1956-05-25

Mr. G. H. Caslleden (Yorkton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 350, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.


Mr. Fleming:: Explain.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to restore the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act to some measure of usefulness. Certain limitations in the original act regarding the date prior to which debt must be incurred in order to qualify have rendered it useless and inoperative. The amendments eliminate those limitations and restore the act as an instrument of some little usefulness which was intended in the original legislation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 349 (from the Senate), to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement of May 7 that the government would welcome any proposals from responsible Canadians with regard to the construction of the pipe line, will the Prime Minister inform us if the government has in its possession any proposals or offers of proposals other than those which have already been discussed, namely, those of Mr. McMahon and Mr. Gairdner.


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know
whether the letters given to the press by Mr. Champion could be regarded as a proposal. That is the only one of which I have any knowledge.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
ask when the Prime Minister received knowledge of the letters of Mr. Champion, or the first of them?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) spoke to me this morning about those letters and informed me that the proposal contained in the letter of May 10 was one which he felt could not be taken seriously and he would have been lacking in responsibility if he had taken up the time of his colleagues with it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The letter of May 22 had been brought to his notice but he had had no opportunity since to give it his personal attention and up until the time he had been informed that the letter of May 24 had been made public he himself had not received it.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Are we to take it from what the Prime Minister has said that these proposals have not been placed before the cabinet?


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@Quebec East: They have not been placed before the cabinet, and if the letter had been addressed to me I would not have felt they were proposals that required to be placed before the cabinet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it from the Prime Minister's statement that this morning is the first time that the letters, or either of them, have been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister by the Minister of Finance.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is quite correct, sir.

On the orders of the day:


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the Minister of Finance when it was that he received Mr. Champion's letter of May 10, and perhaps he could also indicate when he received the subsequent letter?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minisier of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I must have received the letter of the 10th on the 11th because I acknowledged it on the 11th.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister if he will table the correspondence with Mr. Champion.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. 1 can read my acknowledgment now.
I have your letter of May 10, 1956, and I presume you have read the statement of government policy made in the House of Commons last week respecting the construction of an all-Canadian gas pipe line. The contents of your letter do not indicate that you have at the present time a specific, detailed and viable proposal. Your suggestion that the gas producers accept long-term notes of your company in payment for gas delivered to you does not appear to me to be one that the gas producers would be disposed to accept.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister if he would table all the correspondence-


Walter Edward Harris: Certainly.


Howard Charles Green: -including the letters from Mr. Champion.


Walter Edward Harris: Certainly.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask the Prime Minister if his statement of May 7 still stands that the government is prepared to entertain any proposals from any responsible Canadians in regard to the construction of a trans-Canada pipe line?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government has placed a proposal before the house and hopes it will be adopted in time to be effective. If it is, of course there would be no other proposal at this time for the construction of that pipe line that would be considered because no such proposal could be implemented without appropriate legislation in that regard being adopted by parliament, and I am quite sure, after the experience of the last couple of weeks, that it would not be possible to have any other legislation adopted in time to make it possible to have the first leg from Alberta to Winnipeg constructed during this construction season.


George Alexander Drew: May I assure the Prime Minister that any sensible legislation will receive prompt consideration.
ILater;]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he is familiar with the proposal that was put forward some years ago by Mr. Champion for the development of the Athabaska tar sands in Alberta and the opportunity the same gentleman had to perform according to his proposal?


Walter Edward Harris: I must confess I am not familiar with that [particular incident.


Solon Earl Low: Then I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance-


Some hon. Members:: Order.

On the orders of the day:


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of the information just received, namely that a communication of May 10 had not been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister until today, will the Prime Minister assure the house that he will make appropriate inquiries in order to see whether any other offers have been made of which he is unaware?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it requires inquiries from my colleagues-


An hon. Member:: Oh yes, it does.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -to bring to our attention any serious proposal concerning public affairs that may be communicated to them.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Why was not the
McMahon proposal brought to his attention?


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, from one of the Prime Minister's earlier answers-I think the last answer but one- should we take it that the only way in which it will be possible now to obtain submission to and consideration by the government of any other reasonable proposal would be to defeat this legislation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My hon. friend has a great imagination, and I would leave that matter to his imagination.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister in view of his last answer. Was not the proposition from Mr. McMahon handed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) several weeks before he was aware of that fact?


Mr. Rowe:: Surely; he told us that.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Minister of Trade and Commerce had received a confidential communication under circumstances which have already been described to the house.

On the orders of the day:


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister: Has any other offer to build a Canadian pipe line, except the one owned 83 per cent

in the United States, been considered by the cabinet as a whole?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec East: I know of no proposal made by anyone for a pipe line to be built by a company owned 83 per cent in the United States.


William Earl Rowe: As a supplementary question, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he does not wish to answer my question? My question was, have any of the other offers been considered by the cabinet as a whole? The Minister of Finance had one and the Minister of Trade and Commerce had another, but you do not know anything about either of them. Have they been considered by the cabinet as a whole?


Mr. Sinclair:: You do not even understand your own question.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think all the facts are sufficiently before the house.


Mr. Campbell:: As a supplementary question, I should like to ask, when does the government expect the roof of this building to fall down?
[Later:!



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES  REQUEST FOR EXAM- INATION OF ORDER OF TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister examine the order issued yesterday by the board of transport commissioners to ascertain whether that board has adhered strictly to its position as a judicial body or whether, by the chairman's statement, it has become a cog in this pipe-line controversy?


George Carlyle Marler: The answer to that question is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No responsibility?
[Later:!



INQUIRY AS TO VISIT OF MINISTER WITH MR. MURCHISON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Did the minister visit and have certain conversations with Mr. Clint Murchison in either the United States or Mexico in 1950?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Well, Mr. Speaker, looking back from 1956, I cannot say.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But you cannot deny it?
Inquiries of the Ministry


William McLean Hamilton: would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister had occasion to visit Mr. Clint Murchison's palatial ranch in Mexico?


William Earl Rowe: It could not have been very
palatial or he would remember.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did many years ago. How many years ago, again I would have to look up my correspondence; but it was many years ago. I have known Mr. Clint Murchison for at least 20 years.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether his answer to my previous question indicates that his friendship with Mr. Murchison extends back over many years?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. friend intends that as a snide remark. I have known a great many people through 40 years of professional work or work in government. Mr. Clint Murchison is one of that great number. The friendship is no more than a friendship I have with a few thousand people whom I happen to know.


William Earl Rowe: It is a lot more than the friendship with Mr. Frank McMahon.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, junior,
think up another snide question and we will discuss it.



REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION TAKE PART IN DEBATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['That is not a very intelligent answer.']
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, as he was not allowed to speak last night, whether we might have the pleasure of hearing from him today?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I hope not, sir.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has Canada received an invitation, similar to that reported sent to the United States and Great Britain, to send senior military officers to the Russian aviation day celebrations on June 24?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Not to my knowledge.

Inquiries of the Ministry
ILater;]


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Are all the sensitive areas of the world which he mentioned on January 24 outside of the Latin American regions?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I would like the hon. gentleman to repeat that important question, Mr. Speaker, because I did not hear it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would be glad to do so. By way of explanation, because I have taken the minister by surprise, on January 24 he announced that his department kept a list of sensitive areas in the world which he said numbered 34 with regard to the export of arms. My question is, are all those sensitive areas outside of the Latin American regions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, at the time I indicated it would be unwise for obvious reasons to give a list of the sensitive areas which we have compiled for purposes of special precautions with regard to the export of arms but I can assure the hon. gentleman that the House of Commons is not included in that list of sensitive areas.


George Alexander Drew: That is not a very intelligent answer.



LATIN AMERICA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps the minister could give a more complete and more satisfactory answer to this question. Was the government of the United States consulted and its consent obtained before the cabinet approved of the export of Sabre jets to the republic of Colombia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we do not require the consent of the United States government for exports from Canada.


An hon. Member:: Only gas.


William Earl Rowe: Both ways.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will give some explanation of the answer which he gave me the other day on this question of sending Sabre jets to Colombia, when he said that the application was examined in the light of the policies of other countries towards the export of this type of aircraft to South America? What, I would like to ask, is the policy of other countries


with regard to export of this very superior fighter aircraft to South America?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think that I could, on the orders of the day, elaborate. The hon. gentleman knows that the free countries are in almost constant consultation as to the best methods to be adopted to preserve peace in the world, and that is what we do in connection with such things as might appear to be possible of furthering or of creating the tenseness in sensitive areas.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the Prime Minister if the export of fighter aircraft to the republic of Colombia is, in his opinion, a contribution to maintaining the peace of the world?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The exportation of the Sabre aircraft to Colombia is a recognition that it is the right of every country to obtain proper defence equipment in its own interests and in the interests of the peace of the world.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? In view of the tragic fire which destroyed the Canadian National Railways car shop at Fort Rouge, Winnipeg, last Monday evening, can the minister obtain from the management of the Canadian National Railways an assurance that the car shop will be rebuilt in that area?


George Carlyle Marler: I have had no communication on the subject from the Canadian National Railways, and I shall have to make inquiries to know what the railway's plans are in that connection.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY OPENING CEREMONIES    SUGGESTED INVITATION TO HER MAJESTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask a
question of the Prime Minister? Will the Prime Minister say whether consideration is being given to extending an invitation to Her Majesty to officially open the St. Lawrence
seaway?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There have been suggestions in the press and elsewhere that that would be desirable, and the matter will be given consideration, but before there is anything of a formal

Inquiries of the Ministry
nature done there will, of course, be informal for any revision or modification of the list inquiries made as to what may be Her of strategic materials in relation to ship-Majesty's pleasure.	ments from Canada to China or intended for
China?



TURKEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Branl-Haldimand):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government made any decision regarding the request of the Canadian turkey federation for an increase of the tariff on turkeys entering Canada from the United States?


Walter Edward Harris: I must say that the government has been considering the request now for some months, but the action that might be taken by that consideration could not be announced at this moment, but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall, I think, have an announcement in a day or two.


John Alpheus Charlton: I should like to ask a
supplementary question. Does the Minister of Finance realize that the turkey federation brought this to the government's attention as long as two or three years ago?


Walter Edward Harris: I myself received representations a year ago last fall, and again last fall, and we have been taking some action in the meantime.



NEGOTIATIONS BY EAST WEST EXPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he is in a position to make a statement to the house concerning the outcome of negotiations between the communist government of Peking and the East West Export Import Company of Vancouver, under which the press reports that substantial exchanges of goods are to follow?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to give any information. I have none. As far as I know, the East West Export Import Company has been trying to interest a group of Canadians in visiting Peking under its auspices. I know that several persons have examined the auspices and are not satisfied to make the trip under those auspices. I know of no trade developments.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister
whether in the course of negotiations there has been any request from these sources
67509-274i


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker,
through that organization several attempts have been made to break down the NATO strategic list but we are bound by the NATO list and we intend to be bound by it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forgie (Renfrew North):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Have any arrangements been made to construct additional accommodation for the troops at Petawawa military camp? If so, will the minister kindly advise the house what those arrangements are?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: May I take that question as notice and answer it early next week?



CAMP GAGETOWN, N.B.  USE FOR TRAINING PURPOSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention of the Department of National Defence to use Camp Gagetown for training purposes this summer and, if so, could the minister give the house an idea of the number of troops expected to be in training there? I should also like to ask him a further question: when will Camp Gagetown be open for training as a permanent camp?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The answer to the first question is yes; Camp Gagetown will be and is being used for training this year. The second question asks as to the number of troops that will be trained there. Subject to correction, I think the figure is in the neighbourhood of 10,000 troops. Third, as to when the permanent camp will be established and in operation, again subject to correction, I should think some time probably toward the end of next year.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There is no definite date?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There is no definite date as yet.
4322	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry THE MINISTRY



INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED APPOINTMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is there any basis of fact to the recent newspaper stories to the effect that Mr. Walter Gordon and the Speaker of this house will soon be asked to join the cabinet?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Whenever there is any announcement that can properly be made in respect of any of those rumours, it will be made in the house.



INQUIRY AS TO COMPLETION OF SESSIONAL WORK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the apparent desire for haste on the part of the house in recent days, as evinced by the government, is it the intention of the government to endeavour to have the house closed by about June 20 to permit the Prime Minister to attend the prime ministers' conference in London, and also to have a session of parliament in the fall?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the course that may have to be determined in that regard will depend upon events as they develop.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the general plan of the Prime Minister at this time as to when the house will close? Does he intend to have it close before he attends the conference of prime ministers?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think I must realize, Mr. Speaker, that that would be quite impossible.



CLOSURE-APPLICATION IN OTHER DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister because we cannot get the information in committee. Would he, as a constitutional authority, inform the house and the country when in any other democratic assembly following British tradition notice of closure was given before discussion began or consideration of a bill?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think we have sufficient problems in our own commonwealth country without
(Mr. Campney.]

discussing in this house the practices that may be followed in other commonwealth countries.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, then let us come right home. Can he give any instance in Canada where anything similar to the denial of parliament has taken place previously?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman speaks of the denial of parliament, and I do not admit there is any denial of parliament in trying to bring a proposal to the house and get a decision from the house on that proposal by a time when the decision can be effective.


John George Diefenbaker: Denying discussion.



REVISION OF SALARIES OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance inform the house whether the salary increases recently granted will be generally made applicable to employees of the House of Commons?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I understand the question. We provided increases for the one group of employees of the House of Commons some time ago by a motion of this house. At that time the only question left unsettled was the remaining group. I gave an undertaking at that time to the effect that that would be considered and I doubt if any action has been taken since, but I will check.



YORK SOUTH-INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF BY-ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles E. Rea (Spadina):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. When will the government announce the date of the by-election for York South?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The matter has not yet received consideration.



INQUIRY AS TO CALLING OF EARLY ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, through you I should like to ask the Prime Minister this question. In view of his government's unprecedented gagging and stifling of the freedom of parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Earl Rowe: -to such an extent that it is now impossible for private members to represent their ridings properly-


James Sinclair: You never did.


William Earl Rowe: -would he consider seeking an early dissolution of the house and an appeal to the country?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, that question was answered the other day and I have nothing to add to the answer I then made.



INQUIRY AS TO NOTICE OF FILIBUSTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister recall any other incident in the history of Canada when the government was warned four months in advance that a bill to be introduced would be filibusted by the official opposition?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: At the moment I do not recall any.



REFERENCE TO PROCEDURE IN HOUSE ON MAY 24

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Hugh Castleden: I should
like to direct a question to the leader of the house. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the government to take steps to prevent the procedure used in this house yesterday from becoming a precedent for parliamentary government in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



FRASER RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I am sorry that I failed to send him notice earlier. In view of the rapid rise in the level of the Fraser river and the show of concern by certain municipal authorities that insufficient sandbags are available to fight a flood in that area, would the minister assure the house that sandbags will be made available and will be shipped to strategic points to allay such fears?


Mr. Murphy (Lambion West):: Give the
government a few more.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, from information I
have been receiving from time to time I understand that the services have been in
Inquiries of the Ministry close contact with the authorities with respect to preparation in the event that there should be a serious flood. I will check to see whether the facts as given to me by the hon. member are correct and, if so, will see what can be done.



MANITOBA-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON CONTROL OF ASSINIBOINE RIVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime
Minister make a statement to the house relative to the government's intention in the matter of the draining of the Assiniboine river in western Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter
which I do not think should be called draining the Assiniboine river in western Canada, but a matter of attempting to control the flow of that river to such an extent as may be practicable to avoid the dangers of flooding. It is a matter that is receiving the attention of engineers as to how and to what extent that can be done and at what cost, and whether or not the economic benefits would be comparable to the costs of the works that might have to be undertaken.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Has any consideration been given to compensation to those wha have suffered from the floods this year?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr:
Speaker. No consideration has been given to compensation to those who have suffered from floods this year.



PASSAMAQUODDY PROJECT-REPORTED APPOINTMENT OF JOINT CANADA-U.S. COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has a joint committee of the United States and Canada been appointed to inquire into the feasibility of the development of the Passamaquoddy tides for hydroelectric power? If so, how many are on the committee and who are the Canadian representatives?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, without notice I cannot answer that question offhand but I will look into it and give a reply early next week.

Inquiries of the Ministry



HAMILTON RIVER, LABRADOR-INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green	(Vancouver-
Quadra): May I ask a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources? Press dispatches this morning indicate that plans are under consideration for the development of power on the Hamilton river in Labrador, with the transmission of that power to Sept lies on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river. Can the minister give the house any report concerning that reported development?
Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I have read the headlines this morning, but I did not have time to read the article. Of course, the water resources of Labrador are the property of the government of Newfoundland.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister make some inquiries and let the house have a report, perhaps at the first of the week?


Jean Lesage: I shall try to obtain what I can.



ONTARIO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would he care to comment on the recent statement of the vice-chairman of the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission that there is no shortage of power in the province of Ontario?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have had no communication from the vice-chairman of the Ontario HydroElectric Power Commission. I have had. communications from the premier of Ontario and from the provincial treasurer of Ontario and from those I believe there is an impending shortage of power in Ontario. This is part of a statement by the premier of Ontario:
Water-power sources would be almost exhausted by 1960, and other energies would have to replace them.
That is one of the most important reasons for speeding the building of a proposed trans-Canada natural gas pipe line from Alberta to Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 take it that the hon. member for Nanaimo, who asked the first question, has a supplementary question.


Colin Cameron: Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce consider that the opinion of the premier of Ontario was more important in a technical matter of this sort than that of the actual head of the power commission?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer is yes.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has Elk lake been abandoned as a source of water supply for the Patricia Bay airport? If so, what alternative supply is contemplated?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I believe the matter is under consideration. I shall be obliged to make inquiries to determine just exactly what is the status of this matter.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to either the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will the government give immediate consideration to a resolution passed by the flue-cured tobacco marketing association of Ontario to permit entry of sufficient experienced primers and tyers from the United States to assist in harvesting the tobacco crop this year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to give the matter consideration.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour of which I have given him notice. In the light of continued representations, is the minister now in a position to give further information on the drydock lay-offs in Saint John and the possibility of future federal government naval contracts?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I am aware that during recent weeks there have been some heavy lay-offs in the Saint John drydock. I have taken the situation up urgently with my colleagues, the ministers of the appropriate other departments and government agencies such as the maritime commission, and I am assured that any work along the Atlantic coast that comes up will be immediately directed to the plant at Saint

John. In the meantime, our national employment service offices are suggesting interim work for those who are temporarily thrown out of employment.



MARITIME PROVINCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister authorized a survey to be made in the maritime provinces for purposes of comparison of prevailing rates of pay paid at service establishments compared with civilian employment? Has that survey been authorized and, if so, when does the minister expect it will be completed and a report available?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Surveys of that kind are going forward all the time and as the results of the surveys are completed reports thereon are made available to the department that asked for the survey to be made.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Is the minister aware of, or has his attention been drawn to, an investigation which is currently being carried out with respect to the Cape Breton county hospital in Nova Scotia? Is that hospital receiving grants from his department?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Of course, that is a hospital that comes under the control of the provincial government, as my hon. friend knows. I am aware of the investigation that is taking place. I cannot say offhand whether or not federal assistance has been given to that hospital, but I suspect, in view of the record of this government, the likelihood is yes.


George Clyde Nowlan: And in view of the record of the hospital.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. When does the minister intend to ask the house for further interim supply?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Edward Harris: I presume in due course when I announce it in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, may I ask the Minister of Finance what he intends to use for money when his present supply runs out?


Walter Edward Harris: I am afraid that I could not answer that because the occasion has not arisen yet.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister make a statement on the announcement made in the United States this morning to the effect that the date of United States purchases of uranium has been extended to the year 1966?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In my previous announcements to the house regarding the uranium purchasing program I have made reference to the close relationship which exists with the United States atomic energy commission. One feature of this relationship has been the similarity between the uranium buying programs in Canada and the United States. The recent announcement of the United States atomic energy commission concerning the extension of its domestic uranium-buying program suggests that I should clarify the position with respect to the Canadian program.
It is not the intention of the government to extend the Canadian uranium-buying program at this time. In my announcement of last August concerning purchases under the special price contract arrangement I pointed out that there was a limit on the amount of uranium which the United States atomic energy commission would wish to purchase from Canadian sources. I made reference again to this limitation in my statement to the house on March 2 concerning modifications of the special price arrangement. The situation in this respect has not changed. The United States atomic energy commission has stated that the primary reason for the extension of its domestic buying program is the need to maintain ore reserves in the United States. For the most part, the mines found to date in the United States, while numerous, do not have large ore reserves. On the basis of current and projected production rates, the present reserves would be close to exhaustion by 1962 unless ore replacements are found. It is considered that
4326	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry this can best be accomplished by encouraging the continued search for new ore deposits. The Canadian position is quite different. Most of the new mines which have been discovered in Canada have very large ore reserves. Even when the current contracts are completed, these mines will have substantial ore reserves. The Canadian position differs in another respect, namely, the anticipated requirement of uranium for domestic use. Even on the basis of the most optimistic forecast that can now be made as to the role of nuclear power in the Canadian economy, our resources of uranium will be greatly in excess of our domestic requirements for many years to come and we shall need to obtain export markets. The anticipated level of requirements in the United States, both for military and civil purposes, is vastly in excess of the anticipated requirement in Canada.
With respect to the position of the Canadian producer after March 31, 1962-the present termination date for deliveries under existing contracts-it should be noted that the special price contracts contain a clause which provides that the purchaser will have an option to extend the contract. The house will appreciate the difficulty of estimating the level of uranium demand six years in advance of that demand. However, every effort will be made to clarify the position with respect to the exercise of these options at the earliest possible date. The government is anxious to ensure that this important new industry will have continuing markets beyond March 31, 1962.
Negotiations are now under way whereby the United Kingdom will obtain from Canada part of its requirements of uranium. This uranium will be supplied under an arrangement similar to that which now prevails with the United States atomic energy commission. The quantities involved will be supplied from the contracts which will be entered into under the existing special price arrangement. As the house is aware, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have had a very close relationship in the atomic energy program since its inception. The proposed arrangement is a continuation of this policy of tripartite co-operation.
As regards the export of uranium to other countries, the house will recall that in my announcement of August 3 and my announcement to the house of March 2 I stated that the government would take under consideration the establishment of an export policy for uranium. I pointed out that because uranium can be used for military purposes it was considered desirable that an export policy should be established with due regard to security provisions. It is the hope of the


government that arrangements for the marketing of uranium for peaceful uses can be worked out within a suitable international framework. As the house is aware, a 12-nation conference was held in Washington during the month of March for the purpose of considering a draft statute for an international agency for atomic energy. Canada was an active participant in this conference. The statute agreed upon at that conference will be submitted to a general conference in September next, at which there will be in attendance representatives of all the member countries of the United Nations. In the circumstances, it is considered advisable that establishment of export policy should await the outcome of the discussions at the September conference.
My remarks up to this point refer to arrangements involving substantial quantities of uranium. The government is now prepared to consider arrangements for supplying research quantities of uranium to other countries under bilateral agreements.



INQUIRY AS TO USE IN PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Palleil (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the one proposed to him by the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie). Can the minister tell this house when it may be expected that electricity will be generated in Canada from the use of atomic power?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to secure the information and give it later. I would not like to give a date offhand.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister tell us what amount he had in mind when he said in his speech last Monday, as reported on page 4141 of Hansard:
"Bless your soul, if this project gets going we will have enough money for all the things you have asked for."


An hon. Member:: It has only sunk in now.


Walter Edward Harris: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I really understand the question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do you understand the statement you made?


Walter Edward Harris: If my hon. friend reads my speech I am sure he will find I was referring directly to the speech made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) and without going into-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier).


Walter Edward Harris: I must say upon reading my own speech, which I regret I had to do, I found I had involved the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam who, so far as I know, had not made any proposals. At any rate I did not intend to include him in that. I was referring to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. My statement may have been somewhat rhetorical but the purpose of it undoubtedly was to indicate, as the rest of my speech also showed, that if there were profits to be made out of the sale of natural gas we would participate in those profits and the corporation income tax and the revenue of Canada would be greatly increased.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister has really-answered my supplementary question because I was going to ask him if it was not wholly rhetorical and I think he has pretty well admitted that it was. In other words, there was no figure in his mind.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Minister of Finance for his concern regarding the welfare of my soul.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister comment on the report that we are lagging behind in the installation of special safety features in our military aircraft for the protection of our pilots?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement to which the hon. member refers but I am assured by our Royal Canadian Air Force officials that every proper precaution is being taken, every known new device is being studied and that our safety measures are certainly equal to if not better than those of most other countries.


John Borden Hamilton: May I ask a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister check the report, because it was made by a test pilot of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Ralph Osborne Campney: If the hon. member will give me the reference to the report or a copy of it I will certainly look into it.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. In view of the obvious anxiety to lend $80 million to a United States corporation, may I ask the minister when similar anxiety is going to be shown for making an appropriation to enable the building of the South Saskatchewan river dam?


Walter Edward Harris: I understand that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines is a Canadian corporation.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask a supplementary question? When may we expect similar anxiety on the part of the government to make an appropriation for the South Saskatchewan river dam?


Mr. McCann:: Everything for Saskatchewan.


Walter Edward Harris: I thought I made it clear in whatever remarks I tried to make the other night that the policy of this government has in mind the welfare of all parts of Canada, and from time to time we shall announce the appropriate policy.



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, speaking as the member for Carleton, may I ask the Prime Minister if he will take appropriate steps to ensure that the federal district commission will pay a fair price for the developed value of farm lands in Carleton county which have been approved as part of the green belt around Ottawa?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There has been no decision made by the government to acquire the lands included in the green belt.



HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the question asked earlier as to whether Her Majesty the Queen

Inquiries of the Ministry might visit Canada, and in view of considerable conjecture in the press that Her Majesty may be contemplating a state visit to a foreign country in Europe, would the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs say what is the position under present constitutional practice? Does Her Majesty under those circumstances, as head of the commonwealth, consult with and receive the advice of her prime ministers or her ministers in other parts of the commonwealth, and their consent, before such a visit can take place?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the practice has been for Her Majesty to have this government informed when she has accepted an invitation to make a state visit to a foreign country. That was done on the occasion of the visit to Norway last year, and we were informed as early as the end of last August that Her Majesty was accepting an invitation to make a state visit to Sweden this summer. It has never been the practice for the government of Canada to be consulted with respect to invitations that we presume were extended to Her Majesty through the channels of the United Kingdom government. We have been informed that the acceptance of these invitations had been made, but it has never been suggested that we should take the responsibility of advice to Her Majesty when she accepts an invitation as the sovereign of the United Kingdom. We have never felt that we should consult the governments of other countries when an invitation is being considered by His Excellency the Governor General as the representative of the head of the Canadian nation to visit a foreign country. In respect of those visits of Her Majesty it has not been the practice to regard them as visits being made on behalf of the commonwealth but rather as visits made by the sovereign of the state through the government of which the invitation was conveyed to Her Majesty.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is very interesting. Is the Queen in a position therefore that she can make a visit to this foreign country as Queen of the United Kingdom and not in her position as Queen of Canada or one of the other several parts of the commonwealth? Has that matter been considered or is it a matter, having regard to the suggested visit, that is worthy of consideration at the prime ministers' conference?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It might be worthy of consideration at the prime ministers' conference but so far state visits to foreign countries made by Her Majesty, in the same way as those that were made by
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l

her illustrious predecessors, have always been regarded as visits made in the capacity of sovereign of the United Kingdom.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the government decided to change the purpose for which the scaffolding is being erected in front of the parliament buildings to that of public observation of the execution of parliament?
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I can think of one good application for that scaffolding for a certain purpose.



ALLEGED DANGER TO PUBLIC OF UNGUARDED PLATFORM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: My
question is to the Minister of Public Works and arises in part only out of the answer he gave to the question put to him a moment ago. Is the statement he made the reason why the scaffolding in front of the building was left unguarded last night, and is he aware that, for lack of guarding, there are places there where there is a 10-foot sheer drop off the edges of the platform that pedestrians are using in lieu of the steps? Will he take steps to see that it is not left in an unguarded condition tonight?


Robert Henry Winters: To the best of my knowledge there are guards on duty around the House of Commons at all times.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has missed my point. I am speaking of the erection of the platform outside. Is he aware that there were sheer drops off the unguarded edges of that platform last night?


An hon. Member:: Who drafted that one?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is he aware that, with the platform being unguarded and pedestrians still using the platform and the temporary wooden steps instead of the regular steps, there were drops of 10 feet off the edges of the unguarded platform where any pedestrian might have met with a severe accident? Will he take steps to see that the edges are properly barricaded tonight?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the parliamentary assistant inform the house as to the results of the experiments that have been conducted at the experimental station at Saanichton, B.C., and which have received widespread press coverage today, involving developments in chrysanthemum culture?


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: I am not
able to make a report on that today but the first of the week I will.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he can tell us when it is proposed to introduce the revisions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act which were forecast in the speech from the throne?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The answer to my hon. friend's question is that they will be introduced in the fairly near future.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the reported request of the attorney general of Manitoba, is the minister considering making a proclamation under the Indian Act to allow Indians in Manitoba to drink liquor?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That matter is under consideration and the consideration is almost completed.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister
25,	1956	4329
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation had an opportunity yet to inquire into the question I asked yesterday with reference to the increase in the work week of security guards?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have made inquiry but I have not yet received a report.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR MEETING TO PROVIDE AID TO MUNICIPALITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. As municipal tax bills are now being issued and and it is very evident that there will be increases this year, would the Prime Minister not reconsider his previous answer with respect to calling a dominion-provincial conference so that some direct aid may be given to municipal taxpayers?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate to call another dominion-provincial conference for the purpose of suggesting that aid be given to the municipalities.
Mr. Lennard:: That is a good answer. TRANSPORT



QUEBEC PROVINCIAL ELECTION-USE OF PRIVATE RAILWAY CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William McLean Hamilton: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister take steps to see that members of the government travelling to Quebec to participate in the provincial election campaign there do not continue to use private railway cars of the government for the purpose?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that they have been used for that purpose and I think that the matter can be left to the discretion of my colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, May 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. 298, to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe
4330	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Line Crown Corporation-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the house adjourned last night clause 3 of the bill was before the committee and Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) had moved a motion that the further consideration of this clause be postponed. Mr. Knowles had raised a point of order. I note from Hansard that Mr. Fleming was on his feet exactly at ten o'clock. Mr. Knowles had indicated that he wished to proceed. I recognize Mr. Knowles on the point of order.
On clause 3-Establishment and constitution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, as hon. members will recall, last night I argued that the motion proposed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is out of order on at least two counts, to which I added a third one. I will not take the time of the house to repeat the arguments, but may I just summarize them. First of all, I insist that it is out of order on the basis of standing order 78 (1) which requires that we consider bills in committee of the whole according to the proper order of their clauses. Since this is a new day and as some people who did not see yesterday's Hansard might see today's Hansard, perhaps there should be put on the record the terms of standing order 78 (1) which are as follows:
78. (1) In proceedings in committee of the whole house upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order; the preamble and title to be last considered.


Mr. Mclvor:: Repetition.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I will not repeat the arguments which I made last evening calling for strict adherence to the rules except to say this. A friend who heard last evening's debate asked me later if my quotation from Hatsell meant that the rules of the house were meant only for the protection of the opposition. I was glad to have that question because it gives me the chance to give here the answer which I gave to the person who put that question to me last night. The quotation from Hatsell which is included in Beauchesne's third edition at citation 818, though in the language of a century and a half ago, makes this point crystal clear. The government has two protections. It has its majority and it has the rules. The opposition has only the rules. That is the reason that we are obliged to place special emphasis on strict adherence to the rules. That is the reason for the tremendous weight of the responsibility that rests upon


the occupant of the chair in seeing to it that the one and only weapon available to the opposition is not lost to it. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am insisting on a strict interpretation of the wording of standing order *78 (1) which requires that clauses be taken up in their proper order.
I am also insisting on strict adherence to the sentence which appears at the top of page 537 of May's fifteenth edition. I am ready to admit, Mr. Chairman, that there are occasions when I point out that May is an English authority and that there are many portions of May which are not applicable to the Canadian situation. However, Mr. Chairman, yesterday in one of the rulings that you made as chairman of the committee of the whole house, you relied on May. You relied on May not only in your statements to us during the argument on the point of order but you included your reliance on May in your report to Mr. Speaker. Therefore, for purposes of this point of order, I suggest that you are obliged to give full weight to what May says at the top of page 537-it is his fifteenth edition that I have in my hand- which is as follows:
A proposal to postpone the only effective clause of a bill until the subordinate clauses have been considered, or to postpone part of a clause, is out of order.
I think the point is quite understandable to all that this clause 3 which sets up the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation is the operative clause. Without this clause there is no bill. Without this clause there is no point in discussing anything else. I therefore submit that to postpone consideration of that clause is-as May, your own authority, says-out of order. If it is not clear enough from the language of May, surely it is clear on the basis of common sense that we cannot go on and discuss lending money to a corporation that we have not set up; that we cannot go on and discuss giving power to such a corporation; or go on and discuss any of the other things that are contained in the clauses that follow which are subordinate to and contingent upon clause 3 of the bill.
I also suggested last night-and I was in the midst of this part of my argument when we reached ten o'clock-that it is well established, and that it is often declared to us by no less a person than the Minister of Finance, that we must not try to do indirectly what we cannot do directly. It is my contention, Mr. Chairman, that this motion is not what it purports to be. This motion is an attempt to lay the basis for closure, and on that basis it should not be entertained at this time. Not only is it an attempt to lay

the basis for closure, Mr. Chairman; it is in effect closure itself so far as present discussion on this clause is concerned.
In that connection, Mr. Chairman, may I give to my hon. friends opposite one more brief quotation from a person whose memory I believe they still revere. I refer to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In 1913 Sir Wilfrid Laurier stood in the House of Commons-not in this chamber, of course; it was in the one in the building that was destroyed by fire-on this, the opposition side, and said this:
Heaven is my witness that I would rather stand here today defeated and in opposition by that appeal to the people than stand over there in office by the power of the gag.
Mr. Chairman, lest anyone think that I am taking these words out of context I shall read a few sentences that are prior to the one that I have just read. This was in 1913 when the Conservative government of that day had brought in the closure rule. Incidentally, I may say that there had been 22 days of debate on one clause when Sir Robert Borden moved closure. I am not defending Sir Robert Borden but at least there is quite a difference between that situation and what obtains now. My friend the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has put it well. He says that a period of 22 days is quite different from 22 seconds. In the course of that debate this is what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said and I think it is appropriate not only to what is happening here just now but also to some other questions that have been put to the Prime Minister as recently as this morning. Again this is that great Liberal who could call heaven as his witness-the Liberals cannot do that any more-speaking in the House of Commons in 1913:
We introduced the reciprocity measure on the 26th of January and on the 28th of July we had not yet been able to obtain even a preliminary vote upon it.
What is that, six months? Yes, a little more than six months.
We had been met at every step by obstruction from the Conservatives, then in opposition; dilatory motions of every kind were made,-


James Sinclair: They have not changed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I invite the Minister of Fisheries to keep on making these interjections if he wishes but I suggest that if he does not know the whole quotation he would be wise to hold his peace.
-speech after speech was delivered day in and day out, even in the dog days of summer.
Listen to what Sir Wilfrid Laurier says.
I did not complain: I did not whine. Two courses were open to me. I could have done as is done today by the Prime Minister;
25, 1956	4331
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
That is a reference to Sir Robert Borden.
I could have introduced the closure and have said that we must carry on the business of the government and that, consistently with our dignity, we could not allow obstruction.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier knew he could do that; he knew he could do what his political descendant the present hon. member for Quebec East is prepared to support. I continue this quotation from Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
But there was another course open to me, and that was an appeal to the people; and I advised my colleagues to give the hon. gentlemen of the opposition the opportunity of appealing to the people. We appealed to the people and we were defeated. Heaven is my witness that I would rather stand here today defeated and in opposition by that appeal to the people than stand over there in office by the power of the gag.


