1956-05-14

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Third report of special committee on estimates.-Mr. Tucker.
First report of special committee on research.-Mr. Mcllraith.


Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move:
That the name of Mr. McCann be substituted for that of Mr. Lapointe.
That the name of Mr. White (Waterloo South) be substituted for that of Mr. Garland.
That the name of Mr. Meunier be substituted for that of Mr. Hanna.
That the name of Mr. Beaudry be substituted for that of Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare).
That the name of Mr. McWilliam be substituted for that of Mr. Robichaud.
That the name of Mr. Michener be substituted for that of Mr. Churchill.
That the name of Mr. Monteith be substituted for that of Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace).
That the name of Mrs. Fairclough be substituted for that of Mr. Hodgson.
That the name of Mr. Pallett be substituted for that of Mr. Rea.
That the name of Mr. Macdonnell be substituted for that of Mr. Small.
That the name of Mr. Zaplitny be substituted for that of Mr. Regier; and
That the name of Mr. Knight be substituted for that of Mr. Ellis on the special committee on estimates.
That the name of Mr. Regier be substituted for that of Mr. Bryson on the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That we do now proceed to the orders of the day.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: A decision has not been announced on the other motion. In order to maintain our position with respect to the position of the minister on the estimates committee I would say that it carries on division in so far as the name of the minister is concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa moved a motion and, if I heard him aright, the Minister of Finance moved a superseding motion that we do now proceed to the orders of the day.


Mr. Knowles:: Is that what the minister
said?


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, is it the pleasure of
the house to adopt the motion? The question is on the superseding motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is the following one. Mr. Weir moved, seconded by Mr. Mcllraith:
That the name of Mr. McCann be substituted for that of Mr. Lapointe.-
Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Harris moved, seconded by Mr. Pickersgill:
That we do now proceed to the orders of the day.


Mr. Sinclair:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question? Would Your Honour indicate what the effect of that motion would be? What would it do to the motion made by the government whip and also to the motions on the order paper between this point and the orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is that we now proceed with the orders of the day. It supersedes the present motion which is under consideration, and if it is defeated we carry on with the routine proceedings on the order paper. If it is agreed to we immediately proceed to orders of the day. To me it is as simple as that.
Those who are in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
Those who are opposed will please say
nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will we now have questions
on the orders of the day?


Mr. Speaker:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No questions?


Mr. Speaker:: The motion having been carried, we now proceed to orders of the day.
3846	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before the order is read may I ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?


James Sinclair: No, you cannot.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I apprehend the situation'-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am on my feet and the hon. member has asked if he can ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, but we are not on orders of the day. We are proceeding to orders of the day by virtue of the motion that has just been carried and therefore the question time does not take place today.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, was not the motion that the house do proceed to orders of the day and not that a particular order be now read? That motion has been carried and the house has now jumped the intermediate stages and come to orders of the day at which time, by custom, questions of the ministers are allowed. If the motion had been that order number so and so be read, I think the question to the minister would not be allowed; but the motion was not that. The motion was that we proceed to orders of the day; so the orders of the day being called, it is in accordance with the usual custom to permit hon. members to ask questions of the ministers.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that questions are always asked before the orders of the day are called. Hon. members stand up and say, "Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to direct a question . . ."
Now, the orders of the day have been called by virtue of the motion which has just been carried by the house.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) moves, seconded by Mr. Pearson, that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the constitution of a corporation to be known as the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation-
Shall I dispense?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order which I raise at


this time is that this question should not be put to the house unless something else, to which I shall refer in a moment, is done first. May I make it perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a repetition of the point of order which was discussed and decided in this house on Thursday of last week.


An hon. Member:: We are glad to hear that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is crystal clear by the terms of what Your Honour said when you told the house what your ruling was, and it is also crystal clear by the terms of such citations in Beauchesne's third edition as 113, 114 and 115.


Mr. MacDougall:: You mean crystal-ball clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Citation 113 reads:
The Speaker decides questions of order only when they actually arise and not in anticipation.
In other words, on Thursday of last week Your Honour made a ruling with respect to what was before the house at that time. The ruling of last Thursday does not apply to what is before the house at this juncture and what is before us, 1 confess, a little sooner today than I thought would be the case. The government's move in that connection is rather transparent.
When you made your ruling last Thursday, sir, you said, as reported at page 3762 of Hansard, first of all that the point of order had been raised that it was not in order to proceed with the government notice of motion since a similar proposition stood on the order paper for consideration in committee of the whole. Then Your Honour said this in very clear language:
I ruled that it was in order to present a proposition dealing with the same subject matter when it contained additional provisions.
I think it is quite clear, both from those final words that Your Honour uttered on that occasion and what you said in the course of the discussion on that point of order, that you were referring to the presenting of a similar proposition as distinct from proceeding with a similar proposition. On that occasion you and I differed as to whether or not what was being done on Thursday was a proceeding. Whatever may have been our difference of opinion on that occasion it seems to me that it is crystal clear that today at a later stage we are being asked to engage in a proceeding. It is my contention and my very strong submission that this house cannot properly proceed with a motion or resolution which is substantially the same as one that has already been proceeded with and has

already been considered by the committee of the whole house on the instruction of the house itself.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member permit me to interrupt him at this point just so we may have an understanding right from the start. On Thursday, as reported on page 3752 of Hansard, I read an opinion by the Clerk of the house on which I based my ruling. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member to the third paragraph in the opinion of the Clerk, which reads:
The new measure contained provisions not provided for in the original resolution and since it would not be in order, without unanimous consent, to propose the new provisions as amendments to the initial resolution in committee of the whole, the second resolution, in my opinion, presented a new proposition.
I based my ruling upon the opinion of the Clerk. Is it a new proposition or is it not? The hon. member contends that it is not, that it is substantially the same as the one already on the order paper whereas the opinion gives an indication to the contrary. If it is a new proposition then we are going into committee on a new proposed resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank Your Honour for your interjection and since it was made at that point I take it that you are not quarrelling with my contention that we have now passed beyond the stage of presenting something and have reached the point where the house is being asked to proceed with a proposition. The question is now raised as to whether order No. 16 is substantially the same as or different from order No. 12, which are the order numbers given to the two similar resolutions on today's order paper.
May I remind you again of one of the precedents which you and I both cited in our arguments last week, namely the proposal to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act which was before parliament in the second session of 1945. Let the house see how exact the parallelism is. On that occasion the first resolution provided for the payment of $2,000 expense allowance to members of the House of Commons. The second resolution provided for the payment of $2,000 expense allowance to members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate.
In the case now before us the first resolution provides for the setting up of a crown corporation to assist in the building of a pipe line in northern Ontario. The second resolution provides for the setting up of a crown corporation to assist in the building of a pipe line in northern Ontario and in western Canada. Could anything be more exactly parallel than those two sets of resolutions? Yet in 1945 Mr. King recognized that before
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation he could start to discuss the second resolution he had to make it clear to the house that he was prepared to ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the first resolution. Only a few column inches in Hansard from that point, Mr. Bracken, who was then the leader of the opposition, indicated that he was prepared to give that unanimous consent so that the second resolution might be discussed rather than the first one.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member permit me to interrupt again? There was unanimous consent required because the 48 hours' notice had not been given to the second resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Several cases of unanimous consent were required on that occasion. There was the one to which Your Honour has just referred, and it also took unanimous consent to deal with two stages and get first reading on that occasion, but Mr. King-


Mr. Speaker:: You must state which one you think Mr. King was asking unanimous consent for.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. King made it very clear when he said, on page 3412 of Hansard for December 13, 1945:
When the orders of the day are reached I shall ask that the house allow the motion No. 7, which is now in its possession-
Just like No. 12 before us is now in our possession.
-to be withdrawn and the order to be discharged.
I emphasize these words of the late Mr. King:
I make that intention known immediately so that we may be in a position to discuss the resolution that now appears under government notices of motion.
In other words, Mr. King knew that he could not go ahead with the second one unless there was an understanding between him and the house that the first one was going to be withdrawn.
Last week, on both Wednesday and Thursday, between us we referred to a number of instances. I do not think I need to go further with the case of the $2,000 expense allowance proposition in the second session of 1945 except to emphasize that never were two cases so completely parallel as are these two. Yet on that occasion Mr. King sought the consent of the house to proceed in the proper fashion, and on this occasion the Minister of Trade and Commerce sits in his seat and has nothing to say on this important procedural point.
We also dealt with Mr. Ilsley's treatment of the National Housing Act in 1945. We also dealt with the redistribution bill of 1952. I mention that because there is one further
3848	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation word that I should say about the redistribution bill of 1952. I gave full credit for the proper handling of that incident to the Minister of Finance, and I do not detract for a moment from the credit I gave to him, but I should have added that he must share the credit with the Prime Minister. I find that actually the first of those redistribution bills was moved by the Prime Minister. Later the Minister of Finance indicated that a second bill had to be substituted for the first one and he asked the unanimous consent of the house to withdraw the first bill so that the house could proceed with the second one. There was some delay the first day. The then member for Lake Centre, now the member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), objected, and so the matter was put off for a few days. When it came up a few days later, it was the Prime Minister himself who made the motion for the withdrawal of the first bill.
So, to the names of Mr. King, Mr. Ilsley, the Minister of Finance and yourself, whom I listed the other day as being on the correct side of this way of doing things, I must also add the name of the present Prime Minister. The other day, in the memorandum that you read to the house-I repeat that I treated it as your memorandum, sir-you indicated that, in addition to the instances with which I was familiar, there were two or three others, which you indicated only by page numbers in the Journals. Therefore on that occasion I was not able to deal with them. However, since that time, I have looked them up. Every last one of the page references that you gave on Thursday of last week supports my side of the argument.
First of all you quoted one involving Mr. Dunning. We must add him to the company of the elect. This was in the session of 1927. The matter before the house at the time was a long resolution for the building of branch lines by the Canadian National Railways. It was a resolution of many parts-oh, a dozen or fifteen; I have not taken the time to open the volume for the moment-and Mr. Dunning-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member and I are not in dispute on that point because that part of the memorandum treats only with having introduced two resolutions or two bills on the same subject. That part deals with the introduction. It strikes me that the hon. member is taking up arguments which he used last Thursday. The first day we discussed this matter was last Wednesday. It was my contention that no point of order should have been raised then but the next day, and the hon. member was inclined to agree with me but hon. members insisted that the discussion take place on Wednesday. On Wednesday I gave a ruling.
[Mr. Knowles.l

Then on Thursday the point was allowed to be discussed again, and as far as the ruling I made on Thursday is concerned I think that what I said on Wednesday and what I said on Thursday must be taken together. In any event, the house had a chance at that time to pronounce itself on the ruling that was then made. If we are going to have another ruling today based on the same arguments as were made last Thursday, it seems to me that we were either right when we discussed the matter then or we were wrong. If we were all wrong we spent a great deal of time for nothing. We should not have held the discussion. But having held it last Thursday, and the house having been called upon to render its decision on an appeal taken from my ruling, I do not think we ought to go back to the decision that was made last Thursday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I agree with your contention that we should not rediscuss the ruling of last Thursday. The house made its decision sustaining your ruling despite the view I had and still have about it. What I am now taking up is another motion which was not before the house last Thursday and which in my submission is a case of proceeding further with the second resolution while the first one is still on the order paper. I am citing these examples to show that former cabinet ministers have recognized in the house that you could not proceed with a second resolution while the first one was still on the order paper unless you either amended the first one or got the first one off the order paper. If I have erred in suggesting that I was arguing with your use of these citations in support of the position you took last Thursday, I withdraw that, but I am submitting these references in support of the position I now take which is that we cannot now proceed with this further stage so far as this second resolution is concerned.
Mr. Dunning on March 10, 1927, as reported at page 1061 of Hansard, sought to substitute a new paragraph 8 in a very long resolution. He moved it as an amending resolution. At that time he said;
I would like to say that this is an amendment to section 8 of the resolution already standing in my name, with which I hope to go on today, and in view of that-
Notice the care that these ministers exercised.
-I would ask that it be substituted for section 8 of the existing resolution in order to enable discussion of the whole program today.
Have we had any request from the Minister of Trade and Commerce to substitute this resolution for the other one?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know the hon. member has studied the matter very carefully. Would the hon. member be good enough to say what the minister could have done if the answer to his request for unanimous consent had been "no"?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to answer that question but I should like to answer it just a few minutes from now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce gets a great deal of laughter out of these fine points of order-


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask all hon. members to compose themselves and let us have all discussion strictly related to the point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My reason for asking you to consent to my answering that question a little later was that I felt that I was justified in adding briefly one or two other references in support of my contention.
The next reference-and again I found the page because Your Honour was kind enough to give it to me last Thursday- involves Sir George Perley who had before the house a motion with regard to the purchase by the Canadian radio commission of certain C.N.R. radio stations. Sir George Perley asked the consent of the house to change the wording of his notice of motion so that he might be able to proceed with it. Similarly, if I may jump down to still another reference which Your Honour has drawn to my attention, the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) in 1951 asked the unanimous consent of the house to change the wording of a resolution respecting a piece of veterans legislation so that the house might proceed with it that day.
Mr. Speaker, I have cut short what I intended to add by way of support to the argument because I think that the point has been made and that it is crystal clear. You asked what could the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) do if he asked for unanimous consent to withdraw the first resolution and the house denied that consent. First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I ask with all respect whether that is a good question.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member immediately because I did not ask him what the Minister of Trade and Commerce could do in this instance. He was referring to Mr. Dunning's asking unanimous consent and at that moment I was asking
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation him what Mr. Dunning could have done if the house had refused him unanimous consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, what Mr. Dunning on that day could have done and what the present Minister of Trade and Commerce could have done long ago and thereby saved all this procedural discussion is very simple.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If my hon. friends want to refer to it, it is set out in citation 695 in Beauchesne's third edition. As I say, what the Minister of Trade and Commerce could have done in the first instance, if he had wished to do it, would have been to ask the house for unanimous consent to substitute the second resolution for the first one. I presume he was not too sure he would get unanimous consent for such a substitution and therefore did not ask it. But that does not release him from the responsibility of finding some way in which to get the first resolution off the order paper. The second way would be for a motion to be made that order number so-and-so be withdrawn and discharged. If the government feared that that process would run into difficulty-if there was fear that it might result in a procedural argument or a debate or a vote- there is another process which might be followed and it is very simple. It is set out in citation 695 and I suggest that Your Honour propose this procedure to the Minister of Trade and Commerce today. Citation 695 reads as follows:
695. The proceedings of a committee on a bill may be brought abruptly to a close by an order: "That the chairman do now leave the chair" or by a proof that a quorum is not present. The chairman, in such cases, being without instruction from the committee, makes no report to the house. A bill disposed of in this manner disappears from the order paper, though it can be revived by an order of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will look at page 3761 of Hansard he will find that I dealt with all possible alternatives to get rid of the first one, and that alternative was included. There are two others.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, you and I have at last reached a point of agreement. If you and I and the Minister of Trade and Commerce can just get together, maybe we can bring this discussion to an end. The matter is quite clear. For a moment today when the Minister of Finance moved the unusual motion that we proceed to the orders of the day, I wondered whether perchance he had not decided to do just this. I listened very carefully when orders of the day were called, thinking that maybe the Minister of

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Finance had decided to call order No. 12, whereupon we could go into committee of the whole to continue the discussion on resolution No. 12, at which point a cabinet minister would merely have to move that the committee rise. That motion would not be debatable. When that motion carried an-1 the committee rose, resolution No. 12 would be off the order paper and the house would then be in a position to go ahead with resolution No. 16 in a proper manner.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is just as simple as that. I remind you, sir, of citation 104, which reads in part as follows:
The Speaker is responsible for the due enforcement of the rules, rights and privileges of the house, and when he rises he is to be heard in silence.
I am sure you would like me to emphasize those last few words. I continue:
In accordance with his duty, he declines to submit motions to the house, which obviously infringe the rules which govern its proceedings. If the Speaker is made aware that a member-
The Minister of Trade and Commerce is a member, too.
-proposes to bring forward a motion, or to engage in a proceeding

