Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, with the help of American capital, but for the benefit of our province, we have undertaken to develop the vast natural resources with which Providence has endowed the province of Quebec.
In Ungava, in northern Quebec, are the world's richest deposits of iron and other ores. We have thought that the development of these rich deposits would benefit not only the province of Quebec but the whole population of Canada. As we could not find elsewhere the hundreds of millions of dollars of Canadian capital needed for this development, and thanks to the excellent credit of the province of Quebec, we have succeeded, Mr. Chairman, in getting the necessary money from American investors.
I have said a moment ago that this will benefit the province of Quebec and also, I believe, the majority of Canadians.


Mr. Dupuis:: And the electoral fund as well.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: We could come back to that later if my hon. friend wishes to do so.


Hector Dupuis: I will speak about it later.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If my hon. friend had at least the courage of his opinions, he would not stay in his seat; he would be bold enough to stand up when he speaks.


Hector Dupuis: We will come to that later.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Some people claim that this is not to the advantage of the province of Quebec but this considerable development of our resources not only yields corporation taxes but creates thousands of jobs, ensures the continuous growth of our economy and helps to set up new industries in a district so long neglected by our Liberal friends. Corporation taxes would bring in still more money, Mr. Chairman,-
4472	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. Boisvert:: Tell us something about the pipe line!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -If the Ottawa centralizers were not depriving provinces of their best means of revenue. We, in the province of Quebec, welcome American capital to promote the development of our natural resources, under the control of the owners of those resources and in the best interests of the people of our province and of our country.
But what a contrast to behold now, Mr. Chairman! In Quebec, we are using American capital to develop our natural wealth for our own benefit. Therefore, over $300 million were earmarked and spent for the discovery and development of our iron ore, and over $125 million were used in the building alone of the railway between Seven Islands and Knob Lake. Some people claim that our ore is being sold at a cent a ton, but I challenge anyone to prove it, for in fact the province of Quebec gets 75 cents a ton for the ore now mined in Ungava.


Maurice Boisvert: What about the pipe line?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: When I discuss it, you will probably be still less interested, and I shall ask my good friend, the member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) not to tire himself in the meantime.


Maurice Boisvert: Nothing ever tires me when you are doing the talking.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, here is what is happening now at Ottawa. With the help of a subservient majority, and contrary to the wishes of the Canadian people and in spite of their protests-one has only to read the newspapers to see that-the government takes $80 million of the Canadian taxpayers' money and lends it to foreigners, to Texas promoters, friends of the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who will come to Canada to reap large profits and batten on the work and sweat of our fellow citizens.
We have there a blatant contradiction, Mr. Chairman; the time has come to let the Canadian people know on what side those men are sitting who, by a contradictory stand which I will not qualify because the words I would use would not be parliamentary,- do not care much and have no respect for truth.
The people of Quebec are developing, I repeat, our natural resources with the help of American capital, through a project approved by the people of Quebec and by


all serious and thoughtful Canadians. Yet what seems very strange-and I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if you have noticed what is now taking place in the house and some distance from the capital-since the beginning of this undertaking, that is since American capitalists came to the province of Quebec and started to explore and develop our vast natural resources, a man stood up in this house to contradict those who criticize the undertaking, and to assert that it was the only possible solution to ensure the development of our natural resources. He then spoke with authority, because the right hon. Prime Minister and member for Quebec East (Mr. St. Laurent) thereby approved the development of those areas and lauded the perspicacity of the man who now administers the affairs of the province of Quebec by using that capital.
What did we see then? Following that statement, every Liberal member, particularly those from the province of Quebec, frantically applauded the words of their leader, the right hon. Prime Minister. What is the situation now? What do we see today? The same members who then applauded the Prime Minister are now taking, in the Quebec election campaign, a stand which is the very reverse of their former one, since they are supporting the provincial Liberal leader, who goes on making rash, foolish and ridiculous statements on the Ungava project, and they applaud him frantically-
(Text);


Maurice Boisvert: Mr. Chairman, on a question of order.


An hon. Member:: There is no question of order.


Maurice Boisvert: Yes, there is a question of order. There is no question of the election in the province of Quebec with respect to that bill, and the hon. member is dealing with the provincial election in Quebec at the present time.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: On the point of order.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Brown, Essex
West): I draw to the attention of the hon. member that we are now discussing Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, clause 4. If he has something further to say on clause 4, he may proceed.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: On the said point of order-


Maurice Boisvert: The point of order is decided by the chairman.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, will I be allowed to answer the point of order that was raised by my hon. friend from Nicolet-Yamaska? I think it is the right' of an hon. member-


An hon. Member:: No point of order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am just trying to contradict -and I have succeeded in contradicting-the Liberals who are sitting right now in this House of Commons.


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


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am just' telling the people of Canada at this moment that they say one thing in this House of Commons and, when they are back in the province of Quebec, they say exactly the contrary to what they say here. It is about time that we had one policy throughout Canada from this party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: It is about time you had a policy.
(Translation) :


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is why, Mr. Chairman, I hasten to tell my hon. friends opposite that it is high time they timed up their fiddles, because they are making themselves increasingly ridiculous in the eyes of the public.
Mr. Chairman, the people of this country now realize only too well that the sole aim of the members of the Liberal party is to get into power and hang on to it, and nothing else. Little do they care about the welfare and prosperity of the people of Quebec or the whole people of this country. Somehow the Liberals of today remind us of the Hitlerian hordes, during the last war, who thought of themselves as of a superior race, descended from the gods-


Hector Dupuis: That was Mr. Bennett's statement.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Well, he was talking sense, and my hon. friend from St. Mary might attempt to do as much.


Hector Dupuis: Before he went over to
England.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, we are not opposed to the building of a pipe line. However, we demand that the representatives of the people, wherever they may sit in this house, be given a full opportunity to discuss
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation this matter in a free parliament, under a truly democratic system such as we are supposed to have in this country.
In the last analysis, Mr. Chairman, it is proposed here to spend $80 million of the taxpayers' money. No doubt the right hon. Prime Minister will say that a million dollars is "peanuts", that such a sum represents perhaps one pound of "peanuts". However, we must admit that the taxpayer has to foot the bill; it is he who has worked to produce these millions levied as taxes by the government.
However, Mr. Chairman, we are in favour of private enterprise. Now, hon. members opposite will say that this is truly private enterprise but, in my opinion, it is irresponsible private enterprise. I am convinced that, on the 1st of April next, the government will again ask parliament to extend the powers which it now proposes to give to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
Mr. Chairman, what are the methods used to reach these objectives? It has been pointed out time and again that, even before the motion of first reading was adopted, the government applied closure. The representatives of the people, and therefore the people themselves, are being deprived of the right and privilege of expressing their views on the matter, a right and a privilege recognized in any democratic parliament or constitution. Moreover, what has happened in this house in the last week or so has seriously and considerably impaired the Canadian parliament. We had never seen a bill so undemocratic. The government invites a foreign company to come to Canada and tells them: "You are going to tell Canadians what they should do. You are going to tell the taxpayers, with unprecedented impudence: Whether you like it or not, we are going to lay our hands on 80 millions of your money," money earned through hard work, owing to the conspiracy of the government and, incidentally, through the influence of the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). The most objectionable means in a democratic parliament are now being used and imposed in order to block any discussion on this matter. And so those sharks will say to us: "Whether you like it or not, we will become multimillionaires with the money of the Canadian people", that money as I say, which they earned through hard work.
Well, Mr. Chairman, let me define in my
4474	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation own words the present position of the government as far as the discussion of the bill that is now before us is concerned. It is a "hold-up" of the people's money to the benefit of foreign interests, a hold-up perpetrated with the sordid .complicity of the right hon. Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and all those who sit in front of me and .applaud the government's action.
Mr. Chairman, there have been many references, in this house, to centralization. Small wonder that all provincial powers are being centralized in Ottawa, in the face of all this striving to centralize all procedures and rules of the house. This closure rule, this gag, this guillotine, no matter how you choose to call it, is nothing less, Mr. Chairman, than a most shameful sabotage of our parliamentarian institutions. Those who claim to be the saviours of the race are now, more than ever, the worst threat to our beloved freedoms. They have just made a gigantic step that will rapidly lead us to a shameful dictatorship, unless we use all the democratic measures at our disposal to put a stop to the slavery which awaits us.
In my opinion the position taken by the Liberal members is the most degrading deceit our parliament has witnessed since 1867.


Hector Dupuis: Nonsense!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I shall not take the time to notice the interjections of the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis). We know that his interjections are intelligent, and I sandwich the word intelligent between quotation marks.


Hector Dupuis: Well, what do you know!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I wonder who advised the cabinet to resort to that shameful procedure of closure, which now forces the opposition to fight with all its strength to get out of that concentration camp in which the government has placed it. It is surely not our taciturn Prime Minister who, but a few days ago, finally put an end to his silence and delivered his maiden speech, his first since last January.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: Very smart!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It is surely not the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, although he has tremendous powers, which he uses and even abuses.
I asked myself a question, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to say it aloud this after-


noon. Would it not be the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. St. Laurent), who stated *himself last September that he was the adviser of the Prime Minister, the grey eminence of the government, who was supposed to make his baneful influence felt behind the scene. Would he not be the one who, some morning, softly whispered, in a very filial way, into the ear of the Prime Minister the word closure, because he was of course able to see the Prime Minister of Canada in his pyjamas.


Maurice Boisvert: Why don't you talk about the pipe line bill, which is before the house?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The hon. member for Nico-let-Yamaska does not like pyjamas!


Maurice Boisvert: Never mind my likes or dislikes, and come around to the pipe line, will you?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, let us not try to fathom that mystery. Rather let us mournfully consider what will happen to our freedom, unless we react!
And then, those very people who resort to closure, who approve of this procedure which had never been seen in a Canadian government, who are undemocratic, go about in the province of Quebec talking about dictatorship, suggesting that a certain administration is a threat to responsible government for which Papineau and Mackenzie have fought! Is it not the very statement made the other day in Montreal by the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard)?


Mr. Pinard:: I was perfectly right in saying so, and you know it.


Maurice Boisvert: Talk about the pipe line!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It is clear that the Liberal party wants-


An hon. Member:: Progress.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It seeks to grasp all governments, federal and provincial, to satisfy its thirst for power, to enslave us and to deprive the Canadian people of what is left of its national pride.
I have here, Mr. Chairman, a very edifying photograph. It was reproduced in Le Devoir and shows the provincial Liberal leader in the province of Quebec, the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard)-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: My hon. friends' enthusiasm may cool down a bit when they have taken a good look at what two Ottawa ministers are doing to the one who represents them in Quebec. Does it not look as if they are in the process of putting handcuffs on the Liberal party leader in Quebec, just as if he were the slave of his Ottawa masters?
Here is another picture, Mr. Chairman, showing a free man, who does not belong to the Liberal party, who is not afraid to speak in this house to assert his own and every Canadian's right to freedom. I am speaking of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming).
Mr. Chairman, what the Conservative party wants is a committee to give full consideration to the matter, and to decide whether it is in Canada's interest to lend $80 million of our taxpayers' money to a foreign corporation. Why not appoint such a committee? Because they are afraid of questions, on the other side of the house. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) asked some questions which will most probably remain unanswered.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you speak about the pipe line!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: We want a committee that will allow full consideration of the bill now before the house.