William Earl Rowe: They are afraid of an election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How the Liberals have
changed. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had the patience to listen to a debate for six months and still he did not impose closure. Now, it is closure on the first speech on the resolution. Now, when we get into committee of the whole it is closure on each clause as we go along. I insist that this motion is not what it purports to be, just an innocent proposal to move on. It is, in fact, dishonest in that sense. It is laying the basis for closure, and I submit that Your Honour should not entertain such a motion in this place which we regard as a democratic assembly.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, for these three reasons, because of the clear-cut language of standing order 78 (1), which I insist is a rule of this house which under the rule of law must be obeyed; secondly, becausj of the clear-cut language on page 537 of May which you, sir, have held up to us as an authority, and in the third place because of the insistence we are entitled to make that the government should not try to do indirectly what it cannot do directly, I call upon you to tell the Minister of Trade and Commerce that his present motion is out of order.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Do I understand the minister and the hon. member for Eglin-ton are rising on the same point of order?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to speak to the same point of order as that to which I indicated last night I wished to speak.


William Alfred Robinson: May I take this opportunity of bringing this matter to the attention of the committee. I gather, from the remarks made by the hon. member for Eglinton, that he and I do not see eye to eye on this particular point. Now, we cannot have two
4332	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation points of order before the committee at the same time; I think that is agreed. We are now dealing with a point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I feel that I am bound by the provisions of standing order 34 which says:
Mr. Speaker may permit debate on the point of order-
I draw hon. members' attention to the word "may".
-before giving his decision, but such debate must be strictly relevant to the point of order taken.
Now, I feel from interchanges which have taken place between the hon. member for Eglinton and myself that he does not agree with my understanding of my position, in that once an hon. member has raised a point of order if I feel that I need assistance in deciding it I can hear other members who wish to speak to the point.


Major James William Coldwell: No, no.


William Alfred Robinson: Order; may I conclude my remarks?


Major James William Coldwell: May I say I think you are entirely wrong?


William Alfred Robinson: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: I think that what you have quoted does not give you the right not to see a member who rises.


William Alfred Robinson: May I finish? I should like to get this cleared up. I am asking assistance, and that is my interpretation of my position. The hon. member has raised a point of order and I think there is a citation somewhere- I can look it up later-which says these points of order must be decided immediately. I think it is standing order 34 which allows me to permit debate from hon. members if I need assistance in deciding a point of order. I have felt it is the duty of the chair to decide whether the chair needs that assistance. I know the hon. member disagrees with that view, and I now find that I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar disagrees with that view. However, we cannot get rid of the question at this time. I intend to see the hon. member for Eglinton, and I intend to see the minister-


William Earl Rowe: Why?


William Alfred Robinson: -as they both say they wish to speak on this point of order. I wish to obtain their views on it, but I wish later hon. members would raise, if they wish, another point of order if they disagree with me that it is permissive that this is being done. I wish they would raise it so that could
[Tiie C'a'.nr.m 1

be settled. Some hon. members seem to disagree with my view and I think if they disagree they may speak to me on the point and we can have that point of order decided later.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to be heard on that.


William Alfred Robinson: We cannot do that at this point. I will hear the hon. member for Eglinton on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is on the same point I wish to address you, but you seem to anticipate what I am going to say to you and I do not know how you can do that because I have not said a word on the point of order now raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and that is the one about which I wish to speak. You have invited hon. members to make their submissions to you in regard to the question whether hon. members could be heard on a point of order raised by another hon. member.


William Alfred Robinson: I wonder if I might make this clear to the hon. member for Eglinton at this time. I consider it is my decision to allow debate, and as I say I consider it is permissive in me, as Chairman, to allow debate if I feel I need further assistance in properly deciding a point of order. Now, if the hon. member wishes to speak in support of that, then that is one thing, but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has raised the point of order and I say, by permission of the chair, I should like to hear the hon. member's remarks. If he wishes to raise a point that he has a right to do so rather than that he is doing so by permission, I wonder if he would kindly leave that until after we have disposed of the present point of order and then I would be very glad to receive direction on that very point.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may have misunderstood your earlier remarks. I say then I shall be happy to reserve anything I might have said to you on the point of order as to whether you should hear hon. members.


William Alfred Robinson: I would appreciate that very much because I may be under a misapprehension on the matter, but I should like to have the assistance of hon. members in order that we may all know our position. The Minister of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Wait a minute, sir.


William Alfred Robinson: I understood you were reserving your remarks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. I said, if you note my last remarks, that I have reserved what I might

wish to say to you on the point you have raised as to whether other members should be heard by the Chair.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member now wishes to talk on the point of order of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what he first got up for.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is what I rose to my feet for, sir, and that is the purpose I declared last night at the moment of adjournment, as you recognized this morning.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to give full support to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for the reasons he gave and for additional ones as well, because the point can be fully supported on the grounds that he put forward, and in my respectful submission it can be supported on additional grounds also.
We cannot get away from the provisions of rule 78. They have been referred to several times but we must begin with them on this point. Clause 1 reads:
In proceedings in committee of the whole house upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order; the preamble and title to be last considered.
It is only natural, Mr. Chairman, that you should look around for precedents, and no doubt you have in your mind what occurred here yesterday. I think I should begin with some observations on that subject. In the first place, I submit to you that there is no precedent open to you in this respect to justify the course that the government is seeking to follow here except what occurred yesterday. There are no earlier precedents. Indeed, the precedents are all to the contrary. If the government is to be supported in this present motion to postpone consideration of clause 3 of the bill, then precedents for it cannot be found outside of yesterday's proceedings in this house.
I draw your attention, sir, to the submissions you have already heard-I do not take the time of the committee to repeat them- that the provisions of rule 78 must be given very strict Interpretation. I simply recall to your mind what was said on that point yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition and what has already been said on the point by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
All that has been heard in debate on the bill so far in the committee has been a succession of three statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in each case moving a similar motion. I draw your attention to what was said in each case. I will do it as briefly as I can because I am now
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation coming to the question as to whether what is now being done is a consideration of a clause under the provisions of standing order 78. In that regard, I think you have a very good guide in what was said by the minister in each case. At page 4283 of yesterday's Hansard the minister said, in introducing the same motion in respect to clause 1:
Mr. Chairman, clause 1 is the short title clause, stating that the act may be cited as the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation Act. It is purely a formal clause and since we have had some six days of general discussion and a few days more of procedural discussion I move:
"That further consideration of this clause be postponed".
Mr. Chairman, the minister was not pretending that that was consideration. The whole pith and substance of that very brief statement was that consideration is not necessary because it is a purely formal clause. Now, in the face of that, surely, when the minister, as the speaker recognized, and the only speaker recognized by the chair on the clause, stands up and says that there is no consideration required of this because it is a formal clause, no one in this committee can then pretend, let alone seriously argue, that there has been consideration of the clause.
Then, let us move forward and recall what the minister said in introducing the same motion with respect to clause 2. It is to be found on page 4293 of Hansard, and reads as follows:


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, clause 2 is the interpretation clause and is standard in form. It gives definition of the "board"; "corporation"; what a director means; what the minister means; the northern Ontario section; "Trans-Canada" as the abbreviation of "Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited"; and the definition of "western section".
I move:
"That further consideration of this clause be postponed.
What the minister was saying to you there, sir, was that there is no occasion for consideration of this clause because it is a purely standard clause, just a clause of definition, a standard clause that does not require consideration. Such was his submission. In the face of that, does anyone pretend, in the light of the course then taken by the government in moving the motion that the consideration of the clause be postponed, that there had been consideration? It is perfectly clear, sir, from what the minister said himself, he was arguing before you that consideration was not necessary.
Then, the last reference, Mr. Chairman, is to what the minister said in introducing the

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation motion which is now before you. At page 4311 of Hansard he said:
Mr. Chairman, section 3 establishes a crown corporation in the form usual for crown corporations appointed by the federal government. The president and the four directors are appointed. The head office of the corporation shall be in the city of Ottawa. The directors receive no salaries but are allowed their living expenses and the usual provisions are made for civil servants who may be employed entirely by the corporation.
Mr. Chairman, I move that further consideration of this clause be postponed.
Again, sir, the whole pith and substance of the minister's statement was that this was just the usual form of clause in reference to crown corporations. He contended no consideration is necessary; therefore he moved that consideration be postponed. Now, Mr. Chairman, in the face of those statements whose aim and purpose are crystal clear, it is not going to be pretended, I am sure, by any hon. member that consideration nas been given to the clause when the minister was saying throughout, in effect, consideration is not necessary; therefore, because it is not necessary he moved that consideration be postponed.
My submission to you is this, sir. The statement by the minister, which is all we have, is not consideration by the committee within the terms of standing order 78, clause 1. Indeed, it could not even be pretended that it is consideration by the minister, let alone by the committee of the whole.
Mr. Chairman, if you say that what occurred yesterday has established a precedent to dispose of that point I will take respectful issue with that view and say to you that what occurred yesterday, in my submission, is not a binding precedent; it is certainly not a contrary precedent. However, Mr. Chairman, if you do hold that there was a precedent created yesterday which precludes you from giving the interpretation to standing order 78, clause 1, in the light of the facts, that I am asking you to put upon that clause, then I move forward to the next submission.
I say to you, sir, that on a proper consideration of clause 3 of the bill now before us, that clause cannot be considered apart from the consideration of clauses 1 and 2 which the committee has now been precluded from considering by reason of the two motions of the government. We are being asked to say that further consideration of this clause be postponed. I submit to you that clause 3 has not been considered. I go farther and I say that clause 3 cannot be considered in accordance with any sensible interpretation of the word "considered" in the light of the action taken by the committee already in passing the government's motions to postpone consideration of clauses 1 and 2.
[Mr. Fleming.l
Now, Mr. Chairman, if you will look at the bill itself you will see that an understanding of clause 3 of the bill is impossible without reference to clauses 1 and 2. Clause 3 of the bill is a clause-perhaps it might be called the heart of the whole bill

by which there is created a crown corporation to be known as the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. The clause goes on to deal with the appointment of directors, their tenure of office and removal, the delegation of their powers to the president or general manager, the making of by-laws, location of the head office and directors' meetings, the payment of expenses, the appointment of a general manager, the employment of officers and servants and retirement from employment by the corporation.
Now, sir, I defy any member of this house to attempt consideration, within the meaning of the term as used in our standing order 78, of clause 3 apart from references to the two preceding clauses of the bill. When standing order 78 speaks about consideration it surely means sensible, intelligent, competent consideration. It does not mean wrenching a provision out of all context in the bill and trying to shut one's eyes to the meaning including essential definitions attached to terms in the section and other provisions of the bill. Therefore I say, sir, that the committee cannot, as matters now stand, give consideration to the provisions of clause 3 within the meaning of standing order 78 without reference to and consideration of clauses 1 and 2; and that is precluded.
I go further on my next point, sir, and say that the process grows as we proceed with the bill. We are at clause 3. The government wants to postpone consideration of clause 3 and to prevent any discussion of it whatever because you ruled yesterday that this motion is not debatable. Well, sir, we know what is going to happen. If consideration of clause
3	is postponed, then when we come to clause
4	the same thing is going to be attempted again by the government. I point out to you, and I think you must consider what has now become a settled course of action on the part of the government in the light of an unfolding pattern before our eyes of government purpose with respect to this bill in committee, that you have to look further and see what is going to be the effect of this motion upon the proceedings that are to follow.
This motion with respect to clause 3 of the bill would defeat any attempt at consideration of the subsequent clauses of the bill because, sir, this is the clause that sets up the corporation which was the original sole purpose of the legislation as indicated in the original

resolution placed on the order paper by the government some months ago.
Now, sir, look at the other clauses, clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the bill. They could not possibly be considered apart from clause 3. If this motion is now adopted, I submit to you that this house is not in a position to give consideration to clauses 4, 5, 6 or 7 within the terms of standing order 78.
I do not intend to dwell on the point, sir, but just look at clause 4 for a moment. It refers to a corporation. That is the corporation in clause 3. In clause 4 it is referred to as a body corporate having capacity to contract and to sue and be sued in the name of the corporation. And then it proceeds to deal with the status of the corporation as an agent of Her Majesty to deal with the holding of the property by the corporation, and so on. Then we come to clause 5 of the bill which establishes the purposes and powers of the corporation. What corporation? The corporation created by clause 3 of the bill, and yet the committee is being asked to say that clause 3 shall not be considered.
Go further, sir, and come to clause 6 of the bill. Again you have a provision that the corporation may borrow money from Her Majesty and certain provisions are contained therein in reference to the making of any such loans. What corporation, sir? It is the corporation created under clause 3 of the bill, and we are being asked now to pass over that clause without any consideration. How can it be said then that consideration could possibly be given to clause 6 within the meaning of standing order 78 if this motion is now accepted by you?
Finally we come to clause 7 of the bill which provides-and I am hurrying over this, Mr. Chairman-that:
Pursuant to an agreement in that behalf made, with the approval of the governor in council, . . .
-between Her Majesty and Trans-Canada, the corporation may on behalf of Her Majesty make short-term loans to Trans-Canada. What corporation? It is the corporation created under clause 3 of the bill. How can it be pretended that the committee will be in a position to give consideration to clause 7 of the bill within the terms of standing order 78 in the light of the motion now proposed?
I submit to you, sir, that if you were to entertain this motion you would be in effect accepting a course of action by which the committee will preclude and disable itself from carrying out the duty laid upon it by standing order 78 with respect to clause 4, with respect to clause 5, with respect to clause 6 and with respect to clause 7. I submit that a motion so absurd on its face as that cannot
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation be in order. A motion that would in itself defeat the application of standing order 78 and preclude the committee from discharging the plain duty laid upon it by standing order 78 cannot be in order.
I will not dwell further, Mr. Chairman, on the point that this motion would achieve a highly ludicrous result. It goes further, sir. If you receive this motion it will defeat the rules and I think it is quite obvious, sir, that that is so intended by the government. The pattern has emerged. In reaching your conclusion on this point of order in the light of the submission to you made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and in the light of what I am trying to submit respectfully to you now, I urge upon you that you cannot close your eyes to what happened yesterday. You cannot close your eyes to the clear pattern of action revealed yesterday in the succession of motions introduced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The pattern is clear and you have to look at that course of action with respect to the other two clauses and with respect to its application to the succeeding clauses of the bill because we know that is the government's intention. The conclusion is inescapable that this course of action of the government prevents, and is intended to prevent consideration of anything in the bill. It would tear the rules; it would tear our parliamentary safeguards to shreds and tatters.
Now, sir, I said that you cannot close your eyes to clause 3 in reaching your conclusion as to whether you may accept this motion, and you cannot close your eyes to what happened yesterday or what it is the government's intention to do with respect to later clauses. Here I come to another point, sir. All this flows logically, indeed sir it flows inevitably, from your recognition of the minister on this clause.
I wish now, sir, to turn to two of the citations which were dealt with in part by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and to develop my own particular submission on them. The essence of our parliamentary institutions surely rests upon the maintenance of the rights of all in this house as defined by the rules. You have had an abundance of citations as to the essential part, indeed the vital role, played by the rules and their maintenance in their full integrity in the preservation of the essence of parliament. It is not just a matter of the dry bones of procedural questions. Here we are dealing with matters that go to the very heart and vitals of our parliamentary institutions.
Now, sir, let me turn to the famous citation No. 1 in the third edition of Beauchesne in which Bourinot is quoted as stating:
4336	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
The principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law, as Bourinot so aptly says, are: "to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every member to express his opinion within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse."
Sir, you have been invited, and I invite you now, to give full weight to that unchallenged statement, binding upon you, binding upon anyone who sits in the place where you sit today and bears the important responsibility that rests upon you. I submit to you that the clear pattern of government action in this succession of motions will inevitably -indeed, it is designed to-defeat any possibility of permitting the committee to give consideration to this measure, let alone the abundant consideration that Bourinot says is the hallmark of English parliamentary law.


An hon. Member:: Borneo.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hear Liberals in this house making jest of Bourinot and referring to him now as Borneo. Mr. Chairman, the authority of Bourinot as the first Canadian master of parliamentary procedure and understanding of the essence of our parliamentary institutions is beyond challenge by any member of this house.
There is the question of the protection of minorities in this house. I am going to have something to say about the wider context of this expression in a moment, but let us bear in mind what Bourinot said about the protection of a minority. I ask you, sir, where is there any pretense of protection of the right of any minority in this house, or any minority represented by anybody in this house, or indeed by all the house, if the only person to be seen on every clause is the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when everybody in the house knows full well that his purpose is to get up and introduce motions, the whole purport and intent of which are to prevent any consideration and to prevent any other hon. member of this house from even so much as offering one word of comment on the substance of such a motion? This comes about because, three times in a row, on clause 1, then on clause 2 and then on clause 3, you chose to recognize the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


John George Diefenbaker: More than coincidence.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You justified your course by reliance upon citations in the third edition of Beauchesne, Nos. 212, 213 and 214. I wish to make a comment and submission to you upon those citations, because it seems to


me that they go to the very essence of the point we are considering now, namely, the proper understanding of what is meant by interpretation of standing order 78. Citation 212 says:
There should not be a list of Speakers with an order of precedence in the House of Commons. Any member who wishes to speak may rise and endeavour to catch the Speaker's eye. He who is first seen has the right to speak. By old parliamentary usage, a member who wishes to make-
And so on.
213. It is a paramount principle that "no member may speak except when there is a question before the house". The only exceptions to this principle are the following: questions put before the commencement-[DOT]


William Alfred Robinson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am in some doubt here as to the relevancy to the present point of order. The hon. member will recall that I recognized the Minister of Trade and Commerce on three occasions. In each case the motion was made that another hon. member be now heard, and on the vote of the committee those motions were negatived. I am in doubt as to whether the hon. member is not transgressing the rule.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I realize I may not go back and open up the discussion on that motion but I am accepting the fact that now, three times in a row, the minister has been seen and given the floor. I am pointing out to you the consequences that follow from that and their bearing upon the proper interpretation of standing order 78. I am saying to you, in effect, Mr. Chairman, that you have to have in mind what has occurred, and also the fact that we have a clear pattern established, now we know that this is going to be attempted to be repeated when we come to the next clause. The minister will be on his feet and we shall have the same performance of the minister trying to get consideration of the motion, that is, that the clause be postponed.
You said yesterday, in reference to these citations, as recorded on page 4302 of Hansard:
There is a custom or usage also that when a minister of the crown rises at certain times he is given a certain priority.
Then you went on to say:
Citation 214 reads:
"The succession of speakers is left entirely to the Speaker."
Now, sir, if you hold the view that the minister is entitled to be called upon on every clause of this bill as the first speaker, and we know that he is going to move that the consideration be precluded by the kind of motion he has brought in now on three occasions, I say to you that you cannot dismiss

from your mind the fact that this is the settled course of action in this chamber and that is the course of action that is going to follow if you receive this motion and not rule it out, as I am submitting to you that you ought to do.
I had understood that, whilst there are certain special courtesies extended to ministers of the crown, equal courtesy was extended, by well-established usage of this house, to the Leader of the Opposition. That, I understood, was a fact in this house, an unquestionable convention, but if you, sir, do not recognize that, then I say to you that that buttresses and strengthens the submission I am making to you now with reference to the proper interpretation of standing order 78.
I said a word earlier on the subject of precedents. The question was put to the Prime Minister this morning on the orders of the day as to whether he could point to a precedent in any commonwealth parliament for what the government was endeavouring to do here in following this settled course of action with a view to gagging the committee of the whole on each of these clauses as it is reached. The Prime Minister, in his response to that question, lightly dismissed it and indicated in effect that the government is not interested in any precedent from any other commonwealth parliament. All I have to say, in a word, on that remark of the Prime Minister is that he should be ashamed of what he is saying.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no time limit on points of order.


William Alfred Robinson: There is a time limit in committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Filibustering your own point of order now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this has never been done before on a point of order in committee.


James Joseph McCann: Nobody ever talked so long.


William Alfred Robinson: Standing order 59(3) reads:
No member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, shall speak for more than thirty minutes at a time in any committee of the whole house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that has never been applied on a point of order.


James Sinclair: Because nobody ever spoke for 30 minutes.
25, 1956	4337
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


William Alfred Robinson: I agree with the hon. member, and may I also say that we are now dealing with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I point out that in my view I have permitted the hon. member to express his views, and I think I have heard enough to enable me to decide the point. When the hon. member rose the Minister of Finance also rose, and I propose to hear what the Minister of Finance has to say about this same point of order.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, are you ruling that a member speaking to a point of order-


James Sinclair: In committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -in committee is limited to 30 minutes?


William Alfred Robinson: I am so ruling.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then, with respect, I must appeal your ruling.


William Alfred Robinson: Just one minute. We cannot have a point of order on a point of order. May I draw the attention of hon. members to Beauchesne, third edition, citation 110, the very last sentence of which reads as follows:
A point of order cannot be raised on a point of order.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar indicated earlier this morning that he disagreed with my view as to my functions on the point of order raised originally by a member. The hon. member for Eglinton also disagrees with that and he disagrees on this point. Once the point of order of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been disposed of, I am going to give an opportunity to deal with that, as I said earlier, but at the present time I must recognize the Minister of Finance on the point of order of the member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I will not take half an hour, but let me answer the points made by both hon. members who have spoken on this point of order. I begin by saying what I would have said last night had I been permitted to do so at the time. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has used the word "dishonest" this morning in connection with the proceedings that we now have before the house, and at one time during the course of his remarks he said something like this: It would appear that in working out that plan the government has come to the realization that it might not be able to achieve closure on time because some of the clauses would not have been considered at all.
4338	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Ever since the hon. member for Prince Albert made a broadcast about the 8th or 9th of March it has been known that it is the intention of the official opposition to do what they can to prevent the passage of this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Edward Harris: At that time he is reported in a Canadian Press dispatch to have said-


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


Walter Edward Harris: This is a point of order because each of these hon. gentlemen has mentioned what we are doing by way of procedure.


William Earl Rowe: There is no point of order in that.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this the explanation of the conspiracy here?


Walter Edward Harris: I read from the Ottawa Citizen of March 10, 1956, as follows:
The defence production filibuster, highlight of the 1955 session of parliament, will look like a "skirmish" alongside planned Progressive Conservative opposition to the trans-Canada gas pipe line bill this session, John Diefenbaker said Friday night.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. This has nothing whatever to do with the point of order in question.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. In his remarks the hon. member for Eglinton-


John George Diefenbaker: Just a dirty conspiracy on the part of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


William Alfred Robinson: -was careful to draw certain things to my attention in a similar manner, and I intend to hear the Minister of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -I drew your attention to what happened in the committee. This is the statement that the minister wanted to get in last night by indulgence of the committee and he has no right to do it.


Walter Edward Harris: I am speaking to the point of order precisely in the same manner that you did.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, do you rule that this is in order?


William Alfred Robinson: Order. We cannot have a point of order on a point of order.


George Alexander Drew: Does Your Honour rule this is in order?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


William Alfred Robinson: Certainly.


George Alexander Drew: Then I appeal your ruling.


William Alfred Robinson: I am deciding the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I have listened with patience to the two hon. members even though at some points I did not think their remarks were too relevant, and I think I can now hear the Minister of Finance.


George Alexander Drew: I appeal your ruling that this is in order.


Walter Edward Harris: May I continue?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, do you entertain appeals from your rulings?


William Alfred Robinson: As I said, a point of order cannot be raised on a point of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised a point of order and, by leave, I have allowed certain members to speak to it, one being the hon. member for Eglinton, and now the Minister of Finance.


Mr.   Karris@: Mr. Chairman, two or three days before that the hon. member for Assini-boia made a somewhat similar statement which I quote as follows:
The government "ain't seen nothing yet" in the way of filibusters . . .


An hon. Member:: This is not in order.


Walter Edward Harris: The report went on to say:
He indicated the party's orators are geared to prolong the discussion to a greater extent than opposition leader Drew in last year's filibuster which forced amendment of the Emergency Powers Act . . .


George Alexander Drew: And saved the rights of parliament.


James Joseph McCann: Saved nothing.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I did not interrupt either one-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, what has this to do with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre? It has nothing to do with the point of order. The minister is going on to deal with something that has nothing to do with what has occurred in this committee. I ask you to rule-


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that the minister is completely outside his rights.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, it is one o'clock.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


William Earl Rowe: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.



AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman,-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Is the minister
rising to the point of order which we had before us prior to the luncheon recess?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I shall be brief. In the course of his remarks yesterday, last evening and again today the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Eglinton imputed every possible motive to this government that they could find in the course of the particular proceedings we are taking. I only take the time of the committee to say this. This government made it clear by the statement of the Prime Minister not so long ago that we had decided on a course of action which had a deadline on it and that we were therefore obliged to take whatever action was necessary to have a decision of this committee and of the house on the point at issue. If that decision is not reached then, so far as we are concerned something has occurred which should not occur. The leader of the C.C.F. has, I think twice and perhaps more than that, referred to the fact that this government has closure and a majority and that therefore there is a corresponding balance with respect to the rules. May I point out to you, sir-without agreeing to that general proposition-that a majority means nothing if a majority cannot ultimately make a decision.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I have already
seen the hon. gentleman and I am now in a position to make a decision.


George Alexander Drew: Is this closure?


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,-


George Alexander Drew: Does Your Honour say that
you will hear no more speakers?


William Alfred Robinson: May I remind hon. members of the fact that when the chairman is standing other hon. members should resume their seats.


George Alexander Drew: Just remain silent?


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are you not going to hear us on the point of order before you make your ruling?


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I indicated this
morning that in my opinion I was hearing hon. members, by leave of myself, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I have now heard,
25, 1956	4339
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation in my opinion, sufficient to enable me to decide the point and I should like to do it at this moment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, will you
permit an observation?


William Alfred Robinson: No. I cannot do so at this moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I advise hon. members that they may not rise while the Chairman is on his feet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a question of privilege.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


George Alexander Drew: Has there been closure on privilege as well?


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am about to make my ruling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


William Alfred Robinson: I will hear the hon.
member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question of privilege is this. Earlier today, when the question was raised by the hon. member for Eglinton as to whether or not members had a right to speak in a debate on a point of order, you suggested that that was a separate question from the one that I raised and that it should be left to be settled later. It was because you said that that I did not rise to take part in that discussion at that time. I felt that there was implicit in your statement the view that you would not impose a limitation on the number of speakers on this point of order but that you would leave the question as to whether you have the right to prohibit speakers on a point of order to be settled later. I think it is quite unfair for Your Honour, having given that impression, to come along now and stop discussion when you admitted that your right to do so was a point that would have to be discussed later. In fact, I think you even said you might have to have advice on it. Now you are in effect ruling on the two points of order whereas you would not let us discuss the two points of order. You are by your action about to rule on the point of order that I raised and by cutting off other speakers you are ruling on the point of order as to whether a point of order is freely debatable. On reflection I think Your Honour will realize that the position you are about to take should be reconsidered.
4340	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on a question of privilege.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. That is not a true question of privilege.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to speak on a question of privilege.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, privileges have gone.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I hope I did not leave any misapprehension this morning. I admitted some doubt as to the application-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on a question of privilege.


William Alfred Robinson: I cannot hear the hon. member.


Mr. Nicholson:: It is a question of privilege.


William Alfred Robinson: When I am on my feet and am about to give a ruling, I say it is impossible for members to raise a question of privilege.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


William Alfred Robinson: As a courtesy I am going to hear the hon. member. But will the hon. member resume his seat?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


William Alfred Robinson: I should like to quote to hon. members from Cushing. May I say that I have extended every courtesy to hon. members. May I quote from Cushing in "The Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies". We simply cannot get business done in this way.


George Alexander Drew: You mean you cannot get foreclosure done.


William Alfred Robinson: At page 569 of Cushing I read as follows:
When, therefore, the presiding officer of an assembly is called upon by any individual member (and no seconder is necessary) to give his opinion as to a matter of order, arising, or which the member supposes to have arisen, as well as in those cases in which the presiding officer volunteers his opinion, he gives it at once, either with or without reasons, as he thinks proper, and proceeds to direct the assembly accordingly. Before, however, giving his opinion, the presiding officer may take the opinions of other members, at his pleasure, not in the shape of debate, on the question; but when he rises up to speak all the other members must at once resume their seats and be silent.
I indicated this morning that I heard the point of order of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and that I proposed to hear several members by leave, under section 34, discuss the question of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I have now come to the point


where I feel that I am in a position to decide that point. I am not at this time obliged to accept any further advice, in my opinion. I may have given a wrong impression in this respect. I also cannot decide academic points. If hon. members wish to appeal from my present ruling that I am going to make, that I am not going to hear other hon. members, I can add it to any appeal that is made. However, I have risen to my feet, as is my right, to make my ruling on this point and I intend to do so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a question of
privilege.


William Alfred Robinson: I intend to make my ruling on this point and I must ask the hon. member-
. Mr. Fleming: I wish to raise a question of privilege before you make your ruling, Mr. Chairman. There is no point in making it afterwards.


William Alfred Robinson: I intend to-


Donald Methuen Fleming: If you do not hear me now, Mr. Chairman, you are refusing to hear my question of privilege. In other words, you are making a farce out of these proceedings and destroying the usefulness of this house. I demand the right to speak to the question of privilege.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I demand the right to state my question of privilege.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I was on my feet when the hon. gentleman rose.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have every respect for you, Mr. Chairman, but I indicated to you that I was raising a question of privilege and you are trying to stifle us before we even state the question of privilege. This is not any way to run a peanut stand, let alone parliament. Surely you must have some regard for the rights of members of this house.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. gentleman rose-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, will you hear me on my question of privilege?


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. gentleman rose to his feet while I was on my feet making a ruling.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, you have just now said you would hear a question of privilege. I am standing up to put my question of privilege before the Chair. It is my right and I assert it.


William Alfred Robinson: I feel that I have extended every courtesy to the hon. member and I must now direct him to resume his seat.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have not recognized my right to raise my question of privilege.


William Alfred Robinson: I must direct the hon. member to resume his seat.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I assert my right to put my question of privilege before the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And I go further and I say this to you,-


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -in the light of what you said earlier, if you do not hear my question of privilege you have misled the committee and every member of it. You said here earlier this morning that you would hear the members of the house on the question whether members could be heard on a question of privilege raised by another. Now you are making a decision and allowing no one to be heard. You will not even allow a member the right of raising a question of privilege.


William Alfred Robinson: I have asked the hon. member to resume his seat. He has not done so. Does the hon. member wish me to report the occurrence?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, if you wish to deny me my right as a member of the house and refuse to hear a question of privilege, you will take your own blind course, I assume. I assert my right as the right not only of myself but of every other member of the house.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I shall stand here until there is absolute silence. It is impossible to conduct the business of parliament in this way. The hon. gentleman rose while I was on my feet-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are agreed on that, and the responsibility rests with you.


William Alfred Robinson: I have asked the hon. member to resume his seat and he has refused to do so. I must, therefore, report the matter to the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a question of privilege. Will you hear me on a question of privilege?


William Alfred Robinson: I leave the chair to report the matter to the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege; will you read the report to the committee before you make it.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
Mr. Speaker, in committee of the whole when it was considering clause 3 of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, I was addressing the committee when Mr. Fleming rose on a question of privilege. I stated that a question of privilege could not be raised while I was addressing the committee and directed Mr. Fleming to resume his seat. This, Mr. Fleming refused to do.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) of the committee of the whole reports that when it was considering clause 3 of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, the chairman was addressing the committee when Mr. Fleming rose on a question of privilege. The chairman stated that a question of privilege could not be raised while he was addressing the committee and directed Mr. Fleming to resume his seat. This, Mr. Fleming refused to do.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard? I submit to you, sir, that that report is not a true and accurate report of the proceedings in committee. These are the facts, sir. A point of order was under discussion. The discussion had commenced last night on a point that was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I followed this morning on the point of order, supporting it. When I rose the chairman of the committee said that he, at some point, wished to hear argument as to whether he, as chairman, should hear more than the member raising or introducing the point of order. He did say, however, when I undertook to discuss that subject, that he did not wish the discussion at that point, but that he would reserve that as a separate point for later discussion. I proceeded then to discuss the original point and the second point has not yet been raised.
After I was heard in part, I may say that the chairman ruled that my time was up in committee about ten minutes to one although I had not quite completed, then he heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) on the same point of order. After the noon adjournment the committee resumed at 2.30 and the floor was given to the Minister of Finance to complete his observations and representations on the point of order. He was heard to the end, and then the chairman of the committee rose and stated that he was about to make his ruling. I rose and indicated that I wished to complete briefly some remarks on the point of order. Now, if he had given me an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, I would have said that another member of my own party who was going to make a submission on the same point of order had decided to withhold those remarks and let me complete my remarks instead of having
4342	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation a second speaker from my party on that point. I was not permitted even to say that.
At that point the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rose on a question of privilege. Will you bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was at that point heard on a question of privilege. The chairman of the committee had already said he was on his feet and was about to give his decision on the point of order, but even then, even having risen to his feet with that declared purpose, he heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a question of privilege. I said I wished then to be heard on a question of privilege. My question of privilege was similar to his, but I was entitled, I think, to state it. The chairman of the committee did not hear me.
Then, the hon. member to my right, my colleague the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), rose to his feet and said he wished to address the chair on a question of privilege. Still the chairman of the committee was on his feet and still purporting to make his ruling on a question of order, and without having heard all the discussion on that point, but he said, if you please, that he would hear the hon. member for Greenwood on his question of privilege. I then asked that I be heard on a question of privilege. I had already tried several times, even before, to be heard on a question of privilege, and although the chairman of the committee had heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a question of privilege and although he said he was going to hear my colleague the hon. member for Greenwood on a question of privilege, he refused to hear me on a question of privilege. I asserted, Mr. Speaker, my right to be heard on a question of privilege and not be debarred by a decision of the chair from being heard on an important question of privilege on an issue that is as important as any that will ever come before the Canadian House of Commons.
When others enjoy that right-it is not a privilege, it is a right to be heard on a question of privilege-under the same circumstances and while the same chairman was on his feet and engaged in delivering his decision on the same point of order, by what right does he accord to some members of the house the right to rise on a question of privilege and deny it to me? Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I stood my ground.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And I did so, Mr. Speaker, without departing one inch from the respect which, in the 11 years I have been in this house, I have always given to the Chair.


But there comes a time when a higher duty is owed, and it is a duty to parliament itself, to the long centuries of tradition of parliamentary freedom. And, sir, the right that I assert here today I assert not for myself alone. I assert it for all members of this House of Commons, not just today, but in days to come, to stand up against discriminatory decisions, in fact, abuse of the rules of this house and denial to members of their clear and proper and constitutional rights to discharge their responsibilities to those who sent them here, the responsibilities to all Canadians, their responsibilities not only today but to generations yet unborn, and I abide by the consequences.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, because my name has been mentioned by the previous speaker, may I speak to the matter? I do not press it; I leave it in Your Honour's hands. Since I have your consent, I may say that the reason I feel I should say a few words is that the hon. member for Eglinton has indicated that his point of privilege arose partly because 1 had been permitted to speak to a point of privilege at the same juncture in the proceedings of the committee. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I should make it clear why I felt I had a point of privilege and in doing so I think I shall make it clear to Your Honour that underlying this whole incident is a very serious misunderstanding.
My point of privilege was that during the debate on a point of order which I had raised on the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce another point of order had been raised, namely, as to whether or not members had the right to speak to points of order. I listened very carefully to the chairman of the committee and I understood him to say- we have to wait until we get Hansard to see what was actually said-that two points of order could not be dealt with at the same time; that the one would have to be disposed of first, namely, my point of order against the minister's motion, and that the other point of order as to whether or not speaking on a point of order was a matter of right would be dealt with later. My point of privilege was that because I understood from the chairman that the question of the right of members to speak on a point of order would be dealt with later therefore I refrained from speaking to it at that time, am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the chairman in putting it this way, but I am sure there was a misunderstanding.
The chairman asserts that he did not intend to give the impression that I got from his words, but I certainly got that impression and I am positive that I am not alone. It is out of that misunderstanding that this whole question has arisen and because of

that I think consideration has to be given to the position in which the hon. member for Eglinton has been placed. I pointed out in my question of privilege when we were in committee of the whole that in fact the chairman was doing what he said could not be done; that he was ruling on two points of order at the same time. He was attempting to rule on my point of order against the minister's motion and, in fact, by closing off discussion he was ruling on the point of order about members speaking to points of order, even though he had not permitted discussion on that second point of order. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that I am thoroughly satisfied that the chairman gave us the impression that we would be permitted to have that discussion later.
What the house does with the hon. member for Eglinton for having defied the chairman is up to the house, but it does seem to me that cognizance will have to be taken of the whole situation. I think, to put it in the best parliamentary words that I can, there was a serious misunderstanding between the chairman and the committee.