Certainly this is a proceeding. We are asked to proceed with this all day and all night, so far as 1 know.
-which would infringe the rules and usages of the house, he deals with the matter, if it seems desirable, by conveying to the member an intimation regarding the irregularity of the course which the member proposes to follow.
I suggest to you, sir, with all respect, that you consider proposing to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he adopt one of the procedures that have been set out. If you do not wish to adopt the one I propose, I suggest you take one of the others. I suggest that you propose to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he follow one of those courses.
This is an important matter, on which it is recognized a great deal of controversy and feeling exists. Nevertheless, I suggest that you advise the minister that he deal with it according to proper parliamentary procedure. After all, this needs to be said to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is not only important to get things done; it is important to do them in the right way.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I want to indicate our support of the points of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and of the proposition that this is a new point of order, and not the same one that was raised on Thursday last. The propriety of raising this new point of order is based on the same grounds on which

you made your ruling on Thursday last, which applied particularly to the stage we are at today.
The hon. member has already read one or two of your remarks. I should like to read one of two more to show that you based your ruling on Thursday last on the ground that at that time we were not proceeding but were merely dealing with the presentation of a resolution. Your Honour emphasized that, and emphasized again that while it was in order to allow the presentation of a resolution which was a duplicate of one already on the order paper, it would not be in order to proceed with it. What we are asked to do today is to proceed with it.
At page 3760 of Hansard appears this passage in your ruling:
This illustrates the point that was stressed by the memorandum given to me by the Clerk that there was no obstacle to the presentation of the resolution.
Again, on page 3761, the following appears: This is the point on which I submit the situation today rests and must be disposed of:
The presentation of resolutions on the order paper by way of notice as our rules require to bring them to a stage where they can be taken up and the proceeding with the two resolutions so as to avoid duplication of debate are different pi'opositions.
I want to assure hon. members they will not proceed with the two resolutions; they will proceed only with one.
Now, sir, we have already proceeded with the resolution appearing as order No. 12. A decision of the house was taken and we proceeded with it for one day in committee of the whole. A vote was taken. That was a question of the house. Another stage then took place, namely, a consideration of the proposed resolution in committee. That being dependent on a decision of the house, the question cannot be held to be other than a proceeding. We proceeded with the resolution. Having had a second resolution presented, we are being asked to proceed with it. Since the two resolutions embrace exactly the same terms, how can it be then said that the particular point which Your Honour made has not now arisen; that is, if we proceed now we shall be proceeding with two resolutions dealing with the same subject matter at the same time? How can it be held that it is not duplication of debate? Your Honour is concerned with the rule against repetition, and rightly so. How can we avoid repetition when we are being asked to proceed with a resolution with which we have already dealt but which we have not finally disposed of? So that, accepting for the moment, as I have to do, because it was upheld by a decision of the house-and I accept it on that basis-the

validity of Your Honour's previous ruling, I say that that ruling having been made, based on the argument which you used, makes it unavoidable, in my judgment, that Your Honour has to rule now-we are asked to proceed with this new one-that you must apply your previous argument and say this is entirely out of order, which would put the government in the position where they must follow the proper procedure, which I am sure has occurred to them before. Why they did not do it, I do not know unless they wanted once again to bulldoze the house as they have done the cabinet, regardless of what the rules say.
But, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce marshals his majority he is going to get his way, but let him at least try to respect the rules of the house so that procedure will be in accordance with proper practice and not improper practice.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, in my humble view, hon. members have not added very much to what had already been said. I want to tell hon. members that at first sight I could very easily find quotations in the authorities which would indicate that at this particular moment before one proceeds any farther with the resolution that is on the order paper-that is, with the one that is now called upon to be committed

the one that is there now has in the past been discharged before the new one was proceeded with. I find some of those quotations in May, and the general tenor of the principle is that no two subjects substantially the same should be offered in the same session for discussion; that one, if already there, should be discharged or, if a decision has been taken, a motion to rescind should take place before the new one is embarked upon.
Now, the points that have been made ever since the notice appeared on the order paper for the second resolution have been subjects of a great deal of concern as far as I am concerned, and I have discussed the various points that have been brought out fully with the Clerk of the house. After the discussion last Thursday, I may inform the house that for a moment we were in disagreement. We finally rallied and came to the same view. I would say that he persuaded me that the point we expected would be discussed today should be dealt with according to his own way of thinking, which is mine at the moment.
Now, a great deal of confusion took place last Thursday and is taking place today as to the rule of anticipation with respect to debate and the rule having to do with two motions substantially the same being offered
14, 1956	3851
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation for a decision of the house. I have made rulings to the effect that repetition in debates should be avoided and I will continue to make them. I have made rulings to the effect that if a debate has been engaged on, let us say, a resolution in the name of the hon. member for a certain constituency and therefore having been taken up becomes a public order, if another motion on the same subject is to be called and the hon. member proceeds to take it up, it necessarily anticipates a motion that has already been discussed and taken up by the house.
What we are called upon to do today is to commit a proposed resolution to the committee of the whole. The house has not taken any decision at all on any resolution pertaining to the subject matter of the present resolution. I cited the parallel the other day of the bill concerning equal pay for equal work for women and also the bill of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) on small loans. The Clerk has just given me the details about where the bill of the hon. member for Assiniboia was when the bill concerning the Small Loans Act was introduced by the government.
Bill No. 3, the bill of the hon. member for Assiniboia, was on the order paper at the stage of resuming debate on the motion for second reading on February 6 when Bill No. 51, the Small Loans Act moved by Mr. Harris, was introduced. Bill No. 51 received second reading on March 8 and was referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce. The bill of the hon. member for Assiniboia is still on the order paper. The other day when we were calling public bills and we called the bill of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fair-clough), I suspected that perhaps she would take it up because of the discussion that had taken place and she would have been allowed to take it up and discuss the second reading of her bill concerning equal pay for equal work for women.
At this moment we are dealing with the motion for leave to introduce a bill. When a money bill is introduced it must originate in committee of the whole and the resolution, once reported from committee of the whole, concurred in and agreed to by the house, becomes an order for leave. This is the only stage at which we are at the moment.
If hon. members will look at May's fifteenth edition, page 487, they will find the following:
A certain class of bills, the main object of which is the expenditure of money or the imposition of taxation, must, in accordance with the requirements of the standing orders regarding charges on the people, originate in committee of the whole house.
3852	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
When the resolutions have been reported and agreed to by the house, a bill is ordered thereon, or upon some only of the resolutions.
This, therefore, is an order for leave. When we introduce a bill on which charges on the exchequer are not involved we merely put the motion in these terms, "Has the hon. member leave to introduce the said bill?", and then that being agreed we move first reading. When it comes to a money bill we must go through the requirements of some of our standing orders, both those regarding 48 hours' notice and those relating to standing order No. 61 which says that instead of proceeding with it immediately we must appoint another day for taking it into consideration and then the day having arrived we must commit that resolution to committee of the whole.
I have made the point that a resolution is a proposed resolution until it has been reported from the committee and adopted by the house. I would refer hon. members to citation No. 491 of Beauchesne's third edition, which is clear on that point:
If a resolution is amended in the committees of the whole, supply or ways and means, the chairman does not report it "with amendments", because it had not been discussed in the house, when the Speaker was in the chair, prior to being referred to the committee. The resolution is not considered by the house in the same way as a bill which, under standing order 75, is read twice before committal. The terms of the resolution are submitted for the consideration of the house for the first time when the resolution is reported from committee. As the house up to that moment has not considered the merits of the resolution, the committee's amendments do not change anything that has been done by the house and no matter how much the resolution has been altered by the committee, it is reported with all its alterations but without the mention of amendments.
The hon. member has said that before proceeding with this one-proceeding meaning one that is entered in the Journals of the house, so the minute we make a move it is 'proceeding'-it should have been amended. If one reads the new resolution one realizes there is a difficulty there. The minister himself could not have amended the resolution in committee of the whole. He required a new royal recommendation for the additional amount of expenditures which are contemplated in the additional part of the resolution. He could not have amended. One cannot amend because of the financial initiative of the crown. One cannot amend the resolution which will extend the expenditures which have already been covered by the royal recommendation and therefore a new recommendation would have been necessary in any case for that additional part which is given in the new resolution.
Now, the point at issue between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself and the hon. member for Kamloops and


myself is this. Must the order of the house which is "house again in committee of the whole on proposed resolution No. 12"-must that order be discharged before consideration is undertaken on the new proposed resolution, No. 16?
The hon. member is contending that unless No. 12 is removed from the order paper we cannot commit No. 16 and go into committee of the whole on No. 16. That is the point at issue at the moment. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has cited several instances where precisely that was done. I have not had the opportunity of studying all the instances which the hon. member has quoted. The one pertaining to the resolution involving an increase of indemnity which Mr. King proposed is one the reference to which I looked at in the Journals but I had not read the details of the presentation in debate which Mr. King had made very fully. I read the beginning and it seemed to me, if my recollection is right, that the unanimous consent he asked for at that time could address itself just as much to the fact that he did not want to let the 48 hours' notice go by-only 24 hours in this case- and he wanted to proceed that very same day to take it out of the Votes and Proceedings and go ahead with it that day while he had the first resolution pending on the order paper under government orders. Does that clearly make the point that you must ask that the order be discharged in the first resolution before you can proceed with the second if they are substantially the same?
With respect to the motion for discharge, I indicated to the hon. member that according to precedents I have seen the motion is not debatable. There is in Beauchesne a citation which cannot be overlooked when you consider a motion for discharge. Is it a motion or is it not? If it is a motion, all motions must be decided in the negative or the affirmative, but according to the citation in Beauchesne's third edition a motion to discharge is one in a very special category. Beauchesne's third edition, citation 154. The first citation is to the effect that you can move that the order be discharged, but you must have unanimous consent. Without unanimous consent the motion to discharge is of no value whatever. I cannot find the particular citation and perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has that before him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We accept the point.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to make it good before the hon. member accepts it. Perhaps when I am through he will not want it-


Walter Edward Harris: Is it 323?


Stanley Howard Knowles: While Your Honour is looking up that point perhaps I could answer some of the others you have made.


Mr. Speaker:: The point is very easy to detect. The hon. member has said that before a motion is put for the house to go into committee of the whole on this resolution, order No. 12 must be out of the way. That is what he has said. He has cited instances where cabinet ministers have wanted to propose different resolutions from those already on the order paper and had proceeded to ask that the first order be discharged before they proceeded with the second one. That is the point we are trying to deal with at the moment.


Walter Edward Harris: I think it is 323.


Mr. Speaker:: No, that is not the one either. It may be that I have hidden that one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think Your Honour will find what you are looking for in citation 454 in Beauchesne's second edition.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member be good enough to read it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It supports Your Honour's point that there would be difficulty in following some of these other procedures, or maybe there will not be, depending on how you read it. It reads:
The member who has proposed a motion can only withdraw it by leave of the house, granted without any negative voice. This leave is signified, not upon question, as is sometimes erroneously supposed, but by the Speaker taking the pleasure of the house. He asks "Is it your pleasure that the motion be withdrawn?'' If no one dissents, he says: "The motion is withdrawn;'' but if any dissentient voice be heard, he proceeds to put the question.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not the one; I think it is citation 381 of Beauchesne's third edition. The one I have in mind is that there is such a thing in our procedure as a motion to discharge. Beauchesne's third edition, citation 154.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister used that procedure on the redistribution bill.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been used several times, but in the opinion of the hon. member is it not so that if you are allowed to make a motion you are also entitled to have a decision in the negative or the affirmative? Is that not right? Will the hon. member also agree that no motion could be allowed if that principle is not going to be maintained? That is a principle conceded in Magna Carta and it is embodied in our constitution in section 49 of the British North America Act, that a motion must be decided in the affirmative or the negative and that the majority rules. If that is right, and we all agree on that, then
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation there should be no difficulty in making a motion to discharge the order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why did he not do it last Thursday?


Mr. Speaker:: The second point, the one where the authorities are at variance, is whether the motion is debatable or not. The other day I quoted precedents to the hon. member, one of which was, and I quote from page 3761 of Hansard:
That the order of the house in respect of item numbered 6 under the heading "Government Orders" on today's "Order Paper", be discharged and that leave be granted to withdraw the following proposed resolution.
At that time Mr. Speaker said that the motion was not debatable. But there again there does not seem to be enough consistency or a sufficient number of cases to establish the procedure clearly one way or the other. There is one thing quite sure and certain, there cannot be duplication of debate. We agree on that. If the government changes its mind it should be entitled on a government day to use the procedure in order to consider its idea, that instead of the old one they should have the new.
The hon. member says that we cannot consider the new one unless the old one is discharged. There is a citation in Beauchesne which I will find a little later where he talks about the motion to discharge but he says it must be agreed to unanimously, that is confusing with asking for consent to withdraw according to the citation the hon. member referred to a moment ago and standing order 49. I think there is a difference between asking unanimous consent to withdraw something which is in possession of the house, when permission to withdraw must be given while the debate is going on and not so as to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor, and a motion to discharge an order.
The only thing that is before the house with respect to resolution No. 12 is that the chairman rose and reported progress and asked leave to sit again. The consequence of that was that the house ordered consideration of that proposed resolution at the next sitting. That is the decision which was taken. Now it is contended this resolution will be considered only if the motion to discharge No. 12 is made. Is it agreed that the motion for discharge is not debatable? Is it agreed also that if the motion to discharge is made it is made according to the principle of majority rule and not according to the unanimous consent requirement?
Those are points to be considered. Another point raised in the opinion of the Clerk which I read the other day is that there is in fact an additional element in this resolution which
3854	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation in his opinion would make it a new resolution.
I have concurred in that. Furthermore in his view it has been customary on several occasions to ask for unanimous consent to remove an order.
But there is one principle which must be preserved according to our rule. From this moment on if the government chooses to go into committee, say on order No. 16, in my view they would never be able to come back to order No. 12. That is the point. There must not be duplication of debate.
As to the other points that are being made, we have the bill of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) and a government bill dealing with equal pay for equal work for women. We also have a bill moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and a government bill dealing with small loans companies. Once the decision is made there should be no repetition or duplication of debate. Hon. members know that the hon. member for Assiniboia has moved the second reading of his bill and if he had attempted to make the same speech on the second reading of the bill introduced by the government I would have intervened under the rule of relevancy, and I consider repetition as being akin to irrelevancy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I really do not think that we need to quarrel, you and I at any rate, sir, over the various methods of getting resolution No. 12 off the order paper. There are some difficulties in the way of one method that do not obtain in the case of another.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member permit me to say this? I have found the citation for which I was looking. It is citation 154 of Beauchesne's third edition. If the hon. member agreed to some of the points I made a moment ago, I would like him to consider, as I had to consider in analysing these various points, the effect of this citation:
When the sponsor of a bill does not want it to be proceeded with, he may move, when it is called, for second reading. "That the order be discharged and the bill withdrawn". Such a motion may be made without notice, is not debatable and requires a unanimous vote.
Since when is a motion allowed to be proposed and is not debatable but requires a unanimous vote? That is disallowing the principle of the majority deciding the motions that are proposed in this chamber.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on that point, since you have raised it at this juncture, is not the reason why unanimous consent is required for that kind of motion related to the fact that it is made without notice? In other words, it is just another way of saying


that without proper notice a matter cannot be withdrawn unless there is unanimous consent. What I was starting to say when I was on my feet a moment ago was that I do not see that we need to argue over the methods of getting order No. 12 off the order paper.
I think there is a method that is simpler than any of the others, and in my view that method should be pursued.
The point at issue, where we still apparently are in rather strong disagreement, is as to whether or not it is in order to proceed with No. 16 as long as No. 12 is still on the order paper. As to a method of getting rid of it, it is as simple as this. The government can stand up and say, with regard to order No. 16, which has already been called and read by the deputy clerk, "Stand." Then the government can call No. 12 and we can go into committee on No. 12. A minister can then move that the chairman do now leave the chair, or he can move that the committee rise, omitting the words "and report progress and ask leave to sit again." That motion is not debatable and would be carried by the committee; there is no question about that.


Mr. Pearson:: How long would it take?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Secretary of State for External Affairs asks, "How long would it take?" Thirty seconds, and order No. 12 would be off the order paper and the house would be in a position to proceed properly with order No. 16.


Mr. Rowe:: Thirty seconds of embarrassment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not going to take the time to discuss the question of the bills in regard to equal pay for equal work for women and in regard to small loans companies. It seems that the question of government bills having priority over private members' bills deals with that. I am not going to argue, because there is no argument between us, as to whether or not this is a proceeding. This proceeding is identical with the proceeding that was taken at this stage of the house on order No. 12. On that occasion there was not only a decision of the house; it was a decision on the basis of a recorded vote, and I believe there will be another recorded vote today when we have reached that stage. In other words, the house will have recorded itself twice in taking the same decision. As for saying that there are difficulties in the way of doing it, surely Your Honour is not arguing that because it is difficult to do it the right way, therefore the Minister of Trade and Commerce must be permitted to do it the wrong way.

Your Honour says you have not had the time to read all the instances to which I have referred. Some of them were page references I got from you, sir. But I will make the statement from a considerable amount of study of this matter that there is not a case in the 89 years' history of the Canadian parliament where the government has even attempted to go ahead with a second resolution similar to a first one without either moving the second as an amendment to the first one or getting rid of the first resolution.
Your Honour said it would have been difficult to move the second resolution as an amendment to the first one because that would have required the Governor General's consent. That is exactly what Mr. Ilsley did in 1945 with the bill amending the National Housing Act. The first resolution was presented with the Governor General's approval. Later he brought in a resolution seeking to amend the resolution of such and such a date, and announced that he had the Governor General's approval to that amending resolution. The ways of doing it are as simple as that. It can be done in no time, but for some reason or other the Minister of Trade and Commerce seems to want to sit tight and not be concerned about the propriety of parliamentary procedures and doing things the right way. I suggest that Your Honour should invite the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister, whoever is in charge of this matter, to deal with this in a proper way.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, just so that there will not be any doubt about the government's intentions, may I say that it is not our intention to proceed with the first resolution which has been spoken of by the hon. member. We intend to proceed with the second resolution, the one which is now called.
If, after the discussion that Your Honour has had with members opposite, it would appear that it is possible to obtain the discharge of an order from the order paper without having unanimous consent-because I doubt that we would have unanimous consent, for one thing-and if the circumstances are such as have been outlined by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-and I must tell him now that I read the citation early last week to which he referred, with respect to the proceedings in the committee of the whole

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we shall do all we can to see that the first resolution is removed from the paper.
However, we are not in a position to do that now until after this one begins. Under
14, 1956	3855
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation those circumstances, I hope that Your Honour would find it possible to make a ruling, so that we can proceed. I shall then consult afterwards, however, in the usual manner, with those who are concerned in these affairs and see whether we can work out a solution to the problem.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that Your Honour, in making any decision, will not be affected by the statement that has just been made. All that it amounts to is a statement that it is not the intention of the government to proceed with the first resolution, which stands on the order paper as No. 12, but that it is the intention of the government to proceed with No. 16, which is the longer resolution based on the same subject matter. It was not the intention of the government originally to proceed with this resolution. It was their intention to proceed with the other. We do not know that, when the uproar across Canada against this procedure-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -becomes sufficiently vocal, they may not decide to go back to the first. That is the very reason why this should not be a matter of intention but it should be a matter of clear practice, and I submit a decision should be made on the basis of practice and not upon a basis of intention.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the Minister of Finance for making the request that he did.