Hector Dupuis: Three cheers for the Lacombe act!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for St. Mary has just uttered a word that painfully struck home. For the past few years I have been sorely tried, and I am still beset by-


An hon. Member:: Heavy expense.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -trials which Providence has seen fit to impose upon me and which I accept like a good Christian. That remark by the hon. member for St. Mary is a cowardly remark, and could only be spoken by a coward such as the hon. member for St. Mary. I hope he will have the courage to repeat outside the house what he just said. Fat-head! No wonder the people of Quebec keep repeating just now "Like father, like son". The hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) is not quite as brave as he would have us believe. He is more often behind the curtains than in front of them.
Mr. Chairman, we have asked that the matter be referred to committee, and we will keep on asking it, in the hope that our request will be granted, if there is a little freedom left in this house.
Judging by the press reports we read every day, the people of Canada favour the opposition, the Conservative party, which is now fighting mightily to secure the necessary
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
information in connection with the bill now before the house. If however, the government feels so sure of their strength, of their numerical strength that is, of their arguments which everybody denies, let them call a general election. It is their duty to consult the people on this important matter of public funds expenditure. Then all Canadians, not only those in the province of Quebec, but all over the country, will be able to look at the coat of arms of the province of Quebec and say: "Je me souviens" (I remember). If the government should go to the people, they would get the people's reply.
(Text);


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have a correction that has to do with the figures I gave on the cost of gas. The figures appearing on page 4426 of Hansard for May 29, at the end of column 1 and the beginning of column 2, relating to interruptible gas are in error. They were quoted as being the current revised rates, but were read from an unrevised tabulation. The following are the figures quoted, followed by the correct current revised figures: For Manitoba I said 23 cents and it should be 18 cents: western Ontario, 28 cents should be 25 cents; northern Ontario,
32	cents should be 29-5 cents; central Ontario,
33	cents should be 30 cents; eastern Ontario, 33 cents should be 30-5 cents. Hon. members will find that the figures appearing on page 4428 are correctly stated.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: You had better get Trans-Canada to revise its statement in Washington.


Hector Dupuis: Mr. Chairman-


Daniel Roland Michener: Arising out of what the minister has just said-


Donald Ferguson Brown: Does the hon. member wish to rise on a question of privilege?


Daniel Roland Michener: I was asking the hon. member who is taking the floor if he would permit me to ask a supplementary question.


Hector Dupuis: You can ask your question afterward. You have been asking so many questions you should let somebody else speak, unless the minister wants to answer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, please.


Daniel Roland Michener: I have been looking at the corrected figures and I should like to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that this statement appears on page 4428 of Hansard for May 29, in the second column:
During the first three years only, gas may be accepted at Canadian-United States border at 75 per cent load factor, with price payable to Trans-Canada 27-27 cents per MCF.
4476	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation I then call his attention to the corresponding price in Manitoba at the top of the first column at 75 per cent load factor, which is 28 * 3 cents. It seems to me this indicates that the price on the Canadian side will be higher than the price on the United States side.
I refer back to the question I asked the minister earlier in the day. Was not the C.B.C. wrong in putting the reverse interpretation on those figures in this morning's eight o'clock news broadcast? I find no case in the earlier prices which will be charged by Trans-Canada where the prices charged on the Canadian side will be less than the prices charged on the United States side.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am glad you called my attention to that fact. If the difference is as stated, it must be corrected because the electricity and gas exportation act provides that Canadian gas cannot be sold outside of Canada at a price lower than the sales price to Canadians under similar conditions and at similar distances from the source of supply in Canada. I will have the situation looked into and any required correction made in the schedule.


John George Diefenbaker: The Trans-Canada corporation is making that representation in Washington.


Major James William Coldwell: I wonder if the minister would permit one more question in regard to the prices he quoted? How firm are they, and for what period of time do they remain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Twenty years in the case of Winnipeg and 25 years in the case of Tennessee Transmission in the event of that contract becoming firm. There is a proviso in the contract that unless the gas can be taken by a certain date the contract becomes void.
(Translation):


Hector Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, as it is urgent that this pipe line bill be put through, I wanted to avoid dealing with that question, in order, precisely, to allow the hon. members opposite to be heard so they might stop complaining at the top of their voices that they were being deprived of free speech, but when I chanced to overhear the ravings of the hon. member accidentally elected in Quebec West, I thought I should step into the breach.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Just go out in Quebec West and see whether I was elected by accident.


Hector Dupuis: I thought I should step in and show up the game the hon. member for Quebec West is playing in this parliament. He plays exactly the same game as the Conservative and the C.C.F. members are playing now in the hope that their obstructionist


tactics will have some effect on the provincial elections which are now taking place.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: We don't need that.


Hector Dupuis: But that at least will confirm my opinion to the effect that-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Have you ever had any opinions?


Hector Dupuis: -that the Drew-Duplessis axis is a live factor in our province, and one well supported in this house by the hon. member for Quebec West.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: This is not exactly brilliant.


Hector Dupuis: Brilliant or not, let us go a bit into the evidence of the hon. member for Quebec West, which must be taken into account.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It was not evidence, it was a conviction.


Hector Dupuis: Let us see what the Drew-Duplessis team really means: it is probably the reason for the amount of filibustering we are getting from that side of the house. Do you want to know what was published in the ridings of Bellechasse and Temiscouata during the last elections? I shall read it out in French.
(Text):
For the edification of my English colleagues I am going to translate the circular which was published by friends of, if not by, the hon. member for Quebec West. It will prove at the same time that there is certainly a union with Duplessis in our province, but I wonder whether there will be such a union after I read this to my friends which was again, I say, published by close friends, if not by the hon. member for Quebec West. Let us see what he was saying. I shall again revert to French, but please be patient; I am going to read it in English and hon. members will be edified.
( Translation):
An election was going on in the ridings of Bellechasse and Temiscouata, and that is what his friends, or the representative of the Drew-Duplessis axis himself, published at that time:
What your vote means.
(Text):
Again I tell my English colleagues that I shall read it in French first and they will be astonished that such a thing should be published in the province of Quebec by friends of, if not by, the hon. member for Quebec West. The report is from his own party. They know about the circular.

(Translation):
Here is what the circular said:
Even if you have full confidence in the present federal administration, you do not know who will soon be at the head of this predominantly Anglo-Protestant government.
You cannot run the risk of having such a government, which would be hostile to the French and Catholic elements, and persecute the Quebec French Canadian race.
Under the present system of subsidies, the Ottawa government would have the necessary weapons to starve and crush the province of Quebec.
I skip a portion of it.
A vote for St. Laurent is a vote for slavery. A vote for Berube is a vote for freedom.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: This was copied from the Liberals.
(Text):


Hector Dupuis: I am going to translate this. Do you want to know what was published during the last election in Bellechasse and Temis-couata? "Even if you are entirely satisfied with the present government, you do not know who will be at the head of this government whose majority is composed of Anglo-Protestants".


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Have you the courage to give names?


Hector Dupuis: I say there is no name. You hide yourselves, as you always do. "You will not take the risk with such a government that will be hostile to the French and to the Catholics, who would prosecute the French Canadian race in Quebec". Again I am telling this to my Anglo-Protestant friends.


Daniel Roland Michener: On a point of order, I want to thank the hon. member for St. Mary for yielding the floor to me a minute ago. Is it his contention that the pipe line is being extended to Ville Marie or Bellechasse, or some place beyond Montreal?


Hector Dupuis: No, that is not the intention at all. I want to say to the opposition that one of their main reasons for putting up opposition in this parliament at this time is that there are two elections going on, one in Saskatchewan and one in Quebec, and I am proving that there is an alliance between Drew and Duplessis in my province.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You yourself spent the last two weeks campaigning.


Hector Dupuis: It is true.
(Translation) :
It is quite true that the Drew-Duplessis alliance will be celebrated at Quebec. This is what I read in Samedi-Dimanche of March 13, 1955:
An Important political event is under way at Quebec. In fact, we have learned that friends of Mr. Wilfrid Dufresne M.P., of St. Sauveur, are preparing a celebration, to be held at the Little Coliseum of the Exhibition Park . . .
30, 1956	4477
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Just like a circus. That is my own word, and it is the only one.
The purpose of this meeting is to emphasize the great work done by Mr. Dufresne at Ottawa for his electors and his fellow-citizens of the province of Quebec.
I would also add for the Conservative party. That has not yet been denied and I defy him to deny it now.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for St. Mary has just said that' there is in the province of Quebec what he has called the Drew-Duplessis-Dufresne axis.


Some hon. Members:: Are you ashamed of it?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I wish to state-


An hon. Member:: This is not a point of order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I must have the right, in this house, to refute a statement which is inaccurate and groundless.
(Text):


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I think the whole committee appreciates my position. The hon. member for Quebec West is rising on a point of order. I am going to ask him to do me a favour. I am not capable of following his point of order in French. I know he is able to give it to me in English. If he is rising to ask questions of the hon. member for St. Mary, who took his seat, then I have no desire to interfere with him.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: For your benefit, Mr. Chairman, I shall refer to his comments in English.


Hector Dupuis: That is not a point of order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am speaking on a point of order right now.


Hector Dupuis: Go ahead.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I would like to tell my friend the hon. member for St. Mary-


Hector Dupuis: That is not a point of order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -that the axe he is speaking about concerning Drew, Duplessis and Dufresne is in his mind and in the mind of the Liberal party. If I am connected with my leader I have no objection at all, because I am proud of my leader and I shall continue to follow my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, no matter where he is in this country.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member for Quebec West that this is another case of an interjection because he did not agree with something said by the hon. member who technically has the floor. If the hon. member for Quebec West feels his remarks were misinterpreted or that

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation for good reasons he should interrupt, I will assure him he will have an opportunity to make corrections-not necessarily to make another speech-at the conclusion of the remarks of the hon. member for St. Mary. The point raised by the hon. member for Quebec West is one of debate and not one of order.
(Translation) ;


Hector Dupuis: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would not have thought that the hon. member for Quebec West would back me up so soon in proving once and for all, and definitely, that the Drew-Duplessis axis is a fact in the province of Quebec.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for St. Mary has no right to distort my words. I have spoken clearly enough, and I think that my statements in this house are clear enough to be understood. I said that the axis he mentioned exists only in the minds of the Liberals. However I am proud to follow my leader and to see my name linked with that of the greatest prime minister the province of Quebec ever had.


