1956-06-05

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1956-57

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1957, was presented by Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew):
That the address of His Excellency Dr. Sukarno, President of the Republic of Indonesia, delivered before the members of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada on June 5, 1955, together with introductory and related speeches, be included in the House of Commons Debates and form part of the permanent records of this parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(For text of above see appendix, pages 4777-82.)


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake) moved:: That the second report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on May 28, be concurred in.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I wonder
whether the hon. member would explain to us the intent and purport of this report, concurrence in which he has just moved. If it relates to matters having to do with exemption from the standing orders of the house because of the late presentation of petitions and so on, I think we should know what it involves, what petitions have been presented and what bills are affected by the motion, and what would be the result to the bills if the motion is allowed to carry, and I think indeed that the hon. gentleman should explain his motion.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: I move that we proceed to the orders of the day.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am still on my feet. I have not yet given up the floor.


Walter Edward Harris: I thought you had; I am sorry.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thought the hon. member for Meadow Lake was about to explain the meaning of his motion so the house might be properly seized of it. If the hon. gentleman does not intend to do that, I move the adjournment of the debate.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter Edward Harris: I move, Mr. Speaker, that the orders of the day be now read.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thought you wanted to have a debate on this motion.


Mr. Knowles:: The leap-frog trick.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the third reading of Bill No. 298, to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, and on the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to notice given yesterday and in accordance with the provisions of standing order 33, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris):
That the debate on the motion for the third reading of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, and on any amendments thereto, shall not be further adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Dufresne:: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote. My pair was absent from this house. I was paired with democracy.
But there is some consideration being given by thoughtful people, and I include everyone in that, as to whether or not it may be possible that the decline in the demand for motor cars in the United States may lead to a further decline in the demand for other goods, and that there is a possibility-I shall not say for a moment whether or not I share it-that this could lead to a decline in business activity such as we had in the late months of 1953 and early 1954. If that were true; if that should be the result, and bearing in mind that with one exception this country has for obvious reasons always followed some months after the swing in business activity in the United States, I suggest that it would be wholly desirable to get on with this job to make sure there is employment against the possibility that there might be a decline in other demands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: How about buying
Canadian pipe?


Walter Edward Harris: On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, should it be the case that we would not be facing difficulties of that kind, then I suggest that instead of a decline we would have an increasing demand for employment, we would have an increasing demand for fuel and energy, and for that reason the sooner we get natural gas to the industrial markets of the east the better in order to supply that


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am told that I have about six minutes left, and I do not suppose I shall take all of it because I intend to avoid the pleasantries in which we engaged last evening. At the conclusion of my remarks at that time I said there was one final reason I wanted to give why this bill ought to be passed. That reason is one which arose earlier in the debate 'and was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition the other evening.
In the course of arguing that it was possible that pipe could be obtained elsewhere than through the particular means we have in mind in this bill, the Leader of the Opposition said that the demand for steel-I think I
demand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Rowe:: You could blow either hot or cold through that pipe line.


Walter Edward Harris: My concluding remark will be that in either event we feel that we are right in urging that the pipe line be begun this summer and not on another occasion.


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to the hon. member for Eglinton that no one from the Social Credit party has had a single word to say yet.
am quoting him fairly accurately-had fallen off so noticeably in the United States in the past few months that there would be a supply of steel available for the production of pipe at this time. Without engaging in a dispute with respect to whether that conclusion is right, let me point out that there has been a marked decline, as he said, in the sale of motor cars in the United States, which is a quite considerable part of the steel market. Nevertheless, as my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce pointed out, it still is not possible to get steel, as he said, for these particular purposes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Last night, Mr. Speaker, you know they gave their place to the Minister of Finance so he would have 40 minutes, and that was done deliberately. The Social Credit group had their opportunity to take their place last night, and they gave up their turn to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member be good enough to resume his seat for one second, because if he will I am sure we can clear the air on this particular point. The hon. member for Eglinton rose and the hon. member for Peace River rose as well. Two

members cannot be on their feet while a debate goes on; that is certain. I have pointed out that according to the book here no member of the Social Credit party has spoken yet. However, it strikes me that if I weigh the pros and cons it would seem that at this moment the hon. member for Eglinton should have the floor, following which I will see the hon. member for Peace River.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the final stage in a momentous but sad debate. We in the opposition, make no mistake about it, will fight to the end, to the last minute of debate. As long as we are permitted to raise our voices in this house they will be raised in denunciation of this measure and of the tactics the government have employed in pursuing their success. We arrive at this point thanks to a succession of eight closure motions on the part of the government-eight of them! Altogether in Canada's history before this time there have been but six. We have now witnessed eight closure motions in the last 16 days, and last week we saw a point reached where the government did something that Right Hon. Arthur Meighen years ago said would be done only by an "insane and vicious" government. This government has abundantly deserved that prophetic description.
We have seen the government resort to measures that were denounced by Laurier and King as torpedoing parliament, reducing parliament to a travesty; and yet the decadent successors of Laurier and King have imposed this measure eight times in 16 days. Yes, and yesterday the Prime Minister, in moving third reading of the measure, reached surely the high point in arrogance when he said in effect, and indeed in words, that in his opinion no debate was required at this stage, and said also yesterday that there is in effect no right on the part of members to speak in this house on points of order or questions of privilege.
Well, sir, debate is required on this measure, a great deal of debate that has been denied by the arbitrary decision of the majority led by the government. But while debate may be stifled here in this chamber, believe me, sir, the debate before the people of Canada will not end tonight. I would, sir, that I had as much time as the Minister of Finance had last night and today to talk about the points he sought to make in his speech. He has resorted to the most fantastic aggregation of points that have no bearing, no validity, no weight that I am sure any member of this house in all his ingenuity could devise.
4691
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
We have seen here an astronomical perversion of the truth. Sir, by the time this debate is over and the government members have spoken there will not be even breath left in the bleeding and mangled body of truth. However, I do appreciate one thing the Minister of Finance said last night when, in deriding the allegations that there had been a gag, he said that I had spoken more than 20 times in total in the various stages of debate. At least 1 thank him for making that kind of correction of the astronomical perversion of the facts in which the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) engaged, as found at page 4603 of Hansard.
The fact is that some of us have been expected to take part in the discussion on numerous points of order that have been raised from time to time in this debate. Rather than speaking 20 times, I have spoken about five times. Thanks to the government's closure I had only 20 minutes on the resolution stage. Thanks to their closure I had no opportunity to speak on second reading. On clause 1 in committee I raised one question of order and supported another. On clause 3 I spoke to a point of order. On June 1 I spoke to a point of order. That is all. That is the sort of thing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) seizes upon and tries to make the people of Canada believe, but no one in this house is going to be misled by talk of that kind. He puts it on the record and hopes the people of Canada are going to be misled by that kind of nonsense.
The Prime Minister said yesterday that there was no cause for debate, that the bill came out of committee in the same form in which it went in. Yes; but why? Because the right to discuss, the right to introduce amendments was denied by the arbitrary course of action taken by the government. That is the only reason, Mr. Speaker. I had an envelope full of amendments to introduce on practically every section of the bill, but there was no permission given by this arbitrary majority, who care nothing for the rights of parliament or the rights of members of parliament.
But, Mr. Speaker, one thing is abundantly clear to the people of Canada as a result of this debate, and that is that the country has a one-man rule. It is not the Prime Minister. Everybody knows that. It is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He is the one-man ruler of Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: See him smiling.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker; that is the situation. The Prime Minister is not the ruler of Canada. He is just a weak man who has proven himself, in this debate as on other occasions, to be just putty in the
4692	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation hands ol the strong man, the one-man ruler of Canada. Where are all these other members of the government? Not one of them has stood up here. Every one of them has bowed the knee to Baal.


Walter Edward Harris: Nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) has bowed. There is not one who has stood up to the strong man, the one-man ruler of this country.