Walter Edward Harris: I did not make any request.


Major James William Coldwell: That was implied.


Walter Edward Harris: No.


Major James William Coldwell: What I was going to say is that, whatever your ruling is, sir, I hope that you will not rule so that the government may do what the minister said they wanted to do. I hope your ruling will be clear-cut and on the point.
As has already been said, I do not think there is a single precedent for the procedure that has been suggested by the government, and as for letting this through today and then withdrawing No. 12 afterwards, the proper procedure surely is to withdraw No. 12 now and then proceed with No. 16 afterwards. Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will protect the rules of the house and not, as the government did, do something entirely outside the rules, and I say that with all respect.


Mr. Speaker:: I have indicated to hon. members that I have gone into this thoroughly-


Major James William Coldwell: I thought you said the Clerk had gone into it.
3856	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. Speaker:: I have gone into the whole thing with him, because I take the responsibility for what I say here and, even if it comes from the Clerk, I must make up my own mind. I have gone through all the details of this thing. It has been of some concern to me because the procedure is a difficult one. When hon. members say there is no doubt that the proper procedure is to have the first one withdrawn all I can say is that I have no power to force anyone to do a certain thing which he does not want to do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: What I can do is do what I have done. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has quoted several instances involving private members' notices of motion. He has referred to the fact that when they are taken up they become public orders and that, having been taken up, I have said no to other hon. members wanting to proceed with notices of motion on similar subjects. We will be in the same position now.
All we are doing is committing a proposed resolution to the committee of the whole. No decision has been taken yet. We do not know what goes on in the committee unless the resolution is reported and agreed to by the house. Therefore, as far as the house is concerned, we have no knowledge of what takes place. All we know is that item No. 12 on the order paper under government orders is "House again in committee of the whole." Then we have another order, item No. 16 on the order paper, which is "In committee of the whole".
The motion is being made that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole upon the latter resolution. I say that the minute that resolution is committed to the committee of the whole the government will not be able to do what the Leader of the Opposition feared they might do, go back to the resolution now item No. 12 on the order paper. In my judgment the government will not be allowed to proceed with that resolution. That is the situation.
The only reason why I do not want to make a ruling that before proceeding with the resolution in item No. 16 they must discharge item No. 12 is that I am puzzled about the citation I have just read in Beauchesne, third edition. Is it to be understood that a motion to discharge is synonymous with a request to withdraw? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made an interesting point. It may be because of the notice that is required. It is made without notice, but if


it is made after 48 hours' notice then where does it go? Under routine proceedings? Then it will be debatable. If it is debatable, what is the purpose of trying to get rid of something in order to propose the substitution of another proposition?
The Clerk and I have gone into the matter and it is because of these doubts that I should like to make a decision which will not bind us forever on that particular score. The matter has got to be clarified for the future but I would not want to have to make the decision now. The Clerk is of the opinion that the situation in this regard is no worse- and I emphasize the words "no worse"- than that which obtains when two similar bills are on the order paper such as the bills of the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Hamilton West and the government bills on the same subjects. The only difference in the case of this government measure is that it must originate in committee of the whole because it is a money bill and therefore a few more stages of procedure have to be followed. But no decision has been taken by the house. What we will have to make sure of is that there is no duplication of debate and that they do not go from one to the other. If they take up one they will have to proceed with only one and not with the two. Is the hon. member appealing my ruling?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I appeal your ruling.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is on an appeal from a ruling. Mr. Knowles raised a point of order to the effect that it was not in order to proceed with order No. 16 on the ground that there was another resolution on the order paper dealing with the same subject matter.
I ruled that a resolution containing a provision different from the one partially considered by the house could be proceeded with.
The question is on the Speaker's ruling.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Shall	nays
And	Messrs:


Mr. Hodgson:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Pontiac-Timis-kaming (Mr. Proudfoot). Had I voted, I would have voted against your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the motion that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the proposed resolution.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in order that the Minister of Finance may have the opportunity of doing now that which he said he would consider doing later, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair):
That the house do proceed to another order, namely order No. 12.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to the hon. member that I cannot accept his motion because the order that is now before the house is a government order, and the other order that the hon. member now considers we should proceed with is order No. 12, which is another government order, and government orders may be moved only by the leader of the house. I would refer hon. members to standing order 18(2). There is also citation 136, which reads:
All motions referring to the business of the house should be introduced by the leader of the house.
By virtue of standing order 18(2) the government has full jurisdiction over its own orders. Standing order 18(2) reads:
Except as provided in standing order 56, government orders may be called in such sequence as the government may think fit.
Therefore, I cannot accept the hon. member's motion. Do hon. members wish to ask
3858	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
for the yeas and nays on the motion that I	Patterson	Shipley, Mrs.do now leave the chair?	Pearson	SimmonsPhilpott	Sinclair


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.	Pickersgill	Smith (Battle River'
Pommer	Camrose)


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour of	Power (St.	John's	West)	Stickthe motion will please say yea.	Prudham	Stuart (Charlotte)Purdy	Studer


Some hon. Members:: Yea.	Quelch	Thibault
Ratelle	Thomas


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed to the	Reinke	Tuckermotion will please say nay.	Richard (Ottawa	East)	ViauRobertson	Villeneuve


Some hon. Members:: Nay.	Robichaud	Weaver_	....	,	Robinson (Simcoe East) Weir


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.	Rouleau	Weselak
St. Laurent (Quebec Yuill-132.
Ana more than five members having risen:	East)


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman-


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


Clarence Decatur Howe: -on Tuesday, when I attempted to outline the considerations that caused the government-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Chairman:: The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre has risen on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order. I ask Your Honour to take note of the fact that the committee of the whole house is now being asked to consider and proceed with a resolution which is similar to one that this same committee of the whole house considered and proceeded with on March 15,

1956, as recorded in Hansard of that date and also as recorded in the Journals of that date.
It has been said that the house does not know what the committee is doing, but no one can deny that the committee knows what it is doing. This committee knows that on March 15 of this year we considered a resolution and reported progress on the same, that resolution being similar to the one which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is now asking this committee to endorse.
It has been said that after having proceeded with order No. 16 we could not then go back and consider order No. 12, so I submit by the same token that since we have considered order No. 12, since it is already along the way, we cannot now consider order No. 16. I need not make the point that I could speak at length on this, for I believe that is all I need to say. I ask Your Honour's ruling as to whether or not it is in order to proceed with this resolution at this time.


William Alfred Robinson: These are points which have been discussed at considerable length in the last few days. May I point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that there are substantial differences in the resolutions to which he is referring. May I also point out to him that we are in committee of the whole constituted today for the particular purpose of considering this resolution. We have gone into committee of the whole for that purpose. This committee has nothing to do with a resolution of another kind. Therefore I cannot find in favour of the hon. gentleman's point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, 1 appeal your ruling to the house.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:	[DOT]
When the committee of the whole was considering a resolution respecting Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Knowles raised a point of order that the committee could not proceed with the consideration of the resolution since there was under consideration a similar resolution. I ruled that the committee of the whole was constituted to consider a specific proposition and had no knowledge of any other proceedings. Whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed to the house from the ruling of the chair.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
In the committee of the whole, when it was considering a resolution with respect to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Knowles raised the point of order that the committee could not proceed with the consideration of the resolution since there was under consideration a similar resolution.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
The chairman ruled that the committee of the whole was constituted to consider a specific proposition and had no knowledge of any other proceedings. Whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed to the house from the ruling of the chairman.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Pontiac-Timis-kaming. Had I voted, I would have voted against the chairman's ruling.
And the house having resumed in committee:


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday, when I attempted to outline the considerations which caused the government to bring forward this new resolution, loud laughter greeted my use of the rhetorical question, "What was to be done?" That response to a serious consideration of practical problems suggests a vacancy of mind, or a refusal to face facts-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -or the easy irresponsibility of those who need not produce a workable course of action.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The course of action the government proposes is based upon certain inescapable facts. The first of these is that if the western part of this pipe line system is not started this year it probably cannot be started before 1958. The second is that for the Alberta gas and oil producing industry, and for consumers eastward from Alberta to Montreal, 1958 or 1959 is uncomfortably far away for a start to be made. The third is that there is only one


agency which can be placed in a position to build the western part of the pipe-line system this year.
Nothing that can be said in this house can change those facts. Nothing that can be said here is going to end the world shortage of steel plate suitable for making large diameter steel pipe. No words uttered here can convince the owner of capped gas wells in Alberta or the would-be gas consumers in Manitoba or Ontario that there is no hurry about building the all-Canadian gas pipeline system. In this connection I would refer hon. members to the attitude taken by the Ontario government, which recognizes that time is of the essence. No criticisms or tags such as "chosen instrument" here cast upon Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited will alter the fact that only that company has gathered together the gas purchase and sales contracts, the governmental permits, the organization and the access to pipe which make possible a start this year upon the pipe line.
We all have to deal with those facts, and we have to deal with them now. The government believes that the way of dealing with them which it proposes will turn them to the advantage of the country, and that delay in dealing with them will result in serious damage to the country.
I am not going today to repeat the history of the all-Canadian pipe-line project which I outlined here on March 15. Bear in mind, though, that in December of 1953 the government of Alberta asked this government's assistance in bringing together the Canadian-sponsored company which proposed to transmit gas to Winnipeg and thence to the United States, and the other company, sponsored largely by United States citizens, which alone had proposed to bring Alberta gas to central Canada. Having encouraged the merger of these two groups, this government agreed to permit exports south of Winnipeg concurrently with service to central Canada under the company's plan to allocate, out of the 500 million cubic feet per day which the Alberta government would permit it to export, 200 million per day for export at Emerson, and the balance for central Canada in so far as the central Canadian market could absorb it. It was on this basis that the new company prepared its engineering and financing plans.
Last autumn, when it became apparent that sales in central Canada would not be sufficient in the early years to attract the private capital necessary to build the whole line, this government in association with the government of Ontario agreed, subject to approval of the respective legislative bodies, to construct and temporarily own the section

from the Manitoba boundary to Kapuskasing, known as the northern Ontario section. The Ontario legislation was approved unanimously by the provincial parliament.
In passing, I note that members of the opposition have fallen into the habit of calling this the unproductive section. I suppose that when such hon. members water their gardens, they turn on the tap and walk down the garden path with the unattached nozzle in their hands. They would regard a connecting hose as unproductive.
Leaving that aside, it could reasonably be expected, and still can, that with the northern Ontario section removed from the initial capital requirements of the project, the whole project could be financed as soon as the export contract with the United States customers was approved.
We did not at that time expect extended delay in the approval of that contract by the federal power commission. Perhaps we should have, although I do not believe we could properly have assumed that there would be so long a delay. However, there has been, and there is no end clearly in sight. This is another fact with which we must deal. As I said on Tuesday, the government has decided so to arrange matters that the allCanadian pipe line can proceed without awaiting the action of any agency of another government.
At first glance there might seem to be a number of ways in which this could be done. On closer examination, the practical choice is very limited.
We have heard a good deal in recent days about the McMahon proposal. Although it is now history, having been withdrawn, I should like to suggest to the house some of the reasons why it was never formally put forward by its sponsor, and why it could not have been accepted had it been presented formally. The immediate and overwhelming objection to his proposal was that it involved the export from the outset of 400 million cubic feet per day at Emerson, as compared to 200 million under the present plan. This would leave only 100 million a day for eastern Canada, an amount clearly insufficient to attract capital to construct the pipe line eastward from Winnipeg and quite inadequate for central Canadian requirements.
Second, Mr. McMahon had no gas purchase contracts, no sales contracts, no permits and no pipe. As you will have seen from the correspondence which has been tabled, he attempted to reassure me on the score of pipe, but the quantities and diameters he
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation was able to specify were simply not consistent with the construction, even on a patchwork basis, of a line to central Canada in the time he specified.
The only way in which Mr. McMahon could have acquired the necessary contracts, permits and materials would have been to buy out Trans-Canada. Since he was backed by the U.S. firms which are opposing the present plan for marketing Canadian gas in the U.S. middle west, and since the gas producers with whom he would have had to do business to acquire gas supplies are the principal present shareholders of Trans-Canada, his prospects in that regard were not bright.
Mr. McMahon was optimistic about the price his United States associates could pay for gas, and assumed that they could, without delay, obtain federal power commission approval of their proposed contract with him. One of these associates, Northern Natural Gas Company, applied in January of 1955 for permission to import gas from Trans-Canada at a lower price than Mr. McMahon was proposing. That hearing was adjourned sine die mainly, it would appear, because of objections of some of the customers of Northern Natural that the price of Canadian gas was too high. We should by now have learned that it would be unwise to base Canadian action on a guess as to the outcome of any application before the federal power commission. Mr. McMahon himself would be the first to agree, in the light of the history of the Westcoast project. Incidentally, McMahon is selling his gas at 22 cents at the United States border, whereas the Trans-Canada contract calls for 25 J cents and upward.
All this being so, there was not much use pursuing the matter further, but there were other points on which I was sceptical, one being that Mr. McMahon never disclosed the proposed sources of his Canadian equity capital, or the definition of "Canadian" which would be applied to it. This proposal was never a starter, but it has confused the issue now before us, and it has confused the opposition in particular. If any hon. members have studied it as closely as I have they will, I am sure, agree with Mr. McMahon that it had pow best be forgotten. The Ontario government apparently came to the same conclusion several months before we did.
Public ownership still seems to us to be unattractive. I have stated previously that the government foresees grave difficulty in trying to operate a pipe line on an economic basis with its constituents and shareholders at the producing end demanding higher field
3862	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation prices, and its constituents and shareholders in consuming areas demanding lower sale
prices.
It also doubts the propriety of using taxpayers' funds to operate a gas business in competition with the privately-owned coal and oil industry. A study of gas pipe-line financing in North America and elsewhere discloses many examples of government assistance to private enterprise in the form of loans or cash contributions, but I have been unable to find any example of direct operation by a government of any extensive gas transmission system. In short, it would appear that all governments have reached the conclusion that the long range transmission of natural gas is a field for private enterprise, with government assistance if necessary, and not a field for government ownership and operation.
It may yet prove necessary for us to attempt government enterprise in this field, but we believe that every prudent alternative should be explored first. We are therefore not prepared at this time to take over the enterprise of Trans-Canada and go into the gas transmission business.
I have implied that taking over the enterprise of Trans-Canada would be the only way for us to enter immediately into this business. That is precisely true. If we were to start from scratch to build a government gas transmission system we would, like the McMahon proposal, face the time-consuming business of setting up an organization, securing permits to remove gas from Alberta and from the board of transport commissioners to construct a specific pipe line. We would have to acquire gas supplies, negotiate gas sales contracts and, if we wished to export gas, start the federal power commission procedure all over again. If we could do all these things overnight we still could not build a pipe line until 1958, because we could not get the pipe.
That brings me back to the third hard fact I stated when I began. There is in Canada only one agency which can be placed in a position to build the western part of the pipe line this year. That is Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. Some sections of the press, and some hon. members, are in the habit of referring to Trans-Canada as the government's "chosen instrument". The government has no chosen instrument. Trans-Canada is the only usable instrument available.
Perhaps because they are impatient with the delays that have occurred, some hon. members claim Trans-Canada has defaulted on its obligations. It is the only company which has permits from the Alberta petroleum and natural gas conservation board to


move gas eastward from Alberta. It is the only company which has a permit from the board of transport commissioners. It is the only company which has under contract gas supplies adequate to serve the central Canadian market and also an export market. It has sales contracts with many Canadian consumers. It has an organization of men experienced in pipe-line construction and operation.
Above all, it has pipe of the required 34-inch diameter ready to be delivered. As a result of the foresight of three of the main sponsors of Trans-Canada, namely Tennessee, Gulf Oil and Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas, this pipe was ordered last November and is now being produced and stored in the southern United States. It is owned by these three companies and an option on it is held by Trans-Canada, good until the end of the 1956 construction season. Unless that option is exercised, pipe will not be available for construction of the western section before the 1958 construction season.
It is very fortunate for all concerned that the pipe was ordered last November; otherwise today we should have no alternative but to wait. The present owners in ordering it took on an obligation of some $40 million in order that there would be no delay in starting construction and getting gas on its way to market once financing had been arranged. The option on the pipe was originally related to the approval by the federal power commission of the contract between Tennessee and Trans-Canada. It is now being formally altered to give Trans-Canada an option relating to the financial responsibility of Trans-Canada, that is, its ability to pay for the pipe when delivered, in accordance with informal understandings previously agreed upon between Trans-Canada and the owners of the pipe.
The effect of all this is that Trans-Canada, and Trans-Canada alone, now has all the factors other than money necessary to start construction this year. Financing by normal methods cannot be arranged in the absence of validation by the federal power commission of Trans-Canada's contract with Tennessee.
We are not content to wait further for the federal power commission's approval; we are not equipped or willing to build the line ourselves; we desire that the line be started this year, rather than in 1958. Therefore the only practical arrangement is to finance a start by Trans-Canada this year. That is what is proposed by the new part of this resolution. Trans-Canada might well have preferred to take its chances on securing federal power commission approval, completing its financing, and constructing its project in due course. In the absence of any alternative project, it might well have counted on success in this.