Hector Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I would not
distort, as he said, either the words of the hon. member for Quebec West or the hon. member himself, for he is distorted enough already. If I can give him a piece of advice, I would urge him to keep cool. Otherwise he will join the three members who, they say, are ill for having taken part in that marathon which has been going on for so long in this house.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The same thing might be asked of the hon. member for St. Mary.


Hector Dupuis: We will now go on with our remarks without paying any attention to those of the hon. member for Quebec West.
As I say, at the next elections he will get what is coming to him-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: We will be waiting for you.


Hector Dupuis: I will be ready to meet you whenever you wish, tomorrow, next week, where and when you wish.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Very well, it is a deal.


Hector Dupuis: Don't forget to bring your
leader, Mr. Drew, of whom you are so proud-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Sure I am proud of him.


Hector Dupuis: He will then be able to make speeches on family allowances and tell us that we are a defeated race, as he once said. Bring along your leader!
[The Deputy Chairman.]


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman-


Hector Dupuis: Bring him on; we shall be expecting him.
I shall now continue my remarks. I had stated that, in my humble opinion, there is no doubt-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You do have an opinion?


Hector Dupuis: -that the present obstruction stems from the provincial elections now under way in two provinces. I have not yet spoken of provincial elections-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman-


Hector Dupuis: Let the hon. member for
Quebec West bide his time; I am coming to that!


An hon. Member:: You will lose nothing by waiting.


Hector Dupuis: I come back to the gas pipe line. There have been many references in the province of Quebec, to the Prime Minister's statement that it was in the interest of Canada to bring in foreign capital. What the right hon. Prime Minister said- and I know that he can well speak for himself,-but if I understood him correctly-
(Text):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-
(Translation):


Hector Dupuis: -he did not say, he did not approve-
(Text):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order I would like to draw to your attention-
(Translation):


Hector Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to continue my remarks-
(Text):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I must hear the hon. member for Quebec West on a point of order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I would like, Mr. Chairman, to draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member for St. Mary has not very much respect for the Chair because instead of addressing his remarks to you he is most of the time talking to the gallery upstairs. I wonder if there is a delegation from St. Mary up in the gallery listening to the many things he is speaking about?

(Translation) :


Hector Dupuis: I can say at once to the hon. member for Quebec West that I first took the precaution to state that I had not intended to speak. As I am a truly great representative of the people, I am not afraid to turn to the people, to speak to people in the galleries, even to the press gallery, and to all those who honour me with their attention.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: This is the climax of the comedy.


Hector Dupuis: If you really mean to be the
representative of the people, I presume that you will not shirk your duty. That is your problem. But, as I say, we are going to talk about pipe lines. Once again I say that we of the Liberal party were never opposed to foreign investments in that province, but we did oppose the policy of giving away our natural resources to foreign interests and of dilapidating the province according to the requirements of campaign funds of the party supported by the hon. member for Quebec West in the coming election.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I do not support it, I do
not even take any part in it.


Hector Dupuis: No, Mr. Chairman, the word has gone around to "Keep Dufresne under cover. He cannot be shown in public."


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You make a handsome picture, yourself.


Hector Dupuis: For the last few days we have heard much about closure which has been applied perhaps by necessity-in the first case, perhaps somewhat out of time-I will give here the benefit of the doubt-but definitely to prevent a filibuster. Members have talked about closure. Well, the members of the opposition have been given an opportunity to show that they were serious. Let us remember that, in my speech on the budget, I urged Conservative members to be consistent, to show a little logic. Well, I make the same request today. The right hon. Prime Minister has just asked, in a democratic way, in this house, to give more time to the opposition to state its case against the bill now under consideration.
Now, these very people who, in this parliament, are the official representatives of inconsistency refuse the additional time that we are ready to allow them by sitting tonight and all day Saturday. All I ask the members of the opposition is to be a little more consistent. Instead of claiming in season and out of season that democracy is threatened-
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It is true.


Hector Dupuis: We are making a democratic offer and the very people who claim that the rights of parliament are being scuttled do not want to sit here when they are offered the chance to do so.
They keep clamouring that this pipe line will be of no profit except to American financiers. There is none so deaf as those who don't want to hear. How many times has the minister of Trade and Commerce repeated in this house that 51 per cent of the equity capital of the company will be offered on the Canadian market? That is, to my mind, a sound assurance.
Secondly, this gas pipe line-as has been so often said in this house-will be built entirely on Canadian territory. It is certainly not a sellout of one of our natural resources, as when the premier of the province of Quebec sells out the ore for one cent a ton for shipment to the United States. We will have a pipe line all across the country, that will be a source of wealth for certain of the provinces, and at the same time of benefit to them all. That is all the difference.
But they say that the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines is an all American concern.
I can look at you; I can look at anybody. There is no standing order under which one may only look at the hon. member for Quebec West.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I don't like to be stared at in this way.


Hector Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, it has been assumed in certain quarters that the main interests, or even all interests in the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines are in American hands-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: 83 per cent.


Hector Dupuis: The Hon. Edouard Asselin, attorney general of the provincial government of Quebec is a director of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. Is he an American? Indeed, I have just been told that Mr. Asselin was a director of Trans-Canada. Is the Hon. Edouard Asselin, attorney general and the right hand of the Hon. Maurice Duplessis, premier of Quebec, and a director of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines corporation, a Canadian or an American?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: He is not attorney general.


Hector Dupuis: I don't know just what position he holds. Is he attorney general?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Nor that, either.
4480	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Hector Dupuis: Nobody knows what their responsibilities are in the National Union cabinet. At one time, they are here and, at another time, they are there. At all events, he is close to the premier of the province, he is his right hand man, he gives him advice, most of the time, when a decision has to be taken. I am being reminded that Mr. Asselin is a member of the legislative council. It may be that the hon. member for Quebec West never forgets anything, but I do admit that I am not infallible, and I correct the mistakes I make.
Therefore, Mr. Asselin-
(Text):


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Hector Dupuis: Am I through?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. gentleman's time has not expired, but even though this debate has been extraordinarily general, if I may say so, the pipe line seems to have extended from Vancouver island to the far end of Newfoundland and I do believe that the hon. member who now has the floor is discussing matters which it would be extremely difficult to connect not only with clause 4 but with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines or Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. I would ask the hon. member in the time which he has left to come back just a little closer to the bill.


Hector Dupuis: I am sorry, and I really mean it, that you do not understand French. Hon. members on the other side have said that this is being done with all United States capital and by all United States interests. I am simply trying to prove that Edouard Asselin, who is the right-hand man of Hon. Maurice Duplessis, premier of the province of Quebec, is one of the directors of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. He is not an American, he is a Canadian. That is all I was trying to prove.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Oh, oh.


Hector Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, are you taking account of all this nonsense that is being said and allowing me time?
(Translation):
So, Mr. Chairman, we do not fear going to the people on this matter. However I am wondering, as was the other day a Social Credit member from Alberta, what our Progressive Conservative friends would do if the right hon. Prime Minister decided to call an election. They would surely be very downhearted and in despair; they would become so pale as to look quite like white sepulchres, as they are.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: We would come to power faster than is expected.


Hector Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I speak loud, but I keep calm and I am in a particularly good humour. We must, as I say, revert to logic.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: True you had wandered far from it.


Hector Dupuis: Are the opposition members sincere? Are they? Do they or do they not wish merely to have time to discuss this matter? Then, as pointed out a while ago by the leader of the Social Credit party, here is excellent opportunity to prove it. In a democratic gesture the Prime Minister tells the opposition: "You complain of not having enough time to discuss this question. We will give you the opportunity to debate it further, though you have spent your time interrupting the work which could otherwise have been done. We offer you the opportunity of further debate, by way of three extra sittings. We offer you the opportunity to make your point." But what, the opposition refuses this democratic offer.
How do they expect the people to believe them when they will say that we have gagged them, while we have followed the course of wisdom in adopting the bill within a prescribed time.
Mr. Chairman, before concluding my remarks, and in case there is a misunderstanding as to the closure rule to which my hon. friend from Quebec West referred a moment ago, I would like to state-
(Text):
An hon. member tells me that I have three minutes left. I believe I have six minutes, but I will leave that to the chairman to decide.
(Translation):
The hon. member for Quebec West cried out that, contrary to all democratic principles, we are refusing them the freedom of speech we cherish and which has been conquered by our forefathers and our great Canadian heroes who have died on the battlefields. We have used the right conferred upon us by the rules, which were imposed and referred to by the Conservative party. Well, we are using it to good purpose, and the difference between the decisions of the Speaker and the lack of freedom of speech in the Quebec parliament, and what is happening in this federal parliament, is that here it is not the prime minister who rules on points of order, but the Speaker himself, whose authority is adequate to maintain order and1 who, in support of his rulings, brings in recognized authorities on parliamentary procedure.

Moreover, if he happens to make a mistake, which is very seldom, he immediately corrects his error. That is why I wonder what would have happened to the Speaker of the legislature of Quebec if, like the Speaker of this house, he had made a decision not approved by the prime minister. What would have happened to the chairman of the legislature if he had called the prime minister of the province to order? That is the difference between the application of the closure rule which is in force in the federal parliament and the prevention of the freedom of speech in the parliament of Quebec.
In closing my remarks, may I say this: You want to discuss this matter, you do not want to waste time, then take the opportunity offered you by a democratic prime minister and show that you are not mere jokers.
(Text):