Walter Edward Harris: Nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well and truly did Queen Eleanor, widow of Henry II of England, say, "Of all the passions, lust for power is the most enduring". We have seen abundant evidence of that fact here, Mr. Speaker.
Some day there may be an opportunity- and for the sake of democracy let us hope that it will come very soon-to lay before the people of Canada the information that has been withheld from them, to expose what has been going on behind the scenes in recent months, to give to the people that information which has not only been denied by the government to the House of Commons but has been denied by the ministers to one another. We have seen the Minister of Trade and Commerce denying even to the Prime Minister information that any responsible minister would have felt it necessary to share with the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, it may be simply the old Boston influence. You see, apparently only some cabinet ministers are entitled to information.


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: Oh, quote the facts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is an example of the old verse written by John Collins Bossidy:
And this is good old Boston,
The home of the bean and the cod,
Where the Lowells talk to Cabots
And the Cabots talk only to God.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend wants to go back 48 years in order to declare me to be a second-class citizen-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Earl Rowe: Nobody ever called you a second-class citizen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is nothing wrong with the people of Boston.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not a word was said about second-class citizens.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member be good enough to address the Chair? Would other hon. members be kind enough to listen to the member who has the floor and not interrupt him without his consent?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is the second time the Minister of Trade and Commerce has repeated that false accusation in the course of this debate. I did not say that he or any other person born outside of Canada was a second-class citizen.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why keep referring to it, then?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Because I think there is something in the minister's mentality that is not to be harmonized with any sense of responsibility to Canada. It was not the minister's birth, but it is something in his upbringing and his mentality.


Mr. Winters:: You are alone in thinking that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall remember that remark.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You will remember what?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall remember your remark.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hope you will. I shall make a few more remarks this afternoon that I hope you will remember, even if you are a one-man ruler.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Address the Chair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On this matter of pipe lines, Mr. Speaker, let me make the position abundantly clear again. We have done so before, but for the record I repeat that we in this party have supported the construction of the pipe line from Alberta to eastern Canada. We were the first party to support the construction of that line by an all-Canadian route. Indeed it took us two years to convert the Minister of Trade and Commerce and persuade him to accept the idea of an all-Canadian route.
The franchise was given to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines on two promises, first, that they could finance the construction without government aid, and, second, that they would build into eastern Canada and deliver gas there before delivering it into the United States. That later was modified to make it simultaneous. However, the basis was that they were not to put gas into the United States before they put it into eastern Canada.
Here we are in 1956. What of their performance? Not one inch of pipe has been laid. The company says it has no finances with which to construct the line. Yes, these companies backing this Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company, which have billions of dollars of assets, say they cannot finance this construction. These people cannot or will not build the easiest portion of the line across

the prairies. Theirs is a record of default. That default has been overlooked and forgiven by the government. How forgiving they have been! When I asked the Prime Minister last week what would happen if and when default occurs next April, he could not tell me what the government would do. In the light of their record I think they can be expected to overlook that default also.
Mr. Speaker, here is a government which, in the face of default, has taken no action. Has it thrown open to others the opportunity to come in and bid on a project of this kind, and show what they were prepared to do? No; the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with his big stick, has frightened off all others. The government three months ago decided to relieve this company of the burden of constructing the 675-mile line across northern Ontario from the Manitoba boundary to Kap-uskasing. As if that were not enough, they are now going to finance the construction of the easiest leg of the line.
There we have this hybrid scheme, part public ownership. In fact all that is to be done is to be done by public assistance. We will have two portions which will not be connected, and we have no assurance that they will be connected or that a line will be constructed from Kapuskasing to the market in eastern Canada. Now the money to build that line in western Canada is to be taken from the crown corporation that was to build the line in northern Ontario, thereby depriving that corporation, to the extent of $80 million, of the capital needed for construction in northern Ontario, and thus delaying it. Let some of the hon. members from northern Ontario stand up and acknowledge that fact before their constituents. Yes; that is true.
For whom does the government of Canada turn somersaults and produce these favors? A company that is owned and controlled 83 per cent by United States capital, not by small United States investors, but by big interests quite capable of looking after themselves; and all through the piece Canadians have been driven off. We do not know how many others would have come forward if they had not been afraid of the big stick of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Mr. Speaker, the government tries to defend this as an example of free enterprise. What free enterprise is left in this Trans-Canada Pipe Line? This rugged mileage in northern Ontario is to be built by a crown corporation at the expense of all the taxpayers of Canada. The easiest part of the line, in western Canada, is to be built to the extent of $80 million, at the expense of the people of Canada. That is not my idea of free enterprise at all. It is public aid; and 67509-2981
5, 1956	4693
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation they are going to scoop the treasury. Now we have it made perfectly plain that the Minister of Finance is going to be there to help them do the scooping.
This has been put forward also as an example of United States investment. We heard that shockingly misleading speech by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) about 10 days ago when he said, without any facts to justify the statement, that the Conservatives were against United States investment in Canada. There was no greater distortion of the truth in this debate than that statement. What is a distortion is to picture this as an example of United States investment. It is not United States investment in this corporation. It is an example of United States control without United States investment. It is an example of United States profit without United States investment.
How did this come to be recommended to the house? This government have so little confidence in the merits of this measure they did not leave it to free debate. They stuff this measure down the throat of this parliament. Merit, yes; what a mongrel scheme! It is neither flesh nor fowl nor good red herring. Where is the urgency after five years of delay, for which this government shares responsibility with the Texas promoters of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines? There was an attempt by my leader on January 12 to send this to a committee. It was ignored by the Prime Minister then, and on later occasions when the proposal was made. On March 15 there was a proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition but it was ignored by the government. Now, because a deadline has been imposed by the Texas promoters, not only does the government knuckle down to them on the demand of the one-man ruler of Canada, but they expect this sovereign parliament of Canada to throw its responsibilities to the winds and knuckle down to these United States promoters.
Well sir, something prophetic happened in this house a few evenings ago during a vote on a closure motion, which may have escaped the notice of hon. members because they could not see. When the vote was being taken on one of these closure motions the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who sits directly across from me, was reading one of these paper-backed novels, and its title was "Texas Spurs". Believe me, Texas spurs have been driven into Canada to satisfy the ambition of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Where is the rule of law? The rule of law in this house has been destroyed. What is the sense of talking about the rights of minorities in Canada if the rights of the minority of this
4694	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation House of Commons are to be torn to shreds and destroyed by that oligarchy opposite.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Will the hon. member for Eglinton-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will tell you what explains this phenomenon. It could not be explained otherwise in a country that cherishes democracy even when this government has betrayed it. There are three instances that will explain what has happened. The first occurred in 1911, a great year in Canadian history. The Conservatives in that year in this House of Commons blocked the reciprocity bill by a prolonged discussion. This government did not want a repetition of 1911. They did not want prolonged discussion even on a measure as important as anything that has come before this House of Commons since 1911.
Then in 1955 there was the debate on the iniquitous demand of the government for a continuance of the absolute powers contained in the Defence Production Act. We defeated that iniquitous demand for absolute powers because we were able to keep this debate going long enough to arouse the country. When the country saw the issue at stake, its response was clear and definite and the Prime Minister had to capitulate. It is a repetition of that which this government is seeking to avoid now by the application of this iniquitous closure.
From that time to this, the defeat inflicted by democracy and the working of parliamentary methods upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce has rankled with him, and he has been looking for the first opportunity to settle accounts with the Canadian House of Commons. He is doing it now because the government has kowtowed to him, as have all hon. members opposite.
Finally there is a third explanation. You can find it associated with the one-man ruler in that speech he made at the opening of this session, when he called upon Liberal members in this house and the other place to toe the party line. This is the man who said, "If we wanted to get away with it, who would stop us?" Well, the majority could have, but they submitted weakly. I apply those words of Shakespeare, "O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
There is nothing more favourable to be said for the Social Credit group in this house. They have been the willing accomplices of the government all the way through. There have been to date in this debate 60 divisions, and the Social Credit group has been with the government on 59 of those. Of the eight closure motions to stifle debate and deprive members of this house of their democratic