Walter Edward Harris: May I just say a few words, and in general agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, though not entirely. My understanding was that the chairman decided, or was about to decide, that he had heard sufficient advice from the committee with respect to the particular point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Now, it is true that at that point- I think I am reading the mind of the hon. member for Eglinton-he desired to argue, as had the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that in doing so; that is, in refusing to hear further advice from the house in committee, he was in fact making a decision that he was not obliged to hear every hon. member who rose in the committee to offer him advice. On the other hand, I distinctly heard the chairman of the committee say that he was not called upon to make academic decisions, and I took it from that he felt at that time that he was not in fact ruling on the point of order that had been originally raised as to whether or not he had been obliged to accept advice from any hon. member.
Now, in the course of that he did read- and this may have added somewhat to the confusion which exists, if there is any at all- an extract from a textbook which indicated- and I am only going to paraphrase the words that he used-he hears members giving him advice at his pleasure. However, I do not think that can be taken as his decision, and I am sure that he did not make a decision that in fact he would or would not accept advice from any member. As a matter of fact, when 67509-275
25, 1956	4343
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation he used the word "academic" I took it for granted that at a later stage of these proceedings that point would be raised and that he would probably rule on it in due course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But he closed off the discussion on that point.


Walter Edward Harris: I beg your pardon. It is true, however, that if he were to continue, as I understood him to be about to do, and no doubt the hon. member for Eglinton understood, he would in fact at that point have rendered his decision on the point of order, having heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Eglinton and myself. Now, if that were taken, as I say, by the hon. member for Eglinton as a decision by him on the point of order that he did not have to accept advice from every one of the 264 members, I suppose there may be some point in the explanation offered by the hon. member for Eglinton. Nevertheless, I would have assumed, as I said, that a later decision would have been made on that point of order at a later time, and that should not be taken as barring that future decision.
However, may I say this, Mr. Speaker, with all respect to everyone who has spoken in this debate and on this particular point, that parliament after all is a body in which the officers have to be respected. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said the other day, he thought that the chairman erred in some respects. I think he may have been addressing yourself. Every one of us realizes that we do err from time to time, but one thing we must not have happen, if we can possibly avoid it, is that the authority of both Mr. Speaker and the chairman of the committee should be defied in other than the normal method of appealing to the committee or to the house as a whole.


John Cameron Pallett: Under the control of the government.


Walter Edward Harris: The government tries just as much as it can to obey the rules of this house. At this point, sir, may I say that I think Your Honour has been seized with the explanations made by the hon. member for Eglinton, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself. If it would appear that the first two are correct and that the chairman was about to rule on the point of order raised in the first instance by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I can suggest that the hon. member for Eglinton would not have been debarred from subsequently raising the other point, though I must say that it was hard to decide whether he was actually going to speak to the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or not. Nevertheless, sir, I have

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation given such information to Your Honour as I could. I feel, as a matter of fact, that the chairman was going forward to make just the one ruling and not a second one and that the academic question he referred to could have been decided at a later date.


Mr, Drew:: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there should be any confusion added to this by the statements that have been made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). The point at issue is perfectly clear. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) rose on a question of privilege. The issue before you is not whether there was further debate on a point of order. The question is whether it is appropriate that the chairman should indicate his willingness to hear other hon. members on a question of privilege and deny that right to the hon. member for Eglinton. That is the point at issue and it should not be obscured. The Minister of Finance has said that officers have to be respected. May I say that officers also must deserve respect.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


George Alexander Drew: I have stated a basic proposition that is fundamental to the whole procedure of parliament and it is appropriate that it be brought to your attention that an indication had clearly been given that two hon. members were to be accorded the right to speak on a question of privilege while that right was denied to the hon. member for Eglinton. That is the one issue before you on this occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) says that the issue before me is whether or not the hon. member for Eglinton had the right to rise in committee of the whole on a question of privilege. I think the Leader of the Opposition, by inadvertence I am sure, does not grasp exactly what is the reason for my having resumed the chair.
I cannot review what has happened in committee of the whole. I am not here called upon to make a ruling; I am here merely to put to the house the report that has been received from the chairman of the committee of the whole. On two earlier occasions when I thought that particular phase of my duties was misunderstood I did quote citation 428 of Beauchesne's third edition. I did that last evening. Citation 428 reads:
In case of an appeal to the house, it is the duty of the Chairman to leave the chair immediately and report in writing the point of order which he has decided. The Speaker must then submit the matter to the determination of the house in the language reported to him and put the question. "That the decision of the Chairman be confirmed." No discussion is allowed on the appeal.
Then I added a reference of Mr. Speaker Lemieux which appears at pages 3984 and

3985 of Hansard, volume IV, of 1926. That ruling is to this effect; Mr. Speaker Lemieux said:
The question is not debatable and the Speaker is bound to accept the memorandum prepared by the Chairman of the committee. I shall read it again for the information of the house-[DOT]
And at that moment the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Arthur Meighen, rose to a point of order and said:
The statement was never submitted to the committee before being submitted to the chair. Surely it is not the rule of this house that whatever the Chairman says is the point of order is really the point of order under review either by the committee or the house. The point of order was as clear as day. The Chairman stated it before the committee clearly, and he puts it in a different way to Mr. Speaker. That was the first I knew of it. He should have put it to the committee.
Mr. Speaker Lemieux said:
I think I am bound to accept the statement of the Chairman.
Mr. Meighen replied:
Then appeals are useless.
Mr. Speaker Lemieux said:
The point of order is stated by the party who is to report it to the house, or when appeals are taken from the ruling of the chair, the Chairman states his point. The Chairman stated his point in this way:-
And then he goes on to read the report. Mr. Meighen intervened again. He said:
I speak with some diffidence, because it is some time since there was a precedent, but, I think it is the duty of the Speaker to decide a point of order.
Mr. Lapointe joined in the discussion and said:
Section 183 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms reads:
"In case of an appeal to the house, it is the duty of the Chairman-"
This is probably taken from the second edition which is the same as citation 428 of Beauchesne's third edition. Mr. Lapointe concluded:
I submit that even my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition should be amenable to the rules of the house.
Mr. Speaker Lemieux then said:
Might I respectfully call the attention of the right hon. gentleman to what May says under rule 14: "Note that the appeal from the Chairman's decision is to the house and not to the Speaker."
Then he put the question and the question was decided in the affirmative. I cite this just to point out to hon. members that whatever happens in committee of the whole, if it is an appeal from a ruling by the Chairman, that appeal is not to the Speaker but rather it is to the house. I resumed the chair merely for the purpose of taking the report and submitting it to the house which must

decide one way or the other itself, a right provided by the rules of the house.
As far as the question of disorder is concerned, it is provided by standing order 59, paragraph 4, that:
The chairman shall maintain order in the committees of the whole house, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the house; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the house, on receiving a report thereof.
Now, it is to the latter part of this citation that the report apparently addresses itself. The report I have received is that "the chairman was addressing the committee when the hon. member for Eglinton rose on a question of privilege. The chairman stated that the question of privilege could not be raised while he was addressing the committee and directed the hon. member for Eglinton to resume his seat. This the hon. member refused to do."
To follow the procedure which obtains under our rules and practice with respect to a report of this kind, it is to allow the hon. member who is mentioned in the report to rise and explain. The hon. member for Eglinton was given that right. He stood up a moment ago and we heard him. Following that the practice is to the effect that the hon. member concerned in the report is to withdraw while the house decides what it is going to do about the report. Now, the hon. gentleman remained with us and I think we were all happy to see him with us. And the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), because he had been mentioned in the remarks made by the hon. member for Eglinton, explained further what the position was and so did the Minister of Finance. The Leader of the Opposition spoke too, but it was to indicate to me that what was before me was to decide whether or not the hon. member for Eglinton had a right to be heard on the question of privilege.
I think I have explained as fully as I can that it is not my duty at the moment to decide on that point. I have nothing to do with whatever has taken place in committee of the whole. All that I have to deal with is the report I have received and my duty consists merely of presenting that report to the house and this is what I have done. The matter is now entirely in the hands of the house and not in mine.


Walter Edward Harris: 
An hon. Member:: And with respect to the rights of parliament to speak.


Walter Edward Harris: Those rights of parliament, as I have said, may very well be interpreted only by the presiding officers, and when they make an interpretation it is, I think, a duty of parliament to uphold them until a later time when another incident may occur. In these circumstances there appears to be, as I understand it from a very brief reading of the precedents, a reference of the matter to a committee; there seems to be a case of the suspension of the hon. member, if the house so determines, for the remainder of the sitting or at whatever length the house might decide.
I presume, sir, that the former, that is the question of the reference to a committee, has to do with a reference more inclined to his own personal interest perhaps of matters such as have been raised on other occasions. If that is so, and if this house is to indicate its support of the presiding officers in their decisions, the only possible motion which can be made is one of suspension. It is with the greatest regret that I am obliged to make that motion. I therefore move:
That the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) be suspended from the service of the house for the remainder of this day's sitting.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
4346	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Edmund Davie Fulton: I move an amendment to the motion of the Minister of Finance:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "That" and substituting therefor the following:
"this house record its support of the hon. member for Eglinton in his assertion of the historic and inalienable right of hon. members to rise and speak on a question of privilege in committee of the whole."


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Finance has moved a motion to the effect that the hon. member for Eglinton be suspended from the service of this house for the remainder of the present sitting. The hon. member for Kamloops rose and moved an amendment. I am informed that the motion to suspend the member is not debatable.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I shall hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on the point of order, but before he speaks I would tell him that I have just been informed that it is not debatable by virtue of standing order 32.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, at this point I shall confine myself solely to the question as to whether the motion of the Minister of Finance is debatable. If I establish my point with regard to its debatability I shall speak to the motion later, but I shall restrict myself at this time to the point of order as to whether or not this motion is debatable. I too, during the time we have had since this incident started to arise, have been reading the citations and standing orders that would seem to apply and I also sent to the library and got Hansard for July 31, 1944, when the former member for Parkdale was reported and suspended from the service of the house for the balance of that day. If Your Honour wishes the page, it is 5683 of Hansard for July 31, 1944.
Your Honour relies for your statement that the motion is not debatable on standing order 32. May I point out, however, that there does not seem to be any standing order that spells out the procedure in connection with the naming of a member. I realize that this is not what is technically called the naming of a member, but from standing order 34 (2) it is fairly clear that it is, with respect to something that happened in the committee of the whole, the same thing as would be applied in the house itself. Standing order 34 (2) reads:
Mr. Speaker or the chairman, after having called the attention of the house, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if then the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him, or, if in committee, the chairman shall report him to the house.


Then there is another standing order calling for a report by the chairman to the house of any alleged misconduct. The reason I read standing order 34 (2) is that, so far as I can find, that is the only place in our standing orders where the word "naming" appears. Now, if one looks at Beauchesne's third edition-


Mr. Speaker:: May I say this, so that we understand each other? I do not think that in this instance the member concerned had to be named. He was not named. He disregarded the authority of the chair in committee, and whenever that is considered to be disorder and when there is disorder in committee according to standing order 59 (4), a report must be made. Since at that moment when I resumed the chair I merely had to read the report of the chairman to the house, I have no power to name anyone, but the house has it within its power to censure, in whatever form it sees fit, the member who is mentioned in the report of the chairman. As a result of that I take it that the Minister of Finance, as leader of the house, has moved the motion that is now before me. The hon. member will be good enough to address himself to the question whether or not this motion of suspension is debatable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are on common ground and in complete agreement that this is not naming because the incident took place in committee of the whole rather than in the house itself. But when we start to search the standing orders to find what course we will follow in a case such as this I think Your Honour will agree that we have to look at all of the standing orders that seem to apply. You are right in directing our attention to standing order 59(4) which says:
The chairman shall maintain order in the committees of the whole house, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the house; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the house, on receiving a report thereof.
Now, whether it is naming, which this is not, or whether it is a case of the house dealing with the report that has come from the committee, the question arises, how does the house deal with it? There are citations in Beauchesne, limited in number, but nevertheless there are some that can give us guidance. The only standing order which seems to me to have application is standing order No. 30 which reads as follows:
If anything shall come in question touching the conduct of any member, or his election, or his right to hold his seat-

I make it quite clear that I am reading the whole standing order although those last two phrases do not apply.
-he may make a statement and shall withdraw during the time the matter is in debate.
I also draw your attention to citation 229 which is based on that standing order although, of course, it refers to it as standing order 36, which was the number of standing order 30 in the former rules. Citation 229 reads as follows:
Note that under standing order 36, the member shall withdraw during the time a matter touching his conduct is in debate.
I point out, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that both standing order 30, or 36 as it used to be, and citation 229 of Beauchesne, third edition, indicate that a matter of this kind is dealt with by a debate. Surely if it is dealt with in debate, or by debate, that involves a debate. Your Honour may say that you are stymied by standing order 32 because it does not include in the provisions from (a) to (1) thereof a reference to a motion of this kind. I do not think it is a matter of surprise that a motion of this kind is not included there because it does not come up very often. I do not think it has occurred since the occasion when Dr. Bruce was put out of the house on July 31, 1944. But please note that subparagraph (m) of paragraph 1 of standing order 32 says:
(m) such other motion, made upon routine proceedings,-
I am prepared to admit that Your Honour may try to rely on that phrase, that this is not being made on routine proceedings, but the question might be asked how have we got anything if we have not in effect reverted to routine proceedings?
-as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the house, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangements of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.
I am sure it is quite clear from what the Minister of Finance said that his motion was made in his view-I am not arguing its merits now-under the general provisions of the maintenance of the authority of the house. Because it comes in there, the maintenance of the authority of the house, and that, I emphasize, is under the section that spells out debatable motions, it seems to me it is clear that it is debatable. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, to summarize, apart from the fact that the motion putting Dr. Bruce out was debated briefly on July 31, 1944, I would say that there are these three references: Standing order 30, which says that this is something that is dealt with in debate; citation
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation 229 of Beauchesne, third edition, which refers to the matter being in debate, and third, there is the provision in standing order 32 (1) (m) which says that motions dealing with the maintenance of the authority of the house are debatable.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have some additional citations with respect to the debatability of the motion. I would refer you first to Beauchesne, third edition, citation 191, page 82. I had better read the full citation. It is as follows:
It is the practice in the House of Commons to bring up a question of privilege after prayers, and before the house has taken up the orders of the day. Only in very aggravated cases, requiring the immediate interposition of the house, will any business be suddenly interrupted. May says, page 241, twelfth edition, that "the proceedings of the house may be interrupted at any moment, save during the process of a division, by a motion based on a matter of privilege"-
Perhaps I might pause there to say that is exactly what was happening in committee.
-"when a matter has recently arisen which directly concerns the privileges of the house, and in that case the house will entertain the motion forthwith." Bourinot, page 303, quotes an ancient authority as saying: "Whether any question is or is not before the house, and even in the midst of another discussion, if a member should rise to complain of a breach of privileges of the house, they have always instantly heard him."
Then there is one further three line sentence in that citation which does not seem to have any bearing on this particular matter. If you turn to Bourinot, page 305, you will see the following authoritative statement:
The Canadian House of Commons, in its desire to deal promptly with all questions affecting its members, has generally waived the strict rules which govern matters of privilege, properly speaking, and given every possible facility for inquiry thereon.
May I pause there to say that it seems to me impossible to have an adequate inquiry without adequate discussion and debate. Continuing the citation:
When a member proposes to make a motion touching another member-
That is certainly what has happened in this case. The Minister of Finance has made a motion touching the member for Eglinton. -it is frequently found convenient that he should state his intentions in his place, and then give notice that he will move it when motions are called in due order on a subsequent day.
Again interrupting the reading, I may say that it is made clear elsewhere that the house may take it under consideration immediately and therefore it is not necessary to give notice. Therefore I make no criticism on that ground although I think it might be argued that it would be more appropriate to do so. However, we seem to be seized of this matter at once, but I point out that the

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation fact that you give notice would to my mind, at any rate, indicate that the purpose of giving notice is so that members can be adequately prepared to debate the matter. Now then, after the question of whether or not debate is allowed on such a matter, page 306 of Bourinot is absolutely in point, and it reads as follows:
When a debate on a question of privilege has been adjourned until a future day-
I would ask Your Honour to pay particular regard to this passage on page 306.
When a debate on a question of privilege has been adjourned until a future day, priority will still be given to it. This was done in the case of Louis Riel, mentioned in a previous page, and there are numerous precedents in the English and Canadian Journals illustrating the same point.
So that Bourinot is direct authority for the proposition that such a question is debatable because debate may be adjourned and, sir, if it is debatable then, of course, it is susceptible to amendment. It would, of course, be utterly improper, I think, in view of the importance of the matter and the desire to protect all matters touching upon the conduct and position of members, to dispose of such a question without a debate and without an opportunity to assert the contrary view which I have sought to do in the amendment that I have moved to the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The two hon. members who have spoken on the point of order that has been raised have, I believe, confused a question of privilege which is raised as such by one complaining of a breach of privilege and concluding with a motion or by one making an attack against an hon. member and concluding by a motion which may be dealt with, because it is privilege, immediately or may be appointed for debate and disposal at another time, at which time an amendment may be moved or the matter may be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has quoted standing order 30 as having a bearing on the situation as it presents itself at the moment. Standing order 30 reads as follows:
30. If anything shall come in question touching the conduct of any member, or his election, or his right to hold his seat, he may make a statement and shall withdraw during the time the matter is in debate.
This is a standing order which is germane to the two standing orders, namely standing order 79 and standing order 80, which used to be under the one heading before the house sent the matter of controverted elections to the courts. They were under the title "Independence of Parliament". They affected the case where in a debate, while a debate is going on, an attack is made on a member. I think it

happened here in the last parliament and the next day the said member came to the house and made a speech and then withdrew. As a matter of fact I think it happened twice during the last parliament that standing order 30 was applied. But at this moment we are not in a debate and a member has not been attacked as to his conduct or his right to hold his seat or in anything pertaining to his election. What has happened is a question of disorder which arose in committee. It is the matter of disregarding the authority of the Chair. That is the offence which has been reported by the chairman of committees. That report has been read to the house and the house has it within its power- because it may regulate its own proceedings and punish its own offenders-to decide what it will do. The hon. member for Eglinton had the right to explain, as in the case of Mr. Bruce who had been involved in a similar matter of misconduct. At page 5682 of Hansard of July 31, 1944 we find the following:


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Bradette, chairman of the committee of the whole, reports that in committee of the whole Mr. Bruce, hon. member for Park-dale, during an address directed to the Prime Minister and the committee, stated that Bill No. 161, an act to provide for family allowances, introduced by the government, was a bribe to the people of Canada. Mr. Bruce was asked by the chairman to withdraw the word "bribe" which he had used. Mr. Bruce refused to withdraw that expression and appealed to the house from the chairman's ruling.


Mr. Cassleman:: On a question of privilege, may I ask how the chairman made this report, when he was not in the chair at six o'clock? He was not even in the house.


Mr. Bradette:: I was in the house.


William Earl Rowe: No; you just heard about it during the dinner recess.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On a question of privilege, I was in the house when the discussion took place and, more than that, I have read the report of Hansard.


Mr. Golding:: I should have an opportunity to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Earl Rowe: You have been ignored all through.


Mr. Speaker:: With regard to the question as to the chairman of committees making a report when he was not in the Chair, it is the duty of the Clerk to take a note of proceedings in committee, and I now have these notes.


Mr. Homuth:: I rise to a question of privilege. I say that in the confusion just before six o'clock Hansard did not get everything the chairman had said, because he did accept the hon. member's word.


Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre):: He did not.


Mr. Speaker:: The only matter before the Chair is the report from the chairman of the committee. It is my duty to remind the house that the question is: Shall the ruling of the chairman be confirmed?
Then the division took place. Then later, after the division, we find this:


Mr. Speaker:: The decision of the house having been given, I wish to direct a remark to the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce). He is an old member of the house, accustomed to the dignity and decorum of assemblies. Under circumstances

which are very painful to the house and to myself I would ask the hon. gentleman if he would withdraw his remark.


Mr. Bruce:: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I cannot and will not withdraw my remark.


Mr. Speaker:: I must therefore ask the hon. member if he will withdraw from the chamber until the house decides what it will do.
Then there is a note:
And Mr. Bruce having withdrawn.
Then Mr. Mackenzie King spoke to the point as did Mr. Graydon. When Mr. Mackenzie King spoke he concluded his remarks with a motion:
That Mr. Bruce, member for Parkdale, be suspended from the service of this house for the remainder of today's sitting.
Then Mr. Graydon spoke and this is what he said:


Mr. Graydon:: May I say to the Prime Minister that this pretty well indicates the degree of seriousness of the offence and, I think, shows the ridiculousness of the position which the Prime Minister and the government have taken in connection with it.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say "yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against the motion will
please say "nay".


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Then the members were called in and a division took place.
If a motion to censure a member were to be debatable and amendable, the purpose of the rule would be defeated. I am just told that in the case of Mr. Lacombe, the then member for Laval-Two Mountains, what happened was this. As soon as the motion was moved by Mr. Ilsley, as reported at page 1607 of Hansard of March 24, 1942, the Speaker said this:
It is moved by Mr. Ilsley, seconded by Mr. Crerar, that the hon. member, Mr. Liguori Lacombe, member for Laval-Two Mountains, be suspended from the service of the house during the present sitting. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Then the motion was agreed to and there was no debate.
It must be remembered that at this moment, when a report such as this is made by the chairman of committees, there is nothing before the house but the report of the chairman of committees. I think I have established sufficiently that I cannot deal with the report but that it is up to the house itself to deal with it. The hon. member concerned in the report has a right to explain and he has done so. If the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) had chosen, for instance, to say "Maybe I was too hasty" or if he had given the house to understand that if he had the thing to do over again he would not do it, the situation might be different. Then someone
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation could have moved that the statement made by the hon. member for Eglinton be accepted and the house would have been called upon, without debate, to vote on that motion immediately. Some one has to take the lead in these matters when the house has decided this point, and citation 136 of Beauchesne's third edition does indicate that the leader of the house has certain responsibilities with respect to this matter. The motion that is now before the house is one that the house is called upon to dispose of one way or the other at the moment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, do you rule it is-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member care to comment?


George Alexander Drew: Is Your Honour ruling that this motion is not debatable?


Mr. Speaker:: That is the ruling I have just made.


George Alexander Drew: Then, Your Honour, with great respect I appeal that ruling because I believe it is scandalous that a decision of this kind be made without an opportunity to discuss the merits of what took place.


Mr. Speaker:: Because of the remarks that have just been made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) that he appeals my ruling because it is scandalous that a decision of this kind be made without an opportunity of discussing the matter, may I say that these are difficult days for members on both sides of the house. I am going to volunteer certain remarks which I hope will help in the circumstances.
There are two sides in this house, members on my right and members on my left. No matter how serious, how difficult the political warfare or strategy between the two sides may be, I am now asking hon. members to keep in mind that the occupants of the chair are not concerned with and are not capable of intervening in the political warfare which takes place between the two sides. The occupants of the chair are forbidden by the rules from taking part in the debates. They have, for a long time, ruled themselves even out of debate in the committee of the whole. During the time they occupy the chair their constituencies are not to be heard through their voice. They are completely outside the discussion which takes place in the house.
Now, when a ruling is made hon. members have recourse to an appeal. No matter how useless they themselves may feel that recourse to be, nevertheless that is the only recourse they have. On the other hand, if they wish to criticize the occupants of the chair, not by way of appeal to the house on a ruling that has been made but because of
4350	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation their conduct, because of their partiality, because of their partisanship, because of any other reason, they also have a recourse and that recourse is, I think, one that should not be taken by devious means. I think it should be used in a straightforward manner. The occupants of the chair are deprived of so many rights as compared with other hon. members, for the purpose of doing their job, and if in the opinion of one hon. member or a group of hon. members the occupants of the chair are not deserving of the honour the house has given them; if they are not deserving of chairing any committees or the house itself; if they are not following the traditions and rules of the house as they should; if they are to be condemned in any way, I think the occupants of the chair are entitled to have their fate decided in the way the house has provided for centuries for doing this, and that is by way of a substantive motion after notice being placed on the order paper. I am sure it would be called at the earliest possible moment in order to have a debate brought about and the conduct of the occupant of the chair decided one way or the other.
1 would beg hon. members, notwithstanding whatever heat is developed in debate, to understand that is the position of the occupants of the chair. When the Leader of the Opposition says, "I want to appeal from your ruling", he has that right, and that right I grant him. But to add that he appeals my ruling because it is scandalous that a decision of this kind, that this motion is not debatable, be made without hon. members being able to speak to the matter, I think is going beyond his right in asking for an appeal, a right which I never refused to him.

that is on myself at the moment, I am very pleased to hear that and I want to thank him for that clarification.
Here again, when he says it is because they have sought in committee of the whole to do a certain thing and the chairman did not let them do it, if the occupant of the chair did not do what he was supposed to do, then they are entitled to have the matter, not criticized by a sentence here and there, but by having a substantive motion placed on the order paper.


George Alexander Drew: If I may clear that point up now, I wish to state that the chairman who was sitting in the chair does not command the confidence of the members on this side of the house, and such appropriate steps as should be taken will be followed.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Harris moves, seconded by Mr. Campney, that the hon. member for Eglinton be suspended for the remainder of this day's sitting.


George Alexander Drew: Your Honour, I have appealed your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: That is right; I am sorry.
The question before the house is an appeal from the Speaker's ruling.
The Minister of Finance moved that the hon. member for Eglinton be suspended for the remainder of this day's sitting. The hon. member for Kamloops, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Leader of the Opposition contended that this motion was debatable or amendable, and I ruled that the motion to suspend a member was not debatable under standing order 32.
Those who are in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


George Alexander Drew: If you would permit me to point out, what I referred to was the procedure. I said it was scandalous that a matter of this kind could be decided without anything being said to explain the situation. I would point out that my remarks referred directly to something that has already been discussed. Your Honour has taken a decision, and I am not questioning the decision that you cannot go behind the report that comes to you.
Having regard to your ruling to that effect we have on several occasions sought to have the chairman read the report to us before it was presented to you. I am referring to the procedure which brings an issue of this kind to you without the opportunity to members to explain to you what actually did take place in the committee. It was in relation to that procedure that I used the term I did.


Mr. Speaker:: Then if the Leader of the Opposition did not want to apply the term in a way that would cast reflection on the Chair,
fMr. Speaker.]


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: The nays?


Mr. Speaker:: I said the nays.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The question now is on the motion moved by the Minister of Finance. Mr. Harris, seconded by Mr. Campney, moves:
That the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) be suspended from the service of the house for the remainder of this day's sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Anything for headlines.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am on my feet and questions of privilege cannot be raised. I now propose-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, earlier in the afternoon, as I understood it, you said that you would hear me on a question of privilege.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. While I am on my feet no hon. member may rise. I propose to give my ruling in connection with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in connection with the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) that further consideration of clause 3 of this bill be postponed.
As reported at page 4311 of Hansard of last evening the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised his point of order and, from the first paragraph, it is apparent that it is somewhat similar to points of order raised on two previous occasions in connection with similar motions. As reported at page 4312 of Hansard the hon. member raises a point which is somewhat different from the points previously raised. I refer to his reference to page 537 of May's fifteenth edition, which reads as follows:
A proposal to postpone the only effective clause of a bill until the subordinate clauses have been considered, or to postpone part of a clause, is out of order.
I have examined the bill with some care and I find that I can distinguish a point of separation in that clause 3 is not the only effective clause of this bill, in my opinion. I shall not elaborate on this matter, but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre himself indicated that the English practice in these respects is sometimes different from our own.
The hon. member for Eglinton raised several points, one with regard to "consideration" or "further consideration", with which I think I dealt sufficiently at length on a previous occasion. He also introduced one


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with subject which I thought was somewhat new the hon. member for Cape Breton South in that he mentioned the point-I forget his (Mr. Gillis). Had I voted, I would have exact words-that if we did not consider or voted for the motion.	did not pass clause 3, we could not deal with
the later clauses because clause 3 deals with And Mr. Fleming having withdrawn:	the setting up of the corporation.


John George Diefenbaker: Farewell, John Hampden. I do not consider that point to be well And the house having resumed in com- taken, in that the motion proposes only that nittee:	further consideration of the clause be post-
On clause 3-Establishment and constitution.
poned. It does not kill the clause.
I have therefore come to the conclusion that even after considering the new material, I am bound by the two precedents which


William Alfred Robinson: Order.

have been set by decisions of the house. 1 rule accordingly that the point of order is not well taken.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to appeal your ruling to the house and I ask you, sir, to include in your report to Mr. Speaker that my point of order was based on standing order 78 (1) and also on page 537 of May's fifteenth edition, and also on the principle that it is not proper to seek to do indirectly what cannot be done directly. At your option you may also include that the only answer made to my three points by the Minister of Finance was that the government has decided it has to take whatever action is necessary to reach a decision.


William Alfred Robinson: May I point out to the hon. member that some confusion seems to have arisen with regard to the question of a report. I think I drew the attention of hon. members previously to citation 428 of Beau-chesne's third edition, which says that in case of an appeal to the house it is the duty of the chairman to leave the chair immediately and report in writing the point of order which he has decided. Hansard, of course, will give a complete report of what has taken place. I consider it my duty to reduce the matter to writing, and if I have not done so adequately Hansard will show that. In view of the fact that when the hon. gentleman appeals I must leave the chair immediately, I think that suspends the matter and it is my duty, I imagine during the time I have left the chair, to reduce the matter to writing. I consider that as my duty and I shall perform it now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will you hear this point of privilege?


William Alfred Robinson: Since I have given my ruling on the point of order and it has been appealed, I feel it is my duty to leave the chair and present the matter to the house. I do so now.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
In committee of the whole, when it was considering clause 3 of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Knowles raised a point of order to the effect that standing order 78	(1) would be violated
if the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to postpone the further consideration of clause 3 of the bill was carried, and it was his submission that there had to be consideration of a clause before it could be postponed; and further, that it was not in order to postpone the only effective clause of a bill until subordinate clauses had been considered, and for further considerations advanced.
After considering the question raised in this point of order, I thought the matter was similar to that raised on previous occasions, and I still felt bound
67509-276^
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation by the precedents established yesterday. I therefore ruled that the point of order was not well taken. From this, Mr. Knowles appealed.
Mr. Speaker put the question as* follows:
Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) of the committee of the whole reports that when in committee Mr. Knowles raised a point of order to the effect that standing order 78 (1) would be violated if the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to postpone the further consideration of clause 3 of the bill were carried, and it was his submission that there had to be consideration of a clause before it could be postponed; and further that it was not in order to postpone the only effective clause of a bill until the subordinate clauses had been considered; and for further considerations advanced.
After considering the question raised in the point of order the chairman thought the matter was similar to that raised on previous occasions, and he still felt bound by the precedents established yesterday and therefore he ruled that the point of order was not well taken. Whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed to the house from the chairman's ruling.


George Alexander Drew: It is five o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock. Progress reported.


The Deputy Chairman:: There are referred to this committee a number of divorce bills. Is there unanimous consent that the committee deal with all these divorce bills as one?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill No. 257, for the relief of Islay Isobel Campbell Jones.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 258, for the relief of Audrey Joan Atkinson Hanson Hanson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 259, for the relief of Marie Eglantine Victoria Laurenza Gagne Holowaty.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Barbara Helen Major Kaye.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 261, for the relief of Hazel McJanet Thompson Stewart.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 262, for the relief of Patricia Marion Cook Townsend.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Helen Joan Franks Manley Sellen.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Lily Kite Herscovitch.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Mary Bagdonas Roselle.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Arthur Telford Bates.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 267, for the relief of Marjorie Pennell Robinson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 268, for the relief of Joseph Henri Andre Lessard.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 269, for the relief of Sheila Joan Mencher Morantz.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Frances Marie Ware Ami.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of Shirley Field Schleider.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Jeannine Cecile Marie Tessier Davies.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Madeline Mclsaac Metayer.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Gloria Ann Hazelton Stewart.-Mr. Henderson.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: There are several bills that have to be considered in committee of the whole. Is it agreeable that all these bills be referred to the committee of the whole in one motion?
Bill No. 275, for the relief of Clifford Acland Barber.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 276, for the relief of Hilda Louise Prewer Shaver.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Gertrude Earle Bell.-Mr. Henderson.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 251, to incorporate the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada.- Mr. Cameron (High Park).
Bill No. 278, for the relief of Leba Lee Black Lichtenstein.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 279, for the relief of Helen Walker Seivewright Edwards.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 280, for the relief of Gertrude Hayes Renaud.-Mr. Henderson.
fMr. Speaker.]

Bill No. 281, for the relief of Isabell Jones Page.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 282, for the relief of Joyce Burgess Lewis Cloutier.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 283, for the relief of Marie Ivonne Blais Leger.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 284, for the relief of Jeanne Fleury Touchette.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 285, for the relief of Doris Cammy Lapkoff.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Thea Anna May Laskowski.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 287, for the relief of Thelma Barton Taylor McPhee.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of Olga Pritula Memi.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 289, for the relief of Ethel Elizabeth Margaret Ritchie Campbell.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 293, for the relief of Edith May Robertson Thompson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Hans Christian Anderson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill	No.	295,	for	the	relief	of	Raffaele
Polissena.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 296, for the relief of Hilda Evelyn Charlton Carlson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill	No.	297,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Pilkington Wilson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill	No.	303,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Nesbitt Ward Pratt.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill	No.	304,	for	the	relief	of	Nichita
Tomescu.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 305, for the relief of Lilly Kotoff-sky Schwartz.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 306, for the relief of Rita Beryl Gwendolyn Scott Darlington.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill	No.	307,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Christie Bradley Cunniam.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 308, for the relief of Samuel Marks Stirling.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 309, for the relief of Violet Ethel Stanway Sharpe.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 310, for the relief of Elizabeth June Robertson Fraser.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 311, for the relief of Shirley Ann Joss Le Boeuf.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Marguerite Catherine Evans Macfarlane.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 313, for the relief of Agniete Stravinskaite Paskevicius.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 314, for the relief of Joseph Marc Bernard Levesque.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Kenneth Wilfred Morgan.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Mary Helen Norah Whelehan Gondos.-Mr. Henderson.
Private Bills
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Roger Paul Rene Hilaire Varnier.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Sarah Abra-movsky Gordon.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Ruth Shirley Churchill O'Neill.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Edgar Ferland Theoret.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 321, for the relief of Therese Laure Turgeon Garson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Marie Jeannine Lucette Poirier Legault.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Marie Rose Therese Allain Gauvin.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Marie Therese Murielle Audelin Blemur.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 325, for the relief of Frantisek Horsky, otherwise known as Francis Horsky. -Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 326, for the relief of Anne Campbell Hogwood.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 327, for the relief of Maud Virginia af Ugglas Marchant.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 328, for the relief of Annie Eva Lewin Sutcliffe.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 329, for the relief of Vanda Vaino-raite Lebedziunas.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 330, for the relief of Ivy Hutchcraft Faucett.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 331, for the relief of Charles Edouard Racicot.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 332, for the relief of Jeanine Yvonne Pinatel Wells.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 333, for the relief of Georgina Mary Elizabeth Forcade Sheehan.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 334, for the relief of Bridget Ann Hamilton Limoges.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 335, for the relief of Mildred Jane Clendenning Dephoure.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 336, for the relief of Elizabeth Marie Hartwig Bensinger.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 337, for the relief of Beatrice Mary Lucretia Glassco Bishop.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 338, for the relief of Marie Therese Justine Georgette Spenard Mignault.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 339, for the relief of Vera Florence Gilson Shehyn.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 291, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Decore.
Bill No. 299, respecting Trans-Prairie Pipelines of Canada, Ltd.-Mr. Weaver.
Bill No. 300, respecting Ogdensburg Bridge Authority.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 302, respecting the construction of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river near the city of Trois-Rivieres.-Mr. Boisvert.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 341, for the relief of Marcel Alban St. Amour.-Mr. Henderson.

Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston) moved: second reading of Bill No. 342, for the relief of Grace Elizabeth Browning MacDonald.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



MARY CAROL DEVONE HENRY SCOTT

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 343, for the relief of Mary Carol Devone Henry Scott.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



STANLEY MIRA LEVENE

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 344, for the relief of Stanley Mira Levene, otherwise known as Stanley Mira Francis.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.	.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



ALICE ISABEL CHRISTIAN THOMPSON

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 345, for the relief of Alice Isabel Christian Thompson.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



CZARNA LANDZMAN DESMARAIS

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 346, for the relief of Czarna Landzman Desmarais.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



REAL PERRAS

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 347, for the relief of Real Perras.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I crave the indulgence of the house for a brief period on this bill. I should draw attention to the fact that 78 persons have been granted relief, or moved along one stage, in the last few minutes, but this is a case that was before parliament a year ago. On July 1 last year my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), discussed this case. Earlier in the session he referred to the fact that he had a letter from a Roman Catholic priest who had been a chaplain with the armed services, who had written to my colleague on behalf of this poor woman.
Apparently some hon. members on the other side of the house had some doubts about the accuracy of my colleague's statements, so in due course he received instructions from the priest to give whatever publicity he might wish to in connection with the case. I think hon. members at this point should pay attention to the letter which was put on Hansard on July 1 last year, as found on pages 5596 and 5597 of Hansard of 1955. The letter begins:
The poor lady has been notified that the Senate committee for divorces will hear her case on Friday, March 11. For the last three weeks, she had been on the verge of a nervous collapse.
Then further on:
The expectation was too much for her.
Then the hon. member made some interjections, and he was also interrupted.
February the 26th, she fell sick and the doctor had to be called. She was sent to hospital and since then has been in bed under treatment. She had a blood transfusion-
My colleague then remarked that they do not give blood transfusions for the fun of it. -daily serum and was seen by the hospital's psychiatrist.
Now, she will not be able to go to Ottawa this Friday. The lawyer asked for a written statement from her doctor and is going to present the committee with that letter. The doctor is even ready to go to Ottawa and testify if necessary.
What I am afraid of is that the adverse party tries to pull a fast one on her and win the case by default.
I simply think that it is criminal, even for a husband to frighten and torture his wife so much in order to get his goal that she totally collapses under the strain and tension. Such ignominious behaviour should be punished and I am really deeply shocked by the fact that our laws permit such events to happen.

I trust you to be able to stop a divorce that could be obtained under such circumstances. If you feel it may be useful to use my name and letters in that case, don't hesitate to do so.
May I thank you again for the care you took of that case.
I am very truly yours,
Capt. Rev. Robert M. Rivest, Headquarters Quebec Command, 3530 Atwater Avenue,
Montreal.
Following the discussion in the house by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) debate on the case was adjourned; then later the case came before the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. I find that on the July 8 I had occasion to discuss the case in the house. Hon. members will probably recall that one of the investigators in this particular case was employed by a firm known as Reliable Detective Agency, and he and one of the other members of the firm were charged with fabricating evidence. I made some mention of that, and on page 5900 of Hansard of July 8, 1955, I find the following taken from the judgment of the appeal court:
The appellants, desiring to obtain evidence for the purpose of enabling a married woman to secure a divorce, planned to trap the husband into a false position from which adultery might be inferred or found if evidence was later given in some proceeding for divorce. This plan was to have a woman go to a room in an hotel, register under an assumed name and give the room the appearance of the bed having been occupied. She was not required to do anything more. The husband was to be lured by a pretext to the room and, when there, could be found by the two appellants, who would then be in a position to give evidence as to his being found there with the woman. In carrying out this plan, the appellants arranged with woman "A" to obtain the hotel room and perform her part of the plot, which she did. In the meantime, the appellants arranged with woman "B" to call the husband, under an assumed name, which was the name which woman "A" was to use at the hotel, and invite him to come to the room. This was done by woman "B", but the husband was suspicious. Woman "B" claimed to be a friend of the husband's sister, and the husband took the precaution of calling his sister as to the friend whose name he had been given over the telephone. Instead of going to the hotel room as invited the husband went to the police, with the result that the plan at that stage miscarried and it was the police who went to the hotel room, instead of the two appellants who were endeavouring to mislead someone.
The two men involved were Messrs. Pichette and Santerre.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. member say what he is reading?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This is Hansard for July 8 of last year, page 5901. These are some details in connection with a case which was heard before Magistrate Strike in Ottawa. Hon. members will probably recall that the
Private Bills-Divorce
case was appealed and Mr. Justice MacKay of the appeal court of Ontario ruled:
The first ground of appeal is that the crown failed to prove the intent necessary to constitute the crime charged. It is argued that it was necessary, under the charge as made, to prove an intent to mislead a court of justice, and that the intent proved in this case was not an intent to mislead a court of justice but, at most, an intent to mislead the divorce committee of the Senate, and parliament which might act upon a recommendation of the divorce committee.
Since that time, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Senate has taken the necessary precautions so this will never happen again. At that particular time Mr. Justice MacKay apparently ruled that it was quite all right to fabricate evidence to mislead the Senate or mislead the House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that what the judge held?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: At that time, yes. The ruling was that the Senate committee was not a court of justice.


John George Diefenbaker: That is quite a different thing.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: They were acquitted. The judgment of Magistrate Strike was reversed and the detectives were given a clear sheet. But it is significant, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Pichette, who was involved in fabricating evidence in the case I have mentioned, was one of the witnesses who came here a year ago to support the petitioner, but when the case was heard this year Mr. Pichette did not come. There were three detectives a year ago who accompanied the petitioner and, gave evidence on which the Senate committee reached a decision, but it is significant that although two of them came back this year, the one who was involved in the fabricating of evidence did not return.
This case was contested a year ago when it was Bill No. 184. We are a little behind this year because this year it is Bill No. 347 on the order paper. Mr. Pichette was examined last year and he was asked about the details in connection with the charge of fabrication of evidence. As found at page 28 of the proceedings of the Senate committee, counsel for the petitioner said:
I object to that, because there has been a judgment of the appeal court of Ontario and the charge of fabricating evidence has been dismissed: therefore, I don't think this question can be brought up today.
Then the chairman of the committee, Senator Ross, said:
It goes to the credibility of the witness.
Counsel for the petitioner replied:
But there was a judgment dismissing it.

Private Bills-Divorce
So counsel for the defendant was not able to present his case as effectively as I am sure he would have presented it if he had been here this year. As I recall the situation, the wife has had a very difficult time in securing enough funds to defend herself adequately. On the other hand, the husband apparently has adequate funds available.
This is the first instance since I first came to parliament in 1940, Mr. Speaker, when, a lobby has been conducted in connection with a divorce case. I resent very much being lobbied by people without first being notified by them that they wish to lobby. I do not think those who are asked to judge a case of this sort should have one of the parties to a dispute walk into their offices without first telephoning or asking if it would be convenient to discuss the case.
I have had access to the evidence given before the Senate committee; and the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, of which I was a member at that time, reviewed the case. I think it is also significant, Mr. Speaker, that although a whole year has passed since the case was before parliament there has been no attempt to secure any new evidence. Hon. members might think it queer that the wife was not here to defend herself, but I think those who were on the committee last year realize what a terrific nervous strain it is for a woman who has been in poor health to be under the sort of attack that Father Rivest describes in his letter to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.
I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the miscellaneous private bills committee is taking a step at the moment for which I think it is to be commended, and I think this procedure should be made known to others who might be in a similar position.
There is another case before us in which $175 was ordered by the other place toward the expenses of the witnesses coming to Ottawa. They were here on a Friday, they had to come back on a Monday, and the amount of money was not sufficient to cover the actual out of pocket expenses; so the counsel in this other case has made two trips to Ottawa and has not had a five-cent piece. Our committee thought his request was only reasonable that he should have an opportunity to go to the appropriate court in the province of Quebec in order to see whether that court will not order the husband to make available to the wife sufficient funds to carry out her defence.
In connection with this case I submit that apparently the husband has adequate funds available to give both himself and his wife 
adequate counsel on the case. Since the evidence on which we have been asked to pass judgment here was collected quite some long time ago-it would appear as though it would be August 3, 1954; that will soon be two years ago-and since no new evidence has been produced in connection with this unfortunate case for nearly two years, I should like to have the co-operation of the house in supporting, as unanimously as we have these other 78 bills that have gone through, my motion which is seconded by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough):
That the motion be amended by leaving out the word "now" and adding the words "this day six months' hence" at the end thereof.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: As to the witnesses who gave evidence two years ago, were they the same witnesses with the exception of the one whose conviction was quashed in the court of appeal of Ontario, or were they a new set of witnesses to the same adultery?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes. Two of the three who were here on the previous occasion were back this year. The recommendation was granted on their evidence. The one witness who was involved in the case which went before Magistrate Strike was not back here, but the two who were here on the previous occasion were back, and the information which they secured nearly two years ago was accepted this year.


William James Henderson: Mr. Speaker, if I recall the case that the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is an amendment, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are forgiven, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you very much. I am satisfied that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and all other hon. members appreciate the fact that I may be somewhat tired today.


An hon. Member:: What about us?


William James Henderson: Speaking to the amendment moved by the hon. member who has just spoken to Bill No. 347, standing in my name, I first should like to say that with respect to the other case which the hon. member mentioned and the directing of funds to counsel on behalf of the respondent to

come here, I do not want any wrong impression left. I think I could say this for all members of the committee on miscellaneous private bills. They do not in any way intend to interfere with the direction of a case by counsel appearing before them on behalf of their respective clients.
To get down to this particular case, namely the Perras case, if I am not mistaken it has been twice before the Senate committee and last year was before the House of Commons committee, but unfortunately was one of those that were considered by the committee, but not in time to be considered for third reading by the house.
I realize that this may not be the time to go into this matter more than on the principle of this bill before us. I think it might be summarized by saying that with regard to the rights of the petitioner-and he has a right-this might not be the appropriate time to set it over, but it should again be considered by the committee responsible for considering these matters.
I might say that I, as chairman of the committee, have been highly pleased with the conduct of hon. members of that committee, having regard to the close attention they have given to matters of this kind. I might say that in cases where there are paid investigators the committee members give them added scrutiny, and I believe do a very good job.
I had hoped that the hon. member would allow this bill to go to the committee for consideration before moving his six months' hoist. As I say again, we must respect the petitioner's right. The petitioner has come before the Senate and the House of Commons. This time I notice that the case has come unopposed, that the respondent was called but did not appear.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No money available.


William James Henderson: Nobody appeared for the respondent and the respondent herself did not appear. It has not come to my attention yet, as chairman of the committee, that any request was made for the $175, I believe it was, that was mentioned in another case by my hon. friend.
I think I am remembering the evidence correctly when I recall that this case was before the committee previously and in this previous instance I think it was the same army captain who was named as corespondent by the petitioner. The unusual part of it, the part that struck me at the time, was the fact that this lady worked in an establishment in which the army captain worked, as I recall it. This was a very warm
Private Bills-Divorce
summer night. Something I really could not get through my mind was why he should be going back there to her residence and giving as an excuse that he was going to have a bath-


An hon. Member:: Because he needed one.


William James Henderson: It was a hot day. I could not understand why he should give that excuse as partial explanation for being in this lady's residence. I know at that time that really caused some concern and consternation amongst the members of the committee. Possibly they were influenced by that evidence in arriving at a decision.
I might say that, as I recall, the investigators appeared before the committee at that time and were very carefully cross-examined by the members of all parties. The evidence which they gave, in the opinion of most members of the committee, stood up very well. I do not think the co-respondent relieved himself of the duty which was imposed on him to explain why he was in the room of the wife of another man on this hot day, other than to take this bath.
I presume the evidence is very much the same. I also direct the attention of hon. members of this house to the fact that we must remember that the petitioner has petitioned to the Senate. The evidence was carefully gone into by the members of the Senate committee, who collectively or individually would be qualified to judge the validity of that evidence and come to a conclusion based upon the facts presented to them. In this particular instance the bill has reached the point of second reading in this house, and it would appear that the very active members of the private bills committee, such as the hon. member who has just spoken, would be able not only to do their duty but to show respect for the rights and privileges of other citizens in this country, in this particular case the petitioner, if the bill were permitted to go to the committee.
As I recall it, the petitioner is making his third petition, according to his right, to have this marriage dissolved. It is not a right that is particular to him but is a right extended to all citizens who live within the jurisdictions that require this procedure. I would ask that this bill be permitted, in the usual course of events, to go to the private bills committee for consideration. Possibly there my hon. friend might find something with which he could convince both the members of the committee and the members of this house that this bill should not be further considered. Let me conclude by saying that at this stage I really believe it would be well considered in the committee.

Private Bills-Divorce



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We shall continue with the pipe line bill on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
NAYS Messrs:
Applewhaite	Benidickson
Ashbourne	Bennett
Batten	Brown (Brantford)

[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. McLeod: 1.	Has any conference between top level authorities of the United States of America, the federal government of Canada and the province of British Columbia, been held to discuss downstream benefits in relation to power developments on international rivers?
2.	If not, are any conferences being arranged for?
3.	Has sufficient exploratory work been done to enable the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to report on the project for diversion of the flood waters from the Columbia into the Fraser river basin?
4.	If so, when will this report be available?
Answer by: Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of
Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	No.
2.	The Prime Minister suggested to President Eisenhower during the conference at White Sulphur Springs, on March 27, that questions relating to rivers crossing the boundary be discussed by the two governments. Announcement that such discussions will take place was made on May 23. It was also announced that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the premier of British Columbia will meet on June 5 to discuss water problems of common concern.
3.	No.
4.	No precise date can be given at this time.


JET AIRCRAFT CRASHES
Mr. Caslleden: 1.	What was the total loss of jet aircraft which crashed: (a) during training in Canada; (b) during overseas manoeuvres, for each of the years 195354-55-56, to date?
2.	What was the total loss of life in these crashes in each of these years?
3.	What was the total loss of each type of jet aircraft for each of these years?
Answer by: Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister
of National Defence):
1953 1954 1955 1956 (to March 31)
1.	(a)	19	35	39	4(b)	13	29	27	72.	[DOT]	11	42	42	73.	Sabre	27	35	39	7T33	2	23	24	3CF100	3	6	3	1
Note: In each of the years 1953-54-55 there was steady and progressive increase in the number of hours of jet flying in the R.C.A.F.
Questions
sick mariners' treatment service 
Question No. 447-Mr. Thatcher:
1.	Was it originally intended that the sick mariners' treatment service should be self-sufficient?
2.	During the past fiscal year, what were (a) the expenditures made under the act; (b) the receipts from the tonnage tax on the ships concerned?
3.	Has consideration been given recently to increasing the tax to a point which would render the fund self-sufficient?
4.	Are there any reasons which would render such action impractical?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) $967,914.41 (not final); (b) sufficient time has not lapsed since the close of the fiscal year to permit receipt of full returns from the many points in Canada where tonnage dues are collected by collectors of customs of the Department of National Revenue.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.


WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES, AKLAVIK TOWN-SITE, N.W.T.
Mr. Hardie: Is the Department of National Health and Welfare being consulted on water supply and sewage disposal requirements for the new Aklavik townsite?
*Answer by: Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
Yes.
*See supplementary answer on page 4408.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY    FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 5 01-Mr. Lafontaine:
1.	What has been the total amount paid to date by the federal government to each Canadian province, including Quebec, under the Trans-Canada Highway Act?
2.	To date, what additional sums have been agreed to be paid to each province, including Quebec, in connection with the trans-Canada highway?
3.	How many miles of the trans-Canada highway have been constructed to date in each province, including Quebec?
Answer by:	Mr. Bourgel, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	Payments by the federal government on account of work done to May 12, 1956, under the trans-Canada highway agreement:
Newfoundland 		...$ 7,718,276,84
Prince Edward Island ..	... 1,625,910.87
Nova Scotia		... 309,903.60
New Brunswick		... 3,839,235.87
Quebec 		. . . 	
Ontario		. .. 24,003,894.35
Manitoba 		... 7,036,435.21
Saskatchewan		... 9,052,874.88
Alberta		... 10,029,209.42
British Columbia		... 17,946,864.34
Total 		... $81,562,605.38
[Stage Direction]
Questions
2.	Estimated additional payments to be made by the federal government, upon submission of claims, on account of work approved under the trans-Canada highway agreement to May 12, 1956:
Newfoundland	$
Prince Edward Island	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
2.215.100.00
1.048.900.00
2.102.900.00 927,700.00
14,249,800.00
2.196.800.00
1.634.800.00
2.624.400.00
5.588.800.00
Total	 $32,589,200.00
3.	Equivalent trans-Canada highway mileage completed to March 31, 1956, exclusive of work in the national parks. These figures are for mileage completed under the trans-Canada highway agreements between the federal government and the participating provinces:
Base
course
Grading and paving
Newfoundland 	215-6	-Prince Edward Island	55-0	52-4Nova Scotia 	32-9	18-8New Brunswick	66-9	59-6Quebec 	-	Ontario	416-7	350-6Manitoba 	152-0	153-5Saskatchewan	367-0	305-3Alberta	214-1	196-1British Columbia ....	204-4	177-31,724-6	1,313-6
Company Limited and Pierre Thibeault Manufacturing Company from April 1, 1951 to March 31, 1956.
1951: July 12	 $1,762.65
July 18	 99.00
July 24	 125.00
July 31	 179.00
August 3	 146.25
August 28	  152.46
September 26	 2,721.25*
October 2	 705.60
1952: July 31	  76.46
August 5	 8,254.00
October 7	 10.45
October 24	 341.25
November 20	 50,597.00*
December 10	 330.00
December 13	 152.60
December 30	 84.80
1953: January 14	 127,794.00*
January 20	 70.00
February 23	 1,440.00
February 27	  66.00
March 12	 244.00
March 12	 654.00
March 16	 10.50
March 16	 15.75
March 23	 44.00
May 5	 132.00
May 7	 5,489.00
May 26	 298.70
June 8	 291.50
June 16	 88.00
July 24	 698.89
July 30	 686,504.70*
July 30	 5,608.40
September 1	 216.00
October 5	 420.00
October 19	 105.00
November 13	 167.79
November 13	 210.00

[Stage Direction]
Quetion No. 507-Mr. Boisvert:
1.	Have any contracts been granted by the Department of Defence Production to Pierre Thibeault, Pierreville, Quebec, Pierre Thibeault Canada Limited, Pierre Thibeault Company Limited, and Pierre Thibeault Manufacturing Company, since April 1st, 1951?
2.	If so, how many and what was the amount of each contract?
1954: March 23	 415.80
May 13	 29,405.49
September 21	 38.10
October 5	 108.40
October 15	70
October 15	 13.50
October 15	 621.00
November 23	 137.00
November 26	 225.00
December 27	 321.64
December 29	 28.45
Answer by:	Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Defence Production:
1.	Yes.
2.	79. See list.
Dates and values of contracts awarded to Pierre Thibeault, Pierreville, Quebec, Pierre Thibeault Canada Limited, Pierre Thibeault
1955: January 31	 1,795.20
February 15	 792.00
February 21	 44.18*
February 21	 11.00
February 24	 188.99
June 1	 16.47
June 2	 98,444.50*
June 2	 48.40
June 17	 312.72
[Stage Direction]
Question

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

Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Has the government given consideration to the inclusion of the mentally ill in the national health insurance plan or hospital insurance scheme?
2.	If so, what decision has been reached?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
1.	Yes.
2.	The details of the proposal made by the federal government to the provinces was conveyed by the Prime Minister to the House of Commons on January 26, 1956.


END OF VOLUME IV
Daniel (Dan) McIvor: On a point of order, I would like to inform the hon. member that that-


An hon. Member:: No point of order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I think we have decided more than once that you cannot meet a debatable point by calling it a point of order. If the hon. member for Fort William does not agree with the statement being made by the hon. member for Dauphin he will have an opportunity to correct it, but he cannot interrupt the hon. member in the middle of his speech without his permission to give his own views on a debatable point.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, it was a misrepresentation. That is why I stood up.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am not concerned with whether it is a misrepresentation, I am concerned with whether the hon. member for Fort William has the right to butt in at this stage.


Mr. Zaplitny:: I have no desire to misrepresent anyone. The hon. member will have an opportunity to straighten this out on his own time. I was referring to the attempt by the hon. member for Macleod to use the old McCarthy trick of guilt by association. He is trying to make a communist out of everyone who opposes this bill because he says the communists are opposed to it. Let me ask the Social Credit party: where do they find themselves in this debate? Here they are acting as a spare tire on the Liberal jalopy. If they believe in guilt by association then they are the tail end of the Liberal party. What is more, I would rather be associated with a party in this house which was opposed to this bill, even though we
29, 1956	4457
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation disagree on the details, than be the instrument of the oil oligarchy of Alberta, the timber tycoons of British Columbia and the beer barons of Saskatchewan-I mean Manitoba. The same thing may apply to Saskatchewan, but we have evidence from Manitoba to show that the breweries of Manitoba have been financing our Social Credit friends. If they believe in guilt by association, let them choose their own partners. May I call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, may I-


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


An hon. Member:: Closure.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It being ten o'clock I leave the chair, unless the hon. member is rising on a question of privilege, which I think is unlikely, if I may say so.


Ernest George Hansell: I was rising to correct a statement.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am afraid that we have ruled already that corrections of that sort cannot be made during the middle of a member's speech, and that is the stage at which technically we are at the moment.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We shall continue with this tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
4456	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation who sent us here, to ask them to dip into their pockets and pull out approximately $9 per capita-because that is about what it amounts to, $9 for every man, woman and child in this country-to make a contribution to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, a private monopoly.
So far as I am concerned personally, Mr. Chairman, even if Trans-Canada Pipe Lines were willing and able to build this pipe line with their own capital and were not dipping into the public treasury at all, I for one would still stand for a publicly owned pipe line system because I do not believe it is wise or prudent, and I do not believe we have the right to harness the people of Canada with a private monopoly and put it in the position of being able to squeeze our municipalities and consumers for the next century.
Let us not forget we are not building this pipe line for tomorrow or next year of for the next five years. It is something that is going to be here for perhaps 100 years or more. We hope this is true so far as this country is concerned because it is an important step. I for one would not be satisfied even if Trans-Canada could build this pipe line with their own money, because I do not believe it is a wise thing to grant a monopoly to a private company to operate a public utility. But the situation is infinitely worse then that because the government is asking us to go to our taxpayers and ask them to contribute $9 apiece for every man, woman and child in order to help a private company to set up a private monopoly in this country, and they wonder why the opposition has reacted so violently to this measure which they brought into the house. What would our taxpayers say? For example, in my constituency there are approximately 50,000 people. I would have to go to them and say, "I am asking you to donate $450,000 to the government so they can hand it over to a private company to build a gas line which will give them a private monopoly across this country." What would the response be?
Ernest George Hansell: They are not handing it over; do not be silly.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I shall come to my Social Credit friends in a moment. The stand this party has taken is the only logical stand any party could have taken if it had any respect for the public interest or the consumers of this country. I do not think it will be long before the people of Canada will feel they are thankful that there was at least one group in this house which in spite of the combined opposition made up of the huge Liberal majority and their Social Credit allies stood up in this house and fought for a principle which is in the public interest.


I have heard my friends to the left chipping in once in a while and I think I should devote a few minutes of my time for their benefit. The hon. member for Macleod made a speech yesterday in which he made a number of statements. I regret that I have to deal with them because some of our friends to the left who speak in this house occasionally speak with sense. The kind of speech the hon. member made yesterday did no credit to himself or to his party. What was his theme? His theme was that anyone who is opposed to the measure brought in by the government is following the communist line.


Ernest George Hansell: Hear, hear.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The hon. member says, "Hear, hear", which confirms it.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, sir.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am glad to have the hon. member's confirmation. Let me ask the hon. member for Macleod this question: Would he be in favour of a publicly-owned gas pipe line across Canada?


An hon. Member:: No.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The hon. member for Macleod does not reply, but an hon. member of his party with less experience says, "No." If we follow his own definition, his own logic, we must assume that if he is not in favour of a publicly-owned pipe line then he is following the communist line.


An hon. Member:: Perfectly ridiculous.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Let me quote his own words. He said that he believed that we were following the communist line, first because there is not a communist in this country who wants this pipe line. We are proposing that the pipe line be publicly built. The member of the Social Credit party says that he does not want it, so according to his own definition he is following the communist line. Let him say something in reply to that.
I have an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of today in which it states that a United Church in downtown Toronto held a meeting and agreed to send a petition to the Governor General asking that he dissolve this house and call for an election. The article sets out the terms of the petition and it ends with these words:
We are sending this petition because we feel our democratic rights as Canadians are being misused.
They were strenuously opposed to the government measure dealing with this pipe line. That was the United Church of Canada in Toronto. Does the hon. member for Macleod claim that-

Then later on, speaking in this house on May 22, the Minister of Trade and Commerce used these words, as recorded at page 4168 of Hansard. When he was questioned about the option on steel pipe the Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
... I suggest this is a discussion which should take place in committee. We can hardly discuss the contents of a contract now.
Here we have two ministers of the government telling the opposition when questions were raised, "Why not wait until we get into committee on the resolution and then we can go into all the details of this bill?"
What happened when we reached the resolution stage? Before any hon. member of the opposition had uttered one word or asked one question the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave notice that on the following day closure would be moved and the debate ended. Is that the way the opposition in this house should be treated? Indeed, is that the way the private members who support the government should be treated? I say that because the speech that was made by the Minister of Finance in the house was just as interesting and important to hon. members sitting behind him as to those sitting in front of him and whether or not he meant it to be so it was a completely misleading statement to all hon. members of this house.
The Ottawa Journal in an editorial published on May 29 comments on the effect of such statements in these words:
It is a grave thing for ministers to mislead the house; in Britain it is regarded as one of the deadly sins against parliament and public life.
Now, I endorse 100 per cent the opinion expressed in that editorial in the Journal. I believe it is a deadly sin against democracy and parliamentary life to mislead the members of this house by saying to them, "Let us not raise this question now. When we get into the committee stage you will have ample time to discuss every angle of this matter." And when we reached the committee stage, before anyone had uttered a word, the Minister of Trade and Commerce moved closure. That is one of the things that have stirred this country and given rise to a great many protests.
I come back now to what I consider to be the essential issue, and that is, what about the pipe line itself? We in this group stated in this house five years ago, and have stated over the years since then and from the beginning of this debate, that we want to see a gas pipe line built across Canada which is to serve the Canadian public. We have stated right from the beginning that we believe the only way in which that gas pipe line can serve the interests of the Canadian people
29, 1956	4455
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation fairly and impartially, and the only way in which it can be retained in Canadian hands, is through public ownership. I made that statement, Mr. Chairman, on March 15 when the original resolution which was abandoned by this government was under discussion. I spoke these words:
So long as the issue of stock remains in public hands, there cannot be any guarantee that the ownership of the pipe line will remain in Canadian hands. We can ensure that this public utility can be retained in Canadian ownership only if it remains in public ownership.
Since that time, of course, that statement has been more than fully confirmed by what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said in this house and by what other hon. members have said. The only way in which we can assure the Canadian people that the gas pipe line will remain in Canadian hands, and therefore fully in Canadian control, is if it belongs to the people of Canada. There is no other way.
Now, that is one part of it and the other part of it is this. We talk about the reason for the gas pipe line. We want to serve the consumers across Canada. Our hon. friends to the left of us talk about the producers of gas in Alberta-


An hon. Member:: And the consumers.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -and the consumers also, of course. The question arises: If the Canadian people are going to be asked to raise approximately $130 million in order to finance this pipe line, then who should own it after it is built? That is an important question. That is the real issue. That is the bedrock question that has to be answered in this parliament and it is a question that cannot be answered by a snap decision. It is a question that requires full consideration without any closure because it is one of the most fateful decisions which this parliament will likely be called upon to make in this half century.
Think for a moment what has happened. We have had experiences in the past where Canadian resources have been sold down the river into private hands without much consideration and then perhaps half a century later people regretted that they had done so and could now do nothing about it. There are many examples of this sort of thing, if you look through the history of Canada, where people had reason to regret occasions when because of the illusory advantage of the moment they too hastily gave their resources away into private hands and then lived to regret it at their leisure.
What is the government asking parliament to do? They are asking us as public representatives to go to our taxpayers, the people
4454	HOUSE
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of very great importance in this house, and that is the sovereignty of parliament itself.
In the last few days a great deal has been said about some of the danger to the democratic procedure in this house and to parliament itself. So far as the opposition members are concerned, at times it may appear as if we have become overexcited on this issue. But let me say, Mr. Chairman, that if the hon. members who are now sitting on the other side and who are supporting the government found themselves sitting on this side of the house, as no doubt they will in due time, and if they were told that on an important issue such as this, which involves the expenditure of about $130 million of the Canadian taxpayers' money, they were not going to be able to take the time they required to discuss the issue properly, to inquire into all the details and to come to a sober and reasonable decision in the end, I am sure they would react with the same violence, perhaps greater, as has been witnessed in this house in the last few days.
Let me also say this. I address myself particularly to the private members on the other side of the house, for many of whom I have a great admiration. What has taken place in this house in the last few weeks has not been a credit to them because, even if they may feel obligated to support the measure that was brought into this house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, they have no excuse whatever for allowing the government to ride rough-shod over the ordinary procedure of this house. Not only have they been a party to the attempt to break practically every rule in the rule book, but the abject obeisance with which they burned incense at the feet of the Minister of Trade and Commerce has come mighty close to breaking the first commandment.
This is confirmed by some of the statements that have been made in the heat of this debate by members of the Liberal party-when they are read in Hansard in more sober moments -by members of the Liberal party who, after all, have a great responsibility, because it is by the grace of the private member sitting on the Liberal side of the house that this government stays in power. Let there be no mistake about that. The government as a government has no status in this house. It is merely the temporary trustee of the public treasury. It is the members who support that government, or are willing to support it as long as they think the government is right, who give the government the power that it has.
Let me say that some of the things that they have done and some of the things they have said lead us to ask the question whether they believe the a.b.c. of Liberalism has now
[Mr. Zaplitny.J



OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
gone down to arrogance, bribery and corruption? Mr. Chairman, the newspapers across this country have taken up this question of what has happened in the house. I am glad to see that even a newspaper like the Winnipeg Free Press in my own province which ordinarily supports the Liberal cause has had some very strong words to say about what has happened in this house. In a recent editorial they quoted a speech made by the leader of this group in which he referred to what had happened here as "an abomination". In commenting upon that and in agreeing with my leader they add to that:
It is an abomination to the heart of every man of every party who cares for free discussion and democratic institutions.
Then they go farther than that, as do other newspapers, and point out that one of the greatest sins has been committed by the the government. I am referring to the procedural wrangle we have had. That has been not only because the government has sought to ride roughshod over the ordinary procedures in this house but because in their very statements which are on the record they have either deliberately or otherwise sought to mislead this house and particularly to mislead the opposition.
The Minister of Finance, who I see is in his place, speaking in the house on May 7, said these words:
It seems to me that when the present resolution on the order paper with respect to Trans-Canada is called for discussion, every avenue of discussion with respect to the building, the financing or the like is open to opposition members . . . On the Trans-Canada resolution all these things can be said.
Those words appear at page 3613 of Hansard.
The Minister of Finance was making that statement in order to prevent a discussion which had arisen and his statement was to the effect: "Why discuss it now? When we get to the resolution stage in this house you will have all the time you want to discuss whatever details you want to discuss."
Walter Edward Harris: I did not say that.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is the only interpretation you can take out of this statement. Certainly there was no hint whatsoever that there was going to be a time limit or that closure would be announced. The minister gave the opposition reason to believe in so many words that if the discussion which arose at that time were postponed then when we reached the normal resolution stage in the ordinary course of events hon. members of the opposition would have all the time they required to examine every part of that resolution. That was the statement.

away from anything personal and I shall always do so as long as my constituents allow me to stand in this house. I have been amazed, though, to find that he has become, even though he does not have a law degree as I understand it, the senior partner of a firm the junior partner of which is the hon. member for Kamloops.


John Cameron Pallett: And a very good firm it is, too.


Thomas Miller Bell: You could not even carry the law books.


Mr. Richardson:: Mr. Chairman, I really thought that we as men who try to solve the real national problems of the country would get beyond what people in my profession call the pettifogging techniques.


An hon. Member:: Of democracy.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: On that somewhat sordid and sombre note I close, Mr. Chairman, but I do not close before I say this. I ask myself only one question.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: You will get a damned silly answer.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I relied upon that hon. member I would. I am satisfied that this measure before us is one that is important to this country; that no great question of procedure should dim our view of what are the real facts of the matter. Number one, most of the country wants this pipe line; most of the citizens of Canada will be grateful when we have it, and when we go to the country-


William Earl Rowe: You will never come back.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: -they will be glad that this party put it into effect.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman, this has been a great debate up to this point at least. We have had just about everything that could be desired in a great debate. We have had a certain amount of humour, of pathos and even of near tragedy. When I see the hon. member for Eglinton back in his seat I see with what sweet sorrow he wears his crown of thorns and I ask myself, has parliament come to this? I say we have come to near tragedy because I think it would be a supreme tragedy, Mr. Chairman, if in the heat of this debate, in the cut and thrust of the charge and counter-charge that we have heard, the real issue were lost sight of. There is that danger, and that danger is all the greater when we realize that the time of this debate is limited by the threat of closure from day to day. Therefore, I should like to devote whatever time is left at my disposal this evening to what I consider to be the real issue in this debate.
29, 1956	4453
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
In my opinion, what this parliament must be concerned with chiefly is the protection of the public interest in this matter. We may have differences of opinion about the method by which the pipe line should be built. There may be differences of opinion on many things, but I believe it is the duty of every hon. member who is sent here by the citizens of this country to see to it that the national interest and the public interest are protected by the action of this parliament. That is one of the reasons why I for one have been deeply concerned and anxious over what has taken place so far because the government is trying to put the opposition in the position of being the party which, in their view, is obstructing or preventing them from doing something.
We know, of course, that this is not a new subject in this house. We know that the government has had this question of a gas pipe line across Canada under consideration for almost five years. We also know that in 1951, when this question first came before the house and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines applied for their charter, the leader of this party and other members told the house and the country at that time that if we were to have a gas pipe line across Canada which would be in the best interests of the Canadian public and which would protect the public interest and the national interest, then it would have to be a publicly owned pipe line. If one reads the record carefully he will see that everything that has taken place in this house in the last two weeks indicates that the stand taken by the C.C.F. five years ago was the correct one. I believe it will not be very long before the government and those who are so vociferous in supporting the government on this particular bill are going to find themselves in that very position. I would advise my Liberal friends at this point not to come out too rabidly against the idea of a publicly owned pipe line because if they do they will have that much more to live down and that much more to take back when they come back to this house and ask this parliament to endorse a publicly owned pipe line. In my opinion it will not be very long before they will be back for that, if they are still here. That is the central issue. That is the desire of this group and for the last five years we have tried to protect the public interest by making sure that this monopoly-and that is what it is going to be; that has been confirmed by speakers on both sides of the house-shall be owned by the public and serve the public in order that the consumer in Canada will get a break. It is because of that fight that we have had this side issue that has loomed to the proportions
4452	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Certainly.


Edward George McCullough: Just a few moments ago the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George made the statement that the leader of this party had made the statement yesterday that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was the only company which was in a position to build this pipe line. I challenge him to read that statement.


George Harris Hees: That is what you said.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Just a moment; I shall deal with that in my own time. I have recalled-


Edward George McCullough: Just as responsible as some of the other statements you have made.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I have recalled for the benefit of hon. members and myself section 49 of the British North America Act. I also put on the record, because we have gone back on the other side hundreds of years to put quotations upon the record-Cromwell was put before us about 10 days ago and the hon. member for Prince Albert made some old quotations today-a quotation from Magna Carta.


George Harris Hees: Here comes Walter, so you had better shut up. Take my tip and sit down if you want to be a parliamentary assistant.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I have heard that the hon. member for Broadview has his own particular personal ambitions, and that is quite all right.


Mr. Hodgson:: Well, that is settling yours right now.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I think perhaps the time has come when I should remind the committee that the hon. member who has the floor should be permitted to speak. A certain amount of interjection, of course, is regarded as part of the cut and thrust of debate, but there is a limit.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Two minutes overtime right now.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: If the great party of
martyrdom does not want to hear Magna Carta, it is all right with me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Give us habeas corpus.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I still propose, because I think it is a historic document, to give the quotation. I am sure that I have some friends within this house somewhere, probably in that corner; some I think in that


comer; some in the centre there, and a good many right on this side,-


George Harris Hees: Do not forget Walter to your right.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: -who will still listen to a document to which this parliament owes some allegiance. Section 49 of Magna Carta reads thus:
In all those things which are appointed to be done by these 25 barons, if it happen that all the 25 have been present and have differed in their opinions about anything, or if some of them who had been summoned would not or could not be present, that which the greater part of those who were present shall have provided and decreed, shall be held as firm and as valid as if all the 25 had agreed in it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there anything about closure in Magna Carta?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Was that not before there was a parliament?


Claude Sartoris Richardson: You can continue to waste my allotment if you like, and I shall not complain. Perhaps that is one of the penalties and one of the virtues of legislative assemblies in which we give at least lip service to free speech.