Mr. Siewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee appreciated your suggestion that the debate should come back to an area somewhere between the Saskatchewan border and Quebec. Even though there are elections pending in those extremities, perhaps it would be advisable to stress the matter now before us more than has been the case in some instances. I for one am quite happy to bring it back from the somewhat exotic and extraordinary happenings which take place during an election in Quebec to the equally exotic and extraordinary legislation which is before us.
The Prime Minister, during the course of this debate, has occupied his seat in the house for practically the full time. He has been most assiduous in his attention, and one would have thought he might have acquired during these many hours an appreciation of the feeling of the house, and indeed of this committee.
But unfortunately, if we are to judge from the statement he made today, he has lost touch completely with what is the feeling in this committee. He suggested to us that if we really want to discuss this legislation we should meet tonight and on Saturday.
On the face of it that was an offer which was perhaps reasonable. But what was the reason for it? The government had decided that this legislation had to go through by June 7. Why June 7 was chosen I do not know, but June 7, as far as the government is concerned now, is merely a date which affects its prestige and its pride. I am quite sure that were this legislation not passed until the 8th, 9th, 10th or 15th of June it would not affect the future of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines one iota.
30, 1956	4481
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
We on this side might have listened to the Prime Minister when he suggested that we meet tonight and on Saturday, were it not for the unhappy fact that he bungled his opportunity. Behind his offer he had a threat. In one instance he asks us to bail his government out of the mistakes and bungling they have committed, and then he threatens us with closure if we do not assist them.
We are not prepared to negotiate with a club hanging over our heads, because we are not the sort of docile group which the Prime Minister has been in the habit of leading. We are not prepared to yield to threats. What my leader said today holds good. If we can stop this legislation in any way whatsoever within the rules of the house we intend to do so, and every time an error such as was made by the Prime Minister today is perpetrated again it will be of further assistance to us.
When I last spoke in this debate I dealt with other errors. I dealt not only with errors but with misstatements of fact, with broken promises and, indeed, with the lies of those who had been the sponsors of this pipe line and who made these misstatements and these lies to a committee of this house and to the board of transport commissioners. At the conclusion of my talk I was dealing with the financial situation of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, and that is what I want to deal with now.
Before I go further, let me point out that there is not too much validity in the objections of the government to our statements that there is a subsidy involved in this. There is no subsidy in the loan to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, but there is a partial subsidy to this foreign-owned corporation. We realize that the creature of this government, the industrial development bank, lends money to Canadian industrialists only at 6 per cent, yet the government are prepared to lend money to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines at 3i per cent in one area and 5 per cent in another. It has been remarked on other occasions in this house that they are prepared to charge 5J per cent to anybody who wants to build a home under the National Housing Act, but this company is being given money at 3J per cent or 5 per cent. Were Trans-Canada to borrow money on the market it could not possibly do so at these rates. The differential, therefore, is the amount of subsidy.
There have been several financial statements presented, some to the board of transport commissioners, and those which I have in my hand to the minister last year. One of the documents is Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited's preliminary financial report dated September 22, 1955, which was produced as
4482	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation an order for return. I want to comment on certain aspects of this proposed company.
First of all let me deal with the proposed capitalization. The total is $376 million, made up of first mortgage and other bonds of some $282 million, subordinated debentures of $47 million and common stock of $47 million. The financing of this corporation is following along completely parallel lines the financing of similar corporations in the United States. The reason for that is very simple. The smaller the amount of equity capital, the greater the profits which can be distributed to the holders of that equity capital. These gas pipe lines in the United States have been notoriously successful financially. Large bond issues have been floated, the bonds have been paid off and those who held the equity stock, the common stock, the risk capital-call it what you will-have made really fantastic profits out of their venture.
There is a rather interesting aspect to this business of common stock. As I have said, it is going to be $47 million, or precisely 12J per cent of what this company calls its proposed capitalization. This is made up of 750,000 shares at $8 a share to the founders. That is a total of $6 million. There are 4,208,800 shares at $10 to the public, but at only $9 to the company, which represents $37,879,200. Then we have a third type of share, and rather an interesting one. The company proposes to float what it calls subordinated debentures, and these debentures are going to cost those who can buy them $53.32. The debentures will cost $50, and attached to each debenture there will be a share of common stock in this company, which will be sold at $3.32. I am sure that there are not many Canadians who will be able to buy subordinated debentures with the privilege of buying shares at $3.32.
Now let us find out from the estimates given by the company just what sort of financial return is going to accrue to those who will invest their money in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. At the back of this document there is a series of exhibits or schedules, and they are worth some examination. The first schedule I want to examine is that which projects income on the basis of sales of 183 billion cubic feet a year, which amounts to approximately 500 million cubic feet a day. We know that as of now Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has contracts for 340 million cubic feet per day: 200 million cubic feet south of the border and, on the minister's word which I accept, 140 million cubic feet already in Canada. If the need for gas in eastern Canada is as great as it is said to be, and I believe it to be so, then within a very few years, perhaps a matter of months, this discrepancy between


140 million cubic feet and the 300 million cubic feet which would be necessary to bring the total flow up to 500 million cubic feet a day will disappear. Within a matter of a year or so, I submit, this company will be carrying 500 million cubic feet a day, which is the equivalent of 183 billion cubic feet a year.
On that basis we have a projected financial statement. In 1960, on the basis of 183 billion cubic feet, the company expects to pay to the ordinary shareholders who invested $10 each, 5 per cent per annum, and to the founder shareholders 6 plus something per cent per annum, and to the preferred shareholders who bought their shares at $3.32 about 15 per cent per annum.
One would think that for a public utility that was an adequate and fair return. There is nothing at all wrong with this projection from the point of view of the safety of the whole proposition. After all, Trans-Canada will be a monopoly, and if it goes through it is going to be extraordinarily profitable-but even much more profitable than this projection would suggest, because there is still another projection, this time on the basis of 235 billion cubic feet a year. That would mean that approximately some 650 million cubic feet per day would be flowing through the pipe. We will have a pipe line in western Canada which can carry at least 720 million cubic feet.
Two hundred million cubic feet will disappear at Emerson. The other five hundred million will be used to service Canada. It might well be within the bounds of possibility, if the need is as great as we are told it is, that the sales of this company will be close to 235 billion cubic feet within a very short number of years. But in that case what happens to the profit and loss situation of this corporation on the company's own projection of income?
By 1962 they anticipate that the government will have been paid back and that after all depreciation has been charged, after all bond interest has been paid and after income tax has been paid, the sum of almost $10 million will be available to those who have invested their money in equity capital in this company. Those who were responsible for this projection suggest that the dividends in these years would be in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent to the person who paid $10 a share; almost 20 per cent to the founders; and to those inordinately fortunate people who bought the shares at $3.32 the dividend would be equivalent to 45 per cent.
Are we entitled to think those figures are correct? On the say-so of the Minister of Finance the other night I think we can accept them, because the minister was very optimis-

tic about the future of this company. As reported at page 4141 of Hansard he said in part:
Bless your soul, if this project gets going we will have enough money for all the things you have asked for.
He was dealing with the amount of revenue which the government would derive from taxation. When this undoubted exaggeration was checked up he said this:
I shall enter my little caveat to say I was quite right; literally, we would have enough money for all the projects . . .
He was referring to all the projects which he had in mind at that particular time. Therefore the Minister of Finance thinks this is going to be an extraordinarily profitable operation. The only people who do not think it is going to be extraordinarily profitable are those who are behind it; those who have the capacity to put up the money but who refuse to do it; those who come to this house and to this government and, as indigent millionaires, ask the taxpayers of Canada to lend money to Trans-Canada which is going to be in a position to pay an average of almost 20 per cent on its share capital.
What is the catch in it? Where is the catch? One would think there must be something very wrong. There is not much catch. The answer is that these foreign corporations are playing Canadians for suckers. They are taking the government for a ride, and the government is trying to pass that ride on to the Canadian people.
Let us consider the assets of just two of the companies which are financially interested in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. They own almost one-third of the shares in that corporation. I am not dealing now with actual Canadian creatures. I am dealing with the parent corporations in the United States, one of the parent corporations being Gulf Oil and the other being Continental. The total assets of these two companies combined, according to the last figures I have-and they are two years out of date-are almost $24 billion. The earned surplus of Gulf Oil two years ago was $658 million alone. The earned surplus of Continental was $204 million. Here we have a total earned surplus of two of the companies which own one-third of the shares in Trans-Canada of $862 million. Yet they cannot find $80 million with which to finance even the western leg of this pipe line.
What about their cash and securities? Gulf Oil had $379 million in cash and securities; Continental had $70 million in cash and securities. That is a total of $449 million which could be almost instantaneously translated into cash. Yet they cannot find $80 million with which to finance the western leg
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of this company in which they have a 33 per cent interest. There is something more than rotten in the state of Denmark.
We are told that Canadians cannot finance this venture. I doubt whether Canadians have been given much opportunity to finance this venture, but willy-nilly Canadians are going to finance it; because the government have said, "We are prepared to put up the capital and we are prepared to subsidize this company from the point of view of interest".
Many arguments have been raised by the other side about national ownership, and the position of the government is legitimate from their point of view. We regard ours to be equally legitimate from our point of view. But we have been told that it will be difficult to secure permits for the export of this gas from Alberta.
Let us consider the situation. We have seen the Social Credit party weeping tears about the trillions of cubic feet of gas which are in Alberta just waiting to be sold. From what Mr. Manning has said and from what the hon. member for Peace River has said are we to infer that Alberta is not willing to sell gas to a nationally-owned pipe line? Is that the position that Social Crediters take? If it is, obviously Canadians may be Social Crediters but Social Crediters are not always Canadians. It would be quite close to treachery not only with respect to the interests of the province but with respect to those of the people of Canada as a whole to deny the sale of gas to a pipe line merely because it was publicly-owned. It would be an act so infamous that I do not think the premier of Alberta would dare to do it. Yet we have the hon. member for Peace River implying that such may be the case here.
He has done some odd things in recent weeks. I remember not long ago he told everybody who would listen to him that there was no connection whatsoever between his party and the union des electeurs in Quebec. Yet when the union des electeurs enters into an alliance with the Liberal party the hon. member for Peace River reads the riot act and condemns them for wrongful doing. What difference is there between what the union des electeurs is doing in Quebec and what the "socred" sycophants are doing in their support of the government here? They are bedded down with the Liberals in Ottawa just as they are bedded down in Quebec.


Mr. Hahn:: Did you quote the hon. member for Peace River?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I have quoted the hon. member for Peace River. I told you what he said.