rights, to prevent them from discharging their, responsibilities, the Social Credit group has voted with the government on all but the very first. Their batting average is something over 98 per cent with the government on this issue. I say they have forfeited all claim to understand and defend the freedom of parliament.
I have said before that this government has no mandate to do what it is doing. In the face of the pretext the Prime Minister has given the house for not taking this issue to the sovereign electorate of Canada, I say that the real reason and the only reason that prevents the people of Canada today from having the opportunity of passing on this issue that is their right is cowardice on the part of the government, moral cowardice. This parliament has been discredited by all that has happened. All sense of respect on the part of the people of Canada has gone. It has been destroyed by the actions of this government.
Sir, our policy was explained in full detail last night by my leader. In the amendment he has put before the house, we asked for consideration of this matter at various stages.
I understand that I have just two minutes left. We are now in the very final stage of the situation in which the government has put us, the third reading. Only a few hours of debate remain. We have been deprived of the opportunity we should have had in the interests of all the people of Canada to put this issue before the searching inquiry of a committee of the house, and to give others an opportunity to put forward their proposals. Well, sir, it seems now we are narrowed down to a choice between two courses, the government's iniquitous proposal to hand over to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited great sums of public money to help them out and public construction of the entire line. We choose the latter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am extremely sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him his time is up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I just say this?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is this quotation:
None have gone about to break parliaments but in the end parliaments have broken them.
Those are the words of Sir John Elliott in 1628, during the impeachment of the Duke of Buckingham. Let the government take due warning.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend who just finished speaking, and who hung on like a puppy to a root to the last word, reminded me very much of the minister's sermon. The caretaker found the notes on the pulpit after

the minister had left. He discovered, as he went down the side of the pages, little notes saying, "Gesture here", "Pause here", "Wink here", and then at a certain point he read, "Case weak, yell like hell".
My hon. friend's speech this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, was just as phony as any speech he has made and every speech he has made in the course of this debate. There is a certain ring of truth when a person is presenting the truth. One does not have to raise the roof to get over that sense of truth. My hon. friend tries to wrap himself in an aura of righteousness. Everybody is wrong but him. Everybody has been presenting untruths but him. My hon. friend has been presenting untruths for so long he does not recognize one when he hears it, and he does not recognize the truth when he hears it. Like his leader he keeps repeating certain untruths until by repetition they become truths.
I want to say a word now about the amendment moved by the official opposition. I could best sum it up by reading into the record a very short poem by the poet laureate of one of the opposition parties in this house. It is entitled, "How do you Drew?" It reads:
He wobbled right
He wobbled left
He wobbled in the middle
And in between he huffed and puffed
With lots of wind and piddle
But in the end he made the bend
Without a serious schism
And ended up (who would have thought?)
With Tory socialism!
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is because the amendment is nothing but Tory socialism that we will not vote for it. We shall vote against it.
I would like to take just a minute to say something about the character of the speech of the hon. member for Eglinton. Just one more thing; I do not intend to read a long editorial into the record, Mr. Speaker. I think that is wrong.


Mr. Ellis:: You could not find one.
5, 1956	4S95
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation ashamed of it. I am satisfied that as the days go by and those who have carried on the debate in that fashion think about it, they will be ashamed of it.
I would like to say something at this time to indicate why we support third reading of the pipe-line bill. At the same time I would like to reply to a few statements that have been made in the course of the debate that are entirely untrue. May I begin by saying that we have not looked upon this bill as a perfect one by any means. We realize that it has its imperfections. Nor have we felt at any time that the way the government has handled the whole matter has been without error. We have criticized the government for the long time it has taken to come to grips with the urgent need for providing a market for surplus natural gas from our province, the province of Alberta. Only the federal government can do it because a market has to be sought' outside of our own boundaries, and the federal government is the only body that can deal with this important source of energy. But when the government finally came to grips with the matter and took action to provide a market for our gas, we welcomed that action and supported it consistently right from the beginning.
- 

 - oaja umi we voted tor
the government 59 times out of 60. I have not counted them-perhaps he is right-but ;/ramc,not, ashamed of that for one moment, Mr. Speaker. We supported the government those 59 times because we thought they were doing something in the interests of this whole country. Not only that, Mr. Speaker-we did so because we are fully aware of what happened in some other countries when the minorities, through blocking tactics and other means, destroyed democracy, and we are attempting in our way to be consistent
m our support of true democratic government.
year-1" Fleming: You did not think so last


Solon Earl Low: I could find one; I have one in my hand right now, a good one, one that it would do my hon. friend a good deal of good to read. This is from the Regina Post, and is headed:
A Sad Show for a Once Great Party
I want to quote only one point because it is so typical of the kind of debate to which we have listened here in the last three weeks:
The violence of personal attacks; the run of nasty, snide remarks as to other people's integrity; the spleen of frustration that is father to the theatrical attempts at martyrdom; all those are things designed to nauseate the Canadian, to make him thoroughly ashamed.
That has been typical of the debate, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, and we ought to be


Solon Earl Low: We say that the bill before the house for third reading may not be perfect; it may not represent the best plan for providing a satisfactory market, but it is a good bill and it does provide a pipe line into which we can turn the gas that is now going to waste, and we shall vote for third reading of the bill for these reasons.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, we decry waste of any kind, and especially waste of a valuable product of our resources. At the present time, and for a long time, there has been great waste of this valuable fuel in Alberta owing to the fact that it is the lifting power for oil. In our efforts to produce
4696	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation oil to try to make Canada as self-sufficient as we can we have had to bring gas to the surface for which we can find no use, at least for some of it. There is, and will be, a greater waste as the days go by if we attempt to increase the production of oil, try to step it up. We do not want to see that. When a pipe line is built the waste can very largely be stopped and oil production can be stepped up without wasting the gas. That is one of the great reasons why there is urgency for the provision of a pipe line.
The second important reason why we support the pipe-line bill is that we are anxious to see our country's economy strengthened by the widest possible development of our resources. We have in Alberta huge gas reserves. Indeed, we are on the verge of very large further exploration programs that will undoubtedly result in the discovery of more reserves, and if we can find a market for the gas soon there is no doubt in my mind that we shall be able to increase the visible reserves by not less than a trillion feet a year for the next 10 or 15 years, and that means money in circulation; it means a stabilizing influence on our economy; it means more employment, and it will strengthen the economy of the whole of Canada.
It also means, Mr. Speaker, the development of a petrochemical industry in our province. It is not generally recognized that we do not just take the natural gas out of the ground, turn it into a pipe line and send it to a market in the east or in the United States. What is done is to put it through a separation plant and take out of it everything but the methane. It is only methane that goes into the pipe line. Butane, propane, sulphur and all these other things are taken out of it. They are left in the province and there they contribute to the development of a petrochemical industry. There is a $100 million industry waiting to get under way that cannot get under way until we find sufficient markets for the methane to make it possible for us to produce the by-products, to separate them from the gas and use them in a petrochemical industry in the province.
Is it not conceivable, therefore, and is it not a point of logic, to say that with a pipe line supplying the gas to a satisfactory market in eastern Canada and in the United States we would be able to strengthen the economy of Canada greatly through the development of a petrochemical industry in the province of Alberta? For years we have been short of sulphur; for years we have been on the verge of having to shut down a good many of our paper plants because of the fact that


we did not have enough sulphur. It looks to me as though we ought to be doing everything we possibly can to increase the production of that very valuable chemical and see that it is made available to our Canadian industry. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, those are important things to keep in mind.
Not only that, but the minister and others have already pointed out that there are serious fuel shortages expected in certain provinces of Canada. Manitoba is one of them. They experienced a serious shortage last year, and they expect one this year unless something is done to provide them with a supply of gas. There is a shortage in Ontario. Something has to be done here. If we can get the pipe line built and gas coming into northern Ontario it will give a tremendous impetus to resources development in the northern part of this province, that simply cannot go on unless they get this source of fuel.
Another important point that ought to be kept in mind, Mr. Speaker, is that the sooner we can get the gas through the pipe line and into the markets of eastern Canada and the United States the sooner will it be possible for us to begin a substantial saving of United States dollars that now go to buy United States fuel to be brought in to this country. That in itself is of tremendous value to us, and helps every part of our economy. That argument should appeal especially to the logical mind because of the very serious imbalance of trade we have with the United States today. Every single dollar we can save helps us that much. Every dollar's worth of gas we can export into that country will help to close the imbalance by that much.
We are not afraid, Mr. Speaker, that our natural gas resources will fall under the control of United States buccaneers, as they have so often been called. Let me point out once again what both the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance have so well said before. I should not have to say it at all, but it appears we have just to keep repeating these things to drive them home to some people who do not want to see the truth.
The fact is that this gas does not belong to the federal government at all. That gas belongs to the people of the province of Alberta. That gas could be brought out of the ground and used internally in Alberta without the consent of this government and without asking for any help at all.
The people of the province of Alberta have set up a natural gas conservation board which has complete control of the supply of gas and the allocation of that gas anywhere within or without the province. When I say "without the province" I refer to export.