An hon. Member:: You said it.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I had thought, Mr. Chairman, that all of us came here, and I do not doubt that we have, with great respect for the oath that we have taken. Do not let us be childish at all times. I am not trying to lecture anyone any more than myself. Within the country, in the galleries, at various places tonight throughout this country people are thinking, what are the 264 men, our representatives, doing in parliament? We shall have to come, sooner or later, to make a decision upon this question.


Mr. Ellis:: Not knuckling down to one man.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I do not, even as the hon. member for Regina City has suggested, knuckle down to one man or any number of men except those who have allegiance to the country, who have loyalty and are conscientiously trying to do the best they can under many difficult circumstances. Let some of those who bray so loudly come over and sit on the front benches. They are never likely to have that opportunity, but when they come, Mr. Chairman, they will go into the silent places to ask good Providence to sometimes ask the men who have differing opinions to hear them out and try to see if, as common, decent Canadian citizens they cannot do the right thing for this country.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been very kind, as he usually is, to me. I have tried to keep my remarks

and I think they have two other members from two other provinces. Therefore I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that side of the opposition has not very much of a mandate at this moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the hon. member's arguments are not any better than his arithmetic he had better revise them.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I will take a moment or two, then, to give you the arithmetic. I think you have 22 members in the house. We will say that you have 23 members perhaps. Six of those 23 members were elected on non-minority votes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: How many Liberals were elected on minority votes?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that argument the whole Liberal party should resign today.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government is a minority government.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Mr. Chairman, the point I am making on the question of public ownership is simply this. Those 22 or 23 members who sit in the house represent, according to the votes that were polled in the election, a minority of the electorate. They polled something in the neighbourhood of 200,000 votes out of how many votes throughout all of Canada? Therefore my proposition is this. Those who argue against this particular proposition at the moment on the ground of public ownership-and I am not against it at the proper time-speak, in my humble view, for relatively few of the people of Canada from the east to the west.


George Harris Hees: You will find out.


An hon. Member:: And he speaks against closure.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Somebody has raised the question of closure. I will speak about that.


An hon. Member:: You people raised it.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I as a member never interrupted any member on the opposite side except, as I understand it, within the bounds of courtesy. If hon. members opposite do not wish to extend courtesy to me, it is perfectly all right with me.


William Earl Rowe: Go ahead.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: As this debate has gone on, Mr. Chairman, I have been thinking how many members on the other side have risen and with a great flow of rhetoric have spoken about the rights of democracy. It is a very simple proposition, as we shall see if we come back to earth. I heard my
29, 1956	4451
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation friend the hon. member for Prince Albert today. I heard the Leader of the C.C.F. party last night. I heard him make two or three interjections. For myself as a member of this house I was really amazed that we could get into the attitude of high school children.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: So were we.


An hon. Member:: How long have you been here?


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Not very long but I will probably be here long after you have departed.


George Harris Hees: You hope.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the hon. member
realizes that he is addressing the Chair. That last remark was addressed to the Chair.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I will stand up here for the time allotted to me and if those gentlemen on the other side, in concerted action, want to interrupt me, it is perfectly all right by me. I want to come to a point that evidently most of us in this house have forgotten, namely, that our constitution is the British North America Act. On several occasions while members on the other side have been speaking, while they have said they were directing their thought and time to a proper consideration of this bill, I noted that they have spoken about almost everything they could speak about and still be on their feet, and that not one of them has referred to a cardinal principle in our British North America Act. It is there. Let me put it on the record. It is the basis upon which you and every one of us in this assembly have the right to rise as free men in a democratic group.


An hon. Member:: No, we have not.


Mr. Dufresne:: This sentence is in the wrong debate.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Mr. Chairman-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You know you are telling us an untruth.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: -no matter what the murmuring may be after I read it, let every one of us, including the speaker who is now on his feet, when this session closes tonight go into his chamber and read again and thoroughly digest this section which I recall for every one. The section is section 49 of the British North America Act. It reads: Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of voices-
4450	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
If this assumption is even only reasonably fair, may I call a committee tonight, and I shall bring witnesses before that committee in the next 12 or 13 minutes. Certainly members across the way will disagree with me, but bear me out. First, I bring as a witness to this committee the premier of Alberta. I do not propose to be repetitious, but to my simple mind-


An hon. Member:: I'll say.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: You can say what you like about my simple mind, but bear me out. I have heard that the premier and the people of Alberta want this gas transported out of the province as soon as that can be done. That is my first witness. The second witness I bring before the committee is the premier of Manitoba. If he were here he would say, as we have heard from the records already produced in the house, that the people of the great metropolitan city of Winnipeg and the people of the province of Manitoba want to receive natural gas as promptly as they can.
I bring again to this committee, this group of 264 here in which we can allocate little groups of 20 men in that part of the house, 20 in another part and so on. I bring the next witness before this committee, namely the premier of Ontario and his provincial treasurer.


An hon. Member:: I thought so.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: That is right. I am glad you had the time to have a thought. If my friend the hon. member for Broadview-


George Harris Hees: It was not I.


An hon. Member:: Get it right.


George Harris Hees: Get your bifocals straight.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: If the opposition supporters or my friend the hon. member for Broadview would want to bring to this committee the premier of Ontario and the provincial treasurer of Ontario, they could not say any more than what they have already said in the matter of urgency. That is the affirmative side of the matter. What is the negative side apart from what we have heard in this debate so far? Have we really heard from those parts of Canada on the periphery, British Columbia or the Atlantic provinces, or from the province which I have the honour to represent any great outcries against building this great national project? None at all. Then I suggest that in the evidence of these witnesses that we bring before this committee we have heard-


George Harris Hees: Let us have the committee first.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I have put before you the committee.
IMr. Richardson.]


George Harris Hees: No. You will not bring the committee because you have not the nerve. Stop talking hypothetically and bring the committee.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I am satisfied-


George Harris Hees: You are satisfied with yourself.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Even with the hon. member for Broadview constituting himself as one member of this committee, I am satisfied that this committee of 264 members is adequate and sufficient for the purpose.


George Harris Hees: We have everything but the witnesses.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I submit that is the first proposition or the first assumption. Second, an amendment and a subamendment have been put before us. Let me deal briefly with them. I heard the leader of the C.C.F. party last night say that while he disagreed with this matter being made a matter for private ownership, he believed that this company about which we are now speaking was the only one that could do the job. Therefore, in the opposition against this proposition that the government have put forward, the opposition itself is divided. It is divided because on one side they do not want private ownership. I will agree with them that as a thesis it is all right and I will deal a little bit now with that point.
First of all may I say that as a member of the House of Commons or as a citizen of Canada I am not afraid of public ownership. If the day comes when this operation should be under public ownership, I shall not rebel against it. In our economic life there are many areas that require public ownership. It may well be that this will be one of them. If that is the case, I have no doubt that the present government being then in power, as it will be, it will be adequately operated; and even if by some miracle the present government were not in power I would be satisfied for some at least on the other side, if then in power, to run it under public ownership.
But the point I want to make here is that one group on the side against this proposition are dead against private ownership of any kind. Whom do these spokesmen for public ownership represent at this moment? We have heard it said, Mr. Chairman, that we have no mandate for this proposition but that they have a mandate. Yet if you look at the record of those who have been elected, Mr. Chairman, you will see that half of them come from one province. I think they have one member from Nova Scotia. They had one member, recently departed, from Ontario

consumer is going to pay. No one knows anything at all, and yet the government want us, the people of Canada, to put money into a thing like this. I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole. With the small number of contracts secured we do not know how long it is going to be before we are able to get the cost out of it, and no one seems to know. That is the funny part about it. No one seems to know what is going to happen. Of course the people of Canada are not going to get a chance to vote on it.
My thought about the matter is just this. If the line cannot be financed by Canadian private enterprise then let the government construct it part by part on a good sound business basis. That is the way it should be done. Why not go directly from A to B, leave out the United States millionaire and do it, as I said, on a sound business basis? Why does this pipe line have to be started today and started in such a haphazard way? Who is yelling for gas in Canada right now? What industry?


An hon. Member:: Premier Frost.


Charles Edward Rea: You have not read what he has said. He says that they do not need any gas until 1963. We all know who are doing the yelling for gas and who are short of gas. It is the people south of the border. There is no question about that. Murchison and Company do not give a darn about Canada. All they are concerned about is making money out of selling gas. If we have a surplus of gas, by all means sell it to our neighbours but let us not sell it on a long-term contract with low prices because they are going to need that gas yery badly in a few years' time.
To me as an ordinary businessman this whole bill smells bad. It smells of poor security. It smells of sudden and unexplained aaste. It smells of mystery and intrigue. It also smells of expensive perfume on the hands af millionaires reaching out to grab money :rom the little Canadian taxpayer.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Mr. Chairman-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Here is St. James street.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Mr. Chairman, it sounds [DOT]ather strange in this end of the chamber o hear a member from one of the Toronto :onstituencies rise in his seat as a member >f one of the great parties of Canada, the Conservative party, and heap abuse upon hese men who, whether with white collars >r by their hands, have made some wealth in his country. I do not stand, Mr. Chairman, is other than one member among 264 other nembers in this House of Commons, and if I nay have the indulgence of the house for a ew minutes I should like to speak briefly. I
29, 1956	4449
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation shall be brief because so far as I am concerned, as I said in the first speech I made after entering this house as a new member, I do not need closure to keep me within a 20 minute time limit. I think that on most issues most of us who try to bring a note of seriousness to the matters that are brought before this, the great forum of Canada, should, except for the leaders of each of the parties, be prepared to discuss these matters within a period of not more than 20 minutes, and that I propose to do now.
First of all, if I heard the Leader of the Opposition correctly earlier this session and if I have read Hansard right, I understood him to say, and on this I think we are all in common agreement, that the pipe line should be built within Canada and that it should be controlled within Canada. Second, my understanding of all that I have heard, and I have listened diligently all through this debate, is that the line should be built as soon as possible. There may be some disagreement among us as reasonable men as to the proper time for the building of a great national undertaking. I suppose that all those who enter public life, and I am only a novice at it, acquire a certain amount of partisanship sooner or later and it stays with some more fully than others, but I suppose that in the area of party politics there may be reasonable disagreement between us as common-sense reasonable people as to when that time should be.
Members of the opposition have said to the ministers on the front benches, and rightly so, I submit, that the line should be built now, and that is the opinion of the cabinet at least. Members of the opposition have said: Let us put this matter before a committee. I submit that it has been before a committee. First of all, it has been before a committee of this very house, the cabinet. I am not one to say that the members of the cabinet are infallible, not at all. I stand here not necessarily as the member for St. Lawrence-St. George but, as I read the books, as a member of the whole Canadian parliament from east to west and from the north to the border. What does that mean to me as one member? It means, whether I sit on this side of the house or on the other, that I have to make certain assumptions.
One assumption that has to be made by every hon. member of this house, I submit with great respect, is that those members on the treasury benches tonight, those who have occupied the front benches since 1867, have had as much loyalty to this country and to the people at large, have had by and large as much information and have had as much integrity as any other 20 members among any of the 264 members of this house.
4448	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation It will be a great changeover. It might be all right in a new area where the houses are just going up and these things have not been bought.
It seems to me as though the Social Credit party, which has reverted to a strictly provincial party and is no more a dominion party, along with the Alberta government and with this Liberal government have only one thing in mind-let us get this gas out of Alberta by any way we can; get it the heck out of Alberta, we do not care who pays for it, we do not care if we take money from the little taxpayer in Canada, get the gas out of Alberta. That is all they want; they do not care who is going to pay for it. Canada is going to have to use 300 million cubic feet per day. Who is going to use it? All these oil wells in Alberta are owned by multimillionaire oil companies which have made millions of dollars out of oil. Gas is just a by-product and now they want the people of Canada to help them make money out of that by-product.
Now for a few minutes let us talk about the "Trans-we can't raise the money-Canada Pipe Lines Limited." These poor little millionaires. Maybe they are broke. We know that they have broken every promise they have made since 1951. No doubt they have broken so many promises between themselves that they do not trust each other to put up the money. Let us look at the shareholders in Trans-Canada and analyse them for a minute to see who they are. Here is one called Tennessee Gas Transmission Company. I looked them up in Standard and Poor's, which is the United States book which tells you all about companies, and I find that this company has a total invested capital of $798 million. Let us take a look at International Utilities Corporation. Their total invested capital is $87 million. They are getting to be a poor company. Now we come to Canadian Delhi Petroleum Company, which has assets of only $8,250,000.
Now let us take one of the shareholders, Mr. Clint Murchison. Oh, boy, there is a man for you. He owns directly or indirectly and controls directly or indirectly-I shall name only some of the companies because it would take four years and a Philadelphia lawyer to find out everything he owns-companies such as the Investors Syndicate of the United States and Canada which has total assets of $1,250 million. Here are three life insurance companies which he controls, the Midland National Life Company of Watertown, South Dakota, the LaMar Life Insurance Company of Jackson, Missouri, and the Atlantic Life Insurance Company of Richmond, Virginia. Those companies have total assets of $142 million. I am not even mentioning American


Airlines to which the minister referred. These I have mentioned give a total of $2,285,250,000, and yet they cannot raise $82 million. I cannot understand it.


An hon. Member:: They come to Canada.


Charles Edward Rea: Certainly, they come to Canada.
I do not know whether hon. members have ever listened to the T.V. program called "Person to Person" put on by Ed Murrow. Once a week for a half hour he goes into two different homes, 15 minutes each. He will visit the home of a movie star or someone who is well known. Last fall he visited the home of Clint Murchison. The television camera took you all through his house and you met his family and so forth. While this was going on Mr. Murrow kept up a running commentary with Mr. Murchison and one question he asked was this: "Mr. Murchison, is it true that you do not put up your own money on a lot of these deals you go into?" Clint came right back with, "Not unless I have to." There is a promoter for you. He always looks for sucker money to complete the deal. He believes in never putting up your own dough.


An hon. Member:: As long as the government will put it up for him.


Charles Edward Rea: So he comes to Canada to take the hard-earned money of our working people so he can go into business and make a profit.
We have heard the initials "C.D." pushed around here a lot lately, but I wonder if hon. members know what they stand for-"Closed Debate". After listening to the Minister of Trade and Commerce I have come to the conclusion that the federal power commission certainly need a man like our Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Prime Minister ought to let the Minister of Trade and Commerce go to Washington. He would put closure on that deal and get it through some way. We would find out where we stood down there. There is no question about that. I also wondered whether, when the minister was visiting Murchison's ranch and wandering around shooting turkeys in Mexico-


An hon. Member:: Crap.


Charles Edward Rea: -he sized up the place and has it in mind as good security if they do not pay what they owe. I have been in the mortgage business for a long time and I can tell you that the deal before us right now is one with respect to which I can easily understand why these people do not want to put their own money in it. No one seems to know how long it is going to take to amortize the cost of the project, as the hon. member for St. Paul's mentioned today. No one knows what the

Or five of the provinces in this country- before that can be done. That is something, of course, similar to the wish of the Leader of the Opposition to turn this matter over to a committee, which would delay the building of the western section of the pipe line this summer. I submit that from the arguments we have heard presented to the house the urgency which has been stressed has been proven, and consequently if you are going to have a commission set up or if you are going to turn it over to the provinces, as my hon. friends would suggest, it will mean a further delay in the pipe line, and surely that is not desirable at this point, Mr. Chairman,
We have heard a great deal about the so-called "iniquitous" arrangement concerning the western section of the pipe line being built this fall. Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me if the government of Canada is going to lend up to $80 million to build a pipe line there is a great deal to be said for that. The $80 million, which is the maximum amount, must be paid back by April 2, 1957. Now, if this section of the pipe line is built this year and if Trans-Canada can meet its obligations by April 2, 1957 the Canadian people will get back $80 million plus interest at 5 per cent. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, if Trans-Canada does not meet its obligations, the government by bringing in its mortgage against all Trans-Canada assets will be getting the line. First of all the line will be built this year and secondly the government will be taking over the line at 90 per cent of the cost. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said, certainly that would seem to be a good deal for the Canadian people. There is certainly no subsidy. This is an investment in western Canada. As I say, the Canadian people are not going to lose in any way and we are going to have the pipe line built this year in the west.
Finally, I think some of my hon. friends in the Social Credit group mentioned that the pipe line will be a development for the whole of Canada. It has been estimated that the whole development of the pipe line is going to mean an investment of about $1 billion in Canada. Of course, that is tremendously important. In Alberta alone a brand new petro chemical industry is going to be established.
I understand there is already a petro chemical industry in Alberta but it is going to be greatly expanded.
Before the gas can go into the pipes it must be made dry and as a result of that process there are several by-products which result. These include butane, ethane and propane. I understand that Polymer of Canada alone will use half a million barrels of
29, 1956	4447
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation butane every year. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, one can quite readily see the tremendous development which is going to take place in the province of Alberta. Not only is the province of Alberta going to be assisted but, as was pointed out, in my own province of Ontario in which I am primarily interested the power shortage will be corrected. It is going to help industry in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and in northern Ontario and therefore I submit, Mr. Chairman, this pipe line is something that is going to be good for all of Canada. We have to look above any sectional interest in dealing with this matter. If it is going to help Alberta and Ontario it is also going to help the maritimes and Quebec. I would urge-


Thomas Miller Bell: How is it going to help the maritimes?


Mr. Hollingworlh:: I would urge all hon. members, regardless of their differences to support this measure because this is something for the benefit of all Canada. So on with the pipe line.


Charles Edward Rea: Mr. Chairman, I think at the outset we can all agree on one thing. Alberta has a surplus of gas and there are other parts of Canada which want to use it. The natural thing to do is to bring those two factors together. I think we will all agree on that. But I am a little bit, in fact I am more than a little bit, I am greatly concerned about the method of bringing this gas from Alberta to other parts of Canada.
We have heard a nice speech by the hon. member for York Centre who has said that this gas is going to help industry. You can just see factories blooming up all over the place. However, no one has stopped to tell those industries what the gas is going to cost. I know if I were going to build a big factory I would certainly want to know what the gas was going to cost me. But no one seems to know.
They picture bringing the gas across the country to the edge of a town, and then what happens? Who is going to pay for laying pipe down the streets of that town? One house may want to buy gas but other houses may not want the gas. Somebody is going to have to do it. That town will find its tax rate will start to go up. They will have this gas at the edge of the town but someone will have to distribute it.
No one knows whether it is a good thing for a housewife to change her electric stove for a gas stove, to change her electric refrigerator for a gas refrigerator, to change her oil-burning furnace for a gas-burning furnace. No one has come out with that information in an effort to try to sell the consumer.
4446	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the province of Alberta; they have the necessary contract; they have the necessary technical know-how; and they have the necessary organization which is so vitally important to a tremendous undertaking of this kind.
We have heard a great deal in this house about United States control. As a matter of fact, it is my submission, Mr. Chairman, that the opposition have brazenly and irresponsibly distorted this whole question. We heard a long speech from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday to the effect that 51 per cent of the shares were not going to be issued to the public of Canada. We then heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce say, as he said on numerous occasions, that 51 per cent of the shares would be issued to the Canadian public. Mr. Tanner, president of Trans-Canada, has reiterated that on many occasions. But the important thing, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that this pipe line is being built entirely in Canada. Now, of course, hon. members opposite do not have to take my word as to the importance of that score. I will read from what should be an unimpeachable source to them; namely, the premier of Ontario. Premier Frost says, and I think it is worth repeating:
In addition to what has been said about the control of this company, whether the Canadian shareholders have the opportunity to take 51 per cent of the stock, or anything of that sort, the fact of the matter is that the construction is in Canada, wholly within the jurisdiction of our country, and is subject to the legislative enactments not only of the government of Canada, but of the provinces through which it passes. That in itself is the real essential of control.
I repeat:
That in itself is the real essential of control.
It strikes me that the Leader of the Opposition, with due respect, knows very well regardless of how many shares are issued to the Canadian public, as has been pointed out in this house, there is no guarantee that this pipe line will remain entirely in Canadian hands unless the government builds the pipe line, of course. He knows that very well and why he took up the time of this house yesterday to go into a long and detailed explanation concerning the 51 per cent, Mr. Chairman, I do not know unless it was his intention simply to waste time.
Another point about Canadian control, as the Leader of the Opposition very nicely pointed out yesterday, is that under section 151, part III, of the Companies Act a majority of the directors must be British subjects resident in Canada. That is important and it was extremely interesting to me that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned that point. I think that also constitutes Canadian control. It shows that this company is subject once again to the laws of this country


and, as Premier Frost said, it is subject also to the laws of the different provinces through which the pipe line passes. This pipe line is running through Canada. It is subject to Canadian laws and Canadian jurisdiction and Canadian export permits. It is entirely subject to Canadian control and I do not think we can point that out too often in this house.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I come to the point of public ownership. I at least concede that my hon. friends opposite in the C.C.F. are consistent. At least they have some logic to their position. However, when I hear my hon. friends in the Conservative party talking about Canadian capitalists building this line I think sometimes they are speaking with their tongues in their cheeks.
Why should we not build this pipe line under public control? I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce has pointed out the nub of the matter and I think there are three compelling reasons why it is not practical, reasons which militate against the building of this pipe line under public ownership.
First of all, I might say I am in favour of any form of public ownership where there are conditions of complete monopoly, and when I say that I am talking about a public utility where there are conditions of complete monopoly. But here, surely the situation is different. First of all the government would be dealing with producers in Alberta and private interests at one end and with consumers in Ontario at the other, through private interests like the Consumers Gas. Surely it would put the government in a most unenviable position if it had to deal with people at one end who want the highest price and with people at the other end who want the lowest possible price. It is all right for my hon. friends in the opposition to say, "So what?". It certainly would be a most undesirable position in which to put the government unless it were absolutely necessary.
Also, we have the matter of competition. We have the coal and oil producers in Canada. Surely the people in the maritimes would not like to have natural gas controlled by the government competing against the coal producers in Nova Scotia. I submit to my hon. friends opposite in all sincerity that is an extremely important argument against public ownership which makes it difficult to concede that public control is the best method of handling this.
Another reason, as Premier Frost pointed out in the Ontario legislature, is that if we are going to build under public ownership we are going to have to obtain agreements with several of the provinces-at least four

Mr. Pallet!: They are not to individuals. Those loans are not made to individuals, as this loan is. That is a loan to a public body.


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Chairman; they are to limited dividend companies.


John Cameron Pallett: That is a limited dividend
housing corporation loan, a non-profit organization. It is in effect the same as a government organization. Do not mislead the people with an answer like that. It is just another example of an attempt to mislead.


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: How was the
dinner?


Robert Henry Winters: He has not read the book.


John Cameron Pallett: There is something that I should like to know. This government has not any money for municipalities. Oh, no, it has not any money for Canadians to help educate the people. It will not make money available to the municipalities so that they can keep the education standard at the height it is. Perhaps they feel that money invested in a gas pipe line is more important than money invested in Canadians as a whole. I wonder? The Prime Minister would not even see representatives of the university teachers federation when they came to see him. He refused to see them. This is, of course, a provincial matter.


James Sinclair: Quite right.
Mr. Pallet!: The education of Canadians is of no concern to this house; we will not make money available to the provinces so that they can pass it down to the municipalities to educate their children, oh, no.


James Sinclair: The sum of $450 million a year.
Mr. Pallet!: The Prime Minister says, "I will not even see these people when they come to see me". Clint Murchison, that is a different matter. Let us have a couple of answers to some more questions on the pipe line. Is this an economically sound scheme? The minister has not said so. Let us have an answer from the minister. Is it economically sound?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: From the Prime Minister.


John Cameron Pallett: Or from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does not deign to speak. If it is an economically sound scheme, let us be told. Let us know what we are getting into. There is a very strong suspicion that the reason the interest rate is 5 per cent is that there are 5 percenters working in Ottawa as well as in Washington. Let us have the answers to some of these questions. If the Prime Minister is doubtful about what the Canadian people think about this scheme,
29, 1956	4445
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation why does he not accept what he said previously and just go to the country on this matter. If it is such a good scheme and we think it is such a bad scheme let the jury of this country decide it.


Allan Henry Hollingworth: Mr. Chairman, I should like to participate briefly in this debate. I think the whole crux of the matter is time. Time is definitely of the essence. I congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce on putting his finger so succinctly on this point. To turn a Shavian phrase, those who can, do; those who cannot, talk. The minister belongs to the first category. Let not hon. members opposite forget that the hand at the throttle of this buoyant, bursting Canadian economy in the last 20 years has been that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. His detractors should hang their heads in shame.
Mr. Chairman, I am a representative from the province of Ontario. No less a person than the provincial treasurer, the Hon. Dana Porter, when speaking in the Ontario legislature on Tuesday, February 21, had this to say:
It is not only desirable, but is an absolute necessity that every possible provision be made for access to the people of this province to an abundant supply of natural gas.
Hon. members know that industry is expanding rapidly throughout the country, probably in no place more than in the province of Ontario. We need gas, Mr. Chairman. The provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba need natural gas and the minister and this government are determined that the people of Canada shall have natural gas and have it now.


George Hugh Castleden: Parliament or not.


Allan Henry Hollingworth: Hon. members have heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce say that Trans-Canada is the only possible vehicle to give it. This company gambled and took an option on pipe last fall, $40 million worth of it, and have an option until the end of this construction year. If this option is not exercised the requisite steel will not be forthcoming for a couple of years. It is all right for the hon. member for Peel to talk and say that we have steel pipe in Canada, but he did not substantiate his charges. As a matter of fact, I understand that there is one company in Canada which will be manufacturing 30-inch steel pipe by the end of 1957. But it will be a 30-inch steel pipe and not the 34-inch steel pipe required for the western section of the pipe line. Furthermore, it appears that Trans-Canada have the necessary government permits from
4444	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation you will not know how to handle when you get it if you have not got the personnel to look after it.


An hon. Member:: We will hire you.


John Cameron Pallett: What assurance does the
government have from this unnamed corporation, as some other speaker has asked, that they will build this missing link from Winnipeg to the Ontario boundary? We have the northern Ontario section all set up; we have the Winnipeg section set up, but what is going to run in between? Are they going to come back with their hat in their hand and say, we set a date of June 7 before, but not this time. We need another $70 million or $80 million to build that missing link. Is there a performance bond filed anywhere? Even in the simplest contract they usually require something of that sort.
What is the population figure for the people who are actually going to be served by this pipe line in Canada? How many people are going to be served by the first link, the missing link and the northern Ontario link? Let us have the numbers.
Three weeks ago the minister said they suddenly found that this company could not borrow money. He sits in this house beside the Minister of Finance who dictates the financial policy of this country, but the two of them cannot get together so that this company can borrow money from private sources. It is a sorry sight to see that.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Why borrow it when the government will give it to you?


John Cameron Pallett: Why borrow it when the government will give it to you? A very wise statement. Let us have the answer to the question of how much gas is going to go through this pipe line. How much is going to be needed by the people of Canada?


An hon. Member:: It is all broken down.


John Cameron Pallett: Show me on Hansard where it is. I do not want some representations by this company whose word, according to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is no good. Let us have it from the minister himself. What pipe has been ordered from Canadian companies? The minister suggested that there is no company in Canada capable of making 34-inch pipe. I could tell him the name of one.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Give us the name of the company.


John Cameron Pallett: Within 14 miles of my home town; you had better familiarize yourself with what is going on in this country.


Mr. Dickey:: Put the name on the record.


John Cameron Pallett: Anybody who knows anything about rolling pipe knows that a 34-inch pipe
[Mr. Pallett.l

is the fatherless son type of pipe. It goes 18-inch, 24 and 30. I wonder if somebody is stuck with some steel somewhere and wants to get rid of it? I do not know.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend claims to know everything. He said he could tell me the name of a Canadian outfit that makes 34-inch pipe.


Some hon. Members:: Name the company.


John Cameron Pallett: I think it is only fair that we should have a little tit for tat and if the minister will answer my questions first, I will answer his.


John Horace Dickey: Welcher.


John Cameron Pallett: What is the full cost of running this pipe line? Do you know what the estimated cost is? How much is it going to cost to operate it? What is the cost of operation from Alberta to Winnipeg and then on? We do not know. Let us have the answer. We may have to take over this pipe line and we want to know something about running it.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Who wrote that for you?


John Cameron Pallett: Well, my friend, I can read it, which is probably more than you can do. There is one question that I think affects pretty well every Canadian, and it should be answered. Why is money being made available to this unnamed company at 5 per cent when national housing loans to Canadians are at 5i per cent and the industrial development bank interest rate to Canadian companies is not anywhere near 5 per cent and Canadian money going through the Canadian farm loan board to Canadian farmers is only guaranteed at 5 per cent up to the end of this year? The suggestion is that it will be higher. Why do we lend money to Americans at a lower rate of interest than we are prepared to lend it to Canadians? I might also add that the percentage of the loan is higher. A 90 per cent percentage loan is higher than any National Housing Act loan on the books. The government will not authorize loans to Canadians higher than 60 per cent of the over-all National Housing Act loan.


Robert Henry Winters: The loans to limited dividend companies are 90 per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On your evaluation.
Mr. Pallet!: Since the Minister of Public Works deigned to interject, what about the rate of interest on those loans?


An hon. Member:: What terms?


Robert Henry Winters: Three and three-quarters per cent, Mr. Chairman.

when this pipe line is constructed to Winnipeg, it is not going to be taken down to Emerson? What assurance is before the house?


An hon. Member:: That is not what
McMahon wants.


John Cameron Pallett: Never mind what McMahon wants. Have we unqualified assurance that when this pipe line comes to Winnipeg, before it goes to Emerson, it will come across into Ontario and Quebec? I have not seen it. I have read Hansard from the beginning and it is not there. There is no assurance.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.
Mr. Pallet!: "Nonsense", the man says. That is the only speech he has made in this debate.


Mr. Hosking:: The same as yours.
Mr. Pallet!: I asked the minister last Friday on the orders of the day, what about atomic energy. I asked when is atomic energy going to be ready for the development of electrical energy. He did not know, he said.


Mr. MacDougall:: No, do you know, John?


John Cameron Pallett: He did not know. If I were the Minister of Trade and Commerce in charge of the resources of which he is in charge, I would know and I would get up and tell the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Mr. Pallet!:	Mr. Chairman, you do not
have to go to the Riverdale zoo to see the hyenas. Now, I think that is a question that should be answered. I think it is of vital importance. When will we have electricity available that has been made from atomic energy sources? Let us have the answer. We have asked, but we have not got an answer.


An hon. Member:: Ask Mr. Frost.
Mr. Pallet!: They say, "Ask Mr. Frost." I might point out that in the last provincial government publicity release gas and atomic power for energy were used at the same time. If you people know how to read, which I doubt, you could have read it. If atomic energy is not too far off, is this pipe line being rushed so that as much gas as possible can be sold before we get into the atomic field?


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with
that?
Mr. Pallet!:	For the people of Alberta,
perhaps nothing is wrong with that, but let us know.


An hon. Member:: Is there anything wrong with Alberta?
Mr. Pallet!: There is nothing wrong with Alberta, I agree with the members of the
29, 1956	4443
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Social Credit party. But we should know that the principle behind this gas pipe line is to sell as much gas as possible before atomic energy is available. If that is the case, then perhaps the whole basis is wrong. Let us have the answer, so we can make up our minds about these things. Do not keep the iron curtain down, fellows. Let us get it up and have a look at some of these things.
There is one thing that I think is most important. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, that is the company whose word apparently is not to be taken because the responsible minister in the house today said the statements they made were not accurate, has as a component part certain shareholders. Why have not those shareholders put up the money to build this line? Let us have an answer as to that. Why have not these shareholders bought more of the capital stock and put up the money themselves? I think we are entitled to know the reason behind that.
The next question is, who set this arbitrary date of June 7? Have you ever in your days seen a government let somebody outside set the date by which it must perform a contract? Usually the person comes to the government and says, "I should like this contract; I want to do business with you. Now, what date do you want me to perform by?" The government says, we would like you to perform by such and such a date and the private individual says he would be only too happy to do so. Did that happen in this case? Oh, no. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company comes to the government and comes to the people of Canada and says, you must. I was in Belgium during the war and I was billeted there with a Belgian family who had suffered at the hands of the Germans. They said when you cross into Germany the only words you will use will be "Ich will, das muss, das soli." That is what Trans-Canada has said to this government, and that is what the minister is saying to the house.
Another question we should like answered is, what trained people are there in the minister's department or available to the government if the government ever takes over this line when the default is made? You have got a contract or you say you have a contract with an unnamed corporation. We have not seen the name of the corporation as yet. Remember, that has been denied to us. We do not even know the name of the corporation because of the use of closure tactics. We are assuming something. If this corporation defaults and you are obliged to exercise your powers under the terms of this agreement,, what are you going to do with the line when you get it? What people have you got to manage it? You have something here that
4442	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


John Horace Dickey: It is on Hansard three or four times. Where have you been? Either be here or read Hansard.
Mr. Pallet!: There are a few magpies here, Mr. Chairman. I heard an expression about people who speak from such a position as theirs and it is this, namely that they have more brains in their seats than on their feet. Since we know the corporation we are dealing with by those statements made by the minister, what staff will be employed to ensure that the money advanced to this company will go into the pipe line? There is nothing I have seen that will ensure that. Here is another thing. They represent that they are going to build this pipe line. What have we before this house to show that they have options for rights of way or own rights of way? We may be giving money to a company that have no possibility of carrying out their contract. How much did they pay for those rights of way? What is their route? There may be something filed before other bodies in this country showing the route, but what does this house know about the route that this gas pipe line is supposed to take?


An hon. Member:: We do not know.
Mr. Pallet!: What localities will this gas line serve in each province? I think that is a matter of vital importance. What localities are going to be served? You say northern Ontario? I know for a fact that the present plan does not include the great city of Sault Ste. Marie, one of the big possible industrial users. I immediately accept the premise that gas going into northern Ontario will be of great benefit to that part of the country. But I say this to those hon. members who applaud that statement. In this system of democracy the end never justifies the means. What prices are to be paid for this gas at wellhead, at the gathering area? What price is the gas to be sold for at the various stages along the line? We heard some figures today but let us get them in a form that the average Canadian taxpayer can understand. Let us get them down to the consumer level, indicating how much the man who is going to heat his house is going to have to pay for this gas.
Is the gas going to be put in a competitive position with other fuels? Are we subsidizing one enterprise against other free enterprise industries? That is an answer we should have. If it is not in a competitive position, then is the fuel going to be used by consumers and what consumers are actually prepared to buy gas? We have heard vague references in this house about contracts and so forth. Let us have names. Let us have the quantities they are going to buy. Never mind these


vague statements. We are asked to spend the money of the people of Canada in this house and we should know all the facts; we should not have just vague irrelevancies.
The Prime Minister was asked the other day what he knows about the hearings before the federal power commission. He did not even know whether we had a representative down there keeping an eye on things. We have not had that question answered. When does the government expect those hearings will be concluded down there? We do not know and they do not know. Hon. members across the floor of the house do not know. This is a gamble. It is worse than shooting crap with the dice loaded against you. Are there any guarantees obtained by the government considering the sale price of this gas? One company may own the gas, one company may own the pipe line. What assurance does the consumer have? When you have set up this monopoly, what assurance is there that the consumer is not going to be squeezed? Certainly the price may be favourable at this stage of the game. Let them into the market. When they get a monopolistic control, what assurance do the consumers of this country have that that gas made possible by the Canadian people's own money is going to be used for their benefit? No assurance has ever been given in this house by anybody that the consumer is not going to be squeezed in the price.


Mr. Hellyer:: Oh, oh.


John Cameron Pallett: The hon. member for Davenport has just chirped up. He had better look at the petition signed by the members of Olde Davenport United Church.


An hon. Member:: Aren't you funny?


John Cameron Pallett: There are other matters to be taken into consideration. Have the railways been approached with a view to running the pipe line along their rights of way? There you have a ready-made right of way that we should take advantage of where the toughest construction is going to take place. Have they been approached? If they have been approached, we have not heard about it. If not, why not? They are the two biggest companies in Canada and they are capable of doing almost anything. Have they been approached? We have not been told that they have been approached. We have not been given any answers if they have been approached. I suggest that the government explore that angle.
What assurance have we in this house that this pipe line is going to be constructed allCanadian? What assurance have we that


Major James William Coldwell: Would be called.