Trans-Canada did, in fact, express sbme reluctance to accept the terms on which we propose to finance the 1956 construction of the western section. Perhaps when hon. members study those terms they will understand why. Each shareholder is required to put at risk his full investment in the company in order to build a long stretch of pipe line from Alberta to Winnipeg, which is a losing proposition unless it is completed to the United States or eastern Canada. The revenues from the sale of gas in western Canada will barely pay the operating expenses of the line, far less the interest and the depreciation. The company knows that unless it goes on to complete the line either southward or eastward by the spring of 1957 it stands to lose most, and perhaps all, of its investment. The investment now totals in excess of $15 million, and will be more before the western section is completed.
This is not a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition for Trans-Canada. I have never been associated with any government policy of that kind and I never will be. Trans-Canada stands to lose several million dollars if it does not succeed in paying off the loan and building beyond Winnipeg.
If it does succeed in paying off the loan and building beyond Winnipeg, it has still a long way to go before it begins to reap any profit on its investment. If this were a sure thing I know plenty of people who would be only too willing to finance Trans-Canada today. The picture of this proposal as a scheme to provide vast profits for Texas buccaneers is a fantasy insulting to the most ordinary intelligence, and grossly insulting to the men who have sponsored this project with hard cash and hard work where most Canadians have been unwilling to venture.
As for the government, it is nothing out of pocket if the loan is repaid with interest at 5 per cent. Indeed, it makes a modest return on its investment. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a subsidy to Trans-Canada or a subsidy to the building of the pipe line. On the other hand, if the loan is not repaid the government gets the western section of the line, which would have to be built in any event, for 90 per cent of the cost. I consider that a bit of a bargain.
The legislation which this resolution seeks to introduce is in two parts: (1) A first part, identical with the original proposal, which would authorize the formation of a crown corporation to construct and lease to Trans-Canada the northern Ontario section of the all-Canadian natural gas pipe line. The agreements relating to this part of the legislation have already been tabled and fully explained. As the house is aware, I tabled 67509-245
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation some days ago the amendment extending this agreement to November 1, 1956, to conform to the extensions previously granted by the Alberta conservation board and the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada.
(2)	A second part, authorizing the Minister of Finance to make an advance to Trans-Canada of 90 per cent of the cost of construction of the western section of the pipe line at going commercial rates of interest, and to take appropriate security.
When the legislation is approved the position will be as follows: (1) The government will be in a position to advance to Trans-Canada 90 per cent of the cost of construction of the western section, secured as I have described; (2) the advance will be made at going commercial rates for bank financing of a similar kind. Trans-Canada will undertake to repay this advance by April 2, 1957.
(3)	In the event of failure to repay by due date, the assets and shares of Trans-Canada will be taken over by the government, and the government will have the option of taking over the company as a going concern, on the terms I have stated, or of returning the unwanted assets and shares. The government is not required to take over Trans-Canada. It has a right to do so, but is under no obligation; (4) in the event that the Trans-Canada company is unable to repay the advance for the western section, the government will, as soon thereafter as possible, bring before parliament its further plans to ensure the completion of the all-Canadian line; (5) the government hopes, however, that the Trans-Canada company will be able to arrange the necessary financing for the whole line before the advance for the western section falls due. In that event the advance will be repaid and the government will proceed, as originally planned, to construct the northern Ontario section, which it will finance jointly with the government of Ontario, and to lease that section to Trans-Canada as part of the over-all project.
This is the proposal which the government commends to the house after prolonged and exhaustive study of every possible alternative. It offers an opportunity for an immediate start on construction. It gives the Trans-Canada company an adequate opportunity to demonstrate that it can finance the whole of the line. It ensures that the completion of the all-Canadian pipe line will not be further delayed by uncertainties about the decision of the federal power commission. It does not commit the government to public ownership, but it recognizes that if there are proven to be too many handicaps in the way of private enterprise, the government may have to take over and construct the whole of the line as a national enterprise.
3864	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Mr. Chairman, hon. members of the opposition appear to be greatly distressed by the fact that the capital which has so far been put into Trans-Canada is predominantly from the United States. They profess to see in this a "sell-out" of Canadian interests, and they have applied to those of the sponsors who come from the United States terms which one might expect to hear from a banana republic revolutionary, but not from any Canadian statesman.
Those who cry "sell-out" and "Texas buccaneer" are misrepresenting the facts. Also, as they have already found, apparently to their own surprise, they are scaring the goose that lays the golden eggs.


William Earl Rowe: Some goose!


Clarence Decatur Howe: I repeat that
the pipe line will be built wholly within Canadian territory. It cannot be built without a permit from the board of transport commissioners. Not a cubic foot of gas can be exported to the United States without a permit from the Canadian government. Prices to United States customers, by the terms of the export license itself, cannot be more advantageous to the buyer than those offered to Canadian customers. The entire project is subject to Canadian law. Parliament can at any time legislate whatever further regulations are considered to be in the national interest. In other words, an all-Canadian pipe line, whoever may own it, is completely under Canadian control.
The confusion of the Leader of the Opposition is illustrated by his complete misunderstanding of the really important and unusual provision which is being made by Trans-Canada in regard to its share marketing program. When I described this provision on March 15 the Leader of the Opposition sneered at it, using the terms "shallow pretence". He foresaw some juggling of share issues which would result in the offer of 51 per cent of the common stock to Canadians becoming meaningless. Now, I am more or less accustomed to the Leader of the Opposition accusing me of misleading the house, that being his idea of statesmanship, but his inability to understand a straightforward proposition continues to amaze me.
I wish to state again the proposal which Trans-Canada has made with regard to the issuance of shares. I shall do so in the words of the agreement among the sponsors. Section VI of that agreement states:
Trans-Canada declares and agrees that its arrangements for the financing of the costs of construction of the west-east natural gas transmission line proposed to be built by Trans-Canada will include a public offering in Canada of common shares of Trans-Canada's presently unissued capital stock in an amount not less than 51 per cent of


the total number of common shares of Trans-Canada to be outstanding after such offering has been made including the shares covered by such offering, and that it is Trans-Canada's intention to effect a wide distribution of such shares throughout Canada.
This is a solemn covenant, laid before this house and this country by the responsible companies who are sponsoring Trans-Canada. To suggest that its intent can be perverted by subsequent share issues is to reveal ignorance of the fact that before mortgage financing can be arranged, the equity capital must be stated and the related share issue registered and fixed in the trust deed or mortgage indenture.
Whenever I have mentioned this 51 per cent offer, I have taken care to point out that it does not guarantee control by Canadians. We cannot force Canadians to buy the shares or, having bought them, to keep them. Short of public ownership there is no way of guaranteeing Canadian control of the shares. If public ownership is what the official opposition want when they demand Canadian control, let them stand up and be counted with the party to their left, who at least advocate public ownership out of intellectual conviction, not out of intellectual confusion. I hear, however, that intellectual conviction on the part of Saskatchewan socialists stops short at gas and does not extend to cement plants.
If the Progressive Conservatives are not prepared to vote with the socialists, then let them have the grace to admit that this undertaking by Trans-Canada is most unusual in the provision it makes for whatever Canadian equity capital may desire to join in the venture. I repeat that, short of public ownership, it goes as far as could reasonably be asked to protect the Canadian interest.
In summing up, I submit that this is a prudent and practical proposal. Its purpose is to hasten the day when Alberta will have an adequate outlet for its surplus gas, and the day when the cities, towns and industries of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec within economic range will have access to this fuel. It is an undertaking of truly national scope, which we must either launch now or see languish for years to come. The means proposed are flexible, adaptable either to development by private enterprise, which is in keeping with the tradition and spirit of this country, or if necessary by public ownership, which though less attractive can still be moulded to our national needs.
Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that some hon. members prefer to obstruct this motion rather than debate it; therefore I beg to give notice that at the next sitting of the committee I shall move that the further consideration of

this resolution shall be the first business of the committee and shall not further be postponed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The guillotine!


Some hon. Members:: Dictatorship!


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, this house has heard the threat of dictatorship this afternoon. This house has heard an expression of the concept of parliamentary procedure that is held by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Trade and Commerce a few minutes ago said, "Let the Conservatives admit that this proposal is most unusual". We do; without hesitation. We admit it is not only unusual, but we submit that it is the worst proposal ever put before this house and one which will damage Canada in the years ahead if it goes through.


An hon. Member:: Is that why Premier Frost supports it?


George Alexander Drew: There have been occasions recently when we have seen that the minister does not always prepare the statements which he reads in this house. Today it is quite certain that he did prepare this speech. No one else would have written it. No one else would have brought together such a complete confusion of conflicting statements about the subject that is now before us.
Last Tuesday the members of this house, including the Prime Minister, heard these words from the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
The action proposed today is another declaration of independence by Canada.
What tawdry and nauseating inversion of the truth. Those words and the self-conscious-evidence of highly organized applause which followed them were simply a clear and effective declaration of political and moral bankruptcy of the Liberal party. Whom do they really think they are fooling? This is a complete and clear sell-out which has no relation whatever to the original proposal, bad though that proposal was.
Since this chosen instrument of the government was embraced in the loving arms of the Minister of Trade and Commerce every step has been shrouded in chicanery, mystery and evasion. Not even the Prime Minister knew about the communications from Mr. McMahon until they were discussed in this house and until after Mr. McMahon had received instruction from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We still are waiting to hear what took place between Mr. McMahon and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We only have the communications from Mr. McMahon to the Minister of Trade 67509-245J
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation and Commerce. We do not know what the replies were. We do know there were replies. Today the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that Mr. McMahon was trying to reassure him in regard to the supply of pipe and other details. Reassure him? Why? Because the Minister of Trade and Commerce had been discussing these details with him here in Ottawa and elsewhere.
We saw no acknowledgments of those letters. Was there no statement to Mr. McMahon that would have interested this house, and above all was there no statement that would have interested the Prime Minister, the nominal head of the government? He had not heard of them. Everybody else had been reading about them in the press but he had not even heard about them from the minister who sits next to him. The minister of mines and resources-and after all these are resources-had not heard about them either except through the press.	;


An hon. Member:: Get the title fixed.


An hon. Member:: There is no minister of mines and resources.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys had not heard about them; yet that would certainly come under his department. As a matter of fact it would be much better under his department than under the present department. That would be a much more logical place.
The statements which have been made today are further examples of the way in which this house has been dealt with in regard to this whole subject. As far as this chosen instrument of the government is concerned, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is quite correct when he says that only one agency has been placed in position to proceed this year. He has taken good care of that. He has taken very good care of that. No one else has been permitted to take any part in these discussions. He talks about the difficulties that are being encountered, and he tells us that there are still great difficulties about obtaining permission from the federal power commission in connection with the export of gas to the United States. His words were, "There is no end clearly in sight."
Let us see just what that means. That means that in the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself there is nothing to indicate the possibility that financing can be arranged on the basis of permission to sell gas in the United States. Let us just examine what has actually happened in this case. We had before us for some time a resolution on the order paper to provide that a crown corporation be set up to be known
3866	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation as Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation for the purpose of building a bridge through northern Ontario, which we were told was the difficult part of the line. Any suggestion that this area presented difficulty was not put forward in the first place in this house by any member of the opposition; it was put forward by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as the only justification for that first proposal that public money should be put up to finance this venture.
Now we have something different; now we have something very different. We have a motion before us incorporating the same provision that the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation is to be set up for the purpose, amongst others, of constructing, maintaining and operating a natural gas pipe line between the Ontario-Manitoba border and Kapuskasing, Ontario, and of leasing with an option to purchase such natural gas pipe line to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and carrying out such leases, including the disposal by the corporation of such pipe line in connection with such purchase option, and to provide that the Minister of Finance may lend money to the corporation for such purposes.
The purpose is to set up a crown corporation to build this northern pipe line. Now we have something which completely defeats that purpose. We are told that in addition there is going to be an arrangement by which the money advanced to the crown corporation can be used for another purpose. That money, the money of the Canadian taxpayer, can be advanced to build a line in western Canada. Up to $80 million of the $130 million that will go to this crown corporation can be used for that purpose. Therefore the crown corporation will not have money left to proceed with the northern Ontario bridge. What is now before us defeats the very purpose that was first incorporated in this resolution.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has talked about a declaration of independence. This is a declaration of complete dependence. Why is the Minister of Trade and Commerce so interested in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines? Why has he refused to consider anything else? Why is that alone the chosen instrument of the government? Why will that alone be heard in any discussion that takes place? The Minister of Trade and Commerce has just told us in the last few minutes that closure is going to be moved tomorrow, that the guillotine is going to be applied.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: I want to place on record the fact that Liberal members behind you and to the right are shouting "Hear, hear."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: 1 repeat, there are loud "Hear, hears" from the Liberal members to the suggestion that closure be applied. I want that recorded in Hansard, because I want , it known that it is not only the Minister of Trade and Commerce but that it is the Liberal party as a whole-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Well, one thing that is left
without any uncertainty is that every Liberal member of this house shares the responsibility for the denial of ordinary parliamentary rights to the members of this House of Commons.


Mr. Garson:: The Liberal party as a whole does not want another Drew power shortage in the province of Ontario.


William Earl Rowe: You created the shortage, your party in Ontario.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Justice knows as little about this as he knows about most other things of which he speaks. I am not going to remind him of certain power shortages there were in the province of Manitoba at a time he had some responsibilities there. There was a war on, and that had something to do with shortage of supplies-


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was long before.


George Alexander Drew: -and that affected a great many people. But as far as the question of power shortages is concerned, may I say, in spite of the interference of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, we were able to build up power supplies in Ontario very satisfactorily under a Conservative government at that time.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has suggested that we should make perfectly clear where we stand. I shall make it perfectly clear. I made it clear on March 15, the one other day in this whole session when we have been permitted to debate this subject on a motion. This is what I said at that time, as recorded at page 2182 of Hansard:
I want to put certain suggestions before the house and for the consideration of the government, in the hope that they may be prepared to listen to the words of the Prime Minister when he told the house last year that he did not like this method. First, refer the whole question immediately to a committee of this house to obtain the facts and [DOT] make appropriate recommendations. Second, insist upon the reorganization of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines as an all-Canadian company which can proceed immediately and under Canadian control. Third, if Trans-Canada cannot carry out its undertaking, then open the whole matter and permit new interests to make their proposals for an all-Canadian line, Canadian controlled. Fourth, if it can be shown, and I doubt that it is so, that part of the pipe line must be built as the government asserts on this occasion, then instead



M. 1956

[Stage Direction]
of building a part which could become an orphan under certain circumstances in the future, let them build the whole pipe line and lease it for operation under Canadian control.
By one of these methods, Mr. Chairman, Canada's main gas pipe line can be returned to the control of Canadians as it should be. This is our chance here in the House of Commons to mark a turning point in the greater control by Canadians of their own resources. Let this be a declaration not only in relation to natural gas but in relation to our great resources generally, not in any spirit of selfishness, not in any narrow approach but rather with the idea that as trustees for future generations of Canadians, along with any export that may be carried out under wise and appropriate conservation and control, our main purpose will be the future welfare of Canadians themselves.
I repeat those words today. They are clear, they are understandable and they state our position. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines came into this with certain assurances. Let those assurances be carried out. They came into this whole venture with certain clear and explicit promises. Let those promises be carried out. In so far as that is concerned, if they cannot carry out those promises then let us have some alternative method.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce suggests now that there is dreadful urgency. We are waiting to hear from the Prime Minister. I hope that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce moves closure he will not shut off the Prime Minister. We have been waiting for four months to hear from the Prime Minister as to what are his views. We have a right to know his views. We have the right to know why it was he said last July that he did not like this third method, but he still is now going along with it and with an infinitely worse proposal that has been placed before us for consideration today.
After all, while we know that the real and effective head of this government on this occasion is the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Prime Minister is the nominal head. The Prime Minister is answerable to the representative of the crown and to parliament, and in that capacity he has a duty to tell this house, and to tell the country through the ordinary channels available in this house, why he has changed his mind since last July and why he is now prepared to approve this improper proposal.
This house met on January 10, four months and four days ago. In the speech from the throne read that day the government stated clearly that there was going to be placed before this house a provision that would carry out the incorporation of a crown company to build a northern Ontario section of the pipe line. Here we are on May 14, and here we have this motion before us for the very first time; yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce says, "You will not have any debate; we shall move closure right away".
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Any delay there has been has been the delay of the government. The issue that is now raised is the authority of parliament itself. Any member who is prepared to support a closure motion tomorrow denies the authority and responsibility of parliament and accepts something in the form of dictatorship in this house. Nothing could better expose in all it ugly nakedness the real concept of parliament held by the Minister of Trade and Commerce than that threat uttered today when there had not been one single speech made in response to his own.
William Earl Rowe: The first time since confederation?


Mr. McCann:: How about 1932?


William Earl Rowe: No, you debated for. weeks.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, where does all this idea of haste arise? This government forced through the incorporation of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, its chosen instrument, in 1951, over five years ago.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, that is not true.


George Alexander Drew: What is not true?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We did not do it
in 1951. It was done in 1953, or 1954.


George Alexander Drew: It was certainly incorporated in 1951.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Trans-Canada was, but the amalgamation was not.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Trade and Commerce is referring to something else. He is referring to the shotgun wedding that he performed between Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and Western Pipe Lines. As sometimes happens in those cases where the bridegroom carries out the undertaking with a gun at his head, the bride is called upon to accept the name of the bridegroom, and that was what happened in this case. It was a shotgun wedding, and in these unholy bonds of matrimony Trans-Canada Pipe Lines moved forward under the blessing of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as the sole and only chosen instrument of this government. The sign was up for everybody else to keep off the grass, just as it was up for Mr. McMahon last week. We are still waiting to hear what that conversation with Mr. McMahon was when he so suddenly decided to withdraw his offer. We know he was warned off. We know he was told that the chosen instrument was going to be the only organization that would be permitted to go ahead.