That board can close oft the supply of gas it they feel that control is being taken away from us by some other country. I have had sufficient experience with the natural gas conservation board to be able to stand here and on my responsibility assert that they will never allow that important resource to come under the control of any United States buccaneers or anybody else outside Canada. My hon. friends ought to know that.
The Leader of the Opposition, for whom I have high regard, has repeated time and again during this debate-I should not dignify it by calling it a debate; during the discussion of this bill and the agreement with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines-the statement that we are wantonly transferring control of valued resources to a company 83 per cent of which is owned in the United States. That is not so, and no one can bring detailed evidence to prove that it is so.
Let me quickly assert the facts connected with it, and I am sure my hon. friend will recognize the truth of what I say. The partners in this venture, that is the partners in its beginning, in its organization, are Canadian Gulf, which owns vast resources of gas in the province of Alberta and which is owned by British American, a fairly large portion of which is held by Canadian shareholders. Then there is Canadian Delhi, and there are a large group of Canadian shareholders in that company. There is Tennessee Gas and Canadian Hudson Bay, a large portion of which is held in Canada.
Those who have fully investigated this matter assert that not less than 25 per cent of the equity capital already provided is owned by Canadians. I am talking about the equity capital which is the capital put up by the partners for the purpose of getting the company organized and under way and upon which the financing of the future is based. That is the only part of it about which it can truthfully be said the majority is held in the United States.
When financing is completed we hope that fully 60 per cent or more of the company will be Canadian-owned. Let me tell you that the Canadian people will have that opportunity; if they have venture in their souls, if they want to risk some capital they will have a chance to own and control 60 per cent or more of this company. If they do not take advantage of it that will be the fault of the Canadian people themselves. Notwithstanding anything the opposition has said, it is not true to say that the company is owned 83 per cent by Americans.
I see my time is about up, and in closing I want to say just one word about something which has been bandied about, especially by
5, 1956	4697
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart). The hon. member spoke at a rally in Toronto on Saturday which was referred to by the Gazette of Monday, June 4 as follows:
Mr. Stewart said Friday's chaos in the House of Commons was "nothing" to what will happen there tomorrow.
My hon. friend has never been known for the temperate way in which he expresses himself. My hon. friend is very likely to incite to violent debate or violent anything. I submit that his remarks sometimes could well be set down as inciting to violence. According to this report the hon. member went on to say:
Premier Manning, of Alberta, who refused to sell gas to a government-owned pipe line "is soaked in infamy".
I defy the hon. member for Winnipeg North to bring one shred of evidence to show that Mr. Manning ever said at any time or indicated that he or his government would not sell gas to a government-owned pipe line. Let him bring on his evidence, and if he does not the people of this country are going to brand him for what he is. It is unfortunate that such things as that are bandied about, especially on a public platform where there is no representative from Alberta to deny it or to set the thing right. He will not make that statement in this house.
This is the same man who says we are giving away a very important resource to United States buccaneers. This is the same man who has been the chief proponent in this assembly of a world government. This is the man who has advocated that Canada should part with her sovereignty and give over control of everything to a supranational government. I say to you that it is about time that he tried to be just a little consistent. I do not mind him standing up in Windsor, Ontario, and saying that Social Crediters have yellow streaks down their backs a mile wide. If the hon. gentleman, big as he is, wants to find out whether we have he will have a good chance any time he wants it.
Let me say just one word further. I listened to the leader of the C.C.F. speak last night. He played to the galleries. That has been the policy of the C.C.F. from the beginning. They have displayed histrionics all through this debate. He said that members of the Social Credit party have been speechless. Let me ask him what he means by speechless.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am obliged to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.
4698	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, from the very outset of this debate considerable attention has been paid to one issue, perhaps more than to the pipe line itself;
I refer to the question of parliamentary rights.
I feel that sufficient has been said by hon. members on this side of the house with respect to the government's conduct during this debate, but I should like to make brief reference to the role of the government supporter or backbencher during the course of the pipe-line debate in parliament. I noted an article in the Toronto Telegram of Monday, June 4, entitled "They Let the Boom Down" by Judith Robinson. The first paragraph of this reads:
Epitaph on a free parliament. The Liberal member for Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, was on the first plane out of Ottawa, Saturday morning. Going home for the week end, he said. Back on Monday to vote the pipe line through. He laughed. "No more horsin' around with rules," he said. "We fixed that. Kickin' us around. That's what they were doin' and we'd had enough of it."
"We don't hafta take it, see?" the Liberal member for Qu'Appelle, Mr. Mang, M.P., said, "and we aren't gonta."
"So we decided we'd let the boom down on them yesterday and that's what we did."
"We let the boom down and we let it down in a big way. See?"
I think that pretty well typifies the attitude of government supporters, including the "socred" supporters of the government, throughout the course of this debate. They have applauded every motion of closure and have tried to howl down every speaker of the opposition who said anything uncomplimentary about this bill or the way the government was railroading it through parliament.
This particular private member is quite proud of himself because the boom was lowered. I suggest that the hon. member had nothing to do with lowering any boom. The government decided when the boom was going to be lowered. I think the average government backbencher is as ill-informed about what the government proposes to do as any member in the opposition.
It is not only the member for Qu'Appelle who has made certain statements in this house which do not bear very close examination. The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart), speaking the other day, as recorded on page 4604 of Hansard, had this to say. I draw to your attention that he was referring to a debate on agricultural problems in Canada. He said:
That is why I am suggesting tonight I only wish that we had used closure before, and I hope we use it more often in the future.
I think that statement offers a warning to the farmers of this country that they may


expect any time agriculture is going to be discussed-and I feel certain that the hon. member for Charlotte was typical of the Liberals of this house-he is going to demand and expect that closure be used to choke off any discussion on agriculture. During the course of this session we have had several important debates. I think the great wheat debate earlier in the session was of extreme importance to the welfare of this country, as is, of course, the question of the pipe line. Yet when the government is so unsure of itself and so anxious to hide the details of legislation that it will use closure at every step in order to choke off discussion, then I submit that what the hon. member for Charlotte has said may well be taken as warning. That is why I feel that the battle being put up by the opposition in this house against the government procedure is extremely important for the future of parliament.
There have been other comments, but I do not want to take up the time of the house in referring to them. One of the Toronto members, as recorded on page 4597, used smear tactics. We are more or less accustomed to hearing these from the "socreds", but it is a little distasteful to hear smear tactics coming from the mouths of the so-called Liberals, although this debate has indicated quite clearly that there is not a shred of Liberalism on the other side of the house or they would rebel against the authoritarian measures used by this government to ram the bill through the house.
There has been talk about haste. I have had occasion to look through Hansard for the past few years, looking through the debates on the address and the budget debates and various other debates in parliament. I do not recall any member of the "socred" group demanding that the government get on with the pipe line. I do not recall any Liberal shedding crocodile tears about the wastage of gas in Alberta. I challenge any member of the "socred" group to state when he at any time in the past two years has insisted on the building of this pipe line. They sat by and did nothing until the chosen instrument of both the Manning government and this government had received from the government all they had asked for.
Last summer the Minister of Trade and Commerce went out to Calgary. He and his officials met the representatives of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. At that time he agreed on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada to build the northern Ontario section of the pipe line. One might have thought then that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines would have been prepared to go ahead with the project. No;