Mr. Knighi:: He said that tenders would be called for that particular part of the work. Therefore my fifth question to the minister is, just exactly what does that article mean?
I have already expressed myself at the beginning of my remarks with regard to the method by which the government has railroaded or is railroading-I think that is a correct expression-this legislation through the house. A former Liberal prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, expressed very strenuous objection to the gag or guillotine in 1932. Well, the gag, closure, the guillotine, call it what you will, is the method by which Mr. King's successors are forcing this pipe line bill upon a reluctant people about half of whom, I would say, are represented by the party on my right and our own party but have no respresentation or effective voice in this so-called representative assembly.
Then there was another and greater Liberal, and with his words I close. I think someone has already put them on the record. I refer to Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the time when he had the opportunity to apply closure but refused to do so and went to the country instead where he suffered defeat. King also went to the country but he was returned victorious. Laurier was defeated and on his return to the house as a member of the opposition after that defeat he said:
Heaven is my witness that X would rather stand here today, defeated and in opposition by that appeal to the people, than to stand over there in office by the power of the gag.
My last and concluding sentence is that there are no Lauriers on the treasury benches of today.
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak in this debate I feel somewhat like a member of Sir Francis Drake's crew when he went out against the armada. They were facing bigger guns and bigger ships but they won because they had better ammunition and better leadership. In view of certain headlines I have seen in Ottawa papers today, I would remind the Prime Minister that at the beginning of this week he assured the house that we would have a debate all this week. I took it, and I believe most hon. members took it, that there would be a debate on the pipe line issue and that there would not be measures introduced by the government that would take the debate away from the pipe line issue to other matters of procedure that are necessary to us in the opposition when the government decides to use closure measures. I say that to the Prime Minister so that there will be no misunderstanding in his mind as to what was understood on this side of the house and what, I
29, 1956	4441
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation believe, was understood by the people of Canada. The Prime Minister has given an undertaking to this house that we would have debate this week on the pipe line. I remind hon. gentlemen as to that.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Just read it.


John Cameron Pallett: Certain headlines that have appeared in the Ottawa papers today do not indicate that. I certainly feel that those ideas do not come out of some reporter's own mind.
Last night the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his opening remarks said this as reported at page 4404 of Hansard:
... I have spoken three times in this debate, and my purpose in rising now is to attempt to make this a committee where questions that are asked can be answered.
To that end I have prepared certain questions that I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I would suggest that if he likes I will send them over to him after I have finished and he can answer them in due course. I should like the answers to be answers from him, not references to agreements and not references to submissions that have been made by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines in any hearings or in any letters that have been filed before this house. I think it has been shown conclusively that any representations by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in any hearings or in any agreements are not to be considered too seriously.
In this house today we heard the hon. member for Prince Albert read figures of the gas sale price filed by that company before the federal power commission of the United States. The first man on his feet to deny those figures was the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think that sets the stage exactly and shows how much reliance we can put in statements that are made on behalf of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. The first man effectively to say that their word, filed before a judicial tribunal, is not to be taken as true was the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the sponsor of this bill.
The questions to which I referred are as follows. First I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce what has been done since January 1, 1951 up until the present time. Let us have the facts in relation to what has been done in the last five years. Why is it only now, or within the last few weeks, that this bill has been put down for consideration? What has been happening since January 10 when this session first started? I think that is a question that ought to be answered for the Canadian people.
4440	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation to this company a section of the line and to finance another section to the tune of 90 per cent of the expenditures which the company will make. The company is only going to put up a tiny share of the expense.
Apparently that has been a fairly recent decision. The reason that they will not put up the money is not that they do not have the money. The existence of the Tennessee company in this project and its connection with the organization would provide for that, but apparently we cannot have the pipe line, so they say, unless we have permission from the United States federal power commission over which we have no control whatever. That commission has to give permission to import gas into the United States. Therefore, as the situation now stands, we are dependent for the existence of the pipe line on the permission of a commission of a foreign power. I ask you, where is our vaunted young nationhood? Where is our boasted independence?
' It is fair to ask what our solution would be. I would say that if we are to provide 90 per cent of the funds to build part of the project and if we are to build the other part and hand it over to the company, why not provide 100 per cent of the funds and build the whole pipe line ourselves? It is just as simple as that. Let us have it 100 per cent Canadian owned and controlled. I am opposed to our building one section and providing most of the funds for the construction of another section and then handing over the whole thing to a foreign private company for their exploitation and profit. Make no mistake about it, this pipe line is going to be a private monopoly, and most of the profits from its operation will go to the owners in another country. It may well be that Canadian consumers by virtue of this monopoly and by reason of the higher price they will pay for gas will be in the position of subsidizing consumers in the United States where competition is keen.
For the information of hon. members, and because I do not have time to read it, I should like to refer them to a very relevant editorial in my own local paper, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of Thursday, May 24. It is entitled, "Question Begging Answers". I too am begging answers, and I find that certain of the questions outlined in this editorial are ones I had jotted down myself. I should like the minister to answer these questions when he replies in committee and I shall try to make the questions quite definite.
First of all, in 1955 the minister said that the line could be privately financed. There was lots of money then. I should like to know why, after the wealthy Tennessee company came into the picture, the company was


then unable to finance the proposition. Second, what arrangements are being made to build the sections not now provided for in the bill, the in between sections which have not been accounted for? Third, why is the new agreement between the government and Trans-Canada not attached to the bill or written into the bill? Has it been left out purposely so that it may be moderated, so that it can be changed in the future, perhaps to give the company more time? Fourth, is it correct as asserted that there will be a difference in prices as between distributors at Winnipeg and at Emerson amounting in that way to Canadian consumer subsidization of the United States consumer south of the border? Fifth, there is another thing that I am at a complete loss to understand. At this point I should like to quote from a dispatch in the Globe and Mail of May 29. I shall only read parts as my time is limited. The article is headed, "British Firm to Supply Pipe for Gas Line". The dispatch is from London under today's date and reads in part as follows:
A $32 million contract for steel piping for the Trans-Canada Pipe Line company has been awarded to a British firm, it was announced today.
The next paragraph designates the firm as the South Durham Steel and Iron Company Limited. Then the next paragraph is somewhat of a revelation as to the time when we may expect that the gas line will be in operation. The article goes on to say:
Delivery of the first pipe will be in May, 1957-
That is not 1956.
-and the contract is expected to be completed by July, 1959.
Asked about the controversy in Canada over the pipe line company's financing, a company official said: "The contract is with the pipe line company, not the government."
Altogether 636 miles of 30-inch diameter piping will be used for the centre section of the natural gas line from Winnipeg to North Bay.
That is the relevant part of the article. I find myself in some difficulty in knowing whether, if in fact, it is correct. The bill we have before us, which we are going to be allowed to discuss for a limited period at the private dispensation of the Prime Minister, as I said, says that the government is to set up a crown corporation to construct the northern Ontario section. One would naturally suppose that this would include the purchase of the pipe and the laying of the pipe, but if this dispatch that I have quoted is correct it would appear that Trans-Canada seems to be quite sure-I was going to say had been assured-of the laying of it in spite of what the Prime Minister said this afternoon. If I recall correctly, he said that tenders were being let for that particular part of the work.

have it revoked. After all, this is the workers' money and I think he has a perfect right to say how it should be handled.
I recognize immediately that some abuses may creep in and I have expressed my opinion in that regard. I make no apology for having said that the unions should be very careful in the way they use the fees they obtain from labour, particularly as it would apply to political parties. I am not going to say any nore on that on this occasion.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: I have no hesitancy at all, but surely it should be clear to the members of this house that when six out of the ten provinces have this legislation there is no great abuse of the measure. I do not think it is asking too much of this government to ask them to incorporate this in their abour relations.
We in Alberta probably took the lead in this connection. We established the principle and five other provinces have also adopted it. I cannot for the life of me see how this would interfere in any way with free collective bargaining because it has nothing to do with the problems which ordinarily come under the heading of collective bargaining. This would be agreement between the employer and the employee, an agreement which would be voluntarily entered into it, an agreement which could be revoked if necessary.
After having said this I think you will understand that we are in favour of this bill. I have spoken in favour of it on many occasions and it is our intention at this time to support this bill.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member who just resumed his seat supplied the key to this problem when he said that after all this is the employee's own money. I submit that the employee should be free to determine just how his money is to be handled. The fact that five provinces have adopted this legislation is no reason why this government should follow their lead. We believe in free enterprise and we believe in a philosophy which stresses the importance of the individual. We have today systems of government which stress that the state is more important than the individual. This legislation implies that a union or a group is more important than the individual.
I cannot subscribe to that as a matter of principle, because certainly the big issue in the world today is freedom of the individual. There has been no attempt to interfere with those who want to pay dues to unions; they are free to do it. If any union wants to make a bargain with an employer and wants this
29, 1956	4439
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation clause inserted in the agreement, it is free to do so. Why should this government interfere in any way with that freedom? I think it would be a grave mistake on our part to interfere. This legislation not only insists that we interfere with the individual in connection with the spending or handling of his money, it insists also that we interfere with the freedom of the employer as to the use of his time and his accounts in collecting money for a union.
Unions are good things and they serve a good purpose in our way of life, but if a union is to continue to serve the best interests of the employees or of the workers as a whole it must learn to stand on its own feet and prove itself worthy of the loyalty of its members so that fees will be paid without any compulsion from an outside source.
On motion of Mr. Carter the debate was adjourned.	;


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that I leave the chair for the house to resume consideration of whatever business was under consideration at five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 298, to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation- Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman, at five o'clock I had been stating that when this company and its affairs were first considered by a committee of the House of Commons we were assured that the company would be created with Canadian funds, that it would build on Canadian territory, would be under Canadian control and all the rest of it. But what is the situation now? We find that three great American gas and oil companies will hold control to the extent of 84 per cent and that great quantities of gas are to be siphoned off from the pipe line at Emerson, Manitoba. The Canadian government together with the Ontario government are to use the Canadian taxpayers' money to do two things, to build and hand over

Industrial Relations


Mrs. Ann Shipley (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am very hoarse today and I hope you will bear with me. My remarks will therefore of necessity be brief.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) in criticizing the argument presented by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour and I must say I could not follow his line of reasoning at all. The hon. member stated that the lack of voluntary revocable check-off denied free collective bargaining to the labour force in Canada. With all due deference to the hon. member I say that is a completely wrong statement because we now have free collective bargaining in Canada without any compulsory-revocable or otherwise-check-off. He also had something to say to the effect that if we had this legislation on the books it would prevent strikes. I may be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge it has been a long time since there has been a strike over this particular measure alone. I do not suggest it might not have been one of the bargaining points but I do not recall it as having been the principal one for some time.
The hon. member claims that we should pass this legislation to guarantee security to the unions. Well, there is just a little more to this measure than that. If we pass it we are compelling employers to guarantee their security willy-nilly regardless of the responsibility shown by the particular union concerned. Now, I have no objection to the check-off as such provided it has been accorded or won by the body of workmen because they have shown responsibility in their organization and as a group of employees, and that is the way we have it in Canada.


Mr. Barneit:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Marie Ann Shipley: Surely.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder if the hon. member could make just a little more clear to us, when she talks about showing responsibility, to whom she means the responsibility should be shown. Does she mean responsibility to the employer or does she mean the responsibility of a union to its own members?


Marie Ann Shipley: I mean both, Mr. Speaker. I mean the responsibility to the community and the responsibility of the union to its members as part of the industry in which they are employed. In other words, there are some unions which have proven themselves by the actions of their leaders and some of their members to be very irresponsible citizens indeed. Now, mark me, I am not suggesting for a moment this is common

to all unions. The majority of union bodies are fine bodies; but I see no reason why we should compel an employer to recognize a group that is not responsible nor indeed do I see any reason why we should put compulsion on the employer in any event. Compulsion is abhorrent to most Canadians. We have good free bargaining and negotiation laws in Canada and I feel that is the way this should be done.
I have forgotten the United States figures and indeed I do not have the most recent ones, but I put the last official figures on Hansard two sessions ago, I think. In the United States they had voluntary check-off as a compulsory measure in many states and in several of them they have taken that legislation off the books because they found it did not work in practice. It invariably leads to the closed shop, which I do not think is desired by many Canadians. That has been its history in the United States. Furthermore, in the cradle, shall we say, of the labour movement in Great Britain they have no check-off and they must have exceedingly good reasons for not having such a measure. We as a party are not against the check-off. The majority of the employees under our jurisdiction have the check-off and others are free to negotiate for it.
I understand that in the representations made to the government by various labour unions, while this point may have been mentioned in their briefs it was not one of the major points they brought up. In other words, it is my belief that the unions are not pressing strenuously for this measure at the present time and it is to my certain knowledge that a large number of men who are union members do not want it because under certain circumstances it is neither voluntary nor revocable. That is why I believe it should be obtained through bargaining negotiations.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very long discussing this bill because I have expressed my opinion regarding it on numerous occasions. When the hon. member who has just resumed her seat speaks of irresponsible unions she must remember that this is applicable only to certified unions. Further, when she says that this would compel the employer to guarantee the union, I doubt if that is quite as accurate as it might be because the bill states specifically it is a voluntary and revocable check-off.
That means, first, that it must be voluntary on the part of the worker. The worker gives his consent in writing to have the deduction made. That is a common practice in more than one industry in this country. In the second place, if the worker desires he can

of the question of union security, the admittance that the trade union movement, the collective bargaining process, is a legitimate thing in a democratic society. That is at the crux of the argument which has been advanced by the trade union movement of this country, that the question of the existence of unions, of the security of unions, should be taken outside of the field of collective bargaining as such.
If you take the line of reasoning which has been put forward by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, then you are starting on the first step of a logical line of reasoning which admits that in fact the trade union movement, the collective bargaining process, is not a legitimate thing in this country. That is the important thing to realize. And more than that, Mr. Speaker, as members of this house, as citizens of this country, we should have come to the point where we are prepared to recognize that the proper role of legislation is to narrow down the field of the disputes that arise from time to time between management and labour to what is the real question involved in collective bargaining, namely, the improvement of working conditions, matters of hours of work and the remuneration which workers are to receive for their work, and that if labour legislation as such has any legitimate place at all on the statute books of this country that is one of the most important functions it can perform.
No one in this country likes to see disputes between management and labour reach the point where such things as strikes and lockouts and all that go with them become involved. No one who has been through a strike, no one who has had some responsibility as an officer of a union in conducting a strike, has any illusions whatsoever about the unfortunate results of labour being forced to take that action. It is something that can be measured to a degree in the loss of pay cheques that ensues. It is something that can be measured by the loss of valuable industrial production. Measured by any one of those terms by which one can assess the effects and the implications of strikes and lockouts, it is an unfortunate and undesirable situation to have arise. It seems to me that no hon. member of this house who is interested in the welfare of the working people of Canada, in the growth of our country, in the increase of the real wealth which we as citizens may be able to enjoy in our proper share, should for a moment hesitate to endorse a measure which will in some degree at least remove the possibility of the advent of such things as strikes and lockouts.
67509-282J
Industrial Relations
Without legislation which grants union security as a right to the trade union movement, the organized working people of Canada, you leave within the bargaining process and within the area of possible dispute the question of the very existence of the union as such and the right of the workers to bargain collectively. That, Mr. Speaker, is the real argument in favour of the adoption of this type of legislation in Canada. By its adoption you have put the collective bargaining process in its proper role. You have taken out of the area of dispute the question of the right of the workers to organize and bargain collectively.
This legislation proposes to introduce into our federal labour law the principle which, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated when he introduced this bill, has been adopted in the legislatures of six of the ten provinces in this country up to the present time and which is in the process of coming into being in at least one of the other Canadian provinces.
It is all very well to argue that most of the working people in this country who come within the purview of federal labour legislation already have written into their contracts the provisions that are suggested here, or something better, but nevertheless that makes it all the more apparent that the time is long overdue when this should be a part of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
When a principle has become as well established as this has through the long and bitter process of collective bargaining, why should this parliament hesitate any longer to put this into the form of legislation so that the process need no longer be continued for the minority of those who may not enjoy it as a right? As long as the parliament of Canada refuses to recognize that this sort of thing is a right of the workers of Canada, then just so long are we giving tacit recognition to the fact that employers who come within the field of federal labour legislation have the right to go out on union busting tactics and that in fact, as well as in law, the workers have not really the right of collective bargaining.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest respectfully through you to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour that if he is going to get up in this house and argue against the adoption of this measure he is going to have to produce something much better than these quotations taken out of context from certain people, all of whom would be prepared to stand up in this house and advocate the adoption of this legislation.

Industrial Relations
On page 48 of Hansard for the same year the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said:
I am convinced that you cannot write a trade union agreement on the floor of the House of Commons.
Finally, on page 49 of that volume of Hansard the former member for York West said:
I object as strenuously as does any member of this house to compulsion of any sort in labour-management disputes or in anything that has to do with collective bargaining.
Is not the point well taken, therefore, that if parliament should preserve by all possible means the freedom of action of both management and labour when they get together and attempt in good faith to reach a common agreement, then to a certain degree the present bill taints the healthy state of collective bargaining as we have it today? And are we not replacing a procedure which has given satisfactory results in the past for a principle about whose accomplishments in the future we may be in doubt?
I have stated that there is nothing in the industrial relations act that stands in the way of inserting in a collective agreement such a provision as is contained in the bill we are discussing. This assertion on my part cannot be better substantiated than by the following extract from an article in the April convention issue of the Canadian labour magazine entitled "The Future of Labour in Canada", by Donald MacDonald, secretary treasurer and chief executive officer, Canadian Congress of Labour, which reads:
It is probable that as the process of collective bargaining continues, there will be a more stable, mature and effective type of labour-management relationship. Both employers and communities will, in all likelihood, come to accept unions in a more genuine sense, until they will be more or less taken for granted. This, in turn, should mean that there will be more bargaining in good faith, and that the area of bargaining, will broaden both as to subject matter, and scope of the bargaining agency.
In the face of these views on the legislation as it now stands, Mr. Speaker, and in consideration of the points mentioned, I feel that it would not be considered the course of wisdom to abandon now the well tried principle of free collective bargaining for the new principle contained in this bill.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have been very greatly impressed by the almost fantastic processes of logic which were put on the records of the house by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. I have some admiration for his ingenuity in going to certain people whom he quoted, I agree,

as authorities on this subject of labour legislation and, by using those quotations, attempting to justify his opposition to the bill which is now before the house. For example, he mentioned the former member for Spadina, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and Donald MacDonald, the former secretary of the Canadian Congress of Labour, now secretary of the Canadian Labour Congress, in an attempt to bolster what I have already termed his rather fantastic logic.
First of all, let me say that in quoting the present secretary of the Canadian Labour Congress in an attempt to bolster his arguments he has perhaps exceeded the limits, because undoubtedly he must be aware of the fact that the Canadian Labour Congress, newly formed as a united labour organization in this country, is definitely on record as being in favour of the principle of this bill and of its adoption in the field of labour legislation.
Perhaps I might expand a little on why I consider the hon. member's reasoning to be so strange. All of the quotations he used referred to another subject matter altogether, namely, the suggestion of the application of compulsory arbitration that has been discussed on some occasions in this house. How the hon. member can suggest that there is anything akin to the principles involved in compulsory arbitration and those contained in this bill is quite beyond my feeble mind to understand. Apparently, these quotations are being used by him in an attempt to suggest that what is proposed in his bill would interfere in some way or other with the process of free collective bargaining. Perhaps I do not need to take the time of the house to explain that I myself am certainly in favour of the free process of collective bargaining; but I think it is important for us to get something of the picture of' what collective bargaining is and what it should be about and, incidentally, to get some picture of what the role of legislation, federal or provincial, in the field of labour activity, should be.
It seems to me that if collective bargaining means anything at all it means a group of workers joined together for the purpose of improving their conditions of work and of increasing the amount of remuneration they receive for performing that work. That to me is the essence of collective bargaining. To attempt to suggest that questions of union security properly belong to a sphere of the collective bargaining process to me just does not add up. If, as the parliamentary assistant admits and suggests, we should have collective bargaining in this, that to me, at least, is tantamount to doubting the legitimacy of the trade union as such. That is the crux

aimed at the creation of the kind of climate that will encourage responsible and healthy industrial relations amongst all parties concerned?
I believe that our existing legislation serves that aim and purpose and leaves to the bargaining parties the responsibility of negotiating the substantial provisions of their collective agreements. That is where responsibility belongs and that is where it has become recognized as properly belonging by those who have been negotiating agreements in the federal field in recent years.
Do we not all agree that something which is arrived at voluntarily has more significance and offers a greater degree of satisfaction than something imposed from outside, since a voluntary agreement will have the support or at least the acceptance of both sides, all of which is of the greatest importance.
In arriving at such a voluntary agreement, is it not more likely to retain vitality and recognition if it must justify itself from year to year or from agreement to agreement; and that is very important for the long-pull angle of the situation, this being conducive to a quasi-permanency of amicable relations.
There are, of course, already in the industrial relations act provisions for protecting the rights of the employees to join unions and to carry on lawful activities. There is also the further assurance that nothing in the industrial relations act stands in the way of inserting in a collective agreement such a provision as is contained in the bill we are discussing. It would, therefore, appear to me that this assurance should warrant ample protection for unions which are able to enlist the support of a majority of their members who want the things set out in this bill.
In so far as union security is concerned the field in which the provisions of the bill could operate, even if it were law, is a very small one indeed. The security accruing to the unions therefrom would also be very small. Last year on February 8, at page 960 of Hansard, the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) gave a report on the result of a study of check-off provisions in collective agreements under federal labour laws. Other than employees of the government, of the total workers under such agreements more than 80 per cent already had obtained some form of the check-off agreements. Only about 19 per cent of the 80 per cent had apparently thought it worthwhile to bargain for and obtain the kind of check-offs set out in this bill. The remaining 81 per cent, of the 80 per cent group, had obtained forms of checkoff which are, one must assume, more advantageous from their point of view.
Industrial Relations
Since last year there has been a slightly higher proportion of employees in some groups, notably air transport, covered by the check-off provision. The submission of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada stated that the provisions of the existing federal legislation "are reasonably adequate". Later in the same week the railway transportation brotherhood submitted their brief in which it was stated:
It is the considered opinion, of this committee that the provisions of the act are reasonably adequate for collective bargaining.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the present system of collective bargaining represents, to a certain extent, the quintessence of voluntary negotiation which, after all, is the democratic way of negotiating. It is held by some, and rightly so, I believe, that should this house enact the present bill we may be accused by some, and again rightly so, of setting a precedent of interference by parliament in collective bargaining which has been functioning rather well if we take all things into consideration. There is no one who will again say that everyone is for union security, and the difficulty arises not so much in connection with the aim to be attained but rather the procedure to be followed to attain that aim.
Had collective bargaining steered away from the principle of union security, then there might be some reason for the present bill. But the fact that collective bargaining has succeeded in establishing, whenever feasible, union security and this, by mutual and amicable procedure, then I believe that we should leave the matter to the scope and province of collective bargaining which has succeeded in the past and which will undoubtedly continue to bring practical results in this field in the future.
If we refer to past debates on the subject matter we find that members of this house have repeatedly expressed themselves on the freedom that should prevail in the establishment of management-labour relations. For example, in 1950, during the fall session, at page 51 of Hansard we find the following statement by the then member for Spadina:
I believe that compulsory arbitration means the death of collective bargaining. It is all very well to say that we shall apply this principle only in one case, but we shall have done damage to a fundamental principle of freedom.
Again on the same page of Hansard we find this declaration by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
It is of primary importance, and in the public interest, that there be no interference with the principle of free collective bargaining.
4434	HOUSE OF
Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act benefit. Another thing which makes this amendment necessary today is the fact that some provincial governments have passed provincial debt adjustment legislation in an effort to protect the producer on the land and keep him from being victimized by foreclosure operations on the part of people who wish to foreclose against him. That provincial debt legislation saved many farms. However, the moratorium feature of the provincial debt legislation was questioned before the courts and later was taken, through appeal, to the Supreme Court of Canada. A final decision was brought down, I believe in 1955, which declared the provincial debt adjustment act to be ultra vires. The result is that the protection offered by the provincial legislation is no longer available. Hence the purpose of Bill No. 350 with its various amendments is to amend the original Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act so as to make it operative, to make it so that it will be applicable to farmers who find themselves in serious indebtedness at the present time and who are threatened with foreclosure and the possible loss of their lifelong earnings through no fault of their own.
It may seem odd that producers should require this kind of protection. However, they are operating in one of the most difficult industries in the country. Along with fishermen, they find that in some years they have crops and in other years they do not. As far as the national interest is concerned and as far as the production of food is concerned, I believe that' here is a portion of the population that requires protection, having regard to the many dangers to which farm production is liable such as frost; drought; insects; the vagaries of the economic condition of the country; wars; the fact that other people enter into competition; the fact that perhaps through federal policies they fail to sell the farmers' product. On the western prairies we find hundreds of thousands of farmers deeply in debt and unable to meet their obligations from day to day while at the same time their bins are full of excellent wheat. They have produced the food which a hungry world requires but, through no fault of their own, they are unable to sell it. Along with that situation, they are faced with constantly increasing costs which must be met from day to day and they are placed in an extremely difficult position with regard to debt. In order to keep efficient producers on the land, I think it only right and proper that this type of protection should be available to them. The purpose of this bill is to amend the act and to make it available.
The royal commission on agricultural and rural life passed a recommendation to the effect that the provisions of all existing farm


security and debt adjustment legislation should be consolidated and placed in a form where it should be available to farmers who are in need. It also recognized that such debt adjustment legislation should be associated with sound credit and supervision programs for the re-establishment of agriculture where conditions have made it almost impossible for the farmers to carry on.
That outlines briefly, Mr. Speaker, the reasons for the act, some of the history of the act and the reasons why I believe that this house should pass this bill in order that the original intentions of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act might be operative for people today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Benidiclcson:: In view of the illness of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Benidickson the debate was adjourned.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not pretend to have new arguments to place before the house on this bill, as practically all the arguments possible have been advanced, from year to year, each time that a similar bill has been discussed.
The devotion and interest of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has presented this bill is to be highly commended; but I am wondering whether the progress which is being made, from year to year, in industrial relations has not somewhat reduced the significance of this cause which he has espoused so ardently by the presentation of this bill.
The developments in the field of labour-management relations have strengthened the convictions of many that legislative provisions for this check-off would not serve any useful purpose in our federal legislation. The role of governments in industrial relations has always been-and will continue to be- a very live topic for discussion. Moreover, is it not generally accepted that the primary role of government should be one that is

for the introduction of the bill and some of the reasons why it should be passed by the house. The original legislation, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act passed in 1934, was designed to give some security to the producers on the western plains against foreclosure for debt brought about by adverse agricultural conditions. The preamble of the original bill outlines that it was considered in the national interest that efficient producers of grain, cattle and farm produce on the prairies should be permitted to continue to produce.
As the result of the rather disastrous agricultural period that followed 1929 hundreds of thousands of farmers found themselves faced with economic conditions which necessitated that they should go to bankers and other credit institutions in order to obtain money to carry on their operations. Continued adverse conditions, which in some cases amounted to seven consecutive yeans of drought and practically no production, brought about a serious condition when the creditors sought to obtain repayment of the money they had lent and started to foreclose on the farmers in large numbers. Farmers who, through no fault of their own, had become bankrupt and did not have the means to carry on, found that their life savings and the work of themselves and their families were being wiped out. Foreclosures were extremely common. As a matter of fact, in many cases creditors who foreclosed obtained land and worn-out machinery and they were unable to make anything out of it afterwards.
In some cases the period of drought lasted for seven years, and in order to maintain the producers on the land this legislation was passed by the house in 1934. The procedure provided was that any producer, either before or after assignment under the Bankruptcy Act, could make an application before a court to file a proposal for the postponement or payment of his indebtedness over a period of years. The legislation made it possible for the farmer to take all the debts he owed to different people, lump them together and make some form of assignment under which he agreed to pay each of his creditors a certain amount each year out of the product of his toil.
I may say that the legislation, although limited in many respects and although it did not give complete justice, permitted the producer a period of time during which he could pay off his debts. It gave him an opportunity to produce and ultimately, in many cases, to pay off his indebtedness as soon as production was again possible. The return of rain, better weather conditions generally, better economic conditions and better prices
29, 1956	4433
Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act in many cases made it possible for the farmer to carry on and the farmer was able to save his property and assets and to hand them down to someone else in his family. The farmer was able to continue on the farm.
It was a very fortunate thing that the legislation saved him. The efficient producer was still on the land and capable of carrying on production when it was necessary. Shortly after the drought period, when Canada found itself in the midst of a war and needed production very badly, these efficient producers were there and did an excellent job of producing with very little help. The reason for amendment of the act at this time is quite evident. The farmers again find that they are falling badly into debt, not so much because of adverse weather conditions which affect production but rather because of the fact that higher costs of production enter into the picture. The farmer has really been producing in an extremely efficient manner but in spite of increased production the fact that his costs of operation are higher and there has been a reduction in the prices for his produce when he goes to sell it, and that in some cases he is unable to sell the commodity, has resulted in the farmer again sinking seriously and rapidly into debt.
The very nature of the original Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act has made it inoperative. I should like to refer to the limitation found in section 7 of the act, which section reads in part as follows:
... if two-thirds of the total amount therof-
The reference is to his debt.
-are owing by him in respect of debts incurred before the first day of May, 1935 . . .
With that provision in the act there are practically no debts with respect to which use can be made of the act and no cases where the farmer can get any redress or have the opportunity to make any kind of arrangement or assignment providing for the adjustment of payment of his debts. The main purpose of the bill is to remove that portion of section 5 from the section, to amend the other sections of the act which limit its application to debts incurred prior to that time, and to remove any reference to the particular period referred to in the preamble, that reference being to the period immediately following 1929 when serious indebtedness in certain farm areas had certainly resulted in a situation where it was beyond the capacity of the farmers to repay. The purpose of the bill is merely to make the benefits of the act applicable to producers who find themselves in that position today.
I might say that although the act did not meet all needs it was certainly of some little

Private Bills


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

Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 353, to incorporate the Albion Insurance Company of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Henderson for the second reading of Bill No. 347, for the relief of Real Perras.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) adjourned the debate. By unanimous consent would it be agreeable to allow this to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.



DIVORCE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: There are several divorce
bills coming up for second reading. Is it the wish of hon. members that they be proceeded with one by one or as one motion?


Some hon. Members:: One motion.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have quite a large bundle of evidence here but the evidence involved in order No. 61, Bill No. 366, is missing. I wonder whether order No. 61 might be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that order No. 61, Bill No. 366, shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS'-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 354, for the relief of Barbara Mary Elliott Priestley.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 355, for the relief of Nancy Elizabeth Theresa Butler Waugh.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 356, for the relief of Robert James Clarke.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 357, for the relief of Veronica Rose Latter Haworth Robinson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Billie Mae Margaret Taylor Dennis.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 359, for the relief of Naida Donni-thorne St. James.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 360, for the relief of Alma Elizabeth Mackie Wahlberg.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 361, for the relief of William Maguire.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 362, for the relief of Anne Perley-Robertson McNicoll.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill	No.	363,	for	the	relief	of	Colette
Palardy Loranger.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 364, for the relief of Esther Kathleen Hamilton Williamson Maynard.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 365, for the relief of Helga Maria Berger Pilgrim.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill	No.	367,	for	the	relief	of	Joseph
Thomas Evans.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 368, for the relief of Marie Jacqueline Carmen Van Troyen Morin.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 369, for the relief of Hazel Wil-helmina Langtry Kimpton.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill	No.	370,	for	the	relief	of	Sergei
Vermala.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 371, for the relief of Stanley Tom Wood.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 372, for the relief of Amelia Alice Stefoni Schofield.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 373, for the relief of Bridget Rowley McHale Bowman.-Mr. Henderson.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Regina	City (Mr. Ellis) had not
planned to proceed with the discussion of order No. 48, Bill No. 347, today. I believe the chairman of the committee wishes to have this bill referred to the committee and I would ask that we might revert to order No. 48.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that we revert to order No. 48?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



REAL PERRAS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Henderson for the second reading of Bill No. 347, for the relief of Real Perras.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion for second reading?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT


George Hugh Castleden: the second reading of Bill No. 350, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion for second reading of Bill No. 350 I wish to say a few words by way of explanation of the history of this kind of debt adjustment legislation and to outline the reasons
IMr. Henderson.]

house that the cabinet might as well stop discussion here-they have virtually stopped it anyway-adjourn parliament, go home and proceed by order in council. It is not as bad as that because, thanks to some of the gentlemen of the press and to public opinion which has been created by the efforts of gentlemen of the press or those who have had the privilege of speaking in this house, the protests have been so great that the government has seen fit to open at least some of the clauses of the bill to a short discussion.
What is this shortage of time? If we examine the facts we know that it is five years-here I am bound to repeat-since this company was set up. I remember when the matter was before the committee. At that time there was no question of government assistance; this thing was going to be built by Canadian private funds. It was to be an all-Canadian route to serve Canadian consumers. When questions were put to those who were sponsoring the bill they scoffed at the idea or suggestion that it might be anything but Canadian controlled.
What is the picture now? Three United States gas and oil companies control this company to the extent of 84 per cent. My hon. friends to my left have talked about the producers; they say, "What about the poor producers in Alberta?" You can almost see a picture of a group of poor people with their knees out of their trousers as it were; underprivileged people with little farms. You get a picture of those people wanting to be able to sell this gas in order to make their fortunes. But who are the owners of this gas, who are these poor producers? They are the same companies which are going to build the line. We have been told today, with what authority I do not know, that it will be the same companies, or companies of a similar nature, which will do the distributing in the United States. The producers are the same people as those who will own the transportation system and those who will do the distributing at the other end of the line. It is true of course that the people of Alberta will receive royalties on the sale of this gas.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The poor people of Saskatchewan will be paying 84 cents for their gas.


Major James William Coldwell: That is the retail price of the gas. They are supplying small towns along the way.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My time is quite short and I shall deal only with one additional point. We have been told that this is to be an all-Canadian pipe line for the benefit of the Canadian people. Let us leave British Columbia out of this discussion for the
Private Bills
moment as they have natural resources which will make them wealthy no matter what they do with them or what form of government they have.
But what about the maritimes? What is this going to do for the maritimes? They are going to have the privilege of putting their money into the kitty and taking nothing out. They have been doing that for the past 50 years and I suppose they are getting accustomed to it, but it is not a very satisfactory procedure.
The last great steal, and I am not making a pun, that was perpetrated on the people of this country was when we gave away the iron ore in Ungava. I see the minister of immigration looking at me and I imagine he would like to tell me that that is a provincial mattfer. I know all about that; I know that the province receives certain royalties; but nine years ago we made it possible for these people with their foreign capital to come in there to take out that iron ore. They built railroads and all the rest of it.
What do they get out of it down there? There are hundreds of unemployed in the maritimes and those people are constantly having to go to a foreign country in order to make a living, or else come up to Montreal or to the centres of industry in central Canada. Something should have been done for those people down there. If in the case of our natural resources we had done what the C.C.F. party would like to do with this particular pipe line, those people would not have to go to foreign soil in order to get jobs.
What is going to be left to those people? I was amused when the minister said that this was going to be an all-Canadian pipe line because the thing is going to be situated in Canada. What is going to happen will be the same as has happened in connection with our iron ore. In that case the people are going to be left simply with the hole out of which the iron ore has been taken. In the meantime the ore will have been transported to the United States where the smelters are located and where the secondary processing industries are located. The people of the maritimes have had to follow their own ore on United States boats in order to get jobs.
We are proceeding now to create another steal. We are doing exactly the same thing in regard to this pipe line.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 348, for the relief of Andrea Marietta Hiekisch Farago.
4430	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation across the way in the Liberal party and my hon. friends in the Social Credit party to my left. Do you think I would stoop so low as to say, or do you think I would be justified in saying, because these people are temporarily agreed on a certain issue, that the Liberal party has gone crazy enough to become Social Crediters overnight? Would I be justified in making that accusation? Or would I be justified in saying that the Conservatives were showing communist tendencies because they laid on the desk of the hon. member of their group who was dismissed from this house the same flag carried in that procession outside?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: The flag they brought into the house two hours before the session that day? We know all about that.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My hon. friend can keep quiet. I will deal with him and his party later. Do you think I would be justified in saying, with regard to the Grey North byelection in 1945, that because the Liberal association published large placards and advertisements in which they showed the pictures of prominent communists and said they were supporting the Liberal party in that particular election, my Liberal friend who just interrupted me was a member of the communist party? It is a low-down trick and I wish it would pass out of our national life.


Mr. Bennett:: I do not see why you bring Grey North into it.


William Earl Rowe: Don't you remember?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: It is a smear by association.


George James McIlraith: That was my point in the question I asked you.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: It is a vicious and discredited practice and I hope it will not be used any more by decent and honourable men.