Mr. Dickey:: How do you know that?


James Joseph McCann: That is a guess.
3868	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


William Earl Rowe: You certainly do not know anything about it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How do you
know?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, how true it is when the Minister of Trade and Commerce says that only one agency has been placed in a position to proceed this year. Only one agency has been in a position to proceed at any time.
I want to refer to some of the comments made about Mr. McMahon in the speech by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He was rather scornful of Mr. McMahon today. Mr. McMahon is no fly by night promoter. Mr. McMahon happens to be the only Canadian who has financed a gas pipe line in Canada. Of course he is dependent on the government for certain considerations, and on that account he may be called upon to exercise certain caution in some of the things he does. But Mr. McMahon has actually been responsible for financing Westcoast Transmission, a venture that involved $153 million. He brought in a large amount of capital from the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is bad.


George Alexander Drew: May I hear what was said?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I say that is bad according to your views.


George Alexander Drew: No, that is untrue, utterly untrue. That is another typical misrepresentation by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: And all the rest of you over there.


George Alexander Drew: I am glad he has made that statement in front of me so I may brand it as a falsehood to his face.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall quote your Hamilton speech before we get through.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Trade and Commerce-


William Earl Rowe: You never read it. You just misrepresented it.


George Alexander Drew: -apparently has been telling some people about that speech as well, I would gather from some of the things that have been said publicly on different occasions, and telling them inaccurately as is his custom. I would point out that in that Hamilton speech to which he refers I emphasized my belief that we should assure full protection to United States investment in this country but that I did not think it was anti-American for Canadians to show some


concern about their own resources and their own welfare in the years ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his scornful reference to Mr. McMahon today says that Mr. McMahon never disclosed his definition of "Canadian". Mr. McMahon knows what a Canadian is. Perhaps that is what is wrong. He is a Canadian, born in Canada. He can define what a Canadian is by everything associated with his own life. He does not need any artificial definition of the word "Canadian".


Mr. Pickersgill:: Some baby!


Mr. Hees:: Well, if it isn't fisherman Jack.


George Alexander Drew: It is worth while to have some lighter interjections in this debate by such comments as that just made, but this subject is not one that invites levity when you realize what the government is doing in handing over control of one of our greatest natural resources to investors outside of Canada.


Mr. Murphy (Lambton West):: He will start braying pretty soon.


George Alexander Drew: Just whom is this government trying to fool or, shall we say, whom is the Minister of Trade and Commerce trying to fool?


John Horace Dickey: Nobody.


George Alexander Drew: On the one hand, he came forward the other day with a great show of boastfulness when he talked about what the government was willing to do and got some applause from some of his supporters when he talked about the possibilities of development under public ownership. He backs away from that today. He tells us today that he does not know of any case where there has been successful operation by a government of a gas pipe line. Of course he admits that he might be prepared to consider it if all else fails.
But I was interested in the fact that this was thrown forward as more than a casual remark. Just whom is he trying to fool? Trans-Canada Pipe Lines? His associates in the government? His supporters? I agree with the hon. member opposite who said he cannot fool anybody. In the end I think everybody will come to that conclusion. Nobody is being fooled by this pretence now before us. This is a sell-out under the power of the government. We were told on different occasions that Canadians could not finance this project. Just today we have been told of the reluctance of Canadians to support this venture. Well, Canadians are going to be

forced to finance it. That is what the government is doing. Canadians are going to finance it, and then if Trans-Canada Pipe Lines are able for the first time to carry out one of their undertakings they will be in a position to benefit from the investment of Canadians. It will not be the Canadian investor who will benefit. Canada, through the agency of this government, will put up the money, and then an organization owned in the United States to the extent of 83 per cent is going to get the benefit of the Canadian investment. The Minister of Trade and Commerce cannot fool us on that.
The minister came back again today to that fraud about the 51 per cent being offered to Canadians. There is no such provision. The agreement is clear on that point. It is obvious from some other public statements that have been made that others have been misled by the statement of the minister in that respect. There is no assurance whatever of Canadian control of this company, and there is not a chance that there would be Canadian control.
When we speak of control we have made it clear that we are not suggesting for one moment that we do not welcome investment. On the occasion when the Minister of Trade and Commerce introduced this motion I then, in response to an interjection by one of the Liberal members, referred to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I pointed out that in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway most of the money had come from outside Canada, in that case from Great Britain. In so far as investment from the United States is concerned, we welcome that investment and, as a matter of fact, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce makes the statements he does about my being opposed to investment from the United States he knows there is not a word of truth in them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: He knows that perfectly well because he remembers that when I was head of the government of Ontario I was effective in bringing into this country very considerable investment from the United States, with the result that new towns have grown up along the north shore of lake Superior where pulp and paper mills are operating today.


William Earl Rowe: Right near his own riding.


George Alexander Drew: It is close enough to his own home for him to know what the facts are. He knows what the facts are and he knows perfectly well where that investment came from.


Mrs. Shipley:: Will the Leader of the
Opposition permit a question?


George Alexander Drew: Certainly.
14, 1356	3869
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Marie Ann Shipley: I should like to ask at what specific time the Minister of Trade and Commerce ever said or implied that the offer of 51 per cent of the stock to Canadians would guarantee control.


George Alexander Drew: The minister again today repeated the statement that 51 per cent would be offered in Canada, and I repeat that is not so.


Marie Ann Shipley: I refer to the guarantee of control that you just mentioned.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is adding a statement that was not made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: I have repeated again that the minister has repeated his statement that there is an assurance that 51 per cent will be offered to Canadians, and there is no such assurance; and I repeat-


An hon. Member:: You just said it now.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has placed clearly on record what he said and it is wrong, and the inaccuracy has been repeated again today. This proposal before us is certainly as neat a piece of juggling as we have seen in this house.
I hope the minister will reconsider his decision to have closure tomorrow; I hope the minister will reconsider his decision to apply the guillotine, because we should like to hear from some of the ministers opposite as well as the Prime Minister. I should like to hear the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys tell us about how ardently he supported this proposal when it came out. I should like to hear from the Minister of Transport the extent to which he expressed his belief that this was a good idea. Of course this matter might well be under the Department of Transport, because it is transport. I should like to hear from the Minister of Finance just how enthusiastic he is about this proposal. I should like to hear from him how well he likes the idea of Canadian taxpayers' money being put up to assure the control of one of our greatest resources by investors in the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We should like to hear from the hon. member for Calgary South.


An hon. Member:: We should like to hear from the premier of Ontario.


George Alexander Drew: We should like, first of all, to hear from the Prime Minister, and I trust that we shall hear from him. We have a right to hear from him, because after all it was a statement of the government that this measure

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation was going to be introduced in its original form, a form he told us last July he did not like. Now we have a new form, a much more objectionable form, and we certainly are entitled to an explanation by the Prime Minister as to why this measure is before us in its present form.
But let us go back to the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in trying to compare with others this undertaking where he juggles the funds of the crown corporation to be used for the building of the northern Ontario pipe line so that they are to be used for something entirely different.
Let us just examine this proposal. He compared it with the great venture of the development of the St. Lawrence. There is no comparison whatever. Canada and the United States are working in effective partnership on that project. Then some have compared this proposal with the great venture of the Canadian Pacific Railway. There is a great difference there. The one thing Sir John A. Macdonald was at all times determined would not happen was that the Canadian Pacific Railway would be tributary to the United States or United States interests. He was determined that it would be a Canadian venture for the benefit of Canadians and that it would not funnel our resources into the United States as will this venture which has been the result of the shotgun marriage performed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There could not possibly be a greater contrast between two enterprises than between the development of the Canadian Pacific Railway- that great Canadian venture under the guidance of Sir John A. Macdonald-and this shabby sell-out to interests in the United States at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers.


John Lorne MacDougall: That is for you to prove.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I shall be continuing my remarks after the six o'clock recess, but before then I want to make one thing perfectly clear. This well-trained noise and intervention by hon. members on the opposite side-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On which there is no closure.


George Alexander Drew: -and the organized applause of statements of the Minister of Trade and Commerce upon which there is no closure certainly will not deter us in any way from asserting our position. We have heard the boasts of the Prime Minister and his supporters about the support they have in the country. Very well. Let them test that support.


William Earl Rowe: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: The people of Canada have had no chance to assert an opinion in regard to this matter.


William Earl Rowe: You can't put closure on them.


George Alexander Drew: The people of Canada are still in a position where this government cannot invoke closure in their case. The people of Canada are still free to assert their opinion. Let it be remembered that when the C.P.R. was under development the people of Canada did have a chance to express their opinion, and they expressed it in no uncertain manner because they knew it was a Canadian venture.


An hon. Member:: They threw the Tories out.


George Alexander Drew: It was started by Sir John Macdonald. Sir John Macdonald spoke on behalf of that venture as I hope the Prime Minister of Canada today will speak with regard to the measure that is now before us.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: We have heard many of these boasts from the opposite side. Let us have a test of their vaunted courage.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. It being six o'clock I do leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the unusual procedure followed by the government today in indicating closure tomorrow gives a different direction than might otherwise have been the case. As I had occasion to point out earlier, this subject was first placed before members of parliament on January 10. We waited until March 15 for the subject to be brought forward by the resolution which now stands as No. 12 on the order paper. There was one day's debate on that resolution to set up a crown corporation. We had waited since then until May 14 for the new resolution to be brought forward. The opposition has indicated over and over again that it wished to discuss this subject. It has sought information. By questions it has tried to find out what was going on. It is true that there have been procedural discussions based on various questions that have been raised and also on the formal introduction of the motion, but this is the first day in a session of over four months that we have even been seized of the motion which is now under discussion.
There is no precedent in our parliamentary records for the course which is now to be

followed. Not only was there haste in indicating closure on the very proper discussion as to whether it is or is not advisable that this form of measure be introduced, but even before the minister who introduced the motion had completed his first speech on the motion he indicated that debate is to be terminated.
Closure has taken place in this house before. It was first applied in the discussion of the navy bill in the session of 1912-13. That bill was introduced on December 5, 1912. Those who have followed the history of our parliament will recall that there was a prolonged debate carried on most vigorously on both sides, and closure was applied only on April 10, 1913. Then in 1917 there was a bill guaranteeing certain Canadian National Railway bonds. In that case closure was applied on third reading and only on third reading, after the whole processes of debate had been exhausted in the ordinary way.
Again in 1917, closure was applied on second reading of the wartime elections act, and later in the committee stage and on third reading. In the first session of 1919 the Canadian National Railways bill was before the house and closure was applied after there had been a full discussion on the second reading stage and in committee of the whole. Again in 1921, on an interim supply motion, closure was applied when it was made clear that the opposition was not going to allow it to go through. Again in 1926, in the debate on the address, there was closure. In 1932 closure was again moved. In that instance it was moved after there had been considerable debate.


An hon. Member:: What was the subject?


George Alexander Drew: The subject was a very interesting one, I am sure, to the hon. member. It was unemployment relief. The unemployment relief bill had been introduced by the Bennett government and at that time it was being opposed by the Liberal party.


Mr. Lesage:: Twenty cents a day.


William Earl Rowe: Your party would not give them a 5-cent piece.


Jean Lesage: Twenty cents a day.


William Earl Rowe: You would not give them five cents.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: One at a time.


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: Blast your way into-


George Alexander Drew: I have mentioned this, recognizing that closure has been applied in this house as it has been applied at Westminster under certain circumstances. But there is no
3871
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation single case where a minister has come forward in the very initial stages and said: "We place before you the proposition that it is expedient Jhat this bill be introduced and we are going to move right away to stop any debate on this subject".


Mr. Robichaud:: After seven votes.


George Alexander Drew: I hear an hon. member opposite say after seven votes. If the hon. member was in the house-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: He was.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: And voted seven times.


George Alexander Drew: -he knows perfectly well that those votes were not taken on this motion.


Jean Lesage: It was obstruction.


William Earl Rowe: He never noticed that.


George Alexander Drew: I think some of the hon. members opposite-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Taken to prevent debate.


George Alexander Drew: -have been unaware of what has taken place.


William Earl Rowe: They usually are.


George Harris Hees: They just do what they are told.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I must remind hon. members that the Leader of the Opposition has the floor and he may not be interrupted without his consent.


John Lorne MacDougall: The Leader of the Opposition himself is laughing at that one.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I am in the fortunate position where I shall be able to make my point without being forced to proceed with any haste, just in case any of the hon. members opposite may not be able to hear me. Should it happen that at any time I feel they are not likely to hear me I shall make appropriate pauses.


John Horace Dickey: The pause that refreshes'.


Mr. Gardiner:: You are preventing every other one from speaking.


William Earl Rowe: You have done all right; you have put on closure.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Agriculture, the expert on Hansard-


James Garfield Gardiner: He will be on Hansard a long time after you are forgotten.


George Alexander Drew: -has just made an interjection which I have no doubt will not be expurgated in this instance; but he has interjected the remark that I am making it impossible for others to debate. I am not making it impossible for anyone to debate.
3872	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


James Garfield Gardiner: The longer you speak the fewer people will be able to speak.


George Alexander Drew: I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be able to persuade the Prime Minister to withdraw the guillotine and permit continued debate on this very proper motion now before the house.


George Harris Hees: They do not talk much.


George Alexander Drew: In any event, there is going to be the opportunity tomorrow before the guillotine falls for those who wish to do so to express their opinions and I, of course, am counting on hearing from the Prime Minister at that time. I would not for a moment follow a course that was going to deprive us of that opportunity.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what you were just threatening to do, waste time.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Chairman. As reluctant as I am to do so, I cannot help noticing the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture that I am trying to stop debate. Who introduced the closure motion? I think he must have been dreaming.


James Garfield Gardiner: You did it last Thursday.


George Harris Hees: He was not in the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I voted on all those occasions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Back in 1917.


George Alexander Drew: There was no closure motion, and there was and is a full opportunity for every member of the government to have his say in an orderly debate in regard to this subject.


William Earl Rowe: Not now.


George Alexander Drew: And I certainly would hope that the Minister of Agriculture would avail himself of the time that may present itself this evening to persuade the Minister of Trade and Commerce to permit him to tell us just why he was so keen on this strange new device.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will tell you a lot of other things if I get up.


George Alexander Drew: Well, Mr. Chairman, every one of us knows the minister would talk about a lot of other things, because he never talks about the thing that is on the order paper when he does get up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is certainly an example of the pot calling the kettle black.


James Garfield Gardiner: I usually keep in order, in any event.


William Earl Rowe: You keep in order but you do not get in order.


George Alexander Drew: We will let Hansard speak as to that. What would be interesting, though, would be to hear the Minister of Agriculture get up and explain exactly why he thinks the government should transfer funds that were to be allocated to a crown corporation set up for the purpose of building a northern Ontario pipe line-


James Garfield Gardiner: You tell us why it shouldn't; you have the floor.


George Alexander Drew: -to the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines for the construction of the western segment of that line. I would like the Minister of Agriculture to get up and explain how he reconciles that with the refusal of this government to spend the money that is necessary on the South Saskatchewan river dam, to give some assistance to his own province. The Minister of Agriculture has been dangling that bait before the people of Saskatchewan for several elections, but he has not been as successful in forcing his ideas through the government as has the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


An hon. Member:: He is losing his grip.


George Alexander Drew: There are some of us who do not live in Saskatchewan who believe that the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project is long overdue.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would agree with me that a discussion of the South Saskatchewan dam is not in order under this resolution which has to do with pipe lines, and I would ask him to co-operate with me in that respect.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, Mr. Chairman, it might easily be very important, because if the Minister of Agriculture were as successful in persuading the government as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been, who knows but that the power developed by the South Saskatchewan dam might be used for some of the operations of the pipe line that will be passing through Saskatchewan? Oh, no; it is quite possible that the two might be complementary.
In any event, we have on the one hand the mad haste of this government to end the debate even before it has started-


An hon. Member:: You call this a debate?


George Alexander Drew: -and to deny to the people of the minister's own province consideration by the government in regard to something which the people of that province feel is just as important as this venture that is now being undertaken. I am glad the Minister of Agriculture has shown this interest, and I hope there will be an opportunity to hear from

him at some later stage during this debate an explanation of his support of this project.
Now, Mr. Chairman, had it not been for this utterly unprecedented foreclosure of debate-and I use the word foreclosure advisedly-


An hon. Member:: They will do it four times.