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
they wanted a still bigger hand-out from the taxpayers, and so they stalled around.
We know full well what happened. It was only when the government had not only promised to build a pipe line across northern Ontario but in addition had offered to provide $80 million of the taxpayers' money for their purposes that they suddenly decided they were going to go ahead and start this year on the pipe line. We have been waiting for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to go ahead for over five years. The "socreds" have been sitting by and doing nothing about it. The government supporters have been sitting by and have not criticized Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. However, as soon as Trans-Canada Pipe Lines feels it has got enough out of the taxpayers of this country so it will go ahead, the Minister of Trade and Commerce says, "This is going to go through by June 7 or else". That is the background behind the distasteful scenes we have witnessed in this house in the past few weeks, and all of it can be laid squarely on the doorstep of this government.
In the course of the debate we have offered alternative proposals. I think the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn), stated about a week ago that the premier of Saskatchewan had been silent. I wish to refer him and hon. members who support the government on that side of the house to a copy of the sessional paper brought down on February 21, which contains correspondence between this government and various provincial premiers. At that time the premier of Saskatchewan, in writing to the Prime Minister, pointed out this. I am not going to take the time to read the entire letter. Closure is in effect, and I must move along very quickly:
Like many other Canadians I am profoundly disturbed at the turn of events in connection with the construction of the trans-Canada gas pipe line. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the control of a vital natural resource is destined to fall into the hands of financial interests outside of Canada. I do not think that the people of Canada will view with equanimity the fact that a function so important to our economic development as the transmission of natural gas will to a considerable extent have been alienated from their control. I am concerned lest posterity charge us with having failed for the want of a bold and imaginative program on natural gas transmission.
He goes on further:
In repeated public statements I have made it clear that the Saskatchewan government is of the opinion that the trans-Canada pipe line should be a public utility with the government of Canada building the main transmission line and the province involved building the lateral transmission lines. From press statements I gather that your government is opposed to such a policy. I would like to suggest that as an alternative you might sound out the provinces involved to see if they would be prepared to enter into an arrangement
with your government for the joint construction and operation of the trans-Canada pipe line.
Your government has already expressed its willingness to enter into an arrangement with the province of Ontario for the construction of the unprofitable portion of the line which runs through northern Ontario. It would seem to me that having accepted this much responsibility there are sound reasons for proceeding one step further and constructing the entire line as a publicly-owned utility. By doing this the people of Canada would retain control of a vital natural resource and would have power to direct its usage in such a manner as to best advance the interests of the Canadian economy.
That was the letter sent by the premier of Saskatchewan to the Prime Minister of Canada, dated November 29, 1955. The Prime Minister made a reply to that letter, in which he said:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of November 29, expressing your fears about the private ownership of the trans-Canada gas pipe line and suggesting a conference of representatives of this government and yours and the governments of Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba to create instead some sort of agency owned, financed and controlled by these five governments to establish and operate a gas pipe line from Alberta to Quebec.
As no doubt you are aware, my colleagues and I have no preference in principle for public ownership rather than private ownership in business and we are prepared to consider in any particular case whether, and to what degree, governmental participation in an enterprise is in the public interest. In this particular case we came to the conclusion that some temporary governmental participation was necessary in the national interest in order to get the project started.
I would draw to your attention that the Prime Minister's concluding paragraph reads as follows:
This matter will undoubtedly be the subject of discussion early in the next session of our parliament. In these circumstances, I feel it would be improper of me to attempt in correspondence with you to anticipate the substance of that discussion.
I have no doubt that the points you raise will come up in the debates in the House of Commons and those speaking for this government will be quite prepared to explain the reasons why a course of action of the type you suggest was not followed.
We have waited for that explanation. I have not heard the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance or any cabinet minister or any private member on the government side or any of the spokesmen of the "Socred" party give any reasons why the Prime Minister refused to entertain this reasonable proposal put forth by the premier of Saskatchewan. The Prime Minister never had the decency to write a letter to the premier of Ontario and the premier of Manitoba. He ignored the proposition completely.
Then the government come before parliament and say that the only way this can be done is through this enormous give-away program to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. If the Prime Minister had the decency to send a letter to Mr. Frost and to Mr. Campbell, he
4700	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation could find out what they thought about this proposal, of course the government has been trying to suggest that the Ontario government is solidly behind them, and of course we know that is not true. The Minister of National Health and Welfare made a 100 per cent political speech the other night in which he said that Mr. Frost had made the statement and Mr. Porter had made the statement that the Ontario government was 100 per cent behind the federal government's proposal, but I note that a statement by Premier Frost to the conference held in the King Edward hotel last Saturday, as reported in the Toronto Telegram of June 2, was as follows:
Premier Frost says his own feeling today is still what he has previously stated it to be, that the pipe line is the sort of public utility undertaking that lends itself to public enterprise construction, either by the dominion government alone or by the government together with the provincial governments involved. But for reasons of its own the dominion government doesn't feel it wants to build the line itself either to operate forever or to lease or sell later to private interests. We must leave it to the dominion government and parliament to decide which way they'll get it here. We've agreed to make our contribution towards making sure that it comes through Canada all the way.
But at no time did the premier of Ontario ever reject public ownership. He never had a chance to reject it. The federal government did not make a proposal to the Ontario government that they enter into some sort of agreement to build the whole trans-Canada pipe line as a public undertaking. Oh, no; they simply went to the government of Ontario and said, "This is it, this is our chosen instrument, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. We are not concerned about your wishes at all. If you want gas it is going to be through Trans-Canada Pipe Lines or not at all." The province of Ontario was put in the position where it was forced to accept the second best proposal, the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines proposal.
I should have thought that the Prime Minister of Canada would have had the common decency to seek the opinion of the provincial premiers; but when my colleague the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) asked the Prime Minister a few days ago whether anything had been done respecting Mr. Douglas' suggestion that the provincial governments concerned might be consulted with a view to some sort of agreement whereby the line could be built as a public undertaking, the Prime Minister said that nothing had been done. He had not made any proposals to the provincial premiers. The government simply laid it on the line. They said, "This is it, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. This is our baby, and if you want gas through northern Ontario you are going to have to take our proposal or nothing at all."


I think the statement of Premier Frost is quite clear and indicates that two provinces, without ever having been asked by the government, are already on record as being 100 per cent in support of a proposal to build the trans-Canada pipe line as a public utility. Yet this government is completely blind to the realities of the situation and tries to create the impression that the provinces are not concerned. Neither the Prime Minister nor any member of his cabinet has ever said a word about the proposal made by premier Douglas. They have completely ignored it, and the people of Canada will of course be the losers as the result of this transaction.
Why should the province of Ontario not be favourably disposed toward public ownership? I suggest that the Clarkson, Gordon report makes it abundantly clear that under private enterprise they would have to depend on exports of gas to the United States in order to make it feasible. But the same report indicates that even without the export of gas to the United States the project would be economically feasible under public ownership.
That was a report prepared for the Ontario government. Yet the federal government has chosen to ignore this report, has chosen to ignore the recommendation of the premier of Saskatchewan, and has determined to go its own blind way selling out the interests of the people of Canada for the benefit of a corporation, ownership of which lies to the south of the border
I suggest that throughout the course of the debate the Minister of Trade and Commerce has made government policy quite clear. He has stated in effect that if the job can be done by private enterprise, then private enterprise should be allowed to go ahead and do it. That means, of course, that if private enterprise figure there is enough profit they will go ahead and do the job. If, on the other hand, private enterprise does not do the job then the government will step in. What the government proposes to do in the present case is to have the taxpayers of Canada put up the risk capital. If the undertaking turns out to be profitable they will then turn over the project to private enterprise on extremely reasonable terms. If it is not' profitable, then the public will have a white elephant on their hands. That is government policy.
There has been a great deal of talk about the alienation of natural resources in this country. We know that the great iron ore resources of the province of Quebec are being sold to people outside this country by the Duplessis government at a cent a ton, but at least Duplessis did not put up any money. He did not put up taxpayers' money to allow