George James McIlraith: That was my point.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I repeat that it is only among ignorant people that there can be any hope of smear campaigns being successful. Let me tell my hon. friend it was on that slippery path that the gentleman who was the leader of the Liberal party, to its sorrow, in Saskatchewan for seven or eight years embarked and upon which he foundered into failure and political oblivion. That is what happens to people who smear other people. In his particular constituency that technique was used and may I say that there it had a degree of success.
What kind of people are these who my hon. friend is suggesting might be communists? Is the press of this country communist? I have noticed articles in the last day or two in the


Toronto Daily Star, the Windsor Star and the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix-which is published in my home town and is a very good paper I might say-in which the government was damned and indicted for following an undemocratic procedure in this house. Are those members of the press communists? Have they shown communist tendencies in their editorials?
I read a dispatch in one of those papers concerning ministers of the gospel in Toronto. I understand the hon. member for Macleod belongs to a religious denomination. I shall say nothing about that, but he is the same gentleman who smeared us with a communist tar brush. I understand that his profession is that of a minister of the gospel.


Major James William Coldwell: Of what?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Well, of something.


An hon. Member:: What about the one in front of you?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I have ample reasons to be proud of my hon. friend to my right, and I know that in its heart this house is also proud of him.


Mr. Byrne:: Don't kid yourself.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Well, I will tell you about what happened last Sunday in Toronto. These gentlemen of the cloth-they were Anglican and United Church ministers-met for special prayers asking that parliamentary freedom might be preserved in this country. Are they communists? Is everybody out of step but the hon. member for Macleod?
Now, sir, there are certain comments I would like to make on this bill. In the midst of this turmoil which we have had in the house there has been one noticeable thing-I was going to say one permanent thing but I hope it will not be permanent. We have had a government which has been determined to force upon parliament and upon the country a legislative measure without giving, I will say now, full opportunity to the opposition to discuss that measure. Thus it is that a large percentage of the people are practically unrepresented in this House of Commons today. Many of my constituents have written and asked me to speak on this matter but I have not had an opportunity to do so until this moment.
The government of the day claims that these severe methods are due to the shortage of time, that the agreement which they have signed with the company we are discussing, a company practically wholly United States owned and controlled, calls for the passing of this legislation at a date close in the future. The suggestion has been made outside this

should a load factor enter into the distribution at that point? I might say this to the minister, Mr. Chairman. If he calculated the fares to be charged in the creation of Trans-Canada Air Lines on the same basis as he is doing here he would never have created the company because the load factor there would not have permitted him to do so.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: It has been interesting to me, Mr. Chairman, to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his old position as a lecturer, and I hope that the classes he instructed before were more receptive of what he had to say than they were today.
Most of the arguments have not been advanced for and against what we consider to be an iniquitous proposition but the constituents here and there throughout the country like to have their own members express an opinion even if they must do something which I am not fond of doing, namely, repeat arguments which have already been advanced by other people. But they do say: "Yes, the man's party did say something about that or against that, but what did he say about it?"
Sir, never did I think when I was elected to parliament 11 years ago that I would have seen some of the turmoil, the anger and the consternation that I have seen in this house during the last three or four days, an institution which, temporarily at least, had passed completely from the control of the officers who preside over it; words of anger and bitter debate which appeared to have no end. That, of course, is a situation for which I can only blame the government that sits across the way. There was a loss of discipline and a loss of decorum which, to me, were deplorable. I almost said loss of debate and indeed that almost came about.
We are now in the position where we can debate, and to follow the precedent that has been set by other speakers I will speak generally on the topic because it has been wide open, as I see it. We are allowed to debate clause 4 and I think it is a reasonable question for me to ask the minister concerned, at what point is the axe next going to fall? Are we going to be allowed to debate clauses 5, 6 or 7? Well, government policy will be announced in due course. That is the phrase we have certainly heard before. If freedom of speech has not been totally denied, it certainly cannot be denied that freedom of speech has been curtailed.
We had the spectacle yesterday of the Prime Minister getting up and granting us a special dispensation, presumably out of the goodness of his heart. Sir, it was a humiliating situation to those who love the democratic procedure. Except for that, the Prime Minister 67509-281J
29, 1956	4429
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation has been almost silent. Let me say in all sincerity and honesty that I pity him in all this because I look upon him as a pawn of forces which he does not appear to recognize and which he perhaps does not or could not understand. It is peculiar that I say this. I readily admit that I could not understand them either, but I do understand something about the principles of democracy and how a democratic system works. The Prime Minister was treading upon dangerous ground when he put his stamp of approval upon the restriction of free speech in this house, because where freedom of speech is threatened liberty itself has begun to die. It has been really more in sadness than in anger that I have watched what has occurred during the last few days because I am a believer in democracy. I am also a believer in the rights of the majority, but the rights of the majority do not include the right to impose silence upon a minority either in this house or anywhere else.	*
Sir, I claim to be a patriotic Canadian. I love my country. I am proud of my country and I would like to be proud of my government. As I look across this house I say, "God help me, this is my government; I would like to be proud of it. And that is my Prime Minister". My country will never go back on me in the physical sense, but the government and the Prime Minister have done something to me in the last few days. I have not lost my trust in democracy nor have I lost my trust and belief in the democratic system, but I have lost some of my faith in the ability of this government to preserve them.
I have to refer to something which I would rather omit for the moment but I think I have time in which to deal with it. I want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Macleod, a speech which I think shocked this house. In addition to saying we had lost the power to debate I was going to add that in view of the hon. member's speech we had lost something of the decency which we associate with this place. Here was a smearing process that would delight the heart of any McCarthy. Just because they disagreed with them the hon. member compared his opponents in this particular issue with the people who were walking up and down outside the house in that period. Well, there is no man in this house who can look me in the eye, and accuse me, my leader or any hon. member of this party of having communist leanings. In some places they get away with it. They get away with it in the country where people are sufficiently ignorant to be influenced by that sort of thing.
Here we have an alliance, which has been mentioned before, between my hon. friends
4428	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Seasonal	Excess Gas
Rate Zone:	Price per	MCF at	load	factor <	Df:	Off-peak	Interruptible:	100% A:	75% A:	: 63% B:	50% C:	37% D	: 30% D:	A-B:	C-D:	A-B:	C-D:Saskatchewan ....	.. 21-3c	22-4c	24-2c	26-6c	29 -8c	36-8c	23c	24c	19-5c	19-5cManitoba 	
Western Ontario	. 26 0c	28-3c	30-9c	35 0c	40-9c	50-4c	25c	26c	18c	22-5c(Man.-N. Nipigon) North Ontario	. 34-5c	37-7c	41-lc	46-5c	54-8c	67 -6c	30c	31c	25c	27c(Nipigon-Cobalt) .. Central Ontario	.. 430c	47-5c	51-8c	59 0c	69 -9c	82-2c	35c	39c	29-5c	29-5c(Cobalt-Whitby) ., Eastern Zone	.. 44-5c	49-3C	55-5c	61-4c	77-5c	95-6c	35c	36c	30c	32-5c(Whitby-Montreal)	. 46-6c	52 lc	57-4c	65-7c	78-9c	97 -3c	35c	36c	30-5c	33c
Approximate cost of Canadian gas to distributors at gates of major cities to
Contracted Gas at	Seasonal
City	Expected Load Factor-MCF:	Off-peak:Winnipeg (at 60% Load Factor)	
32-9c	25cToronto (at 75% Load Factor)	
49-3c	35cMontreal (at 75% Load Factor)	
52-lc	35c
be served:
Excess Gas Interruptible: 18c 30c 30-5c
All the above are general service rates. As of May 1, 1956, special industrial rates are available which will reduce the above rates according to the proportion of firm industrial sales in the load pattern of the utility entering into a contract with Trans-Canada.
Special contract sale at Emerson, Manitoba, to Midwestern Gas Transmission Company Contract No. 1, a high load factor, firm sale, "take
or pay'' contract for 200,000,000 cubic feet per day, for twenty-five year period. During first three years only, gas may be accepted at Canadian-U.S. border at 75 per cent load factor, with price payable to Trans-Canada 27.27c. per MCF. During balance of contract only 95 per cent and 100 per cent load factors apply. Contract prices for high load factors are as follows:
1st Five Years 100% LF: 95% LF: 25.08c	25.42c
2nd Five Years 100% LF:	95% LF:
26.06c	26.46c
3rd Five Years 100% LF:	95% LF:
27.08c	27.53c
4th Five Years 100% LF:	95% LF:
28.07c	28.57c
5th Five Years 100% LF: 95% LF: 29.09c	29.64c
Contract No. 2, to take effect only when and if Alberta and Canada authorize export of additional gas reserves surplus to Canadian needs and the U.S. authorizes import, would also be a high load factor, firm sale, "take or pay" contract for 200,000,000 cubic feet per day. Costs to Midwestern for gas delivered to it at Emerson under this contract would be about three cents per MCF higher
than under contract No. 1, and would also increase about one cent per MCF at end of each five years of the 25 year contract. During first three years only, gas may be accepted at 75 per cent load factor, at a price of 31.05c. per MCF. During balance of contract only 95 per cent and 100 per cent load factors apply. The contract prices for the high load factors are as follows:
1st Five Years 100% LF: 95% LF: 28.04c	28.52c
2nd Five Years 100% LF:	95% LF:
29.03c	29.55c
3rd Five Years 100% LF: 95% LF: 30.05c	30.63c
4th Five Years 100% LF: 95% LF: 31.03c	31.67c
5th Five Years 100% LF: 95% LF: 32.05c	32.74c


John Borden Hamilton: May I ask the
minister a question about load factor: What justification is there for calculating the price in Saskatchewan and Manitoba on load factor when a common pipe is being used for the transportation of this gas to Winnipeg?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, what is the justification for calculating any price on load factor?


John Borden Hamilton: Certainly, sir, this pipe is a common carrier to that point and the whole benefit to the company is gained from the distribution from that point, and surely in those two areas at least load factor should not be taken into consideration.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, no gas pipe line is a common carrier or can be a common carrier. An oil pipe line can be a common carrier because batches of oil can be inserted into the line by a producer, kept intact and delivered at the other end of the pipe line to the producer or to his customer. That is not possible with natural gas, as my hon. friend will know, and no gas pipe line that I ever heard of, and I am sure none on the North American continent, is a common carrier.


John Borden Hamilton: I am not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, at this point, the legal definition of a common carrier. I mean that all of the gas is passing through for distribution from that area; therefore, why


Clarence Decatur Howe: Save your efforts for another attempt to be disciplined by the Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Is that a threat?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that a threat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You have tried, but it did not work. Has my hon. friend any questions he wants to put to me now?


Major James William Coldwell: Are you not going to tell us what a load factor is? Quite frankly, I do not know.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Gas delivered at 100 per cent load factor provides that if 100,000 cubic feet of gas per day are bought at 100 per cent load factor then the customer must pay for 100,000 cubic feet taken every day regardless of whether he takes it or not. It is very difficult for any organization, except a large distributing system, to buy gas at 100 per cent load factor. The Tennessee Transmission contract calls for gas delivered at 95 per cent load factor and, as I remember it, the city of Winnipeg contract provides that gas will be delivered at 30 per cent load factor.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Sixty per cent.


William Earl Rowe: Will the minister permit a question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Winnipeg buys at a load factor of fifty per cent and then 60 per cent.


William Earl Rowe: I would like to ask the minister a question. It is certainly understood that 100 per cent load factor would be lower. Will he give the average cost, the average price throughout?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The average of what?


William Earl Rowe: The average rate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To whom, the distributing company?


William Earl Rowe: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The average rate to the Union Gas Company, if you like.


John George Diefenbaker: The average rate all the way through, as put out by your own pet company.


William Earl Rowe: You might as well give them as the other. Take the lid off.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The boys can give it to you; that is what they are there for.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To give the average across the country you have to make
4427
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation adjustments for transmission costs. But the average over the life of the 20-year contract at Winnipeg is 28-3 cents. Over the 20-year contract at Emerson the average is 29-34 cents.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: There has been a lot of confusion about these prices. I wonder whether the minister would be permitted to place on the record these prices, which at least appear to be definitive. There are at least four sets of figures that I know of giving the price of gas. The minister's figures are the latest and I assume they are the final ones. I think it would be of interest to members of the committee at this time if they could be placed in Hansard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: With the permission of the committee I will be very glad to do that. I have the rates here.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Just for clarification, may I ask what these figures are? They were prepared by whom?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are the revised figures prepared by Trans-Canada and on which contracts for the sale of gas by Trans-Canada are being arranged at the present time.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the unanimous wish of the committee that these figures be included in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The rates follow:
Contracts With Canadian Distributing Companies (except special case, Union Gas Co.)
All contracts are for a 25-year period, with prices for the full period of the contract, without escalation. (Prices to U.S. customer, midwestern, increase about one per cent per 1,000 cubic feet at end of each 5-year period). Canada divided into six "rate zones", with rates equal for all customers within each zone. Distributors in each zone have choice between four schedules of general service rates, dependent upon the "load factor" each believes he can achieve in the type of market he serves, these being rate "A" (minimum load factor 75%), "B" (minimum load factor 63%), "C" (minimum load factor 50%), and "D" (minimum load factor 37%). A predominance of "space heating" market (winter sales) involves a low load factor. Year-round sales to industry, and interruptible sales to industry during summer months, make possible higher load factors, and hence lower average cost of gas to the distributor. Load factors will therefore vary widely between markets of the various distributors in each "rate zone", thus affecting the delivered cost of gas to each type of customer in the several markets. Following are examples of the actual average cost per MCF of gas that would be delivered by Trans-Canada at the distributors' gates in each rate zone, under the various load factor schedules (A to D) on firm contracts, together with the special rates for off-peak interruptible summer sales to the distributors in each rate zone.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no foundation in fact for that statement which Mr. Waring made. Who told Mr. Waring?


Mr. Small:: Bring it before a committee.


An hon. Member:: Why all the secrecy?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Secrecy? My hon. friend has long been corresponding with the opposition to the Trans-Canada application.


John George Diefenbaker: And I produced every line, but you did not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I could produce one or two lines you did not produce, but I did not bother to do it because I did not think my hon. friend's opinion was worth the trouble. It is all very well to ignore load factors and to ignore pressures, as he has done in this case. He is comparing the unequal. I have the rate schedule of Trans-Canada here, and it is based on contracts that have been made by Trans-Canada from one end of Canada to the other.
In the first place we will take the 100 per cent load factor contracts, and I will give rates to you for the various load factors.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the date?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the current revised rate schedule for about 140 million cubic feet of gas contracts for which have been based on this rate schedule. Taking 100 per cent load factor, and that means people will buy and pay for gas at 100 per cent of maximum load each year-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: What if it is not a 100 per cent load?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the comedians. We have had the cardboard hero, but let us leave the comedians for another time. Taking a 100 per cent load factor, the rate in Saskatchewan is 21-3 cents per thousand cubic feet; in Manitoba, 26-2 cents; for western Ontario, west of Nipigon 34-5 cents; northern Ontario, that is Nipigon to Cobalt, 43 cents; central Ontario, 44-5 cents, and Whitby to Montreal, 46-6 cents.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the undistributed price at Niagara; how much is that to be sold for?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no contract for gas at Niagara, undistributed, and no application for export -of gas at Niagara. However, if you want the rates for interruptible gas, the interruptible in Manitoba is 23 cents; western Ontario, 28 cents; northern Ontario, 32 cents; central Ontario, 33 cents and eastern Ontario, Whitby to Mon-
[Mr. Lennard.l
treal, 33 cents. Those are the prices for the sale of gas in Canada.*
Now, what load factor had my hon. friend in mind? I can give him the rates. He was mixing his load factors all over the map, but if he wants to compare rates under the same terms and conditions I can give him the rate based on any load factor he cares to name for any localities he may name.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He does not know what you are talking about.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He does not know what a load factor is. I am sorry that the opposition, which has given great study to the matter, seemed to believe the hon. member for Prince Albert because they were applauding his figures as though they were accurate, although a member of the Conservative party took the trouble to put accurate rates on the record several days ago amid dead silence from his party and no approbation whatever.
I think that answers the questions. I have 31ready covered the ground about the Northern Natural contract. Trans-Canada had a contract with them at 29 cents. Northern Natural applied to the federal power commission. Such strong opposition came from the customers of Northern Natural that the application was shelved, and since the contract was dependent on approval within a certain date the contract lapsed with the expiry of time. An attempt was made later on to renew negotiations. I am told that Mr. Merriam went to Calgary and an attempt was made to arrive at a new rate basis, and that proved to be entirely impossible. At that time Mr. Merriam was not prepared to make any firm offer. Subsequent to that a contract was made with the Tennessee Gas Transmission Company and it was some months subsequent to that before Gardiner Symonds acquired an interest in Trans-Canada and became a member of the board.
The Minister of Finance has suggested that I say something about what a load factor
is.	If I have to start that far back it is rather hopeless, but I am sure that the hon. member for Prince Albert does not know what a load factor is.


William Earl Rowe: Tell the Minister of Finance.


John George Diefenbaker: Tell me what a 75 per cent load factor is, too.


William Earl Rowe: He would like to understand
it.	The Prime Minister does not seem to understand it. Tell the Minister of Finance.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that the same rule you used to put it through the House of Commons?
See revised figures on page 4475, column 2.

That record cannot be contested; it is from Trans-Canada Pipe Lines itself. It shows that Canadians are to be taken for a ride for the benefit of Gardiner Symonds, the Midwestern pipe line company and the Tennessee pipe line company. We are to pay, they are to get and Canada is to guarantee. That to me is the terrible indictment with which this government stands charged; the hiding of information, the concealment of facts and the answering of argument by simply saying "It is a distortion". Facts are not answered by statements such as that, particularly when the person making them has fooled this House Of Commons on so many occasions on so many matters.
I have only to recall, Mr. Chairman-even my hon. friends supporting the government cannot have forgotten the incident-that only a few weeks ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce denied that he had ever heard from McMahon, that he had any documents from him, over and over again. Then when finally he found out that one of the other members of the cabinet had a copy or that there was a third copy, he finally said, "Well, I did have correspondence, but that correspondence was private and confidential".
Let us pass on to the next argument about McMahon. They say that McMahon's proposition could not be accepted because it implied the export from Canada of 400 million cubic feet of gas-that is what the original proposition set forth-and that would be too great a proportion, the Minister of Agriculture said, of the amount available for export.
I am going to disagree with that, for the sake of argument, but I ask the Prime Minister to find out from his colleagues-just conduct a little Gallup poll-which of them communicated with the Northern Natural Gas Company in the United States to find out whether they would be prepared to give the same price to McMahon for 200 million cubic feet or 100 million, on the promise that in the future that would be reconsidered. I put it through you, sir, to the Prime Minister, that one of his colleagues did communicate with these people who said, "Yes, we will accept less than the 400 million cubic feet covered by the McMahon proposal, and we will pay 6 or 7 cents more per thousand cubic feet than that favourite of this government, the Midwestern pipe line company, the infant of the Tennessee corporation, under the presidency of Mr. Symonds, a director or executive of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines."
I have three minutes more, and I would have liked to ask quite a number of questions. Before I ask any more, I should like answers to those questions I placed before the
29, 1956	4425
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation house two weeks ago yesterday, for if we get answers to them we will certainly be in a position to ask further questions based upon those answers. I should like also to ask one additional question. At the time Mr. McMahon engaged in the telephone conversation with the Minister of Trade and Commerce and suddenly out of a blue sky withdrew the offers he had made which were so complete that they even covered the defects of the Trans-Canada proposal, did the minister pronounce a seven year curse on McMahon unless McMahon did withdraw that offer? I want Mr. McMahon brought here. I should like to see him before a committee, and I should like to be able to ask him what happened. What was the conversation between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and Mr. McMahon? Certainly I do not believe the minister would be careful of his language. He certainly has not been too careful in his desire to destroy parliament by the steamroller.
I should like also to ask a number of questions in regard to the proposition that was offered by Northern Natural Gas Company. I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether Gerald Waring was right when he quoted the reason Northern Natural Gas Company had its offer swept aside in July and August of 1955, an offer to pay some 6 or 7 cents more per thousand cubic feet in Minneapolis, the area served by that company. I should like to ask whether on that occasion, as reported by the gentleman I mentioned, on March 6, 1956, the minister said when speaking to Mr. Merriam, the president of Northern Natural Gas Company, as long as he was running the Canadian economy Northern would never get one cubic foot of Canada gas.
Was it because of that statement, which Mr. Waring says the Minister of Trade and Commerce made to Mr. Merriam, the president of Northern Natural Gas Company, that the Canadian people are to be mulcted in this way, the Canadian consumers are to pay more than the United States consumers, and the Canadian producers must thereby suffer?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that there is no foundation in fact for the last statement made by the hon. member. I had no such correspondence with Mr. Merriam and I had no such conversation with Mr. Merriam. I have not seen Mr. Merriam for at least 12 months.


John George Diefenbaker: That was July, 1955.


Frank Exton Lennard: That could have been over the telephone.
4424	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation in order to make up for the unusually low offering prices to the American companies.
Again I ask this question. Can you conceive of the presentation to parliament of a proposition whereby Gardiner Symonds, one of the heads of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, is himself the major purchaser in the United States? Who is going to win out in that proposition? The Canadian producer? The records tell the story as to what is happening. The Canadian consumer will pay through the nose in order to assist the United States company, namely the Tennessee company and its subsidiary, to secure gas at a price seven or eight cents per thousand cubic feet cheaper than the price Canadian consumers will pay, and let nobody deny it. I was waiting for some of the anvil chorus to deny it.
I have before me the presentation made with regard to Midwestern Gas Transmission Company, Docket No. 9, exhibit X-33, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited rate schedules. I wish I could put the whole record on Hansard, because it tells the story. However, I shall have to content myself with merely quoting from it. Between November 1, 1956, and November 1, 1957, the average rate per thousand cubic feet in Saskatchewan will be 26-6 cents; in Manitoba for Winnipeg and Central Gas, 32-9 cents; for other people in Manitoba, 40 [DOT] 9 cents. Midwestern will buy it at Emerson for 26-8 cents. Why does this Midwestern company become the beneficiary of Canada's public charity? Why is this company going to be able to buy at Emerson-when the price should be about one cent more per thousand cubic feet, having regard to the distance between Winnipeg and Emerson-at 26 [DOT] 8 cents while other people in Manitoba will pay 40 [DOT] 9 cents, and while Winnipeg and Central Gas Company will pay 32-9 cents?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: Why? What is the reason for this transaction? Why must we push through parliament by June 7 a bill to enable Canadians to be taken for a ride? That is the simple question. I go on from there. What is their schedule between November 1, 1957, and November 1, 1958? It is still 26-6 cents in Saskatchewan. In Manitoba for Winnipeg and Central Gas it is 32-9. For other companies in Manitoba it is 40-9. The Midwestern Gas Transmission Company will get the gas at 25-9. Now we come to what they are going to charge in Ontario. Western Ontario will pay 42 -2; northern Ontario, 52-7; International Nickel, 51-5; North Bay to Toronto, 77-5; Provincial Gas Company, 46-1;


Dominion Gas Company-these are the various rates for these other firms-66-2; Toronto and area, 51-5. At what price are we going to dispose of the undistributed part outside of Canada? At 35-67 cents at Niagara.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: Robbery.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To what records is my hon. friend referring?


John George Diefenbaker: That is the submission I quoted from a moment ago.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a complete distortion of the facts and no one knows it better than does my hon. friend.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister can make a statement afterwards.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my
hon. friend on what clause of the bill he is talking?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I think it has been made clear to the committee on several occasions that unless an interruption is caused by a direct accusation or personal privilege, the hon. member who has the floor is entitled to be heard. If his descriptions or his conclusions from alleged facts are not agreed to by others, they will have the right to contest them at the conclusion of the member's speech. He cannot be interrupted without his consent.


John George Diefenbaker: I have heard my right hon. friend talking about distortion of the facts. There is no one who is a postgraduate in the way he is, having regard to the number of distortions he has made. I am quoting from the figures prepared by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited of room 208, 25 Adelaide Street West, Toronto 1, dated September 19 1955, and filed before the United States federal commission.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The cat is out of the bag.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank the Lord we have an application before the United States board that we can go to and find out the truth about this matter.


William Earl Rowe: You cannot find it out here.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask a question? Are those the wholesale prices?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. Those are the prices that will be charged between November 1, 1958, and November 1, 1959. Here are the various prices, and they range from 39 to 77-5. The export price from Canada at Niagara will be 35-67; and so on it goes throughout the whole piece.

the days of John Wilkes in the mideighteenth century. It is, therefore, interesting to read that in 1621 parliament, then dominated by the sovereign, not by the sovereign's chief minister, asked that something be done to restore freedom to parliament, and that at that time this was said:
. . . in the handling ... of those businesses every member of the house hath, and of right ought to have, freedom of speech to propound, treat, reason, and bring to conclusion the same.


An hon. Member:: "Bring to a conclusion".


John George Diefenbaker: In 1956 the Prime Minister was afraid of parliament. He was afraid of discussion. He was fearful that if certain questions were asked the government would find itself in a difficult, if not impossible, position. What did James I do? Well, James I dealt with the situation very quickly. He answered the protestation. He sent for the journals of the house and with his own hand tore out the pages containing the protest. The Prime Minister did not do that. He only made it impossible for the journals to contain freedom of speech during the days that it was denied in this house. Yes, the last two weeks have been sorry days.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What an orator.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friends laugh- sorry days for the Canadian parliament, sorry days when a majority adopts "brutalitarian" tactics in order to deny this parliament freedom of speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes, they realize it is true. They have deprived us of our rights under the specious claim that there is a fixed date, June 7, a day beyond which men in Canada may not go in discussion, the zero hour, the end of all things. Mr. Chairman, it is ridiculous. I do not wonder that my hon. friends laugh. When they say to parliament that we have until June 7 and beyond that date there will be no more freedom of speech on this matter, who set the date? What have you been doing for five long years? Playing around with this corporation, with these adventurers from Texas and New York trading away Canada's natural resources at the expense of the Canadian people. No, we have not learned the answer yet as to why the government is so solicitous with respect to this company whose only capital is a few million dollars and, of course, all the power of the cabinet and those associated with them to force this matter through the House of Commons.
Is it for the benefit of the Canadian people? Is it to benefit the Canadian producer and 67509-280
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation consumer? I asked the Prime Minister a simple question yesterday, as to how the federal power commission is getting along; because after all, we will have a pipe line from Winnipeg onward provided the federal power commission of the United States allows us to have it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke of the pipe line being under the laws of Canada. Yes, the statute, the incorporation, is under the laws of Canada, but the actions of this corporation are dependent on a corporate body under the United States government. I asked the Prime Minister how are things going over there, have you an observer, and the answer was that there was no information.
What are they doing over there? For the past three months they have been discussing the matter. They have 200 pounds of documents, and there are 118 lawyers discussing it. There are 112 different dissenting interests. Sometimes I think before they are through they will give us an idea as to the meaning of eternity. Yes, on and on they go; and we in Canada are to have a pipe line from Winnipeg onward to meet the demands of eastern Canada if the federal power commission in its wisdom, decides-its decision then being subject to appeal to the supreme court of the United States-that gas shall be imported into the United States.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said last night that one of the reasons we are in this position where time is so much of the essence is the tightness of money, that recently the supply of money has become tight. Sir, money may have become tight, but money is still available for sound projects even though the interest rate may be a little higher. If Trans-Canada were a good risk it would not have to go begging all over Canada and the United States to get money and finally end by asking for a guarantee of the people of Canada. It is not that money is tight, but the fact that this company has nothing but the adventuresome spirit as capital in coming before the Canadian people and endeavouring to put over this proposition.
Is it beneficial to the people of Canada? Well, the place to go and find these things is in the records of the federal power commission. I have the record here showing the prices that are to be paid.
What are the prices that are to be paid by these American companies, including MidWestern Pipe Line Company, the infant of the Tennessee corporation that is headed by Gardiner Symonds, who also happens to be a member of the executive of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines? They are going to see to it that the Canadian gas consumers will be obliged to pay unusually high retail prices


Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Secretary of State for External Affairs how different things would be. In the last few days considerable reference has been made to a book containing a compilation of certain addresses given by the hon. gentleman. While I cannot on this occasion, with my limitation of time, quote extensively from that book I do commend it to the Prime Minister. It is entitled "Democracy in World Politics". It is a work well worthy of study. The Prime Minister might permit the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to have a look at it. The Prime Minister has learned in recent days that under our system of government the sovereign is the people, and I should like to quote from page 60 of this book where the following is stated:
In the eighteenth century, the sovereigns in question were usually individuals. Today they are hundreds of legislators, millions of newspaper readers, radio listeners, or television viewers. Particularly our sovereigns are voters-
The Prime Minister found that out in the last two days, when on behalf of this government he embarked upon the most supercilious and cynical disregard for parliament, when he established executive absolutism, when he decided to place the party which he represents above parliament. The people of Canada spoke, and yesterday the Prime Minister made a partial retreat. It was not a retreat to restore to parliament its rights. I should like to quote from this book several particularly appropriate quotations. Speaking about the value of parliament, the hon. gentleman has this to say on page 68:
A substantial part of their value, like that of national parliaments, lies precisely in the ability to mobilize and focus opinions, to encourage the formulation, expression, and dramatic confrontation, of major viewpoints.
I give that to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister tried to prevent that. Two weeks ago we asked a number of questions, and instead of answering any of those questions those associated with him hid behind their majority and tried to delude parliament and the Canadian people. Again my hon. friend had this to say:
By bringing issues out into the public, and ventilating them, throwing light into dark places-
Page the Minister of Trade and Commerce. -and thereby encouraging more care and responsibility by administrative authorities who understandably hesitate to do things of which they would be ashamed if they were publicly examined in a searching forum.
Then on another page he says in effect- I could give the exact quotation if necessary-that democracy is more than the counting of heads. I suggest that this book of wise information henceforth be the basis upon which the Prime Minister and those associated with him should endeavour once
[Mr. Diefenbaker.I
more to restore parliament to its former position. When the Minister of Finance endeavoured to explain why such devious methods were being used to ration freedom of speech and to deny it, he stood in his place and said there were two reasons, one being that on one occasion I had made a speech over the radio. I read that portion of the speech which he used, along with the triumvirate who have endeavoured to deny parliament its rights. The excuse given by the minister was not even subtle. This is what I said on that occasion:
In July, 1955, the Conservative party fought, under the inspiring leadership and generalship of George Drew, for the restoration of parliamentary supremacy. That was when Mr. Howe tried to force through parliament the grant to himself of a blank cheque of absolute and dictatorial powers under the Defence Production Act. That battle we won. But let me tell you that the fight we put on then will appear but a skirmish beside the battle we shall wage when the bill respecting Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited comes before parliament.
The minister says, with that specious sanctimoniousness he displays-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -that the reason they brought in closure, the reason we are denied free speech, the reason we have departed from the principles of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and others is that suggestion I made. What an explanation.


An hon. Member:: What a speech.


John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday the Prime Minister, finding that he was on a bed of public torture because of his own actions, was brought out of his position and, having found himself in that position, revealed in his speech that after all even a majority as great as he enjoys must have a conscience for parliament. Oh, you have the power; you count your heads, while the Secretary of State for External Affairs says that democracy is more than that. You thought you could override, that you could conceal by the overwhelming power of your majority, but the Prime Minister and those associated with him have learned that the men and women across Canada, the citizens, the press of this country, without regard to party considerations, will have none of it.
Yesterday the Prime Minister, endeavoured once more, by a technique so crude as to be transparent, to return out of the kindness of his heart a portion of the rights of parliament. The Prime Minister has always been a great student of history. One has to go back to the days of James or Charles in order to see similar conduct, conduct which was generally believed to have ended for all time; but that spirit of tyranny came back during

of view being espoused by the hon. member for Peace River, coming as he does from the province of Alberta and to a certain extent being a spokesman for the oil producers of that province, but coming from the Minister of Trade and Commerce I do not think it is a legitimate argument. It seems to me it arises out of a complete misunderstanding of the whole basis of the function of a public carrier in this country.
To say that because a thing is publicly owned by a crown corporation which is not primarily concerned with the making of profits but only with returning to the general citizenry of Canada a reasonable return on the public funds which have been invested, it is going to be put in an awkward position or is going to work to the disadvantage of either the producers or the consumers, is not a reasonable statement in my view. It is obvious to me on which side of that proposition the balance of favour lies.
I am no expert in the transmission of gas, but I think everyone regards this pipe line as essentially a public carrier. What would have prevented the government from establishing a policy that would create a crown-owned corporation which would have required a producer pool on one end of the line, if you like, and a consumer pool on the other end of the line? These two groups could have negotiated the price of gas at arm's length and there could have been charged, for the purpose of carrying the gas through the line, a reasonable and proper cost of operation plus enough to provide a small return on the investment. There may be objections to that approach to the question, but frankly I have not been able to see them. That would mean a producer would receive as nearly as possible the full value of his product and the consumer would receive, as nearly as possible, gas at cost price plus the cost of transmission across the country.
Another objection which the minister raised was that there are other fuels besides gas in the picture in eastern Canada, and of course no one can deny that. Let me say first, however, that the statement made by the minister points up as clearly as anything can the correctness of the position so often taken in this house by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and other hon. members of this group, in which they advocated the development of a proper fuel policy in this country and the setting up of a national fuel board.
I would suggest that when we move into this field, which is so obviously an undertaking of national magnitude, it would be a good time to consider the development of that kind of policy. The best way to consider the development of that kind of policy would be
29, 1956	4421
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation to create this pipe line as a publicly-owned corporation so that the policies which were pursued by it would be under the responsibility of the government and of parliament and of the people of Canada. I would submit that the argument of the minister does not constitute a very adequate reason against the proposal which has been advanced by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and other members speaking on behalf of this group.
I did not take note of the time when I rose, but I imagine that my time has almost expired. In conclusion I wish to say that during the little opportunity there has been for this debate to progress I have been convinced of the soundness and the correctness of the position advanced by those in this corner of the house. If there might be some difficulty in implementing the policy which we are proposing at this time, if as the minister tries to maintain it would result in some little delay in starting the construction of the pipe line, it would be consistent with the statement he himself made that it would be more in the interests of long-term planning for us to avoid surrendering these things in the interests of a short-term advantage.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, in the time at my disposal I intend to deal with two matters only. One is the action of the government in recent days and the effect of that action on parliamentary government, and, secondly, the fact that under the prices provided for the sale of this gas to United States interests, Canadian producers and consumers are being sacrificed on the altar of the overwhelming ambition of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I like to recall the days when the Prime Minister was a democrat, when he was president of the Canadian Bar Association, and when he made some of the most attractive and alluring speeches on the subject of freedom and democracy. I was particularly impressed with his presidential address delivered in 1931, when he dealt with parliamentary government, and the need of preserving those things which are of the essence of democracy, and the grave danger of deviating from principles for immediate advantage. On that occasion he quoted with approval the words of Lord Bryce as follows:
Few people stop to think of the principles. What interests them is the concrete instance and it would be deemed pedantic to suggest that an apparent immediate benefit should be forgone lest deviation from principle should set a dangerous precedent.
Never was that case better stated than 25 years or more ago by the present Prime Minister of Canada. Indeed, if the Prime Minister would take into his confidence the
4420	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation that this pipe line is going to remain in Canada. Nobody has disputed the fact that the board of transport commissioners will have jurisdiction over it. But the fact remains-and I think the minister will agree with this-that the management of an operating company does have something to do with the policies that are followed by that company, even though there are certain legislative controls over its operation, and that the policy of a company which is set by a board of directors has something to do with how the operations of that company are carried out. It seems to me that is the crux of the matter about which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was speaking. For the minister to attempt to throw up this smoke screen about the pipe line still being in Canada and therefore under Canadian jurisdiction is to beg the question entirely.