Frederick George Hahn: What page?
4484	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Alistair McLeod Stewart: There is another aspect of this matter. We were told last year that Gulf Oil-this United States owned, this United States dominated company, would not sell gas to a government-owned pipe line. I should like to know just how much truth there is in this statement. I should like to know in what way the government has genuflected toward this corporation and accepted their word for it. If the government wanted to go ahead and get the gas there is no question in my mind that they would be able to do so, despite the denial of these Americans of the sale of gas to a government-owned pipe line.
We have been told it would be difficult to get a permit from the board of transport commissioners, and that sort of argument is really reducing absurdity to the nth degree. The board of transport commissioners is another creature of this government. All that need be done would be for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to send one of his men down to the chairman and tell him to call a meeting of the board and approve the permit, and it would be passed.
There is another argument which has been advanced. We have been told that only Trans-Canada has the pipe. It is true that Trans-Canada has an option on the pipe. We are told that no other company can get this peculiar size, 34-inch pipe. But if Trans-Canada has an option on that pipe, I suggest that if the government are interested in public ownership-and unfortunately they are not interested-all they have to do is take over Trans-Canada Pipe Lines in the same way Eldorado was taken over during the war; buy out the shareholders, and then we have the pipe. The pipe is available to build that system under public ownership. There can be no question about that. The pipe may not be available to private entrepreneurs who wish to build their own pipe line, but to say the pipe is not available as an argument against public ownership is merely arguing against the facts of the situation.
We were told by the minister that a pipe line which was nationally owned would be difficult to operate, that there would be conflict between the producers and the consumers. Yet if the government were to take over Trans-Canada Pipe Lines it would take over its present contracts. This company has contracts with producers starting at 14 cents per thousand cubic feet and working up gradually by a quarter of a cent every few years. The contracts are already there. There might be some difficulty with contracts at the other end, with the distributors, but we also know there are already about 140 million cubic feet per day in contracts. We also know that demand in this province of Ontario is very


great. I cannot see any great difficulty in finding other distributors who would be only too happy to sell that gas and pay for it. There would be no question about the price, because the price to the producer has already been settled. The only duty would be to see that the price to the consumer was not too inflated so that the majority of people would get the benefit of the gas. This could be done to some extent, in fact appreciably, through government ownership.
Then there is another aspect which has not been brought up in this house, and that is the inflationary nature of this legislation. We are told that we are in an inflationary period. The government has become somewhat alarmed about it and so, through the Bank of Canada, interest rates have been increased. The chartered banks' reserves have been cut down so that they, in turn, have reduced their loans to even the most legitimate borrowers on the Canadian scene. I have had case after case of house builders coming to me and saying, "I cannot get a loan from the bank, and I am finding it even more difficult to get loans from insurance companies to finance the housing which is needed in this country."
There is an inflationary spiral it is true, possibly to some extent under control. Does one imagine for a moment, if we accept the word of the Minister of Finance that the creation of this pipe line will lead to a capital expenditure of a billion dollars, that this will not add appreciably to the inflationary spiral in this country? Yet we have newspapers like the Winnipeg Free Press, whose economics are still somewhere in the dark ages, arguing that it may be inflationary in eastern Canada but it could not possibly be inflationary in the west. It is a fatuous argument to use in a closed economy. As a matter of fact, the income of farmers in the west may be much lower than it has been in other years, but the cost of those things which they have to buy is still as inflated as ever.
There have been arguments put up in favour of this proposition and we have answered them. We are prepared to continue to answer them, but we would like to hear some of the arguments against what we have to say. Instead of that we are faced with this legislation which is completely riddled with anomalies and that, of course, is the end result of a government which is confounded by its own confusion.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, in taking part in this debate I may say I was somewhat surprised, not at the attitude taken by the leader of the official opposition or the C.C.F. in so flatly turning down the Prime Minister's proposal, but that the Prime Minister had not seen the depths to which these great Canadians on this side of the house would sink

in order to deliberately do away with an enterprise that could be to the general advantage of Canada.
In so far as this matter of completely sabotaging the pipe line is concerned, as was proposed by the leader of the C.C.F., I say that he definitely was opposed to any plan which would make it possible to bring the parties together as suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I suppose this was understandable because the C.C.F. are such strong adherents to the socialistic principle of nationalization of everything they can get their hands on.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North who just spoke attributed, in typical C.C.F. style, certain statements to Premier Manning. They were to the effect that Premier Manning would not make gas available to the people of this country if the pipe line were nationalized. I know of no instance in which the premier indicated such an attitude. When I interjected and asked the hon. member to let us have the reference he failed, quite deliberately again to tell us exactly what the reference was, but in typical C.C.F. fashion he did make statements and reiterated them time and again in regular Hitlerian fashion, hoping the people of this country would believe him and the C.C.F. It is the typical smear method.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in reference to the alliance between the Social Credit group in Quebec or the union of electors, with whom we do not associate ourselves, and the Liberals, there is a great deal of difference between two political parties aligning themselves for election purposes and a political party or group supporting a bill in which they have full confidence and which they feel the people of the country actually want.
I have frequently heard the phrase used in this house that an argument has degenerated into a debate. I believe I am right in saying that this particular debate has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers as well have indicated that there is urgency in passing this legislation if the proposal is to become a reality. These realists in the opposition who oppose the bill have indicated they do not believe there is any urgency. They can see no value to it.
On the other hand, provincially speaking, the premier of Ontario, the premier of Manitoba and the premier of Alberta have indicated that they feel there is urgency in having this legislation passed. They feel that natural gas would be a great asset to every province through which that line would be built. Until today apparently the premier
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of Saskatchewan has been silent. I noticed with particular interest that one of the most vocal C.C.F. members, who from time to time has suggested to the members that this thing was going to be filibustered to the greatest extent possible and that we had seen nothing in so far as the defence production bill was concerned, has failed to say anything in this debate. I am referring to the hon. member for Assiniboia. I am wondering now whether the fact that he happens to represent the same area federally that the premier of Saskatchewan represents provincially is an ominous factor in that respect. Possibly the premier has suggested that they want the pipe line but you boys go ahead and fight it on a public ownership basis; the big majority which the Liberals have will put it through anyhow.
The hon. members for Spadina and Peel indicated in their speeches that they know nothing about natural gas. Some of the things they said certainly indicated they have never used it, have never seen how it was run in production and have very little knowledge of what it can do. While I can appreciate that some of the questions were being asked by reason of the fact this is a new substance so far as they are concerned, I could not help but feel that they were talking through a gas line most of the time. They were groping in the dark so far as that matter was concerned.
A suggestion has been made from time to time that this should be a Canadian investment. The Conservatives particularly, and the C.C.F., have said that Canada should build this line. They have said, "We want it for Canadians and Canadians alone." No party in this house is more desirous of seeing every Canadian have the privilege of using natural gas than the group in this corner, for many of us have experienced in our time the joys of having natural gas in our area. I am looking forward to the day when the Westcoast Transmission line will be built through my own district so that I too will enjoy that privilege once again.
I am going to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Spadina of yesterday, which is to be found at pages 4448 and 4449 of Hansard. He had this to say with respect to investments:
I have been In the mortgage business for a long time, and I can tell you that the deal before us right now is one with respect to which I can easily understand why these people do not want to put their money in it. No one knows anything at all, and yet the government want us, the people of Canada, to put money into a thing like this. I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole.
Now, Mr. Chairman, here we have an honourable Canadian who says he would not
4486	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation touch this thing with a 10-foot pole. On the one hand he clamours and clamours for Canadians to invest, or to have the privilege of investing, in a pipe line in Canada. On the other hand he says we have not the money in this country for it. Let us have investment. That is the picture. Let us invest. What for? For political purposes only.
That is all we have had from this side of the house in opposition to this bill. The great Conservative party, or the once great Conservative party-probably I should modify it -stands up in this house day after day and for political purposes states that it is for Canadians. They say, "We want this for Canadians and for Canadians only." They have the chance to invest up to 51 per cent, and it has been said up to 60 per cent, in this line; yet those who have the money are not willing to come forward and invest a 10-eent piece in it. They, the great emancipators of the Canadian way of life, the great parliamentarians, deliberately went out of their way time and time again to try to get kicked out of the house for defying the chairman.
There is no man who enjoys freedom and who wishes for it more than I do, but at the same time I feel there is a time and a place for everything. At the beginning of the discussion of this bill we opposed closure, and we would do it again under similar circumstances. Along with the opposition we would oppose the invoking of closure if they had continued to devote their time to discussing this particular bill. Oh, no; we spent two full days discussing nothing but procedure.
I am satisfied that it is up to the opposition to protect our rights. I am also satisfied that I must make up my mind on one of two things. We want this bill for the people of the country. Possibly we can show our good faith by not supporting closure, as we did at the beginning. Perhaps we should give the government the opportunity to bring in this legislation and discusss the merits of the bill, and then go back to the people and let them know what an arrogant government we have and that they should reduce the majority or eliminate it altogether. Certainly we should not use the method that has been used here day after day, particularly after the Prime Minister has been good enough to suggest that those of us who are prepared to support the bill are willing to sit here Wednesday night and all day Saturday.
It will be noticed that none of the Social Crediters spoke yesterday. Why? Because we wanted to give the opposition a chance to talk about the bill. What did they do? They talked about closure and procedure for most of the time. In so far as we are concerned


the matter now rests on this base. The opposition do not want the natural gas line built. We have heard time and time again foolish utterances from children on this side who say, "Oh, this pipe-line bill could wait a couple of years; it does not mean very much to the people of Canada."
Well, let me read to them-perhaps they are not listening and will not be able to understand if one does read-the report of the royal commission on the metropolitan development of Calgary and Edmonton. Their findings are found in chapter 10 at pages 14 and 15. I do not intend to devote the whole of my time to reading this report, but I think it is important that they understand that this report is based on the development of the oil industry in the province of Alberta. It tells us something about what its effect might be upon the rest of the people of this country. Section 7 says in part, in dealing with resource development and urban growth:
What is forgotten however, is that every great development of natural resources causes the cities and towns to grow much more than the farming, forest, and mining frontiers which are being developed.
There we have the matter of indirect growth. I am satisfied that those areas in which farm implements are manufactured realize there would not be any farm implement industry if there were no agricultural west. Reading on we find that the same thing is going to apply and does apply in the oil industry. I continue:
In the post-war oil and construction boom in Alberta too, the bulk of the population increase so generated has been elsewhere, especially in the United States and eastern Canada.
The province of Alberta has not enjoyed the great increase in population, although it has enjoyed some of it. Its effect has been elsewhere, especially in the United States and in eastern Canada. Do not let anyone here tell us that the oil industry does not affect the rest of Canada, and particularly the eastern part of Canada.
In the last paragraph on page 15 we read this:
Again, out of the oil investment in 1952 in the province, of some $360 million (excluding payments to the government) only some $44 million appears to have been spent directly within the province.
Where do you suppose the rest of it was spent, in Timbuktu or in some place like that? It was spent right here in the eastern part of Canada and in the United States. Let us not be so childish in our attitude toward this thing. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway suggested that they were challenged, and I am satisfied he did so in good faith. He came back to this house and tried

to talk us into some sense of sane reasonableness instead of childish bickering over procedure. At this time we have a job to do in this country, and I am saying it should be done and it must be done now, not 40 years from now after the atomic age has come into effect, at a time when Alberta sits, as it does, on one-seventh of the world's coal and still has a 50-year supply of gas in the ground.
I say the opposition are holding up this bill for political purposes. From time to time they have read political extracts from great newspapers across this country. I find that a newspaper editorial is the opinion of one man only, and I am going to read the opinion of another editor. It is true he comes from the province of Alberta; he publishes his newspaper there. Fortunately-I almost said "unfortunately"- both in British Columbia and in Alberta we have been blessed with not having the newspapermen support the Social Credit party, so no one can accuse me of reading a Social Credit version of this thing. This comes from the Camrose Canadian. and is dated May 23, 1956. It deals specifically with this problem. The editor of a small paper said this. He is just a small home-town man and knows the views of every householder in his area. The editorial reads in part:
We do not profess to know the whole story, but we do know that if Alberta gas is to be transported to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec without the tragic delay of some three or four years, the federal government must come to the rescue. While nominally conservative in our political thinking, we cannot subscribe to opposition leader Drew's opposition to the legislation.