them to come in and exploit the resource. The pipe line is, after all, the important thing because gas capped in the well is of no value unless there is a pipe line, and in this instance the government is not only alienating this resource of Canada but is adding insult to injury by using the Canadian taxpayers' money to aid a foreign corporation to do the job. You know, it is bad enough when you allow a burglar to enter and rob your house, but when you turn around and give him the tools to do the job that is the essence of pure folly.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that throughout the course of this debate we have emphasized the importance of proceeding with this project. We have argued over the years that we ought to be enjoying this natural resource in this country and that the pipe line should have been built. The government has allowed the company concerned to procrastinate, to delay, to deceive parliament for over five years. Finally when the government get down on their hands and knees before the company and have given the company everything it wants and the company is apparently satisfied now that it is getting enough out of the Canadian taxpayers, this same company turns around and says to the government of Canada, "All right; you will put this through before the 7th of June or we may back out."
Why should Trans-Canada Pipe Lines want to back out? After all they have been given at the hands of the government why should they want to back out? But the solicitude for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines does not extend to other areas. We in Saskatchewan have been urging the government for many years to proceed with the South Saskatchewan dam, a project that is going to involve the expenditure of some federal money. But no; no money is available for the South Saskatchewan dam. As far as the maritime provinces are concerned, the government turns a deaf ear to the many needed projects down there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am extremely sorry to interrupt, but I am obliged to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the house at this final stage of this most vexatious debate in the hope that it may be possible for a few minutes, at least, for all of us to be stripped of political or party allegiance and to speak to each other not as politicians but as Canadians. I take this position because of the axiom that loyalty to our country transcends the loyalties we owe to political parties and no doubt supersedes all personal and political exigencies. I hold with Disraeli, who said:
First comes my God, then my Queen and country, then my party, then come I.
, 1956	4701
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation With this as a background let us analyse briefly the positions that have been taken by the respective parties in the house and some of the things that have been said by their spokesmen. First of all I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are certain definite common denominators on which we all agree. Let us recognize these common denominators. Everyone in the house has agreed that a pipe line for Canada is vital, that a pipe line for Canada is needed, that a pipe line for Canada will help the future of our country. Of that there is no doubt. Not a single member of the house has stood up in his place to argue that the pipe line was not needed or would not be useful for our country. Hitherto, Mr. Speaker, members of the house were deluged with all forms of advice from the country when they opposed a project before parliament. We were accustomed to receiving briefs from chambers of commerce, submissions from boards of trade, petitions from labour unions, delegations, letters and telegrams. Not a word did anyone hear. There was no complaint from anybody. That told us clearly that not only the members of this house but the entire country without exception were in favour of having a pipe line constructed in Canada. Peculiarly enough, with this almost unanimous consent of the entire country, what has developed in this house? No one opposes it and yet this house was almost split in two and the country was almost split asunder on a matter on which we all agree. Peculiarly enough, as I said we seemed to differ on a very simple thing and that is the method of construction, the way it should be constructed.


An hon. Member:: The financing.


Leon David Crestohl: I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the method of construction is not anything that should tear this parliament apart as it almost threatened to do. For example, let us examine what our socialist friends say as to how they would like to see the pipe line built. They say, "We would like a pipe line built, we are in favour of a pipe line, but we want it built our way, the socialistic way, publicly owned". I can understand that, Mr. Speaker. The socialists at least are consistent with their political philosophy. As they always do, they follow their teachers: Karl Marx, Robert Ingersoll and later Norman Thomas, Ramsay MacDonald and more lately Clement Attlee. It is a position to take, and I can understand it. But I put this question to my hon. friends. Are they socialists first or are they Canadians first? What would their answer be to that question if they were asked it? Would they sooner see no pipe line constructed at all if it could not be constructed

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation on socialistic lines? If they say yes, once they say that they favour the pipe line but would oppose it only on the ground that it is not built according to socialistic philosophy, they would be placing their socialism and their socialistic philosophy far above the interests of our country; and that is something they certainly should not do. Of course they cannot answer in that way.
It is true that the minister said at one stage that if there is default-and the hon. member who just took his seat repeated it- the government could take it over. Our socialist friends promptly shouted, "Why wait? Why not do it now?" The answer is also an obvious one. This government is not composed of Liberals in a hurry. We favour private enterprise and we have not yet reached the stage that the socialists have reached.
What do our friends of the Conservative party say? They too take the position that they want a pipe line but they say, "We are not in favour of public ownership; we are a private enterprise party". They have thrived through history because they were a private enterprise party. The government is trying to make of this a private enterprise. Why do they oppose it? They simply say, "We want a pipe line but we want it built our way". That is understandable. I can go along with it. They would like to see it built with Canadian money, under Canadian ownership and Canadian control. But I put this question to them. If a pipe line is so vital and so necessary for the country would they say, "No pipe line unless it can be built with Canadian money and Canadian ownership," assuming that what the government is doing does not give them that? I do not think that the Conservative party, with their loyalty to this country, can consistently say that they would prefer to have no pipe line rather than a pipe line built the way the government intends to do it.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party have been told as clearly and as categorically as possible that there is no other way, that there is no better way, by which a pipe line can be built now. They were told by the premier of the province of Ontario. They were told by this government. They were told by the man whom they themselves labelled as the one man in the house who knows more about gas pipe lines than anyone else here. He has told them. The premier of Ontario has told them. The premiers of the other provinces involved have told them. Yet they sit back almost doggedly, almost capriciously, and say, "We want a pipe line but we will not let you build it". They too

are in that predicament, Mr. Speaker. Their joining the socialist party is in my judgment a forceful denial of all their principles up to the present time. They seem to be bouncing from one foot to the other foot, making one manoeuvre or another manoeuvre as long as they can prevent the building of a pipe line. That conduct is not consistent with the welfare of our country. Perhaps there may be other motives which drive them into this course of action. Perhaps they have their eye on the next election in preference to the urgent needs of the country. If that is so, if it is true that they have their eye on the next election and, with that object in view, have created or helped to create the commotion in the house, let me say this to them. They fall directly into the category so magnificently enunciated by that great political thinker and cleric, the Abbe Raymal, who said this:
Politics in practice too often means all for party, nothing for people; all for office, nothing for honour; all for power, nothing for progress.
I can think of no more suitable description of the Conservative party if it is true-and I do not accuse them of this-that they have their eye on the next election in preference to having their eye on the well-being of the future of this country.
I also have another brief quotation. J. F. Clark, a recognized philosopher, said:
A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of his country.
I believe that the two hon. gentlemen, namely the leader of the C.C.F. party and the leader of the Conservative party, in really doing a little bit of soul-searching, will recognize that, once there is that universal agreement across the entire country that a pipe line should be built, they should, even at this late stage, give their views and their approach to this national problem a second look. Basically, Mr. Speaker, I believe that they are concerned with the well-being of this country above all else, but I believe that they have this entire picture in bad focus and are following a distorted line of action.
It is true, Mr. Speaker-and unfortunately so-that the debate on the bill has produced a by-product, namely the question of closure as it affects democratic rights. This too, Mr. Speaker, has been placed in very bad focus.
I submit that the country should be told, not in a rhetorical fashion but in the simplest language, that closure does not prevent debate. If debate was prevented, then it was prevented not by the government. Closure, in its real sense, was designed to fix a limit on the time of debate and nothing more.


Mr. Churchill:: But after consideration.