George Alexander Drew: -because this is an attempt to mortgage the rights of free speech in this house without the opportunity of redemption; because of that course I find it necessary to review at greater length than I had intended some of the proceedings that have taken place and which should be on record before the axe falls.
We have come today to another stage, and only another stage, of the twisted and devious dealings of this government in connection with the building of the gas pipe line from Alberta to Montreal. At no stage of these proceedings right up to and including today has the government been frank with the members of this house. At no time has that lack of frankness been so conspicuous as it was today.
This session began with the statement to the members of this house that there would be the construction of a line across northern Ontario to connect the lines in western and eastern Canada. May I recall to hon. members the exact words that were used in the statement by the government right in the speech from the throne. Trans-Canada was, and I quote the words, "to build connecting lines in western and eastern Canada". Then this northern Ontario bridge was to connect them.
Where has any of that construction gone ahead? Where is there any suggestion of it going ahead? We have been waiting for a long time to see some evidence that it would go ahead on the basis of the completely unqualified undertaking given by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines when they were incorporated five years ago. There was no possible justification for the course originally indicated in the speech from the throne. We made that clear when this came up on March 15; but if that was unjustified, what is to be said of this weird proposal now before us?
Let us recall the agreement that was made available to the members of this house at the beginning of this session. On January 11 an agreement between the government of Canada and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was made available to hon. members of this house. These words appeared in the preamble:
And whereas Trans-Canada proposes to construct between October 1, 1955, and November 1, 1956 a 34-inch pipe line from a point on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border to the vicinity of Winnipeg, 67509-246J
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Manitoba, with a lateral line from the vicinity of Winnipeg to Emerson, Manitoba, and a 24-inch pipe line from Sheridan to Brooklin, Ontario, and a 20-inch line from Brooklin to Ste. Anne de Bellevue in the vicinity of Montreal, Quebec, with a lateral from Morrisburg to the vicinity of Ottawa, Ontario;
And whereas Trans-Canada proposes to construct between October 1, 1955 and November 1, 1957 a 30-inch pipe line from the vicinity of Winnipeg, Manitoba, to the Manitoba-Ontario border, and from the vicinity of Kapuskasing, Ontario to Brooklin, Ontario;
And whereas Trans-Canada proposes to arrange for financing of all its costs and commitments in connection with the said program of construction prior to May 1, 1956;
Now therefore this agreement witnesseth
1. Trans-Canada will diligently take steps to secure all necessary financing, materials and supplies for and, having obtained same, will carry out the aforesaid program of construction and particularly will cause to be constructed in conjunction with the construction of the said northern Ontario section of the said all-Canadian pipe line the portions thereof from the vicinity of Winnipeg, Manitoba to the Manitoba-Ontario border, and from the vicinity of Kapuskasing, Ontario to Brooklin, Ontario, so that all portions of the said pipe line to be constructed by Trans-Canada will be ready for operation at the time of completion of the northern Ontario section.
All the conditions now present were known at the time the agreement was tabled on January 11. The difficulties of obtaining permission from the federal power commission in Washington were fully known, just as fully known as they are today. Trans-Canada has failed in the basic undertakings upon which the whole agreement was predicated. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says that Trans-Canada has all the factors other than money. They have the desire, but not the money. So the government is going to provide the money, the taxpayers' money of course. Trans-Canada has all the factors other than the money.
What was the reason Trans-Canada got the franchise in the first place? It was because they had the money. That was the reason, not because the government liked the colour of their eyes or their names. All the fondness for some of these individuals that has been displayed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce would hardly indicate any explainable reason why they got these special concessions.
We are now presented with a new agreement extending the earlier agreement and proposing something so foreign to every assurance given by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines in the first instance that it is extremely difficult to believe we are dealing with the same organization when we discuss this subject.
What is now proposed is that we go through the form of approving the creation of a crown company to build the northern Ontario
3874	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation bridge. That is not what we are actually considering, of course, under this new proposal. What we are actually considering is a double shuffle by which the government goes through the motions of setting up a crown corporation, asks parliament to authorize the advance of $130 million and then makes the further provision that from that $130 million $80 million may be advanced, not by the minister as he said this afternoon but by the crown corporation to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, for the construction of part of the western line. That is what is being done.
In the very process of advancing that $80 million they deny themselves the possibility of constructing the northern Ontario pipe line because they will not have the money to do it. That is the situation. Of course we know perfectly well what would happen. We would be asked for another concession at some future date. Remember, this is not the whole pipe line to tie up with the northern Ontario pipe line. This goes as far as Winnipeg, so there is left a stretch of 110 miles. What is the government going to do about that? Trans-Canada has everything but money, so when the 110 miles are to be built doubtless they will come back for money again. I wonder what patriotic appeal the Minister of Trade and Commerce will make at the time that application is before us.
No, this proposal is one that defeats the intention of the original resolution. This proposal is one that takes away money needed for the northern Ontario line. In spite of anything that may be said inside this house or outside of it, what is now proposed delays the construction of the northern Ontario pipe line.
Before we proceed further let me refer to the reasons I have indicated for hearing from the Prime Minister. We have a right to know just exactly why the government even goes through this pretence. Why does the government not simply ask for the authorization to advance money for the construction of. the pipe line from Alberta to Winnipeg? Why go through this mumbo-jumbo of setting up a crown company and then authorize that crown company to do something that is not contemplated in its declared purposes, advance money for the construction of a pipe line in another part of Canada?
According to the government, the reason for the setting up of the crown company in the first instance was that this was a difficult venture. We were told that this presented the same difficulty that the C.P.R. had had to overcome, but that problem was faced with courage by Sir John Macdonald


and that railroad was completed under private enterprise without any double dealing of this kind.
In this particular case they cannot even follow the normal method for building the easiest part of the whole line from the Alberta boundary to Montreal. Of the whole line this is the easiest part and they cannot finance that, though in the first instance they were going to finance the whole thing. When we are confronted with this it becomes necessary, unwilling though we may be to take the time to do it, to review the grounds upon which Trans-Canada Pipe Lines got this authority. Even if it is necessary to repeat some of the things that have been said, that must be done to keep the context of the record in such shape that no one will be under any misapprehension as to why this chosen instrument of the government is in this peculiarly favoured position at the present time.
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines came before this house in 1951, as I pointed out earlier today. They undertook to build the line without government assistance. There was no suggestion that money would be put up by the people of Canada. When the matter was before the house the house was told that this would be done without any financial assistance from the government. One of the things it is essential to remember is that when Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was incorporated it was incorporated for the purpose of building a line entirely within Canada and simply for the supplying of gas within Canada itself. The government must accept full responsibility for the support of that proposition at that time. Export only came later after the shotgun marriage. Up to that time the whole proposition had been one that was based upon the sale of gas in Canada.
Therefore we have an entirely different situation today, and one which raises many issues. What has come up today and what is now proposed raises a number of issues which should be borne in mind by the members of this house as well as the people outside. First is the authority of parliament itself, challenged as it has been in such dictatorial manner by the threat of closure at this stage of the discussion of the motion.
Second is the fact that Canadian taxpayers' money is to be used to finance the venture, of which 83 per cent is owned in the United States by United States gas interests whose primary concern is the sale of gas in the United States at the lowest possible rates to the United States consumers.
Third is the fact that a bad proposal which the Prime Minister said last July he did not like has been made unbelievably worse.

Fourth is the delay in proceeding with the venture. The government has had five years to arrange the details, and now with a deadline of June 7 parliament is confronted on May 14 with a new and strange device without precedent in the history of the Canadian House of Commons.
Fifth is the refusal to let Canadians have a chance. At least two very responsible Canadians have made proposals at a time when Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was in default. It is certain that if the extraordinary terms now suggested had been known publicly, many Canadians would have welcomed those terms.
Sixth is the fact that although we were told that Canadians could not finance this venture, it is now clear that Canadians are going to be called upon to finance the whole venture and turn over the benefits to an organization owned by United States investors to the extent of 83 per cent.
Seventh is that the present proposal assures no continuing pipe line into eastern Canada, and instead of expediting the construction of the line that will bring gas to eastern Ontario and Quebec, it merely constructs that part of the pipe line which will assure the facilities for export to the United States.
Eighth, and perhaps most important, is that the government proposes to use Canadian taxpayers' money to hand over control of one of our basic resources to gas and financial interests in the United States whose main concern is the gas market of the United States and not the sale of gas in Canada or the welfare of the people of this country.
There are other issues which arise, but there are eight clear issues which arise out of what has come before us. Canadians were not given the chance. Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce, does the Prime Minister, or does any member opposite suggest for one moment that if a public statement had been made that anyone who undertook this venture was going to get 90 cents on the dollar of the taxpayers' money to finance it, there would not have been a rush of Canadians asking for the chance to build this pipe line? Are we so devoid of initiative as a people, are we so completely incapable of undertaking great developments, that Canadians would not have welcomed a chance of that kind? Of course the answer is no. On all sides we see Canadians who are carrying out great developments.
We are told over and over again that while there is considerable investment from outside of Canada in this country, some 83 per cent of the capital invested in Canada since the war has come from Canadians.
14. 1956	3875
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation That is true, but the trouble is that a very large part of that 83 per cent is in static developments like houses, factory buildings, highways, power plants and things of that kind, but the use of resources and the opening of new ventures has very largely been the result of investment from outside Canada.
One of the reasons so much capital from outside of Canada has gone into those investments, while Canadian capital has been going into what might be regarded as more secure ventures, is that the tax policies of this government favour foreign operators as against Canadians. This government well knows that foreign operators competing in Canada against Canadians are allowed a higher write-off on their capital possessions, are allowed favourable tax considerations, which place those people from outside of Canada at an actual advantage here in Canada as against Canadians trying to do the same job. This government has actually been helping people outside Canada not merely to invest in Canada but to take work and business from Canadians by their unfavourable tax legislation. No, this is something in which Canadians would have welcomed the opportunity.
Then again, we are told about the need for haste, that we cannot even wait beyond tomorrow to have this resolution dealt with. We have been waiting for over five years and, as far as this session is concerned, we have been waiting for over four months. Now for the first day we have this motion before us, and we are told that this will be our last. That is just how urgent this was. Of course, the deadline is June 7. What humbug! Does anybody think for a moment that June 7 will be the limit if the debate is not completed by that time? These people are getting the money. You can just see them waiting to get it.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: With their tongues hanging out.


George Alexander Drew: Their tongues are hanging out. Their pockets will be hanging out, as far as Canadians are concerned, if this goes on. But in the meantime let nobody be impressed with these artificial deadlines. This government has had this in its hands for over five years, and it is to be hoped that no hon. member in this house and no Canadian outside it will be impressed by this bogus haste that is now put before us.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Frost.


George Alexander Drew: Let us also hope, in spite of some of these interjections, some of which I have no doubt Hansard cannot quite get, that we
3876	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation will not hear any more twaddle about the opposition being opposed to investments from the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: What, again?


George Alexander Drew: It would not have been quite right if the anvil chorus had lacked the voice of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It did not in that case, because I heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce giving the lead to the senseless noise that was made just now when I said those words. No, the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows perfectly well that any suggestion that we have opposed such investment is utterly untrue and deliberately untrue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: No well-informed Canadian is unaware of the fact that this country has been dependent upon outside investment, not only from the United States but from Britain and from other countries as well. We are not talking about investment from the United States on this occasion. We are talking about investment of Canadian money, the Canadian taxpayers' money, in a venture which is then to be handed over to United States control by this government. That is what we are talking about.


An hon. Member:: Unquote.


George Alexander Drew: Once again may I ask if any of the members of this house, in spite of the sounds they think it is appropriate to make under the circumstances, really think that any such proposal as this for the advancing of United States funds to finance a similar Canadian venture in the United States would even be heard on the floor of congress in Washington? Even the loudest and noisiest of the members opposite knows perfectly well that any such pi-oposal before the congress of the United States would be greeted with laughter that would be heard by the Americans on the D.E.W. line in the north.


William Earl Rowe: It would not even be heard on the streets of New York, let alone in congress.


George Alexander Drew: I have said that the first issue raised is the authority of parliament itself, and that is before us in all its reality. Every hon. member knew that the agreement with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines called for the completion of its financing by April 30. Certainly it was of the utmost importance to the members of this house, and particularly to the government, that any alternative proposal should be made known and given consideration.


The Minister of Trade and Commerce has gone out to find the McMahon letters now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: That is pretty cheap.


George Harris Hees: Let us know if you find them.


George Alexander Drew: I hope he will find them, and I hope he will find the replies he sent to Mr. McMahon. We would have liked to have that information, and I think the Prime Minister might have liked to have it.


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of Agriculture
would have liked to have it too.


George Alexander Drew: Nevertheless, in answer to a direct question in regard to proposals from Mr. Frank McMahon of Calgary-


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


George Alexander Drew: I hear from someone opposite, "Who is he?" Ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He has been dealing with him for some time.


William Earl Rowe: Does he not tell you anything?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Some hon. Members:: Ask Frost.


William Earl Rowe: Does he not tell you anything at all?


Some hon. Members:: Ask Frost.


An hon. Member:: You had better brighten up.


William Earl Rowe: Has the minister told you?


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I remind hon. members once more that it is very difficult to hear the hon. member who has the floor unless they give him complete order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I shall do my best to make sure they hear me. I assure you I shall pause an adequate length of time so that my remarks may be heard.


An hon. Member:: Until ten, George?


An hon. Member:: You are going to pause after the next election too.


William Earl Rowe: You just pause naturally for noise. You have nothing else to contribute.


George Alexander Drew: Actually it is restful to have these pauses once in a while, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: In answer to a direct question in the house the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that he had no written communications from Mr. McMahon. I think we are

still owed an explanation by the Prime Minister with regard to that statement, which was incorrect and which deserves an explanation in the house.


An hon. Member:: It was private and confidential.


George Alexander Drew: Later it turned out that in addition to personal discussion of the subject on different occasions, not just on March 27, Mr. McMahon had written to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on April 4, on April 16 and on April 24, making the most positive proposals.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Ask Frost.


George Alexander Drew: May I suggest to some of the hon. members that they get a copy of the correspondence and read it so they may find how positive these proposals were. May I remind them also, as I have on earlier occasions, that the man we are discussing is the only Canadian who has yet organized and financed a gas pipe line in Canada, and he has done so successfully. May I also point out that his undertaking was sufficiently positive that he gave an unqualified undertaking to post a $500,000 personal bond for the fulfilment of that undertaking.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: I hear laughter.


An hon. Member:: He withdrew after that.


George Alexander Drew: The Prime Minister suggested that this was not such a very large sum in relation to such a big venture. It was just exactly $500,000 more than anyone connected with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has pledged in connection with the line.


An hon. Member:: That is not correct.


John Horace Dickey: They are pledging $15 million.


William Earl Rowe: What's a million to your crowd
anyway?


An hon. Member:: Here comes "what's a million" Howe.


George Alexander Drew: The nature of the communications makes it perfectly clear that they were not private and confidential, no matter what appeared on the letters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: That is the way you treat
it.	.


An hon. Member:: It would not be to you.


George Alexander Drew: I hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has just returned, say "It would not be to you".
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say anything of the kind.


George Alexander Drew: I am told it was one of his supporters who made the statement. It was one of the parliamentary assistants who made it. The fact is that these were not private and confidential. No writing of "private and confidential" on them could make proposals to a member of the government anything but public proposals, and no one knows that better than the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In any event, if he felt himself under any such limitation his duty then was to do what he did on May 3 and ask for the withdrawal of any limitation. He knew he could get it. He got it very quickly on May 3.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I received lots of withdrawals.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, yes, the minister got a lot more than a withdrawal. He got Mr. McMahon out of the way as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: It was the duty of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, if he felt he was under any limitation, to communicate with Mr. McMahon, who had demonstrated his ability in this field, and tell him that these were communications to a government. Of course, as far as that is concerned, they had not been kept private and confidential. The minister had officials of his department in on the discussions. This matter had not been private and confidential. It was in the press.


An hon. Member:: You had a copy?


George Alexander Drew: It was being discussed by everyone except the Prime Minister, who did not know about it. This was public knowledge. It is certain that at any time the minister could have had that undertaking removed, just as he so successfully did on May 3.
But there is a good deal more to this than the contempt of parliament displayed by the reply of the Minister of Trade and Commerce which was so contrary to the truth. At the very time these discussions were taking place and the Minister of Trade and Commerce was receiving positive proposals, the government was considering the fact that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was not going to be in a position to carry out its undertaking. Surely that was a time when the Prime Minister should have been informed that a man who had had some experience in financing pipe lines was asking for the opportunity to take some part in this venture, at a time when they were discussing new arrangements. That was the very time he should have known. Yet we have the strange situation that although the government were meeting
3878	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation almost daily in council the Prime Minister was not informed about these positive proposals, although a new arrangement with Trans-Canada was then under discussion. I am not arguing on behalf of any individual or any company.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no?


George Alexander Drew: I do say that there were two proposals put forward by two responsible Canadians, and that those or any other proposals deserved the attention of the government at a time when it was extending earlier agreements and particularly at a time when it was considering the possibility of asking parliament to put up the Canadian taxpayers' money to finance an undertaking which would hand over the control of one of our greatest resources to a company which is now owned to the extent of 83 per cent by investors in the United States.
I have no way of knowing what the discussions were that took place with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I do know that Gairdner and Company, who made one of the proposals, are a very responsible financial organization. I do know that it was an organization sufficiently responsible that this government sought its voluntary services during the critical days of war in very important activities. I know that their proposals, whatever they were, whether they were proposals which should or should not have been accepted, deserved consideration. In fact I think proposals from any responsible Canadian at a time when the whole thing was in the air certainly deserved consideration, and that we as well as the Prime Minister had a right to know something about them. For all we know there may be other proposals which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is keeping to himself.
But certainly the proposal of Mr. Frank McMahon deserved consideration, whether that consideration would have led to a favourable or unfavourable decision from his point of view. I say that simply because he is a man with experience in that field and had set out to the government in detail where he was going to get 34-inch pipe this year, where he was going to get 30-inch pipe next year and the 24-inch pipe as well. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said nothing which in any way challenges the accuracy of this statement.


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes, he has.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. McMahon had that experience. Mr. McMahon had lived up to some of his undertakings. I think also when we are told about the formidable barrier through northern Ontario, most people who have seen them will agree that the Rocky Mountains


present just as rugged a barrier as do the stretches of northern Ontario. That was carried out by private investment. To those who still are following the instructions given in caucus last Wednesday about the way in which they should applaud the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Last Tuesday.