Mr. Ellis:: You took time to find it.


Frederick George Hahn: No, I did not. It was sent to me. The hon. member quoted the Regina Leader-Post the other night, and read an editorial about Saskatchewan socialism and its gas policy and compared the price of 90 cents paid in Rosetown-Biggar for natural gas. Ask the people of Maple Creek about their natural gas situation.
You, the hon. member for Regina City, do not have to tell me anything about Saskatchewan. I lived there for a few years, and I know the gas situation there as well as in Alberta, and that is a great deal more than I can say for you because you are going to enjoy it for the first time while I enjoyed it for many years past.
I read again:
While nominally conservative in our political thinking, we cannot subscribe to opposition leader Drew's opposition to the legislation. We think it is well for the opposition to stand out for all the facts and figures to be laid upon the table for all parties to investigate,-
That is the reason we are in committee. I think that is the reason the Prime Minister
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation today suggested we should have four days left as a committee to discuss this bill, but that has been turned down.


An hon. Member:: There is no chance to discuss the first three clauses.


Frederick George Hahn: No, not so long as we continue in this ridiculous fashion and will not permit the whips of the parties to meet and come to some determinate action so we can get in and ask questions about this thing, instead of continuing in this foolish fashion.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You voted to postpone the clauses.


Frederick George Hahn: Not at all. I continue:
-but to obstruct the progress of the legislation for apparently political reasons alone, we cannot endorse at all. If it were practical at the moment, we think the C.C.F. approach is preferable to that of the Conservatives.
Here is a Conservative who feels that the C.C.F. approach would be more practical than is the present approach of the Conservatives. I can understand the editor's feeling in that respect, as I am sure any truly honest Conservative in this house today can. What is their policy? They endorse the McMahon proposal which will take 400 million cubic feet of gas into the United States instead of 200 million.
I am told that the hon. member for Broadway-or rather Broadview, although possibly he comes from Broadway-says that his party endorses the McMahon proposal. The hon. member for Prince Albert early in the debate said they wanted this gas for Canadians but their endorsation is to send 400 million cubic feet of gas to the United States and to retain 100 million cubic feet for Canadians. That was the McMahon proposal, as I understood it.
Continuing with this editorial:
The main thing to be considered is to get a Canadian fuel to the doors of millions of Canadian consumers. Alberta has the natural gas in sufficient quantities to last for fifty to sixty years, even if no further fields were tapped than are now known. By that time scientists will have solved the problem of converting Alberta's abundance of coal into gases that can be transported by pipe line.


Mr. MacDougall:: Attaboy.


Frederick George Hahn: It has been suggested from time to time, Mr. Chairman, that the matter of getting the pipe line built is not important and that we can wait for two or three years. Why not wait for 40 years? We did with the shipment of Albert coal out here, with the result that they still have it in that province.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You waited five years for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.


Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):: Down, Wimpy.


John Lorne MacDougall: Quiet, Wimpy.
4488	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Frederick George Hahn: We have waited for a beginning on this line, I am not denying that. I am pleased that you brought it up. I believe the government is largely responsible for that delay and I would support you in that, but 1 will not support you in the tactics you are using today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member addressing the Chair?


Frederick George Hahn: I beg your pardon, sir?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member addressing the Chair? Is the Chair responsible?


An hon. Member:: Enough of your childish technicalities, Stanley.


Frederick George Hahn: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. I have been brought to order again by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who no doubt looks forward to sitting in your place some day. It has now been pointed out to me that the hon. member has been appointed as assistant to the chairman. I am told that this is his new vocation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier I am interested in finding out exactly what the Conservatives do support. Do they support the McMahon proposal? It is a very simple matter to come into this house and be critical but let us have something else to offer in place of it.
I hear that the Conservatives want natural gas in this area but apparently they do not want it very quickly. Here again I wonder quite seriously if we are not beginning to feel the effect of the United States coal lobby and the United States gas lobby in this house in delaying this bill at this time. It is quite possible in view of the particular methods that are being used, Mr. Chairman. The United States coal and gas industry is willing and prepared, as I understand it is doing in the United States today, to stop natural gas from this country going into the United States. They want this very lucrative market that we have in this area as well. They want to keep it for their own. Certainly the expenditure of a few more millions would not stop them, I would say.
Coming back to our Tory friends, I would like to pose this question: Where will another pipe-line company get the necessary pipe? Hon. members of that group have tried in their own way to answer that question. Another question I would like to ask is: Where will this man McMahon, or anyone else, get gas? You have to have contracts for these things. Surely it is for sale and there is no denying that, and I would not doubt that McMahon or anyone else who is prepared to build the line could eventually obtain contracts, but it takes time and you just do not


draw up contracts overnight. As far as the people in the province of Alberta are concerned, time is of major importance. This is also important to the rest of Canada, because this is an urgent problem today.
Has any other company purchased a right of way to build the gas pipe line? Where have these honoured gentlemen been for the past five years, three years or even two years? How is it that they come in at the last moment each of them saying, "We have a new plan. This is the thing. Take this. This will keep everything in Canada". No, Mr. Chairman, I cannot go along with that kind of reasoning.


An hon. Member:: Trans-Canada was not asking for a handout two or three years ago.


Frederick George Hahn: As I began to say earlier, this is not a question of natural gas alone. This important project also involves by-products, propane, butane and sulphur. I feel that my own province will benefit very directly from the fact that sufficient sulphur will come from this particular project to supply the whole of this country with all its sulphur needs. We speak about saving Canada for Canadians. Here we have an industry which will be built up. We will have rubber plants-


An hon. Member:: And rubber money.


Frederick George Hahn: I regret that I did not hear what the hon. member had to say. With the passing of the present bill petrochemical plants will be set up on the prairies and in Ontario and there will be an increase in population. All these things should be taken into consideration when we are considering postponing the construction of this line for two years. By building this line today we are going to create in Canada at least 20 new industries, and our economy requires these secondary industries.
I forget the exact figure used by the minister the other day in discussing our imports. I believe four million tons of coal per year was the figure used. A bit of computation will show that that works out to about 109,500 million cubic feet of gas on the basis of b.t.u's. One ton of coal is equal to 27,375 cubic feet of gas, and if the price of coal is $28 per ton in this province a bit of simple arithmetic will show that the consumer could be charged $1 per thousand cubic feet for natural gas and still be saving money. That in itself is an important factor. The price quoted is much below that and will be much below that.
In closing may I suggest that if hon. members will just take time to think this thing out reasonably we will all be cooking with gas.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, the first thing I should like to bring to your attention today

is the rather unusual and desperate tactics which have been used by our friends of the Social Credit party. Apparently they have been selected by the government to be the hatchet men for the Liberal party. Some of the tactics used and some of the expressions and terms we have heard from them directed toward members of the other opposition parties make Senator McCarthy seem like a babe in arms. This business of guilt by association, which the hon. member for Macleod dealt with yesterday, is based on the simple logic that if Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev like bacon and eggs for breakfast, then if you like bacon and eggs for breakfast you are a communist. That is exactly the logic used by the hon. member for Macleod.
Apparently some hon. members of the Social Credit party, particularly the last speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster, seem to think that parliamentary procedure is of no importance, that the important thing is getting things done. That indicates the respect for parliamentary institutions which the members of that party have. It almost reminds me of some of the neo-fascist parties that spring up in other countries from time to time.
The discussion of Bill No. 298 has two aspects. First of all there are the merits of the bill, and second there are the shocking methods used by the government to force this bill through parliament, both this house and from what we heard this morning the other place as well. We all want a pipe line, let no one misunderstand that, but we do not want it under the present conditions. We do not want this pipe line built with the money the Canadian people are being asked to put up to enable United States financiers to make enormous profits. If they want to put up their own money to build it, as they said they would in the first place, let them do it. They have broken their promises and the government is now trying to bail them out.
Bill No. 298 is being rushed through on the pretence that there is great haste required to build this line, but the end certainly does not justify the means being used in this case, particularly when that need for haste as an excuse is supported only by Social Credit members for vague and invalid reasons.
With regard to the bill itself, I do not intend to repeat some of the things that have been said by hon. members. This party and the C.C.F. party have been accused of repetition and I am not going to make any repetitious remarks. One of the principal shareholders in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has been aptly described by a United States magazine as a "wheeler-dealer" from Texas. Mr. Clint
30, 1956	4489
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Murchison's connections with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines have been well described. The various aspects of his connections have been well described by other hon. members and I do not intend to repeat them.
However, I think it might be of interest to hon. members to find out just what happens when Mr. Murchison gets control of a public utility. I have before me a copy of the Indianapolis News of April 6, 1956. Apparently Mr. Murchison controls the Indianapolis Water Company, a public untility which presumably supplies water to the citizens of Indianapolis. I quote from this newspaper as follows:
The Murchisons of Dallas, Texas, have sold 25 per cent of their common stock holdings in the Indianapolis Water Company at a profit which may be close to $1 million.
Sale was made "about April 1", according to James H. Clark, Dallas, a major stockholder and an executive assistant to the Murchisons.
Clark refused to disclose the sale price, but the stock has been quoted at about $39 a share. John D. Murchison and Clint Murchison Jr., who made the sale, bought the stock in 1952 when it was quoted at $18.
The shares sold, which went to unidentified Indianapolis investors, were "about 25 per cent of the stock" held by the two Murchisons, Clark said.
Then the article goes on further to deal with the control of this utility by saying:
Clark told the News, in response to a question whether the Murchisons still owned "working control" of the company:
"That's a fair statement (that the Murchisons do have working control). When it comes to the orthodox things, we do have working control. But if we tried to do something silly, we wouldn't have."
I have been told that the reason the shares of this water company in Indianapolis rose in value was that the rates were increased when Mr. Murchison got control, which forced up the price of the stock because it then became a more lucrative investment. I know perfectly well that hon. members opposite will say that the board of transport commissioners would control the rates charged by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. We have heard that before and it is quite true; but the fact is that this government has done everything it could to assist Trans-Canada Pipe Lines during these last few years. I do not think there is much doubt that if some time in the future Trans-Canada Pipe Lines were operating this pipe line and wanted the rates increased and could advance any kind of argument, the board of transport commissioners would undoubtedly permit the rates to be raised.
Many methods have been used by this government to force this legislation through parliament. Since this debate started we have had various types of closure applied. The first closure was applied before the discussion had
4490	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation even started, which was a most unique and significant happening in Canadian parliamentary history. We are now in the committee stage and are faced with the fact that clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the bill cannot be discussed. As hon. members know, if the first clause of a bill is foreclosed, to coin a phrase which has been used several times, it simply means that the questions you would like to ask in respect to financing cannot be asked.
Now we are getting around to a different type of closure which was proposed today by the Prime Minister. It really is not a different type of closure; it is the same old thing, but it has a rather shocking corollary.
I wonder if anyone really believes that the date of June 7 set out in the agreement between the government and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was not put in at the instigation of the government. As hon. members know, the agreement provides that if the money is not voted by parliament by that date Trans-Canada Pipe Lines is not obligated to finish the job by the end of this year. Does the government really believe this is an excuse for the haste it is harping on at this time? No, not at all. This was merely an excuse by the government to use the device of closure in a new and vicious form so that debate on this bill could be cut down, and so an excuse could be found to prevent the reference of Bill No. 298 to a proper committee where all the devious and mysterious goings-on and activities behind this bill with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines could be brought to light.
Only before such a committee as that would hon. members of this house be able to find out the answers to a great many questions. For instance, we heard the hon. member for Middlesex East, my colleague say that a telegram had been received from a company in Welland saying that by the early part of next year they would be able to make 34-inch pipe, and we heard from the government that nobody could make this pipe except certain companies in the United States and so forth.
That is the kind of thing about which we would like to find out. Very few hon. members, apart from the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Public Works and perhaps one or two others, are engineers. We are told that 34-inch pipe is the size of pipe that is necessary. Perhaps it is. I am not saying it is not; but if we could call witnesses before the committee, if this were referred to a committee, we could find out what would be the optimum size. Maybe some other size would be just as good, or it might be better to use two smaller sized