Leon David Crestohl: Yes. To use the terms "guillotine", "choke off discussion", and similar inflammatory terms is to intentionally mislead.
Let me tell you that if closure is an undesirable rule in parliamentary procedure its removal could have come about in 1955 when we revised the standing orders. I should like to tell the house that the very men who spearheaded the attack on closure were members of that committee to revise the standing order. I should like to name the four whom I consider the ones who spearheaded the attack. They are the hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Fleming); the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton); the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). Now, Mr. Speaker, those men not only agreed to retain closure in our standing orders but they did something even more drastic. They introduced new closures into our standing orders that never existed before 1955. We never had closure on the throne speech debate; we never had closure on the budget debate. We were able to debate those two items as long as we wanted. These men who now complain about closure agreed in their own nimble minds to introduce these new terms of closure into a parliament in which they had never existed before. Today it is the very same miscreants who introduced closure into our house who are complaining about it.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that much criticism was levelled at the minister for having announced closure at the outset. Do you realize we know today when the budget debate next year will be terminated? We know now when the throne speech debate next year will be terminated. We know it now, we know it well in advance. What could be more reasonable, when a debate is to be limited, than that the minister gets up and says, now I limit this debate and I am telling you now when it will be terminated. I think the minister has done the house a service in telling us when this debate will end. I want to say that if it is a sin to impose closure, with the record of the Tory party being the first ones to introduce closure in this house and the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) was responsible for introducing it in the legislature, then let him amongst you who is without sin stand up and cast the first stone.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is a distasteful procedure, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has explained. There are other distasteful standing orders in our rules for administering the affairs of parliament. There is standing order No. 11 which says that a member is not entitled to vote on a question
5, 1956	4703
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation in which he has a personal interest. It is a distasteful move to make but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre introduced such a resolution. I am sure he did not find it pleasant but it had to be done and he did it. There are other standing orders such as the one to ask a member to withdraw because his conduct is in question. There is standing order 34 to name and dismiss a member. These are all unpleasant standing orders. I must confess that I was not happy to stand up and vote for the dismissal of the hon. member for Eglinton, but it had to be done. He defied authority and for the proper administration of parliament it had to be done. If there are these standing orders they have to be considered.
I see no reason, Mr. Speaker, for our having gone so far afield in creating an issue by questioning our democratic rights. I say that it is improper indeed to deny the rights of a minority; I would defend those rights with my very life if that were needed. But I realize that it is equally improper to frustrate or nullify the rights of a majority by tactics and manoeuvres that are made in bad faith. I say in closing, Mr. Speaker-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order. I think the hon. gentleman should not use the term, "made in bad faith", with regard to the proposals put forward from this side of the house. That is imputing motives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: am sorry, but I was not following the hon. member's remarks too closely. If the hon. member did accuse another hon. member of bad faith, I am sure he will withdraw it.


Leon David Crestohl: I have not accused any individual member. I say that what has happened, the delaying tactics, in my opinion amounted to conducting the business of parliament in bad faith. That is not an accusation against anyone directly. I say it is a misuse or an abuse of our standing order. Of course, hon. members had the right to do the things they did. They had the right to use the standing orders in this book, but the government also has the same right to use the standing orders in the very same book.


Mr. Nesbitt:: And to change them if
necessary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him his time has expired.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: One of
the many myths which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has tried to foist on the Canadian parliament and the Canadian people recently is that the opposition has been able
4704	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation to obtain the information which it sought about this important matter. Of course, anybody who has been in this house or in the galleries knows that nothing could be farther from the truth. We have had information denied to us on every occasion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are two key questions upon which this whole matter revolves. The first is, why is this government building the northern Ontario section of the line for this company? This company received its franchise on the express understanding that it would complete the whole line unassisted by the government. Representatives of the company appeared before the board of transport commissioners on numerous occasions year after year and reaffirmed that assertion. Then, suddenly, the minister announced that the government is going to build this section of the line for the company. He made no explanation why the company is unwilling to live up to the undertaking on which it was awarded the franchise, and the company of course has said nothing on its own behalf. This is one of the great mysteries of the last few years.
It is obvious, I think, that the reason this government is building this section of the line for the company is that the wealthy United States interests which control Trans-Canada Pipe Lines have got the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) wrapped around their little finger. They have duped him into doing what they want him to do. Can you not see this whole thing taking place in the board room of one of the wealthy United States companies which own this Trans-Canada pipe line? You see the boys sitting around cutting up a melon in advance, and the talk, of course, gets around to the desirability of getting this government to build the northern Ontario section. But these businessmen, being men of common sense, realize that there is very little chance of being able to persuade the government to do this because they know that the government knows that among them they have several times the finances available to build this section. They know perfectly well that the government knows that they received the franchise on the express understanding that they would build the whole line unassisted, and also they know that their representatives have asserted time and again before the board of transport commissioners that this line would be built without financial assistance from the government. But it seems like an attractive idea, and it keeps coming back in the conversation and finally they decide, well, why not have a go at it; why not see if we can get in touch with C. D. He is a good guy. And so they talk among themselves and decide who should be the one who 

should call the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Whom should they decide upon but the minister's long-time friend, Mr. Clint Murchison, who, of course, is the biggest shareholder in this whole undertaking and who stands to make the most when the line has been completed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the record shows that Mr. Clint Murchison owns one share of Trans-Canada.


George Harris Hees: The record shows, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Clint Murchison's company, New Delhi, owns 25 per cent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are wrong again. Canadian Delhi.


George Harris Hees: Well, Canadian Delhi, which is Mr. Clint Murchison's company, and the minister knows it. This is simply another example of the minister's mincing of words to try to weasel out of something which he knows is perfectly true. We have heard a great deal of this kind of talk from the minister. That is why we on this side of the house take his statements very much with a grain of salt.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tell us about Ray Milner and M. A. MacPherson.


Mr. Richardson:: May I ask a question?


George Harris Hees: No. After I finish the hon. member may ask all the questions he wishes in his own time. Mr. Speaker, you can just hear the telephone conversation that would probably ensue: "Hello, C. D., this is Clint. The boys are sitting around talking about this pipe line, C. D., and they think it would be a grand idea for you to build this northern Ontario section for us. No; we know perfectly well that we have the money to do it. Certainly, C. D., but we could put that money to better advantage in other places; and, as you have said yourself so often, C.D., you have to look after the boys in this pipe line! They have to be able to make plenty out of it, and we want to make plenty; you know that. No, it is not a question of our not doing it. I know we agreed to do it. Of course, we are going to do it. We know it is a plum you have handed us, but we would just appreciate it very much if you would build this section for us, C. D. You are going to look after the boys? You will? Oh. Well, that's swell, C. D. The boys are going to be very happy about this real nice gesture you are making, C. D. Don't forget to come down for another turkey shoot. Did we ever have a time the last time, yes, sir. As you have said, that is the way for fellows to get together. It sure is. Yes, you bet it is, C. D., yes, sir. That is the way for fellows to get together. We never would have started on this project if it had not been for that turkey shoot. We will be seeing you, C. D."

The receiver is hung up. Just picture that board room, Mr. Speaker, the scene in that board room after the information comes through.


An hon. Member:: A picture of the expresident of the Conservative party.


George Harris Hees: The boys are rolling around, slapping their thighs and laughing themselves nearly sick. They say, "He went for it! He went for it! You could not believe it." "Yes, he did," says Clint, "he went for this deal". That is just about the way the whole thing went, Mr. Speaker, mark my words. If that is not the story, I ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce why this government decided, after this company was given the franchise on the understanding that the line would be built without government assistance, to build it for the minister's pet instrument in this deal?
Then, Mr. Speaker, another question that remains unanswered is why, if this company took the franchise on the explicit understanding that they would build the whole line unassisted, is the company having the prairie section built for it, even though it is by far the easiest section of the line? The answer is again, the company was so successful the first time, that the boys could hardly believe their ears. Since the minister went for their deal the first time, they decided, why not try again? As they did not dare ask for complete financing, they asked for 90 per cent of the deal, and, of course, the minister went for it again lock, stock and barrel. Was he ever led down the garden path by the wealthy United States interests that are controlling this company!
There is no doubt at all that when this line gets to Winnipeg, this company will once again cry on the minister's shoulder, as it did on those two previous occasions. They will turn to the minister and say: "We cannot finance construction. Will you please finance construction for us?" Of course, he is going to finance construction as far as the Ontario border from Winnipeg, and later, when the line gets to Kapuskasing, you can just see them coming to him again and crying on his shoulder, and he is going to agree once again to build the remainder of the line for the company.
I see it is five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and since I have something more to say I will sit down.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 366, for the relief of Ruth Carol Friedman Allen.
Private Bills


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

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 380, for the relief of Michael Costom.


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

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 389, for the relief of Mary Ethel Irving Buchanan Simcox.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Mr. Speaker:: There are several other bills, being divorce bills. Shall I continue to take them one by one?


Mr. Nicholson:: Call order No. 52.


Mr. Speaker:: Order No. 52?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You might take the others first.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me check to see whether my understanding is correct. As I heard him, the hon. member said I can take in one motion orders numbered 48, 49, 50 and 51. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 390, for the relief of Constance Catherine Mary Pilon Milmine.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 391, for the relief of Joseph Henri Maurice Messier.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 392, for the relief of Mildred Helena Seale Darker.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 393, for the relief of Robert Alfred Price.-Mr. Henderson.