Mr. Wylie:: The majority of directors are going to be Canadians; by statute, they have to be.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: So they have to be in the loan companies.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I would suggest that across this country there is a genuine and increasing concern, particularly among the working people who are dependent upon the operations of industries of various kinds for their jobs, their incomes, for the maintenance of the stability of their homes and the welfare of their children, over the fact that more and more of the industrial policy of this country is being made by and is under the control of people who are outside of it.
When that condition prevails, where you have Canadian industry subsidiary to the operations of its counterpart across the line or under the control of people whose first loyalty as citizens is to another country, situations are going to arise in increasing measure whereby the welfare of the Canadian working people will be pushed to the sidelines in the interest, first of all, of the profits of the people who direct the private enterprise. Second, when it comes to a choice between the welfare of the working people in this country and those on the other side of the line, those in control quite naturally and properly are going to give their prior loyalty to the interests and welfare of the people in the country to which they belong. That, I submit, is a real and legitimate cause for concern on the part of hon. members of this group, and one which we certainly should put forward in connection with the proposal under discussion.
The minister has attempted to list some of the objections he sees to the proposal which this group has made that a project of this
[Mr Barnett.]

magnitude, which is in effect a national public utility, should be under the ownership and direction of a crown corporation. He has attempted to list some of the objections which he feels would prevent him from-as I recall his words-"grasping the nettle of public ownership". I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that I still have not been convinced by what the minister has had to say on that score.
The first objection, of course, was that apart from the deal which he is proposing, no pipe would be available. Well, in reply to that I would say that two things become evident. The first is that if no pipe is available for the construction of a utility of this kind in Canada, we are today reaping the seeds of the mismanagement or lack of management in the approach to this whole pipe-line question which has rested on the shoulders of the government over the last five years. Second, and apart from that, it is an admission that someone is holding a gun to the head of the government. Surely the minister does not expect the members of the Canadian parliament to welcome a situation wherein anybody is holding a gun to the head of the government, nor can we be expected to approve of a situation under which that possibility has been allowed to develop.
Another objection which has been raised is in connection with the policy it is suggested is held by the government of the province of Alberta or, as suggested by the hon. member for Peace River, the oil-producing interests. There again I suggest a situation is revealed which, if it is correct, is completely intolerable to self-respecting Canadian citizens and hon. members of parliament. No group of private interests, oil-producing or otherwise, and no single provincial government in Canada should be allowed to hold a gun against the heads of the rest of the people of Canada.
If those things are true then I would suggest there can be only two explanations. One is that the minister has lacked the courage to face up to the situation, a thing I would hesitate to suggest. The other is that over the course of the last few years the minister has not had the vision to foresee that this kind of situation was developing, and he did not take the proper action in the face of it.
Another objection brought up by the minister and elaborated upon to a certain extent by the hon. member for Peace River-and this relates specifically to the proposal that the pipe line should be a publicly-owned utility-was that the owners of the pipe line were going to be caught in a price squeeze between the producers on the one hand and the consumers on the other. Perhaps there might have been an excuse for that point

last February when, as they will recall, they made a number of delaying motions of one kind or another, but when nevertheless an agreement was reached that the subject matter of that bill would be referred to a standing committee of the house where it did receive a very thorough discussion.
I am rather surprised that in the light of their experience last year and in the light of the kind of support they had last year for having what was known as the international rivers improvements bill referred to a standing committee of the house, this year they have not seen fit to support the idea of having this bill sent to a committee where it could have received proper and adequate study.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: You are only a new member; you will learn.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: One can reflect upon the situation that exists in this house, and in the light of the kind of approach that was taken by the hon. member for Macleod last night one can say that in view of the fact that the Social Credit group is playing footsie with the government party, if I were to-


William Duncan McKay Wylie: We would rather play footsie with them than play it with the communists.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You are using the same tactics.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If I were to follow the tactics that were employed last night by the hon. member for Macleod, in the light of this association, this playing footsie, I should be getting up here today and suggesting that I expect any day to hear that the premier of British Columbia is offering a cabinet post to the leader of the Liberal party in British Columbia. That makes just about as much sense as the kind of thing the hon. member for Macleod said in this house last night. I would suggest also that perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be well advised to have regard for the source from which the only support he has received in this house is coming, outside of that which is being given to him by his own followers, because it has become only too apparent to me that the members of the Social Credit group in this house seem only too willing not only last year but this year, to lend support to any proposition that is going to sell the birthright of the Canadian people for a mess of potage.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: You are nuts.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: And in so doing they appear to be only too ready to end up by backing any provincial government, be it that of British Columbia or of Alberta, which is about to do that kind of thing.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: He has the rope; all he has to
do now is hang himself.
29, 1956	4419
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If I were home in British Columbia-


Ernest George Hansell: You had better go there.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: He will stay there, too.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -I would not be very much surprised to see this kind of proposition being brought forward, because out there we are becoming used to this kind of thing under the leadership of the political maverick who is now premier of British Columbia. We scarcely lift an eyebrow any more when somebody brings in a proposal to give away valuable natural resources, a valuable part of the heritage, or the wealth of the Canadian people. But I must confess that I am still at the stage where I am rather surprised to see that sort of thing being brought in by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Last year he did take some action which, as is well known, was supported by the members of this group, to prevent the implementation of what quite frankly I and my colleagues considered to be a harebrained scheme that was going to be implemented by Mr. Bennett, the premier of British Columbia, with his colleagues, Mr. Bonner and Mr. Sommers, to name only some of them. On that occasion the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a statement which I think still stands. On February 4 of last year he made these remarks, which will be found at page 871 of Hansard:
It will be the duty of the government of Canada to make sure that the short-run advantage is consistent with long-term planning.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have listened to some of the statements made by the minister in this debate, and the best I am able to say about them is that there may be some minor short-term advantage in what he is proposing to the house but, in my opinion, certainly this proposal is not, to use the minister's words, consistent with long-term planning.
I was rather surprised that again last night the minister should reiterate what he had previously said, and which had been seconded and repeated by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in his speech, about the control remaining in Canadian hands because the pipe line was being built in Canada. He went on to repeat a long list of controls that were exercised by the board of transport commissioners, by the governments of the provinces, by the power of the government over export permits for gas, and so on.
I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has obviously missed the whole point that my leader attempted to make in regard to this matter of Canadian control. Nobody in this house has disputed the fact
4418	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
In any event, we are faced here with a patchwork solution which is part private enterprise and part public enterprise. Not only do we have a patchwork solution but we have had a patchwork procedure. The minister in his enthusiasm, and I think perhaps that is the key, because the minister is an enthusiast, felt he had to get this thing done and he found it was slipping out of his grasp. He not only got himself involved in a patchwork solution in order to get his result, but he has forced on this house a method of procedure which is also patchwork and wholly undesirable.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I recall, Mr. Chairman, that quite some time ago now the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich was speaking about this bill and the pipe-line construction. He then drew to the attention of the house the fact that the passage or otherwise of this bill was not going to make much difference to the amount of natural gas that was going to be available on Vancouver island. The inference one could probably draw from his remarks at that time was that not many of his constituents or mine were very greatly concerned about this particular pipe line.
However, I have had one or two communications indicating that the situation in that respect has been changed. Perhaps the best example is a telegram which I received yesterday morning from the officers of the local union to which I happen to belong. Perhaps a little facetiously they suggest:
Request you ask "Santa" Howe to loan us $10 million to build a hot air pipe line from east.
I bring that to the attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman, to indicate that as this situation has developed, the question not only of a pipe line but of parliament itself seems to have become increasingly involved in this debate and is becoming of concern to the citizens of Canada even as far from Ottawa as Vancouver island. So, Mr. Chairman, I am quite happy to rise for the first time to take some part in this discussion.
During the course of this debate there have been various people quoted on a variety of subjects. I have a short quotation here which I should like to give to the committee at this time. It reads as follows:


Mr. Blackmore:: .. .We are not staging a filibuster, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce unfairly suggested-


Mr. Tucker:: It is a good imitation.


John Horne Blackmore: -on Friday, February 11, as reported at page 1100 of Hansard. I am really astounded that after the very small amount of discussion we carried on, our opposition should be talking about a filibuster. It indicates that in Canada parliament has fallen to a contemptibly low level when people cannot talk any longer than we have talked about a matter of the importance of this bill without having a smear made against them.


That, Mr. Chairman, is a quotation taken from the remarks made on February 22, 1955, by the hon. member for Lethbridge, as found at page 1417 of Hansard for that date. Having read that, I must say I am rather reminded of the contribution, if one could call it that, which was made to this discussion last night by the hon. member for Macleod. I am reminded of his speech by the last phrase which I quoted from the hon. member for Lethbridge, in which he says:
. . . we have talked about a matter of the importance of this bill without having a smear made against them.
Last night the hon. member for Macleod made one or two references, and I listened to him carefully, to people whom he described as communists.


Ernest George Hansell: I did not say that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am not suggesting whom he described as communists. He described some people out in front of the building as communists, and a number of other people. I would simply like to say that I happen to have had a little bit of experience in fighting communists a few years ago when the union to which I belonged was controlled by communist leadership. I want to say also that as a result of that experience I have a little bit of acquaintanceship and knowledge of what are often referred to as communist tactics and the communist approach. In the speech which was made last night by the hon. member for Macleod, I had no difficulty whatever in recognizing the use of the kind of tactics which, of my own knowledge, I know only too well are employed by communists, the technique of the smear and the big lie.
Having had some experience in dealing with people who are professionals in the use of those tactics, I can only add that I feel the hon. member for Macleod has quite a bit to learn; that his technique, to put it mildly, is rather clumsy, and that if he were to go to the Lenin institute and take a finishing course he might be more successful in fooling more of the people in Canada than his remarks last night are apt to do.
To come back to the remarks of the hon. member for Lethbridge of last February, I am reminded that not only the hon. member for Macleod but the leader of the Social Credit group, the hon. member for Peace River, at the outset of their speeches dwelt with the question of the filibuster which they accused the opponents of the present measure of carrying on. Because of that fact perhaps I should point out to them that there are some differences between the situation that prevails now and the situation that prevailed

What would make sense? I suggest that if Trans-Canada, who so confidently asserted their ability to build this all-Canadian natural gas pipe line were asked to perform, that would make sense to me. If they were asked to perform or forfeit their permit, that would make sense. Whether or not they will or whether or not they can is something the minister has probably concerned himself with over the last many months. I am sure he has been concerned about whether they can.
I have suggested that perhaps they do not want to, that they are not interested unless they can get gas across the border at Emerson. That is natural. The controlling interest in this company, the Tennessee company which appears to be making the decisions as far as the Trans-Canada company is concerned, want to distribute Alberta gas in the midwestem states.
As soon as they came into the picture last .year the minister should have been on notice that there was trouble ahead, because here was this Tennessee company seeking to displace the natural purchasers of surplus gas in that area, the established distributing companies, Northern Natural, Peoples and others. Trans-Canada is making an attempt to displace them in going before the federal power commission for that purpose. Anyone who knows the economics and the control of public utilities as well as the minister does might well have been on guard, knowing that the federal authorities were not going to have an open and shut case before them but that they were going to have the most strenuous opposition to this project of Tennessee.
Even after the northern Ontario section was agreed upon the minister should then have been aware of the fact that his difficulties were not over. It has been said that the import of gas at Emerson by Tennessee will never be approved, and that may be so. But another warning was given in a report which the minister is certain to have read. I refer to the report of Clarkson, Gordon and Company dated November 18,	1955,
which states:
It would, therefore, appear desirable that further consideration should be given to the development of a plan of action to be adopted in the event that the company's plans should fail.
That was the company's plan under which the northern Ontario section would be built with the assistance of the Ontario government and of this government. There in November of last year was a distinct warning. If this project were to fail or were to depend upon the availability of pipe and the government were to be presented, in order to get something done, with demands of the kind that are embodied in this bill on the part
29, 1956	4417
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of Trans-Canada, it seems to me that the government if it had been alert should have developed some alternative means of dealing with this project.
I should like to have seen the government at that stage explore the possibility of bringing pipe from the United Kingdom. It seems to me that with as much wheat as we have to sell, the difficulty about exchange and the difficulty of the United Kingdom in obtaining dollars, if the government is going to use public funds in any way in connection with this proposition and there is no pipe available in Canada, it would have been a natural trade arrangement to import pipe from the United Kingdom as an offset to our sales of wheat to that country.
Now, if what I have said is correct, it would make sense to cancel this contract with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. It would make sense to me, if that were done, to afford other Canadian companies-there are 22 that have been incorporated-an opportunity to build the pipe line. Some of them have the capacity, but whether they have the power is another matter. Canadian interests should be given an opportunity to carry on from the point where the others have left off. I do not think the government is lacking the power to bring that about. They could make an arrangement with Trans-Canada which would make the work of Trans-Canada available to their successors. It seems to me that would make sense.
We do not know, we are not in a position to say, but the minister says there is no other private company which will undertake the building of this line. We have heard of several and we should like to investigate those. It is for that reason we wanted this matter sent to a committee. Whether or not there are such companies, it seems to me it would make good sense to ascertain that fact and to really make sure there are no other Canadian interests capable of doing this work before we go on to the next stage which we have advocated as a policy, that is the use of public funds to build the line.
We have not advocated public operation of this system. We have agreed that if it cannot be constructed by private capital, then the project should be undertaken for the good of Canada as a whole and the construction should be undertaken as a public enterprise. That is not a difficult thing, either, to bring about in a sensible way. The Trans-Canada scheme is there, and it could be taken over. Before we go to that stage, because of the many complications that are involved we should like to be satisfied that it is necessary.
4416	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Mr. Tanner's answer was:
Oh, no, no, it could not develop upon that but that would be helpful to us in the early years . . . We feel it is not essential but we feel it is helpful . . .
So there we have the early promise, when this liaison between Trans-Canada and the government began, of construction of a line on an all-Canadian route without assistance. Then we have the next step when Trans-Canada found either that it had promised more than it could perform or than it wished to perform.
I raise that point because Trans-Canada, as has often been pointed out in the course of the last two days, is owned 83 per cent by three large United States corporations all interested in the transmission of oil and gas, namely the Tennessee Corporation, Gulf and Continental and their subsidiaries and it may be questioned whether their real interest in Alberta gas or western gas is not the imposition of that gas into the United States, and whether they have any serious intention of bringing gas to eastern Canada for the benefit of Canadians. If they had any serious intention of doing so, it is fairly evident that corporations with those resources could do it if they wished. So when they fail and come to the government for help, one is justified in questioning the wisdom of getting mixed up in a complicated arrangement that is neither private enterprise nor crown corporation but a confusing mixture of the two.
That was the situation that arose out of the first arrangement for the development of the northern Ontario section, which is part of this bill. But that has been worse confounded by the addition of another part of this bill which provides for the lending of money to build what is called the western section of the line, so that you have a mixture of ideas and a mixture of purposes and nobody can determine from this legislation what its real intent is and what it will lead to.
Several conjectures have been made, but I think it is a fair conjecture to say that the minister who said that he would never be party to building a line that started nowhere and ended nowhere is doing exactly that with this bill. He will have a 34-inch pipe line starting at the Alberta border and running to the vicinity of Winnipeg, and that is all there is to it. Here is $80 million to do that. What happens then? This bill does not say. This bill does not provide that.
This bill sets up a northern Ontario corporation. It would be much better called something else. It is not a northern Ontario corporation. It begins with a western pipe line, or a western section. It is at least a mid-Canada crown corporation or a Canadian crown corporation. It is a misnomer to call


it a northern Ontario corporation, because it does not provide within its terms for the construction of the northern Ontario section. It only provides for this loan of $130 million, enough to build the western section and not enough in addition for the northern Ontario section. That is all the minister will have, as I say, a pipe line that begins nowhere and ends nowhere. He has a gap in Alberta from the producers, a gap from Winnipeg to the United States border, and he has a gap from Winnipeg to the Ontario border. There is not enough provision for building in northern Ontario, at least not in this bill.


John George Diefenbaker: East is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet.


Mr. Michener:: That is correct. At least it is not clear from this bill how east will meet west or how those gaps will be closed. That is the sort of patchwork policy we have presented to us as the epitome of this great government's national fuel policy, with questions innumerable unanswered, of which I have put only a few to the minister; I hope he will attempt to deal with them.
In any event, whatever may be the disposition of this bill, it is not clear what will be accomplished by it. I think it is proper that those of us who would like to see this project done in the right way-because we realize that it is important-should question the way in which it is being done. The minister and others may say, "What do you suggest?" The opposition are often asked to suggest a solution. Mr. Chairman, so far we have had only one day in which it has been possible to ask questions of the minister and to obtain information in the course of considering the government's policy, and it is not to be expected of any hon. member of this house that he should find out the alternatives and suggest them in positive terms. However, I should like to suggest what would make sense to me.
This is a project in which I think every member of this house believes. Certainly I do not yield place to any member in my desire to see this great reservoir of natural gas made available for use in Canada as far as possible. I think that is a common objective. We are not to be represented as trying to oppose the right solution of this very important project. It is not a problem that will be solved only for ourselves; it is a problem that will be solved for the future. It is therefore important that the right solution should be found. On that account I say we want the right solution now. We are concerned about having this job done, but we are concerned about having it done in the right way at this time.

has taken its part in regulating the distribution of oil. But now the government is concerned with bringing another fuel into competition with that same oil, and that will be the effect of introducing gas particularly for heating purposes in the eastern cities, where oil has become very largely used because of its convenience.
Then we have another field which perhaps should not be left unconsidered; that is the possibility of producing power from uranium. The government may have some views with respect to when hydroelectric power or heat or other energy from uranium will become commercially practicable and usable in Canada, and I should think this has a very important relation to the construction of a natural gas pipe line which will not be amortized within 20 or 25 years or perhaps more. If uranium should become a cheaper and better fuel within that time, then perhaps that is a consideration. We have heard nothing about that. When the minister speaks again on the bill I hope he will deal with these questions involving the relationship of natural gas to other fuels.
I come now to the natural gas transportation problem with which the bill attempts to deal. Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba all have natural gas in some quantity, Alberta and British Columbia particularly. Natural gas has long been known and used in Ontario, but there it was a matter of provincial concern. Now the problem of taking gas across provincial boundaries arises, and it is purely a transportation problem. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the government is up against a real test of its leadership when it attempts to solve this problem, and when it puts before the house the bill now before us the government must be judged with respect to whether it is giving that leadership in a national fuel policy which this country deserves.
It is necessarily a federal problem, as I have said, and it is basically a federal problem because the power of federal finance is the power which is capable of meeting the deficiencies of private finance if that is necessary. We all know that since the war the centralization of revenues in the federal government and the limited resources of the provinces have put a greater onus on the federal authority to give a lead and to make finances available for the development of Canadian resources and for the development of a fuel policy such as we are considering today.
In 1949 the pipe-line bill was introduced by the government, and in part 2 we have a recognition of the problem of transportation of oil. That part provides that oil pipe lines
29, 1956	4415
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation shall be common carriers and shall carry oil from the west to the east or to the Pacific coast as common carriers. There is also provision for tariffs and rates. But at that time at least the sponsors of the bill did not consider that natural gas was of sufficient importance to give it the same status. So we have part 3 of that legislation referring to natural gas but not providing that the operators of pipe lines shall be common carriers, and making no provision with respect to rates.
Therefore we see that the approach as long ago as 1949, when the policy was first developed, was one of a secondary position for natural gas. Subsequently under that legislation parliament incorporated 22 companies with the power to build pipe lines, and from that point on it seemed that the government was prepared to let nature take its course for the next two or three years. The government did accept and all parties in the house concurred in a policy which required natural gas pipe lines to be built over all-Canadian routes. We have that limitation and the limitation which the minister has indicated with respect to the export of gas, restricting it to gas which is not needed for present or future Canadian purposes. That is the additional development in respect of policy up to the point at which we have arrived today.
Now we have this bill, and it seems to embody the government's thinking with respect to the solution of the problem of transportation of natural gas. This at least is the first official measure that has come before the house. We have heard many announcements in the course of the past three years, and to some extent we have been able to follow the negotiations, manipulations and various mach- ' inations of those who have been interested in the transporting of natural gas. In 1954 the transport board gave authority to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, and from that time to the present it appears that this corporation has been the chosen instrument of policy of the government and still is today, notwithstanding its repeated failures.
It is perhaps worth while to draw attention at this moment to the terms under which Trans-Canada Pipe Lines undertook to per- , form if it were given a permit by the transport board. These words have not been quoted; they appear in the transcript of the hearing before the board of transport commissioners on June 15, 1954. Counsel for the company had Mr. Tanner, the president of Trans-Canada, in the box and asked him this question:
In your opinion is the development and construction of the Trans-Canada line dependent upon the success or failure of that application before the federal power commission?
4414	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation have a crown corporation for the purpose of lending money, not to Canadians but to non-Canadians.
I suppose we have to consider this bill as an expression of the national energy and fuel policy of this government in so far as it relates to natural gas. For at least five years and for most of ten prosperous years since the war Canadians have become aware that the discovery of natural gas in great quantities in the western provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, and more recently in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, has made available a great potential source of energy and power, not only for the areas in which the gas has been found but for other parts of Canada and adjoining areas in the United States.
In order that it may be used this new fuel must be moved from the part of Canada in which it has been discovered to the industrial and more populous areas of the country. Therefore it must cross provincial boundaries, and in doing so it becomes a subject of federal jurisdiction. How the federal government handles this problem is of great importance to the Canadian economy. It is of great importance to Canadians today and it will be of equal importance to generations of Canadians to come. We must examine this bill in the context of a national fuel policy. Its relationship to other sources of energy is certainly relevant when we examine the government's plan for making natural gas fit into any national energy policy.
We do not need to concern ourselves with wood any more, as that has ceased to be more than a local heating fuel, but I suggest that coal is of great importance and the relationship of this fuel to coal is something which the government must have under consideration. I should like to quote what one of our leading public servants, Dr. G. S. Hume, director general of scientific services, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, had to say about the importance of coal in February last:
But it has been recognized that coal still fills the largest part of our energy requirements, and that the continued existence of coal mines is essential for national security.
No one would doubt that. I should like to ask the government what is their idea as to the relationship and effect of this program with respect to natural gas upon coal mines and coal distribution. All members of the house have seen the brief submitted by the coal dock owners' association and are aware of their concern over what will happen to the distribution of coal in the event that natural gas is made a competitive fuel through the use of public funds.


Under the policy of the government the transportation of coal itself, both from Alberta and from the maritimes, has been subsidized by public funds. Here public funds are being used to introduce another fuel into central Canada in competition, and I should like to ask the government what it has to say about that. So far there has been no mention of that matter, but it seems to me it is relevant to know where the government stands on this very important issue.
Another source of energy is hydroelectric power, and the importance of an energy policy for Canada is well illustrated by the results of the use of hydro power in our three great industrial provinces, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. What has put those provinces ahead in industry is the use of power. One has only to consider that every person residing in those provinces has at his disposal through hydroelectric power the equivalent in slave labour of 10 or 12 people working for him day and night and that thereby his production and standard of living are increased. It is in line with that great increase in our material well-being that hydroelectric power has been so important.
However, hydroelectric power has been developed in some places through a public corporation at public expense and there the consideration arises, what price is to be charged the consumer? Are you to charge the user of hydroelectric power on a graded scale depending on his distance from the source of the power and the length of the line that reaches him, or are you to charge the same price everywhere in one system of generation and distribution? That is a problem that will arise in connection with natural gas distribution under public auspices. What will be the policy of the government? (Translation) :
What will the good people of Montreal say when they find that the gas is selling cheaper in Toronto than in Montreal?
(Text):
Out of deference to my constituents I have to use the language which I hope they will not understand. Now, Mr. Chairman, the next fuel of importance is oil. We have seen oil, largely from the same source as natural gas, transported to the Pacific coast and to eastern Canada at no expense to the public treasury but by private initiative and by pipe lines privately financed and built. Therefore the government has not the same responsibility there as it has in this case, where it is intervening in the project. Those lines are a matter of federal concern because they cross interprovincial and in some cases international boundaries, and the government



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the government as yet reached a decision with respect to whether or not it intends to contribute to the completion of the dams under the Upper Thames valley authority?


Jean Lesage: No, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert McCubbin: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich asked me a question with respect to chrysanthemum culture developments at the experimental station at Saanich-ton, British Columbia, and I wish to make a short statement in answer to that question.
It has been known for many years that the flowering of chrysanthemums may be controlled by manipulation of daylight. During the late forties it was conceived that this light and dark response reaction might be applied to schedule blooming on a year-round basis. Canadian producers who pioneered in this type of production soon encountered problems and studies were initiated at Ottawa to meet those problems.
At present the year-round schedules are so precise that the work of the horticulture division is directed toward the study of various factors affecting flower bud development.
At present roughly 70 per cent of the year-round production is located in Ontario, and this is relative to the portion of greenhouse space in Canada.
The possibility of greatly increasing year-round chrysanthemum production on Vancouver island depends on expansion of greenhouse space suitable for year-round production, and whether it is able to compete with local production on the very competitive eastern market.
Improvement in the quality of outdoor -grown chrysanthemums may be achieved by protection of the open blooms, and the experimental farm at Saanichton has conducted studies using plastic covers for this
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation purpose. This will undoubtedly reduce the losses that growers experience during a rainy fall.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I direct a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, this time to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport. Will the parliamentary assistant bring that report to the attention of the proper authorities so they may make provision for additional aircraft to move this anticipated greater trade?



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 28, consideration in committee of Bill No. 298, to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 4-Body corporate.
Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss clause 4 of Bill No. 298-


Mr. Boucher:: Attaboy!


Daniel Roland Michener: -which creates a crown corporation, or at least refers to a crown corporation which is for all purposes an agent of Her Majesty in the right of Canada. It is perhaps ironic that the ban which has prevented us from discussing clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the bill should be lifted at this point to give us a glimpse of the intention of the government to create another crown corporation.
This clause is precisely the same as the clauses in 20 other statutes of this parliament which have created crown corporations, most of them during the tenure in office of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I should think most of them at his instance. We have before us the prospect of a 21st crown corporation. Those who are card players may wonder whether it is a case of 21 or bust. In any event this is No. 21.
The Auditor General in his report refers to 9 proprietary crown corporations and 11 crown agencies. The proprietary corporations consist of the C.B.C., the farmers' loan board, Eldorado Mining and others, while the agencies cover a wide range of activities many of them normally provided by private corporations such as the lending of money to Canadians, mining, transportation, manufacturing, and aviation. These represent a broad field of government activity in business through crown corporations. Now we are to

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



SUGGESTED RELIEF TO TAXPAYERS THIS YEAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Borden Hamilton: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of a report in the Toronto Daily Star indicating a slow-down in business in the United States, and in order to help prevent the same thing happening here, would the Prime Minister consider affording some relief to taxpayers this year instead of waiting for an election year?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is not the Prime Minister who affords relief to the taxpayers. It is on the recommendation of the government that a budget is proposed, and we made the recommendation to the house that we felt was in the public interest this year.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Trade and Commerce say whether there has been any correspondence, confidential or otherwise, between himself and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines at any time since May 8 of this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, my offhand report is no, but to answer the question I would need to search my files. I shall be glad to do so and answer tomorrow.



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES    CONTRACT FOR PIPE FOR NORTHERN ONTARIO SECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the report appearing in the press this morning about a contract for pipe for the northern Ontario section of the trans-Canada pipe line, is it the understanding of the government that the northern Ontario section is to be built by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines or, on the other hand, if the measure now before the house passes is it to be built by the crown corporation that the government proposes to set up?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It would be built by the crown corporation, of course, under contracts for which tenders would be called in the usual way.


George Alexander Drew: I would draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the press


announcement today indicates a contract has been made for the purchase of pipe for the northern Ontario section by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have not seen that report, nor did I inspire it.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In using as its design for the new 4-cent stamp, which I have before me, a line of elk standing in military precision, is the government trying to portray as a national symbol the Liberal party toeing the line in parliament?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Milton Fowler Gregg: Yesterday, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) asked me a question to which I wish to make this reply.
The Fraser-Brace employees involved at Magog, Quebec, were refused insurance benefits under subsection 2 of section 63 of the Unemployment Insurance Act on the grounds that they had lost their employment due to a labour dispute and had not proved that they were not participating in the dispute. However, an appeal of this refusal to the board of referees on behalf of 40 claimants has already been lodged.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour, based on his comment that an appeal has already been lodged on behalf of 40 of the 78 employees. My question yesterday was whether the minister would see that the claims were processed as quickly as possible. Did the minister intend to intimate that such is the intention of his department?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I can assure the hon. member that the board of referees will process them just as quickly as possible, and whatever conclusion is arrived at on behalf of those 40 will apply to all of them, if they are of the same grade or class.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Will the question of restoration measures for the Atlantic salmon fisheries be on the agenda or be discussed at the meeting of the international commission on the northwest Atlantic fisheries being held in Halifax June 11 to June 16? If so, what measures are being recommended by the Department of Fisheries to make sure that the Atlantic salmon does not disappear from eastern Canadian waters?


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. The international commission on the northwest Atlantic fisheries is composed of ten nations which exploit the fishery resources of the high seas in the northwest Atlantic. As the Atlantic salmon is anadromous and is exploited only by a Canadian commercial fishing fleet, it does not come within the terms of this commission.
As far as the second part of the question is concerned, the federal government and the governments of the Atlantic provinces are all very much concerned about the great pressure which is now exerted on the Atlantic salmon fishery. That pressure is due to the increasing industrialization of the Atlantic provinces, with the greater use of streams for industrial and domestic purposes, and also the great increase in the number of fishermen who are trying to catch Atlantic salmon, that increase being due to the ever-increasing prosperity of the country; more people have more time and money to go fishing.
Since our governments are concerned, the federal government and the four Atlantic provinces some three years ago formed an Atlantic salmon co-ordinating committee, the chairman of which is the deputy minister of fisheries for Canada and the members of which are the deputy ministers of the appropriate departments in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I will be prepared to give a full account of their activities when my estimates are back before the house. In the meantime I can send to the hon. member the current copy of our fisheries publication Trade News, which has a 16-page report of the activities of that committee during the current year.
Inquiries of the Ministry BRIDGES



SHIPPIGAN, N.B.-INQUIRY AS TO COMMENCE- MENT OF CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Restigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will he please inform the house if and when the necessary permit will be given to allow the Lameque-Shippigan Bridge Corporation to commence work on the Ship-pigan bridge?


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member for Gloucester has been speaking to me almost daily on this project, which he considers of great importance. The fact is that an application has been made under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It was returned for certain amendments which need to be made before it can be accepted. To the best of my knowledge it has not yet come forward again.



EDMUNDSTON, N.B.-REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport. Has the C.N.R. stopped sabotaging the Edmundston bridge project, and will the necessary permit be given now?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is getting his information, but I can tell him that the C.N.R. has never been guilty of any sabotage.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Borden Hamilton: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Does the report of lay-offs at the Orenda plant at Malton indicate any change of policy in the government buying of fighter aircraft?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no change in the policy of the government. My department purchases the aircraft that are needed by the armed services. The lay-off, I understand, is the result of a cutback in the production of F-86 aircraft, which are becoming obsolete, with a consequent drop in the requirements for engines.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to all three questions is no.



CRIMINAL LAW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders ol the day:
Frank Exton Lennard: In the
absence of the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister this question. Because of the criminal assault on two little girls at Carlisle, near Hamilton, Ontario, yesterday, can he state when it is intended to bring down the McRuer report?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that report will be brought down just as soon as it is available.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Unfortunately I did not give him notice but possibly he will have an answer to it. If not, he can take my question as notice. Has the minister received any report on the damage to the wharf at Ma-Me-O Beach in Alberta up to the present time? If so, when may we expect repairs to be made to it?


Robert Henry Winters: I have received no report as yet. I have asked the engineers of the department to investigate.



BEECHWOOD PROJECT, N.B.    ALLEGED REFUSAL OF LOAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would he be so kind as to tell the house what line of reasoning compels his government on the one hand to bulldoze this $80 million loan to this American 34-inch gas pipe outfit, while on the other hand refusing a $45 million loan to the people of New Brunswick to develop urgently needed hydroelectric power?
Righl Hon. L. S. St. Laurenl (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a question that should be dealt with on the [DOT]orders of the day.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can you deal with it at all?
(Mr. Diefenbaker.]



HAMILTON RIVER, LABRADOR    STATEMENT ON REPORTED DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) asked a question and referred to press dispatches of that morning which indicated that consideration was being given to the development of power on the Hamilton river in Newfoundland and the possible transmission of that power to Sept lies on the north shore of the province of Quebec.
As I indicated at that time, the development of power on the Hamilton river is purely a provincial responsibility and, of course, so is the transmission of power from Labrador to any other province. However, I asked officials of my department to get in touch with the officials of the British Newfoundland Corporation and have obtained the following information.
The British Newfoundland Corporation was founded in 1953 to carry out exploration of the unknown mineral, waterpower and wood resources on the island of Newfoundland and in Labrador. The waterpower potential of the Hamilton river was early recognized as one of the principal assets of the area. Thus, an intensive survey and accompanying engineering investigation were conducted through the summer seasons of 1954 and 1955, with subsequent engineering studies which have given very encouraging results.
This survey was done for the corporation by Montreal Engineering Company Limited and the Shawinigan Engineering Company Limited and, because of its unique features, it was described to the Engineering Institute of Canada's annual conference in the technical paper referred to in the press dispatch mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. Since any such survey was bound to take into account possibilities for transmitting the electricity, a transmission line to Seven Islands was selected for examination as a typical case.
The present status of the investigation is understood to be that the corporation is ready to proceed with construction of a power plant as soon as there is definite demand for sufficient power to justify the project and as soon as the financing can be arranged. I understand that the stage has not yet been reached for any decision to be made on where the power could or should be utilized.


Howard Charles Green: Thank you very much.

Tuesday, May 29, 1956



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The procedure followed by the government has been represented as an effort to prevent debate on the pipe-line bill, and I want to state emphatically that as soon as the motion before the committee is disposed of, further debate on the bill can begin and there will be all this week for it to be continued on its remaining stages.


John George Diefenbaker: The retreat from Moscow.


George Alexander Drew: Do I take that to m&an, Mr. Speaker, that the debate will not be continued on the committee stage?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker. I say that, as soon as the motion before the committee has been disposed of, debate can begin either on clause 4 or, if hon. members wish to postpone clause 4, on clauses 5, 6 and 7, those we had thought would be the operative clauses on which it would be most interesting to have the debate develop.


George Alexander Drew: While welcoming any acceptance of the need for debate on the committee stage, I would point out that the appropriate procedure would be to revert to clause 1 because-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Alexander Drew: -unless we have dealt with clause 1 and particularly with clause 2, discussion of subsequent clauses becomes almost meaningless.


John George Diefenbaker: Complete the retreat from Moscow.



STANDING ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. Harrison.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave,
seconded by Mr. Diefenbaker, under standing
order 26 to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the subordination by the government of the office of chairman of the committee of the whole to serve the partisan interests of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition has submitted a statement of what he considers a matter of urgent public importance in which he refers to the subordination by the government of the office of chairman of the committee of the whole to serve the partisan interests of the government. This motion could not in any shape or form be construed as not being a reflection on the holder of the office of chairman of the committee of the whole, and it is doing by indirection what must be done in a direct manner. Citation 432 of Beauchesne, third edition, reads as follows:
If a member wishes at any time to call in question the conduct of the chairman in the execution of his duties, the proper course is to give notice of a motion to that effect in due course.
Citation 225 of Beauchesne, third edition, is to the following effect:
Certain matters cannot be debated save upon a substantive motion which can be dealt with by amendment or by distinct vote of the house, such as the conduct of the Governor General, the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, members of either house of parliament or judges. These questions cannot therefore be discussed by way of amendment nor upon a motion for adjournment by way of standing order 31.
That is now standing order 26.
For the same reason, no charges of personal character can be raised save upon a distinct and substantive motion to that effect.
The corresponding paragraphs in Bourinot pertaining to the same subject are to be found at page 397 and page 177. Although I am not called upon to give advice, perhaps I could say to the Leader of the Opposition that with respect to a matter such as the one contemplated in his motion the procedure is to put a notice of motion on the order paper and as soon as the 48 hours' notice as required by standing order 41 has been spent the matter is placed upon routine proceedings under "motions" and must be dealt with as soon as routine motions are called. It is a debatable motion. I would therefore submit that the proper way in which to deal with the matter would be to follow the course which is indicated must be followed.

July 6	 98.21
July 21	 65.65
July 22	 28.50
July 26	 972.00
August 10	 53.28
September 13	 121.01
October 7	 20.44
October 27	 12.92
November 7	 33.55
November 7	 10.03
November 8	 172.35
Questions
November 9	 8.02
November 16	 13.95
1956: January 5	 120.34
February 16	 12.92
February 23	 20,000.00
February 24	 2,525.00
March 5	 101.20
March 6	 1,349.60
March 13	 179.20
March 13	 2,522.75
* As amended.



HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
VOLUME IV, 1956	[DOT]

[Stage Direction]
EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., O.A., D.S.P. queen's PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1956
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 28, 1956