George Alexander Drew: -or last Tuesday, may I tell them just how positive some of those statements were in case they have not read them. The opening paragraph of Mr. McMahon's memorandum of April 4 to the Canadian government indicates clearly that this was no casual and general discussion. These were the opening words of that formal memorandum:
1. I will finance and construct an economically feasible gas pipe line from Alberta to Montreal and complete the same by 1958 without federal or provincial ownership or debt guarantee.
Whether or not that can be carried out, it was not vague and uncertain, and at least the man who was putting that proposition forward had enough confidence to undertake to put up a $500,000 personal cash bond. Mr. McMahon then goes on in that memorandum of April 4 to say that he would complete a 34-inch pipe line to Winnipeg by late 1956 or early 1957. That is the statement of the man who has done the organizing and financing of a gas pipe-line company and who knows more about it than does the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who pooh-poohed that suggestion today.
He also spoke of contracts for gas production and said their organization was in a position to put up $40 million to $45 million in equity capital and to arrange loans to provide for some $80 million required for the construction of a pipe line to Winnipeg. The Minister of Trade and Commerce brushed that off scornfully today. This is the man who did put up equity capital in the case of Westcoast Transmission, and who got a large and important investing organization in the United States to put up their money in the belief that it was a sound venture.


An hon. Member:: American capital.


George Alexander Drew: Certainly it was American capital, and it was very sound American capital coming in here under an organization which, contrary to this arrangement, retained control of the organization in Canada. That was a definite enough proposal.
Whether or not it was the best proposal, we do not know. The Minister of Trade and Commerce may have another one up his sleeve along with a letter from his sister. We do not know that. However, we know that he held one back, and we know that he has had two offers which should have been

discussed. It certainly was a proposal that, above all other times, should have received consideration before April 30. It certainly was a proposal that should have been indicated to this house as well as to the Prime Minister.
At the very beginning of this session, and several times since then, I have urged that this whole matter be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, which is the committee to which such matters are referred; or, if the government preferred a select committee to obtain all the facts, then that they appoint a select committee. If that had been done the facts would now be available. If that had been done we would have known of the McMahon proposal long ago. If that had been done we would have had a chance to have evidence before us prior to April 30, and so would the Prime Minister. We also would have been able to consider the Gardiner proposal. Furthermore, we could have considered any other proposals that would certainly have come before us if that committee had been set up for this purpose.
Perhaps once again we shall have some question raised as to Mr. McMahon's withdrawal. We all know why Mr. McMahon withdrew. He was warned off. That is the reason. That in itself should be a warning of the danger in the present situation, and the danger in the power exercised by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Marie Ann Shipley: Prove that statement.


George Alexander Drew: If there was one person who had a right to know about that proposal before any extension of the Trans-Canada Pipe Line agreement was completed, it was certainly the Prime Minister himself and the other members of the government associated with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In fact, one thing about which this house deserves some information is why the Prime Minister showed so little interest in this subject. It is not only worthy of comment but it is worthy of explanation.
What we see disclosed here is personal government, one-man government; and it is time to mention something else that is raised by this fact. Centred in the hands of the Minister of Trade and Commerce are a number of activities that have no place in his department, and this is one of them. We have T.C.A. under his department when it should be under the Department of Transport. We have under his department other activities which should be in the hands of ministers whose responsibilities are associated with those activities. We have the Minister of Agriculture sitting silently by
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation waiting for announcements by the Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to the marketing of wheat, and so it goes. The great Pooh-Bah of the government has all these activities under his control.
Now that we have here an example of the unwisdom of centring these activities in the hands of one man who has so little respect for parliament, it would be a good time for the Prime Minister to consider the reallocation of activities under the proper headings of the departments themselves. This is personal government. The real head of the government decides when he will and when he will not inform his colleagues, let alone the members of the House of Commons. Having been denied the information to which we are entitled, we are now confronted with the suggestion that, bad though this proposal is, it demands our acquiescence because anything else would cause delay. If this is wrong, we have no right to expedite a wrong. We have no right to approve a wrong course with a gun at our heads, and we will not do so. If there is any delay, that delay is the complete responsibility of the government.
Perhaps the members of the government may say it is the responsibility of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Certainly there are one or two of them who would do so. But the fact is that it is the responsibility of the whole government, and the Prime Minister is responsible for the operation of the government. The time has come for some insistence on the observance of the obligations of ministers in this house. The government knew last year that some new arrangements were going to be necessary. As reported at page 2165 of Hansard for this year the Minister of Trade and Commerce had this to say:
After negotiations with the government of Canada and the industrial development bank, the company announced on March 17, 1955, that it had been unable to negotiate a type of financial assistance which did not result in an agency of the government of Canada being in a position to control the company, and that such an arrangement made it impossible for the company to purchase its gas requirements.
If that was clear in March of last year, what have we to say about the situation now? If control of the operation of the pipe line by a government agency was going to prevent financing then, what about today? The government has been dawdling along failing to come to grips with this subject for more than a year, and now it is suggested that we must agree to a proposal, no matter what it is, presented to us at this late date. Without any basic information through the ordinary channels of committee inquiry which are a part of our parliamentary procedure.
3880	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Since this proposal calls for financing with [DOT]Canadian funds a venture that is controlled in the United States, surely it is necessary for us to examine carefully just what were the grounds upon which this company obtained its rights. On March 15 of this year, as reported at page 2164 of Hansard, the Minister of Trade and Commerce had this to say:
Hon. members will recall that in 1951 parliament *enacted the original statute incorporating Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. The original sponsors of this project believed that a pipe line designed to serve the Canadian market only was economically feasible and the statute of incorporation restricted the company to activity within Canada. Through the merger of the original Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited with Western Pipe Lines Limited in early 1954, the plan was broadened to include a substantial export of gas at Emerson, Manitoba, which was possible under the Western Pipe Lines charter.
Thus we see the statement of the Minister *of Trade and Commerce that the charter and the franchise were obtained on the assurance that a pipe line entirely in Canada serving Canadians was economically feasible, and they were obtained on no other grounds. To use his own words: "The statute of incorporation restricted the company to activity within Canada". It was only three years after 1951, in 1954, that the two companies were merged. It thus becomes necessary, as I said before, to examine some of the details. The sponsor of the bill here in the House of Commons that incorporated this company said on February 27, 1951- and I am placing this on record again so it may be in the context of this story-as reported at page 736 of Hansard:
It is an all-Canadian route and, with the total volume of gas consumed in Canada, complete control will be ensured in this country.
It was with that assurance and with that understanding that this company was incorporated. The next stage was when the bill came before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Mr. Frank Schultz represented the company before that committee on March 6, 1951. In seeking the support of the committee for their proposal he had this to say:
The second consideration was that it should be an all-Canadian project, that it would be Canadian gas transported over an all-Canadian line, and that 100 per cent of the consumption would be in Canadian cities.
If anyone says today, "Oh, well, it is absurd to think that this could have been done", what he is really saying is that those people obtained a charter and a franchise on the basis of reckless statements they knew to be false. I do not suggest that for one moment. I feel sure that these men were speaking Tesponsibly at that time. Certainly they were .making definite enough statements.


Then again, before the same committee, the committee to which we have sought to have this subject referred during the whole of this session, the same Mr. Frank Schultz said on the same day, March 6:
You may be interested to know about the marketing situation. We are satisfied at this stage that adequate markets exist in the eastern part of Canada to consume all the gas that we can produce and move through this line.
Nor were these the only statements. Counsel for the company, also speaking before the committee, had this to say:
The relative ruggedness of the terrain between Kenora and Sudbury has given some people the idea that this project is a little bit difficult or even impossible, and for that reason we have today the engineer who made the survey on behalf of this company. I think he will be able to give you some enlightening comments on the type of country that these pipe line builders have met in other countries and that the shield country of Canada is not as formidable as we have been led to believe, largely because of going over it by train and plane.
Then Mr. Floyd Waterfield of the Pipe Line Engineering Company and the Oklahoma Contracting Corporation, a man of some 31 years experience in the field, had this to say, following the statement I have just read. These were his words:
So, everything being considered, that so-called south route as I have referred to it along the (great) lakes provided some quite difficult construction problems-but I have seen worse in our country in Pennsylvania. There are certain sections of that country which are difficult particularly across the Tuscarora mountains and in West Virginia. That is a pipeliner's hell there. So there is nothing in this pipe line construction that is insurmountable. It is just big. Some of it is going to be difficult construction but the average over-all cost comes to a very reasonable and reconcilable figure.
We see nothing of that in the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce today. Where was this easy construction that we heard about before the committee and in this house? Where was the certainty that this could be done without government assistance and without any outside financing other than private financing when this was before the board of transport commissioners? Oh, no; no difficulties at all. Everything was rosy, and that was the ground upon which Trans-Canada Pipe Lines got their right to proceed.
Then we know that as recently as last year Mr. Clint W. Murchison, who was writing- not "personal and confidential"-to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, on that occasion had this to say:
We first came Into western Canada about five years ago and at that time we heard of pipe lines to Chicago, Minneapolis and other points south of the Canadian border. We immediately conceived the idea of an all-Canadian pipe line, knowing in the beginning that anyone would take the routes into Minneapolis and Chicago as being much more remunerative and easier to finance,

but feeling that the Canadian citizens were of such patriotism that they wanted a fuel system within the confines of their own boundaries to the extent that they would not be subjected to the vicissitudes of American politics. We frankly gave no serious thought to anything but the trans-Canada pipe line and tossed the other routes out as impractical in so far as it concerned the people of eastern Canada.
Nor was it Mr. Murchison alone who was so optimistic at that time. On March 13, 1953, as recorded at page 2929 of Hansard, we find these words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I want these words recalled in the light of the statement made today:
Therefore the policy that has governed the export of electrical energy since 1907 must apply, within reason, to the export of natural gas. Canada has consistently refused to authorize firm contracts for the export of electrical energy, and this in spite of great pressure at times from producers of electrical energy. That consistent policy has paid large dividends to the Canadian economy, in that our sources of electrical energy have been preserved to our economy.
Then there is the even more important statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce of last year. On March 8, 1955, just 14 months ago, he said; in a letter tabled in this house:
All studies indicate that the line is capable of being financed privately and it has been decided to defer construction for one year and let matters take their normal course.
That was just over one year ago. Then we had this strange presentation made today without any apology, without any explanation of why a man who was so sure a year ago that this could be done by private enterprise without government assistance now finds that the governments must not only build the northern Ontario section, but must put up the money for the construction of the western section as well.
In the face of that statement made just over a year ago, how can this government come before the house and ask us to approve the strange proposal now placed before us, without this subject at least being referred to the appropriate committee of the house to obtain the facts which have changed the situation so dramatically since March of last year? Nor do we need to go back a year to see strange differences in the situation. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce was presenting the resolution for which this present resolution was substituted he had this to say, as reported at page 2165 of Hansard of March 15 of this year:
After negotiations with the government of Canada and the industrial development bank, the company announced on March 17, 1955, that it had been unable to negotiate a type of financial assistance which did not result in an agency of the government of Canada being in a position to control the company, and that such an arrangement made it impossible for the company to purchase its gas requirements.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
If that were so on March 15, what is the position of Trans-Canada going to be after June 7 under the arrangements now put forward? If there was any validity whatever in the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on March 15, then what is now proposed would completely tie the hands of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines in regard to finance. Why, every stage that follows is one which defeats the very purposes that have been declared.
Then we also recall that in March of this year, when the building of the northern Ontario bridge was under discussion, the Minister of Trade and Commerce explained that the government had sought some reasonable proposal to lay before parliament which would bring about an early building of the line and assure that it would be privately owned. I quote from page 2167 of Hansard for March 15 of this year:
Such a reasonable proposal has now been brought forward by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. This government is sufficiently impressed by its merits and prospects of success that it is prepared, subject to the approval of parliament, to enter into the construction and temporary ownership of a portion of the proposed pipe line.
That was on March 15. The rest was to be privately owned, and today we are told of this strange and extraordinary device. Surely there must be some explanations that have not yet been given. We know what will happen. We know that with the advance of the money for the western line the crown corporation will not have the opportunity to go ahead with its financing of other activities. Alice in Wonderland never produced anything stranger than the weird picture we have before us now.
The government tell us that they are not going to build the bridge; before, that was the important consideration. Suppose Trans-Canada builds the pipe line to Winnipeg; what happens after that? What happens to the line from Winnipeg to the Ontario border? What happens to the line from Kapuskasing to tie up with the Ontario arrangements? What happens to the other parts of the line? That we do not know, because the government have not let us in on the secret of their next step in this strange and tortuous operation.
There are a number of interesting features about this new agreement. The Minister of Trade and Commerce told us today that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines would have to put up a substantial sum of money before there was any advance. The agreement states that Trans-Canada is to expend $7,500,000 before there is an advance. Oh, but you would not expect anything to be all clear sailing in any agreement in this affair; and it isn't. It is not $7,500,000 they are going to spend; not at
3882	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation all. The agreement states there is to be deducted from that $7,500,000, and regarded as part of the expenditure, any expenditure already made which could be properly attributable to that western section. How much is that? We do not know. The only way we could find out would be if this whole subject were referred to a committee, as I suggested to the Prime Minister. We have a right to know exactly the amount that is going to be attributable to that western section, and to know how much is actually going to be paid under this clause of the agreement.
This is typical of the kind of device which makes it so essential that we place this matter before a committee. Time? Certainly there is time, if that is the right course, and we know the only right course with a bill of this kind is to place it before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines or a select committee, whichever the government prefers, so the information can be obtained.
There are, of course, a number of other details which do not need to be enlarged upon at this time, but there was one statement made in the house last Tuesday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that was interesting. These were his words:
My officers inform me also that the earliest delivery date for orders for 34-inch pipe placed now would be not earlier than the fourth quarter of 1957. Therefore to abandon Trans-Canada in favour of any other private group was to abandon any hope of a start on the western section of the pipe line in 1956 and perhaps in 1957.
What does that mean? Does that mean the Tennessee gas interests are holding a gun to the government's head? That is what it means if it means anything at all. It means that they say, "We have the pipe and nobody else gets it". How about this government for once dealing on a basis that would represent the interests of Canada, and not being told by interests in the United States whether we will or will not have 34-inch or any other type of pipe for an undertaking of this kind? If 34-inch pipe is not available to us the only people who are to blame are the members of the government of Canada. If that pipe is available then these people who have received so much consideration are morally bound to deliver that pipe to this government. Unless they were prepared to do so then I should think any further negotiations with them would hardly be negotiations with a party who was prepared to deal on terms of fairness and equity with our government. The Tennessee gas interests and their associates are calling the tune. It is the Tennessee gas or nothing. That is the kind of independence which this government has declared.


Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce made perhaps his most interesting statement as reported at page 3664 of Hansard:
In my view the prospect of public ownership of a natural gas pipe line is not one that should arouse enthusiasm.
That is an understatement if I ever heard one.
On the other hand if public .ownership is the only way in which this great national enterprise can proceed, we should not refuse to grasp the nettle. In a country like Canada it is of the greatest importance, however, that private enterprise should be given an adequate opportunity and every reasonable facility to do the job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: I hear a triumphant chorus , of "hear, hear" from hon. members opposite.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This speech is getting better every minute.


George Alexander Drew: Are you hear-hearing for public ownership or private enterprise, because they are both included in that?


An hon. Member:: You tell us.


George Alexander Drew: It would be interesting to know which you are really supporting.


William Earl Rowe: Some blow hot and some blow cold.


George Alexander Drew: We do not believe that Canadian private enterprise has been given an adequate opportunity and every reasonable facility to do this job. We know that private enterprise has been trying to get a chance to participate in this undertaking, and it has been denied.
Let us go back to the words which preceded these:
... if public ownership is the only way in which this great national enterprise can proceed, we should not refuse to grasp the nettle.
These were the words that received the most applause from the organized cheering gang opposite. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce talks about fairness to Trans-Canada, may I suggest that the promoters of Trans-Canada examine those words. What was behind the applause? Was it a tip-off that there really was not much chance of Trans-Canada completing this portion by next March; that everything would be quite all right, and that they were really going to be forced into public ownership at that time? I think it is about time Trans-Canada looked at this matter, because the government is trying to put two sides of a coin before their people and get approval of both sides.
If Trans-Canada cannot put up the money to build the easiest part of the line now, how are they going to build the rest of the line?