pipes. It might be more expensive, and again it might not. There are many questions like this to which we should like to know the answers. Unless the bill were referred to a committee, there is no possible way of finding out.
With all respect to the front bench of the government party-and I know quite well, as I have said, that some of them are engineers-nevertheless hon. members could find out the answers to these things if we were to call experts and get the opinion of other experts. I imagine some of these things are not necessarily facts but are very often matters of opinion.
Certain members on the government side have said that the Minister of Trade and Commerce gets things done, and that is why he should be allowed to go ahead with this. I believe the hon. member for Mount Royal in his speech the other night made that reference, and I know it is the attitude of many other hon. members opposite. It is the attitude of the senior member for Halifax and the hon. member for Waterloo North that the important thing is to get things done. That is their opinion, but it is not the opinion of other hon. members.
This excuse of expediency and efficiency all throughout history has cost the lives of democratic governments. If the only excuse were expediency and efficiency, hon. members would be well advised to set up the type of government they have in Russia and formerly had in nazi Germany. Those governments were certainly efficient and expedient but certain other things, which I think hon. members realize, were lost in the process. Throughout history we have had plenty of examples. I have some of them before me. I am not going to waste my time or the time of other hon. members of the house in quoting lengthy examples from history to show how expediency and efficiency have destroyed democratic governments in the past, but I should like to make one or two references, and I would point to the example of Athens, Rome and Venice, where they had democratic governments, and to the parallel case in England in the time of Oliver Cromwell.
I see there is a little time left before six o'clock, and I should like to refer to the experience of Athens. There is a remarkable parallel in the way Athens originally lost its democracy to the situation of today. I should like to refer to a book by Basil Hammond called "The Political Institutions of the Ancient Greeks." I shall quote briefly

one paragraph concerning the time when Athens was threatened. It reads as follows:
The part of Alcibiades in the revolution consisted only in giving it a start by raising false expectations of a Persian alliance. His agents went to Athens, and there Pisander, who took the leading part among them, addressing the assembly of the citizens, urged that the only hope of salvation for Athens lay in an alliance with Persia, and declared that that alliance would be made if they would invite Alcibiades to return, abolish their democracy, which was not to the liking of the king of Persia, and set up in its stead an oligarchy which the king could trust. The assembly was grieved at the prospect of losing its democratic constitution, but under the stress of circumstances gave some kind of provisional approval of the proposed change.
That was in ancient Athens. That was the first step they took to lose their democracy. They received a proposition they could not investigate. They were told they had to hurry up to get it through in order to make the alliance, and so they hurried it up without investigating it properly, and that finished off their democratic government.
A little later we had the same situation with the Romans. Again the Romans were compelled time after time to use dictatorial powers of government to expedite matters because it was more efficient. What happened? As all hon. members know, the senate of the people of Rome became so used to the undemocratic processes that it was an easy mark eventually for the dictator, Julius Caesar, to take over.
Hon. members may think such a thing cannot happen here. We may wear different clothes and we may have automobiles and television; the physical things such as that may change, but human nature does not change one iota from one generation to the next. Once the thin edge of the wedge-and in this case it is a not so thin edge of the wedge-is inserted, it is the beginning of the destruction of democratic processes. When expediency and efficiency are the arguments used to destroy the rules of parliament, it is the first long step toward the destruction of democracy itself.
It is six o'clock. May I move the adjournment of the debate?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We shall continue with this tomorrow, sir.
Privilege-Mr. Hanna PRIVILEGE



MR. HANNA  REFERENCE TO REMARKS IN DEBATE THIS DAY

Mr. R. F. L. Hanna (Edmonton-Strathcona):: May I rise on a question of personal privilege. Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F. party, made reference to the unfortunate fact that certain members of this House of Commons have fallen ill in recent days. He followed that up with the accusation that this announcement by him was greeted with laughter from the Liberal benches.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was, too.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: I wish to deny that I laughed at the misfortune of any hon. member who is unfortunately taken ill, nor do I believe that any member on this side of the house did or would laugh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They did.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: My point is that I challenge the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to name the people he accused of laughter at this report. If he cannot name them, I suggest that he withdraw that remark and have it stricken from the record.


Major James William Coldwell: heard the laughter, as everyone else on this side did. I did not pay any particular attention as to the gentlemen, or the men, who were making the noise, but it was largely over in that corner of the house, and I point over there now.


Mr. Claude Richardson (St. Lawrence-St. George):: If I may, on a question of privilege I certainly deny any laughter.


Mr. Bell:: We are narrowing it down,
anyway.


Mr. Speaker:: At this moment we should not take the time of the house to try to identify who has or has not at a certain moment of our proceedings been laughing. Has the leader of the house announced the business?


Walter Edward Harris: I did, sir. I said that this debate would be continued.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
4492
[Stage Direction]
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. Huffman: What has the Department of National Health and Welfare done in the field of scientific research during the past year?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
The scientific research program of the Department of National Health and Welfare for 1955-56 involved a total of $2,500,000. Of this $570,000 was made available for intramural medical research, $205,000 for socioeconomic research in health and welfare, $1,620,000 for grants under the national health program in aid of medical research and $105,000 for cancer research sponsored by the national cancer institute of Canada.



INTRAMURAL PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
The intramural program encompasses those investigations carried on by the various technical and scientific units of the department and in general is aimed at devising new or improved methods of performing the service functions of these units. It refers particularly to detection and assay work, e.g., that associated with the administration of the Food and Drugs Act, and studies of new techniques such as in the control of biological products or the investigation of occupational hazards. Additionally however it may be aimed at gaining new knowledge of public health importance or related to urgent national health problems of a nature not ordinarily undertaken by a single province, university or research institution, concerning which the department may be looked to for leadership and guidance.
Allocations for the intramural research program totalling $570,000 were distributed as follows:	civil aviation medicine division
$2,500; dental health division $18,000; epidemiology division $31,000; food and drug directorate $112,000; laboratory of hygiene $257,000; nutrition division $35,000; occupational health division $114,200.
Throughout the intramural program there is an almost inseparable relationship of research to service function and this makes it difficult to define precisely the proportion of the cost which can properly be designated as research expenditure. In many instances the research is a by-product of the service function. Highlights of the intramural program will illustrate this relationship.
Civil Aviation Medicine
In civil aviation medicine, for example, the principal study involves the practicability of audiometric screening in so far as hearing requirements of airline transport and commercial pilots are concerned. This is aimed at establishing audiometric records to determine hearing deterioration as a result of flight duties and investigating effects of continued exposure to noise in civil aviation pilots. Additionally presently effective standards in hearing are being evaluated. Information obtained from these studies will be used in formulating new standards to be applied in assessing fitness for civil aviation licences.
Dental Health
In the field of dental health, investigations are centred chiefly around water fluoridation and topical fluoride therapy. Continuing studies on the dental effects of water fluoridation, studies on the effectiveness and safety of fluoride compounds and the simplification of techniques of administration of topically applied preventive agents, as well as the effectiveness of such applications, make up the main lines of investigation in this field.
Epidemiology
In the area of epidemiology, an extension of air pollution studies will involve the observation of the effects of air pollutants on a more sensitive population, i.e., persons with cardiac and respiratory disabilities. Continuing studies in infectious diseases will involve the further evaluation of the poliomyelitis vaccination program, as well as the measurement of the protective effect of B.C.G. vaccination against tuberculosis. In addition epidemiologic studies of accidents are being broadened.
Food and Drugs
In the food and drug directorate research projects are conducted in different sections of the laboratory services with the object of providing modern and exact methods of identifying and assaying food and drug products with the highest degree of precision consistent with economy of time, material and effort. Other projects are carried out to provide the directorate with basic knowledge on the action and effects of various constituents on food and drugs for the protection of public health and the prevention of fraud. Numerous basic disciplines are involved in these studies, including pharmacology, physiology, food and organic chemistry, animal pathology and biometrics. These cover a wide variety of individual investigations including toxic residues in foods and beverages, the assay of various drug products and the stability of therapeutic materials.

Laboratory of Hygiene
Research in the laboratory of hygiene embraces a broad range of subjects in the fields of bacteriology, biologies control, clinical chemistry, biochemistry, virology and the zoonoses. Staphylococcal infections, coliform bacteria and the salmonella organisms receive particular attention in the bacteriology laboratory. Assay techniques and immunization studies are prominent in the biologies control section, while serodiagnosis and the treponema pallidum immobilization test are under intensive consideration in the clinical chemistry laboratory. Tissue culture, which is so important in the production of poliomyelitis vaccine, and the cultivation of various types of tissues through the development of synthetic media are the principal interests of the biochemistry section, while in virus research the development of safety and potency tests for vaccines against poliomyelitis and new methods for producing stable viral antigens for diagnostic laboratory procedures head the list of research projects. The zoonoses section concentrates its attention upon animal, tick and insect borne diseases, particularly with respect to incidence, serological tests and disease vectors.
Nutrition
In the nutrition division research involves the evaluation of nutritional status in Canada, health effects of specified foods, increasing the nutritive value of foods served in quantity and the continuation of the project on Canadian average weights and heights. In the preparation of a table of food values, collection of new data is continued in an effort to keep pace with the appearance of new foods offered to consumers. The consideration of chemical additives to foods becomes of increasing importance as food technology develops new products.
Occupational Health
The research activities of the occupational health division are extremely varied relating chiefly to waste products in industry and injurious and toxic materials which may be encountered. Under the radiation services studies in radioactivity and low level radiochemical research form an important segment of the program with the supervision of radioisotopes and the development of the film monitoring service receiving particular attention. This division also provides a consultant service to federal and provincial agencies on air pollution problems.
Research and Statistics
The research and statistics division carries on a program of analysis and evaluation of 67509-2851
Question
basic information on health and welfare matters, with special reference to their social and economic aspects, prepares reports as required and generally acts in an advisory capacity to senior officers of the department.
Research and Statistics
Its work is done in close co-operation with other divisions of the department and close liaison is maintained with organizations in Canada and abroad engaged in work of interest to the department.
The division took an active part in the planning leading to the recent federal-provincial hospital insurance talks and is engaged in planning and carrying out research in such varied fields as health care, rehabilitation of the disabled, disability pensions and child welfare in addition to studies on health and welfare manpower problems, welfare services, income security and the extent of illness in Canada.
In the past the division has taken a prominent part in research leading to the introduction of old age security, old age assistance, disability allowances and the national health program, and in connection with the development of rehabilitation services as well as a variety of other projects with which the department has been concerned.