How are they going to repay this money and complete their financing by next March, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce and everybody else tells us that the federal power commission certainly will not have given approval by that time? What was the Minister of Trade and Commerce really driving at? If the statement means anything, it means that nobody can count on what the government says.
We do not know whether there will be a further extension. Certainly on the basis of the past record that would be likely, but on the other hand hon. members opposite indicated that they had some inside knowledge about the statement in regard to public ownership. Members opposite obviously thought they knew what those words meant. If that is the purpose let it be declared openly and frankly in this house, and not kept for the secret information of any private members. May we hope that this government with all the tortuous twistings that have taken place will not try to do by indirection what it is unwilling and afraid to do by direction.
While Trans-Canada may not know what is going to happen one thing is certain, that members opposite and all members of this house do not know either. At each point Trans-Canada's rights have been extended, and perhaps that may happen again. It should be remembered, of course-and may I emphasize this-that if those rights are extended next March and they have not been able to repay the money, then the crown company will not have the money to build the northern Ontario section next year. This blocks the northern Ontario section. In this case the government is embarking on something wholly unrelated to the northern Ontario bridge. It is committing the taxpayers of Canada to an arrangement which is exclusively to the advantage of investors in the United States.
What nettle was the Minister of Trade and Commerce speaking about? Was it the hopeless confusion into which he has plunged this whole operation? Quite apart from some explanation of the particular meaning of the word, I think many of us would be interested in knowing who suggested that literary allusion. Since this was so unlike the ordinary statements of the Minister of Trade and Commerce perhaps it would be well to recall where the words come from. Shakespeare did use them first, not the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What were the words that Shakespeare used? He said:
-but I tell you, my lord fool, out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
Those words might well have come from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Undoubtedly the safety to which he was referring
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation was political safety. He was making it quite clear that this was a political manoeuvre and that he was hoping to be able to wangle it in that way.
Once again even at this late stage I urge the Prime Minister to refer this matter to a committee. There is no measure that has come before this house that has had even a small fraction of the importance of this measure that has not been referred to a committee of the house for examination. That is the regular practice; that is parliamentary procedure. I ask the Prime Minister to refer this whole subject to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, or to a select committee if he prefers that. Of course the standing committee would be able to operate immediately.
Once again I urge the Prime Minister to refer this to an appropriate committee. I ask him what reasonable explanation there can be for not following this proper course. I would point out to him that there are other vital and important reasons why this committee should have the right to inquire. We have had the statement made that this gas is being sold more cheaply to United States consumers. That may be right or wrong; we do not know, and there is no hon. member opposite who knows any more than we do. But a committee of inquiry would give us the facts. Besides, the statement has been made that the Canadian taxpayers are going to be mulcted to the extent of more than $2 million a year by a deal which is in favour of the United States consumers. Let us have this before a committee where the facts may be obtained.
Above all I ask the Prime Minister tomorrow to tell us his position in regard to the whole affair. Above all I urge that this should not proceed in its present form. This is a vital resource. Gas is a vital part of our national development. We want the pipe line constructed just as soon as possible. We have been urging its construction for five years. We want action taken that will produce positive results, under some coherent plan. We do not want Canadian taxpayers' money to be used in this way to finance United States interests and to give control of Canadian resources in this manner.
In simple terms this government now proposes to put up 90 per cent of the cost of the construction of the pipe line, all Canadian taxpayers' money, for the purpose of handing over this whole operation to a corporation which is 83 per cent owned in the United States.
Just before the six o'clock recess I was referring to certain comments that had been made in this house. Time elapsed then, and

3884	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation I shall return to those remarks. We have heard the boasts of the Prime Minister and his supporters. Let us have a test of the vaunted courage of this government. Let the government give its supporters something really to believe in, in the form of decisive action. Let them call an election immediately and let the people of Canada decide. We have been told that this is a great venture; we have been told that this is one of the most important developments in Canada, yet it is being financed with Canadian taxpayers' money and handed over to United States promoters. This is the money of the Canadian taxpayer. It is our economy and his future that is at stake. Let the government go to the people and let the people decide on this issue.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon in almost the opening sentence of his speech the Minister of Trade and Commerce accused the opposition-I take it the whole opposition-who are opposing this particular project of having vacancy of mind. I do not know when I have seen such a vacancy of vision as this government has exemplified before this house. I want to say again as I have said before that this whole proposal is an outrageous proposal. It places in the hands of powerful United States corporations one of the great resources of this country. The Leader of the Opposition said over 83 per cent; it is 83-4 per cent, according to the figures in this particular report.
The Hudson Bay Oil and Gas, a good Canadian name but a United States controlled company, 17 per cent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Twenty-five per cent owned in the United Kingdom.


Major James William Coldwell: Possibly, but still United States controlled. Canadian Gulf Oil, a Canadian corporation established by the American Gulf Oil and Gas Company, 17 per cent; Tennessee Gas Transmission, 17 per cent; Canadian Delhi Oil, another Canadian company established by a United States Corporation, Delhi Oil, 25-8 per cent; International Utilities Corporation, New York, 6-6 per cent.
Add them together and you get 83-4 per cent; and yet this government had the audacity this afternoon to come before the house and through the Minister of Trade and Commerce say that we are not going to be allowed to discuss this proposal at any length, that closure will be moved tomorrow to end this particular debate. That is what will happen if as I suspect closure is proceeded with.
I want to tell my hon. friends that never in the history of this country has a debate
fMr. Drew.]
in this house been brought to a close in this manner. The debate had not begun when the minister moved closure. All he was doing was introducing the motion, and then he moved closure to stop all the rest of us from discussing it in the manner in which this proposition should be discussed in this house.
I say this was a most atrocious proceeding, unknown in a Canadian parliament at any time in the past. Not for 24 years has closure been moved in this house. It was moved 24 years ago, and what did the leader of the Liberal party do at that time? He made this chamber ring with his protests. He denounced the autocracy of the government then in power. He said this was a negation of democracy. Perhaps I had better use his own words.


Mr. Argue:: And he won the next election.


Major James William Coldwell: 
Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder if my hon. friend would permit a question?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, I shall permit a question.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In the course of his research into the building of the C.P.R., did he come across any figure for the Canadian investment in that great venture at the time it was built? Could he tell us what that was?


Major James William Coldwell: I certainly did come across the figures. The figures of Canadian investment at that time, the Canadian population at that time being about 4 million, was relatively small. The bulk-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What percentage was it?


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. gentleman asked me to give the percentage. I cannot give him that, but I can tell him this, that the bulk of that investment came from the United Kingdom, and at that time Canada was a dominion within the British commonwealth. Canada today is not a dominion, nor is it a nation, I hope, within the North American union of the United States. The two things are entirely different. I do not know the percentage.


James Garfield Gardiner: What part of the early development of railways and industries in the United States was financed by Great Britain?


Major James William Coldwell: I know that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Did it make them a colony?
388S
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Major James William Coldwell: I know perfectly well that a great part of the development of industries of the United States was financed by Great Britain. I agree. But as the years went by the British investments diminished. The trouble with us is that, as we are growing stronger, United States control increases. That is the difference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The statistics do not bear that out.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar does not resume his seat the minister may not ask a question.


Major James William Coldwell: I have resumed my seat twice, which I think is quite generous, and I want to say this to the Minister of Agriculture; that he and his government can find almost $200 million, if my estimate is right- and we shall subtract the $35 million of Ontario money from it, of course-for this United States corporation, but they could not find $50 million, $60 million or $70 million to build the South Saskatchewan dam. Nor can they find money to help the depressed areas in the maritime provinces. Nor can they carry out the plan recommended by General McNaughton in connection with the Columbia river basin. Nor can they find money to improve the conditions of the old age pensioners of this country. Nor can they find money for a national health plan. But they can find nearly $200 million for a United States corporation. Let us take a look at Mr. Mackenzie King again and see what he says.


Stanley Howard Knowles: His ghost will haunt the cabinet tonight.


Major James William Coldwell: He said:
They say, "We will not even allow you to discuss in committee matters which relate to the control by parliament of expenditures; we will not allow you to say another word in regard to this right, under the peace, order and good government provision, which we are claiming, to be independent of parliament and to legislate as we please, whether parliament is in session or not. They have used the weapon of closure twice in the course of a short debate-
It was a pretty long debate by the standards of this debate.
-in order to end all discussion and debate on the-most important question which has engaged the attention of parliament since this ministry was formed.
I want to say that the closure motion indicated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon closes debate on the most important question from the point of view of Canada's economic independence to come forward since this ministry was formed. I do not
3886	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation think there is any doubt whatever about it. I say that this motion today to introduce closure before the debate began, as the debate was being introduced, is something I do not think the people of Canada will swallow. This is a parliamentary institution and the opposition, yes, the private members of the house, have a duty to perform. They have a duty to scrutinize carefully every proposal of the government and to use every means, including those laid down in our parliamentary procedures, to bring about a proper and adequate discussion. That is what we have been trying to do of late.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what we have been trying to do of late, and we are well within our rights in doing it. May I say that I have read the debates between 1930 and 1935; and what the opposition has done to this government today, in the months gone by and in the years gone by, is nothing to what the Liberal party did to the government in office between 1930 and 1935. Make no mistake about it, because 1 have read the debates.


An hon. Member:: That was a good
opposition.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: You do not
like your own medicine.


Major James William Coldwell: I see there are ministers on the other side who were here then, and who are grinning as they remember the incidents of that time.


An hon. Member:: They will not be grinning after this is over.


Major James William Coldwell: What stage have we reached in the discussion of this project? As the Leader of the Opposition has already said this evening, when this company came before the House of Commons and the people of Canada what did it say? It said that it was prepared to build an all-Canadian pipe line and to utilize the gas for the benefit of Canadian towns and cities. I have the pamphlet they put out at the time, and apart altogether from what they said before our committee or what the mover of the original resolution said in the house they said this in their pamphlet:
An all-Canadian route for the pipe line, and with the total through-put consumed in Canada, ensures complete control in this country.
That is what they said. Now they come to us and they want us to build the prairie section to Winnipeg or to the vicinity of Winnipeg in order that, if they get permission from the United States federal power commission, they can export gas profitably to the United States, gas that will be used in United States industry not only to compete with Canadian


industry but to aid in the establishment of United States industry to compete with Canadian industry in the markets of the world. That is what they are after. Looking at this pamphlet that they put out I see that they even enumerated the towns in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec that they were prepared to supply with Canadian gas.
We are told that the government does not have control of the pipe to build this pipe line. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that this afternoon the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines did not have control of that pipe, that the pipe is in the hands of the United States companies. I do not think it is too strong a statement to make to say that those companies are holding a pipe at the head of the Canadian government. I do not think under those circumstances that my term the other day was too strong when I said that in that way these people are economic buccaneers. I used that term before and I use it tonight. I want to say that I use it, too, with some knowledge of the background of some of these oil companies in the United States over the years and their activities within that country.
There is only one alternative, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave it this afternoon. I took down his words and he said that short of public ownership there is no way of guaranteeing Canadian control. I took down the minister's own words.


John Horace Dickey: Canadian control of the shares.


Major James William Coldwell: No way short of public ownership of guaranteeing Canadian control.


John Horace Dickey: Of the shares.


Major James William Coldwell: Of the shares? Well, what is the argument with regard to the shares? It is that 51 per cent of the stock will be made available to the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: At least.


Major James William Coldwell: Then he went on to say that was no guarantee-


An hon. Member:: Of control.


Major James William Coldwell: Of course of control; that is what I am talking about. I am not so interested in the ownership if Canada has control, and Canada has not control under this agreement.


John Horace Dickey: Certainly it has.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member contradicts me. He will have a chance to make a speech in reply tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: He will not.


Major James William Coldwell: Let him do it. I am quoting the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who

said this afternoon that short of public ownership there was no way of guaranteeing Canadian control, and I do not care whether it is Canadian control of the stock-


John Horace Dickey: Control of the shares.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not care whether it is control of the shares, because control of the shares will mean control of the company, if you will, or at least to some extent control of the company and there is no way of guaranteeing Canadian control of the shares.


John Horace Dickey: But that leaves control of the pipe line in Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. gentleman can make his speech tomorrow. He will have 20 minutes to make his speech tomorrow if closure goes through, and he can make it before one o'clock in the morning of the following day if he so desires.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he is still awake.


Major James William Coldwell: But I am citing the statement the Minister of Trade and Commerce made this afternoon. We want to see this gas in Alberta utilized. We do not want to see it go to waste. We want to see it available to the people of all Canada, but we want to see it made available in a manner that will ensure to the Canadian people control of this resource and control of the charges that will be made for this great resource. We do not want to see a large percentage of the gas go into the United States. We do not want to see it go to Chicago to be used by the steel mills of that city, we do not want to see it go to Minneapolis to be used by the mills there, we do not want to see it go anywhere else before the needs of the Canadian people and Canadian industries are fully met. That can only be assured to the extent that we are able to control this whole project through this elected House of Commons.


Walter Edward Harris: No; assured by control of export permits.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member says control of export permits. That is something a bit new.


Walter Edward Harris: No, no.


Major James William Coldwell: Wait a minute. We have been told time and time again that the economic feasibility of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines plan depended on the federal power commission of the United States; not on the granting of export permits from Canada but on the granting of import permits by a United States authority. That is what we have been told.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Both are necessary.
388'/
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Major James William Coldwell: That is what we have been told. These people have said that they cannot go ahead with this plan unless they can get the right to import into the United States. This government have at no time, as far as I know, placed in jeopardy their right to export gas. Never, as far as I know, have they placed it in jeopardy. It is the United States federal power commission which is placing in jeopardy the importation of gas into that country. That is a far different thing.
Once again in that respect we are at the mercy of a foreign commission, no matter how friendly our American friends may be. I am not anti-American; I am pro-Canadian; and I do not want to see the control and usage of this great resource alienated by the federal government. Nor do I want to see it made possible to export this great resource by those powerful corporations, whether it be done incidentally by the federal government alone or in co-operation with the government of Ontario, which I think is equally blameworthy in agreeing to this proposition at the present time.
There is much one can say in connection with the proposition. As a matter of fact, as to this prairie section, the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon told us that the company would have an investment of $15 million of their own against some $80 million in that section of the Canadian people's money and, if they proceed with the bridge across northern Ontario, $118 million of the Canadian people's money. In addition, as has already been pointed out, there are 110 miles between Winnipeg and the Ontario boundary that are not accounted for. How are they going to build that? Who is going to pay for it? Once they get this line built to Winnipeg they will probably come to us again and say, "We have done this. We have an investment there. You would not expect us to lose that investment. We require some help or some support in order to complete that 110 miles between Winnipeg and the bridge you are going to build with the Ontario government". And I suppose that once again we shall be faced with a resolution of this description to guarantee their bonds or to lend them money or to do something for them that they will want at that particular time.


William Earl Rowe: And they will have to put closure on it.


Major James William Coldwell: And they will have to put closure on it if they want to get it through.
I now want to bring my remarks to a close, Mr. Chairman, but I want to repeat what I said at the very beginning, namely that this is a most outrageous proposal. It
3888	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation is outrageous any way you care to examine it. It is outrageous coming as it does from a government, as I have said, that has refused to do some of the things for our economy within our provinces that the government should have done. I believe that the members of this House of Commons are justified in using every means at their disposal to block this pernicious agreement.


An hon. Member:: It is democratic
government.


Major James William Coldwell: "Democratic government" someone says. We have heard a great deal about totalitarian states, but if ever a totalitarian move was made in this house, it was made this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Totalitarianism of the first order.


Major James William Coldwell: I suppose that because, unfortunately for this country, over the last 20 years or so a government has been in power with an opposition that was relatively weak in numbers, they have therefore built up through the years the idea that they were able to put through this house anything they [DOT]desired to put through.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Who can stop me?"


Major James William Coldwell: Yes; the Minister of Trade and Commerce on one occasion turned to the opposition and said, "Who is going to stop us".


William Earl Rowe: Now he is stopping himself.


Major James William Coldwell: Today we had a demonstration of "Who is going to stop us?". We cannot

stop them. But one thing we can do is this. We can expose them. When I was a boy we used to sing another verse of the national anthem. Do you remember it?
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks . . .
Tonight I can say that very sincerely. If the Canadian people had an opportunity they would confound their politics, frustrate their knavish tricks. Then we could say "So save us all".


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock and move the adjournment of the debate?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Gilbert Weir: Mr. Speaker, may I have the privilege of reverting to motions?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. gentleman has not unanimous consent, he may not revert to motions at this time.


Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) moved: the adjournment of the house.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we
shall continue with this discussion.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.59 p.m.



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Houck: What progress has been made In Implementing the clauses of the Food and Drugs Act (as revised in 1954) which require sanitary inspection and inspection of records of food manufacturing and [DOT]drug manufacturing establishments?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
Re drug manufacturers:	Following proclamation of the Food and Drugs Act on July 1, 1954, a complete survey of the drug manufacturing industry was undertaken by the food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare. This survey was completed in 1954-55, more than 350 preliminary inspections having been made. The pharmaceutical industry in Canada is relatively small, but there is great variety in the products, the size of the companies and their production and distribution facilities. Of principal importance in drug firms is the existence of a record control system which enables the manufacturer to trace his products in the course of manufacture and to check on the raw material used in his products.
As a result of the preliminary survey and because of the limitation in number of staff available for the work, priorities were established. Particular attention was given in 195556 to private formula manufacturers, manufacturers of injectable drugs and drug manufacturers in general, as distinguished from distributors and wholesalers. Fewer inspections-253-were carried out in 1955-56 but on each inspection more time was spent making recommendations, and repeat visits were made to a number of establishments.
Questions
Progress has been noted in many cases, particularly among some of the smaller manufacturers who were not aware that their manufacturing procedures and record systems did not constitute good commercial practice. With particular reference to injectable drugs, a number of manufacturers agreed voluntarily to discontinue manufacture of these products when it was pointed out that their facilities were inadequate to ensure complete safety of the products.
Re food inspection:	Inspection of food
factories under the provision of the sanitary clauses of the act has been accelerated during the past months. The factories visited were chosen from those industries which previous surveys had shown demanded immediate attention.
The nature and scope of the work to be done in this field is indicated by the fact that the inspectors of the food and drug directorate made over 2,300 visits to food factories during the past year. A continuation of this heavy program is planned for this year.
This work has been carried out in close cooperation with other interested federal, provincial and municipal agencies. In the case of provincial agencies who are particularly interested in local problems, an effort was made to keep them fully informed of the department's findings and actions.
Evidence of substantial improvement has been noted as a result of this program.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Nicholson: Tuesday, May 15, 1956



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Third report of special committee on estimates.-Mr. Tucker.
First report of special committee on research.-Mr. Mcllraith.