[Stage Direction]
The extramural research program consists of grants-in-aid of a wide variety of studies in the health field conducted in universities, hospitals and other research institutions from funds provided under the national health program. This began in 1948 with an amount of $100,000 initially in the public health research grant. Each succeeding year this was increased by a like sum up to a maximum of slightly over $500,000 at which level it now stands. Additionally, allocations from other health grants have been made in support of medical research centred generally in the field for which the grant is specifically designated.
During 1955-56 funds devoted to medical research under the national health program grants amounted to almost $1,620,000. The largest single amount was $577,000 under the mental health grant. $505,000 was made available for public health research, $325,000 for research under the general public health grant, $100,000 for tuberculosis control, $70,000 for child and maternal health, and $42,000 under the crippled children's grant.
It is not possible to define clearly individual areas of study because of the general overlapping which occurs and the consequent difficulty in categorizing projects. For example, some studies which may be designated
[Stage Direction]
Question
as primarily biochemical in content may also have a definite relationship to cardiology or to psychiatry.
In broad general categories, however, according to the field of medicine, investigations which could be described as clinical accounted for about 40 per cent of the total funds or some $650,000. In this group those in the fields of cardiology, neurology, geriatrics and internal medicine covered about one-half, while psychiatric and psychological research took up the remainder. Basic studies such as those in biochemistry, pharmacology and therapeutics, pathology and physiology involved more than 23 per cent or $350,000 in allocations and studies in the general field of bacteriology, including virology, B.C.G. and the tubercle bacillus, made up better than 16 per cent of the total or $260,000. Those related to the birth period, infants and children totalled $110,000, while research on administrative aspects, medical economics and epidemiology about equalled that involving the special senses, approximately $50,000.
A re-grouping of these studies according to general fields of interest as related to leading causes of mortality and morbidity, shows that of the total program a little more than one-third of the funds or $548,000 are provided in support of research in mental diseases and related topics with an additional amount of $53,000 being made available for studies in neurology. A total of $184,000 has been allocated for studies in tuberculosis, both clinical and bacteriological, including the preventive aspects with B.C.G. vaccine. Research in diseases of the heart and arteries has been assisted in the amount of $172,000, with an additional $111,000 for the purchase of special equipment for cardiovascular centres in Montreal and Toronto. Virus diseases, including poliomyelitis and influenza studies, received support in the amount of $138,000, research in arthritis and rheumatism -some $94,000, conditions affecting the newborn-$79,000 and obstetrical studies an additional $31,000. In respect to diseases of the eye, a total of $68,000 has been provided for clinical services and research, and $22,000 for similar activities in dentistry. Studies in the field of hypersensitivity have been supported with a total of some $47,000, while investigations in administrative aspects of public health, including nursing and environmental hygiene have been allocated in excess of $40,000.
To indicate more accurately the accomplishments of the reasearch program, it is necessary to examine the individual research studies and to evaluate these in the light of
their achievements in the reduction of mortality and in the alleviation of ill-health and disability.
Mental Health Research
With a total of 46 individual projects, mental health research covered such studies as fundamental laboratory investigations of fractions of the blood and other body fluids which might be accountable for mental illness, comprehensive exploration of a variety of clinical problems, related to mental illness, and field surveys of social situations and the investigations of children relating to hereditary and environmental factors involved in the development of mental disorders. Also included were psychological studies involving behaviour patterns, motivation and other related factors. The study and improvement of apparatus used in the diagnosis of mental illness, special drugs and advanced surgical procedures which have demonstrated benefit in therapy have received intensive study.
In the field of neurology, there were a variety of studies dealing with cellular structure, neurophysiology and biochemical activities in the brain. The metabolism of the brain was given particular attention as was the effect of pharmacologically active substances on this vital tissue.
Heart Research
As the leading cause of mortality, accounting for one-third of all deaths, disease affecting the heart and blood vessels received most intensive attention in terms of research expenditures and the provision of special equipment. Two cardiac centres have been now established in Montreal and in Toronto with assistance under the national health program. The institute of cardiology at Maisonneuve hospital in the short period of its existence has already distinguished itself and is achieving wide recognition for its activities in the treatment of cardiac conditions and for its research effort. Under the able direction of Dr. Paul David and with such prominent surgeons and research workers as Dr. E. D. Gagnon and Dr. Arthur M. Vineberg associated with it, rapid strides are being made in experimental heart surgery, dealing particularly with coronary artery disease, valvular defects and follow-up studies in patients having received the benefit of such treatment. Dr. Jacques Genest who directs the clinical research department at the Hotel-Dieu Hospital is conducting a study which offers great promise in the solution of problems associated with high blood pressure, while at McGill University in addition to Dr. Vineberg, Drs. Ronald Christie and D. R. Webster have combined their efforts and interest's in the development of -a centre for cardiovascular and respiratory research.
* ;>
4495
[Stage Direction]
At the University of Toronto, a similar research and treatment centre has been formed under the eminent leadership of Dr. W. G. Bigelow and, in collaboration with his associates at the several teaching hospitals in Toronto, with Drs. John D. Keith and W. T. Mustard at the hospital for sick children, Dr. G. W. Manning at the University of Western Ontario and other prominent physicians associated with these institutions and Queen's and Ottawa universities a broad program of investigation is going forward in a variety of fields. More particularly coronary artery disease, valvular disorders, hypertension, rheumatic fever and congenital heart afflictions are receiving intensive consideration. Included also is the investigation of apparatus of a highly specialized nature for use in the diagnosis, evaluation and prognosis of cardiovascular disorders. In all, in the province of Ontario, $100,000 annually of national health grant funds are being provided to be combined with funds raised by the Ontario heart foundation for the advancement of research and scientific investigation in this field.
In addition to the cardiac centres already established, interest is becoming aroused in the extension of similar facilities for treatment, training and research, ultimately to provide a country-wide development of strategically located centres to bring the benefits of these new therapeutic techniques to the Canadian people. By providing these facilities, the development of additional young surgeons in this field will be stimulated and further research advances encouraged which will, in turn, contribute progressively to the improvement of treatment procedures.
On January 16, 1956, the Minister of National Health and Welfare convened a meeting of heart specialists and other authorities in Ottawa to consider the problem of heart disease in Canada and to devise means to deal with it. The conference was called at the behest of the Canadian Heart Association and with the full endorsation of the Canadian Medical Association. It was attended by professional and lay representatives of both heart and medical associations, the college of general practice of Canada, the Quebec heart society, the Ontario heart foundation, the B.C. heart foundation, the national research council and the Canadian life insurance officers association, as well as medical specialists prominent in this field. As a direct outcome of the meeting it was decided to proceed with the establishment of a Canadian heart foundation and a committee of eleven under the chairmanship of Prof. R. F. Farquharson of Toronto was designated to proceed with its establishment, including the granting of a federal charter.
30, 1956
Question
Cancer Research
Cancer research in Canada comes generally under the supervision of the national cancer institute. Financial support is derived from the national health program, the provinces and the Canadian cancer society. In total, in the nine years of its existence, over $900,000 have been provided for cancer research from the cancer control grant, with an equal amount being obtained from provincial sources. Research of a fundamental nature into the still unrevealed secrets of cancer causation and related problems formed the basis of the program, with fellowships being provided to develop and support research workers in this field.
Tuberculosis Research
While rapid and impressive strides have been made in all public health aspects of tuberculosis control, there yet remain many problems to be solved before this disease can be considered conquered. Particular attention was given to preventive measures involving the use of B.C.G. vaccine, research on the pathogenesis of the disease, exploration, of improved techniques for the isolation and culture of tubercle bacilli and the study of methods of treatment with special reference to chemotherapeutic drugs.
Virus Research
Virus research is another field which presents a multitude of challenging problems. Here emphasis was placed on studies in poliomyelitis and influenza. In the former disease, the dramatic advances of the past few years adequately testify to the value of the research effort expended, and it has been possible under the national health program to make contributions in the development and production of poliomyelitis vaccine and to improvement of measures employed for the determination of its safety and effectiveness. Particular reference might be made to the work being carried on by Dr. Andrew J. Rhodes, noted authority in this field, on the antigenic types of virus which are responsible for the occurrence of poliomyelitis in Canada, basic knowledge which is essential in preventive efforts. Both at the Connaught medical research laboratories in Toronto and the institute of microbiology and hygiene in Montreal intensive studies are going forward on the polio virus itself, the improvement of methods for its inactivation and the study of antigenic strains in human beings. A special laboratory diagnostic survey of neurotropic viruses in the Atlantic provinces is being carried on by Dr. C. E. van Rooyen at Dalhousie University.
[Stage Direction]
Question
Arthritis and Rheumatism Research
Arthritis and rheumatism, the leading cause of physical incapacity and time lost from productive effort, received their share of research attention. The studies are of a fundamental nature relating to causation and the metabolic and biochemical changes which occur in the presence of arthritic involvement. In addition however the influence of hormones on the incidence and prevention of arthritis and specific clinical studies on the effects of A.C.T.H. and cortisone in various forms of the disease are the subject of exhaustive study.
Other Research
There was in addition a wide variety of topics each of which received merited attention. These included afflictions involving the
eye and vision, studies in the field of dentistry, the investigation of phenomena associated with hypersensitivity, or allergic manifestations, and the alleviation of disorders related to pregnancy and the neonatal period. Administrative studies in the epidemiology of certain diseases, in environmental and occupational health, and in the practice of nursing also made up a group which promises most useful findings. Of particular importance at this time is the survey of general practice in Canada being carried on under the auspices of the college of general practice and the school of hygiene at the University of Toronto with the support of funds under the national health program. The outcome of this and related research should contribute invaluable knowledge in the extension and development of health care programs in Canada.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 31, 1956