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 394, for the relief of Alfred Sevigny.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this is the bill which was before the Senate committee last year and reached us as Bill No. 490. It was duly referred to the miscellaneous private bills committee and, after witnesses had been heard, after the petitioner had presented his case and the witnesses appeared and the respondent was given a chance to tell her story, the committee decided that this was a case which

Private Bills
should not take the time of hon. members. The Journals of the House of Commons for Friday, July 1, 1955, reported as follows:
Your committee has also considered Bill No. 490, letter Q-16 of the Senate intituled: "An act for the relief of Alfred Sevigny", and has agreed to report the preamble thereof not proven on the grounds that the committee is not satisfied that the petitioner is worthy of having his petition granted.
I do not propose to review all the evidence, but the respondent was examined as follows:
Q. You mentioned before that he had beat you. Could you tell us a very specific occasion that is outstanding in your mind?
A. He beat me the first time after our marriage after we have moved to Thetford.
Q. But how often did he beat you?
A. Two or three times a week.
Q. Can you mention any particular occasion that is distinguished from other occasions for any special reason?
A. Once he beat me and I remained in bed for
15 days,
Q. Why did you have to stay in bed for 15 days? What was the result of the beating?
A. Because my face was all smashed up.
O. How did he hit you?
A. He hit me with his fist on the side of the mouth and broke my jaw.
Q. What happened to you then and there right after he hit you?
A. I don't remember. I fainted.
Q. Are there still any results of that beating, any consequences to date?
A. Yes. Two months ago I had to go and see a specialist for my eyesight. The specialist told me I had two scars in my eye, and this was a result of being hit.
Q. Ten years ago?
A. Yes.
Q. Are there any other scars left as a result of that?
A. A small scar at the back of the head when he hit me and I fell in the street.
Q. What have you to say with reference to your husband giving you money to live on?
She then gives evidence to indicate how much those amounts were. This woman did not represent herself as a saint. She admitted that there were grounds on which divorces have been granted which could be charged against her. She appeared before the Senate committee and our committee and she appeared to be telling the truth. I want to pay a tribute to members of the committee, particularly the government members, who reviewed this case last year because after taking all the evidence into consideration it was decided that on balance the committee was not satisfied that the petitioner was worthy of having his petition granted. Having reached that decision a year ago and with some of the same witnesses appearing this year, I do not think that this House of Commons should be asked to grant a divorce for this particular petitioner.
I notice that right up until May 14 the respondent was protesting but apparently her

lawyer wrote a letter to counsel for the petitioner saying:
This is to advise you that my client, the respondent in the divorce application of the abovenamed has decided not to contest the petition for divorce.
I notice that a year ago this respondent was forced to go to the Household Finance Company to get $75, on which I presume she had to pay interest at the rate of 24 to 26 per cent, in order to obtain counsel to fight her case. Seventy-five dollars would not go very far in paying counsel and bringing winesses from Montreal to Ottawa. I understand another $75 was ordered by the other place.
One significant thing that happened last year was that the sister of the petitioner came before the Senate committee and the miscellaneous private bills committee and gave her sister-in-law a very good name and represented her own brother as being a person unworthy to be granted a divorce by the parliament of Canada. I hope that hon. members who reviewed the evidence last year and considered that this was a case that should not be approved will vote accordingly when the vote is called.


William James Henderson: Mr. Speaker, this is the motion for second reading of this bill, and I submit that it should be permitted to go to the committee which has been set up to deal with bills of this type. I was impressed this afternoon by the statement of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) that there should be a searching inquiry made by a committee of this house, and I presume that that should apply to this instance.
There are probably several new members this year on this committee which is responsible for approving or disapproving of bills of this nature and I think it is only fair that they should be given an opportunity to consider this bill. They should not be confused by evidence which was presented in a previous year, possibly before an almost different membership. I would point out that the respondent did not appear at the Senate committee hearing and I feel that under the circumstances this bill should go to the committee which is set up to handle it.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Poulin for the second reading of Bill No. 149, to amend the Financial Administration Act.
(Translation):
Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the house unequivocally shows the importance which the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) gives to the matter of bilingualism.
I heartily congratulate my colleague on this happy initiative and consider it an honour to have the privilege of supporting his efforts.
Outside of election time, when it is permissible to question the sincerity of those in office, our federal statesmen seldom have the opportunity to extend to minorities the benefits of their broad-mindedness, their understanding, and their generous impulses.
Now this pleasing opportunity is being offered to them by this bill. In fact it affords the government a wonderful chance to show French Canadians how much consideration it is prepared to give to their requests and how far they are willing to go in giving them a square deal.
The adoption or defeat of the bill will, to a large extent, reflect the pro-French or antiFrench sentiments of the leaders and supporters of the Liberal party.
There are things that should not have to be requested, and which, by their logic or nature, are self-evident necessities. Respect for and recognition of the two official languages of Canada are among them.
It might be assumed in certain quarters that in requesting bilingual cheques we are seeking a favour. The fact of the matter is that we are merely seeking confirmation, under a new form, of a sacred and inalienable right of the first settlers of this country.
The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
So reads the final paragraph of section 133 of the British North America Act. It is the only constitutional document relating to bilingualism. Brief and concise, those few words, by their very ambiguity, have led to a restrictive interpretation of the principle stated, and this has been the basis of the unfortunate doctrine of the "Quebec Reserve . Faced with the French achievement, carried
Financial Administration Act out by a third of Canada's population, the Anglo-Saxon majority limited its concessions to the strict minimum in the federal field, leaving it to the province of Quebec to observe the letter and the spirit of the pact of 1867. However, the statement that no legal document protects the French language outside of Quebec is untrue. I am now quoting from chapter 3 of the Statutes of Canada 1870, 33 Victoria, section 23, admitting the province of Manitoba into confederation:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the legislature, and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person, or in any pleading or process, in or issuing from any court of Canada established under the British North America Act, 1867 or in or from all or any of the courts of the province. The acts of the legislature shall be printed and published in both those languages.
That section of the Manitoba Act implies that not only in the province of Quebec is the French language official. Therefore, the imperial act of 1848, which restored the official character of the French language in Upper and Lower Canada, also applied to the province of Ontario. The French-speaking delegates at the Quebec conference surrendered none of our rights.
Moreover, none were revoked by the imperial parliament.
In 1871, that parliament sanctioned legislation of vital importance. It was entitled "The British North America Act, 1871". It is chapter 28 of the Statutes of Victoria 34-35, assented to on June 29, 1871.
According to section 2 of that act, the federal parliament is empowered to form from time to time new provinces out of Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories just acquired under confederation. I quote:
. . . and may at the time of such establishment make provision for the constitution and administration of any such province . . .
Now section 4:
The Parliament of Canada may from time to time make provision for the administration, peace, order, and good government of any territory not for the time being included in any province.
Section 5 confirms the two acts already voted by the federal parliament: the NorthWest Territories Act of 1869 and the Manitoba Act of 1870.
Section 6 provides that once the parliament of Canada has formed new provinces, it shall no longer have the right to alter the provisions of any law pertaining to them, save by prior agreement of the legislature concerned.
HOUSE O]
Financial Administration Act During the session of 1877, the North-West Territories Act was amended. By section 11, chapter 7, 40 Victoria, the federal government provided that the use of the French language would be optional at the legislative assembly and in any court within the territories:
Section 11-Either the English or the French languege may be used by any person in the debates ol the Council or Legislative Assembly of the Territories and in the proceedings before the courts; and both those languages shall be used m the records and journals of the said Council or Assembly; and all ordinances of the said Council shall be printed in both those languages.
In the Revised Statutes of Canada of 1886, the school section of 1875 became section 14 and the clause voted in 1877 to preserve the rights of the French language, became section 10 of chapter 50.
Without the slightest doubt, the source of most of the difficulties encountered by French Canadians in connection with the two official languages derives from the lack of clear and accurate definitions not only in the constitution itself but in the legislation enacted subsequently.
On the other hand, English-speaking Canadians did not concern themselves too much with our interests and claims and cared still less about anticipating and giving satisfaction to our legitimate wishes. One must recognize that, with a few exceptions, they have rather hindered than helped us in the struggles we have had to wager, since the conquest, against assimilation by the English and the use of one language only.
. The privileges we enjoy today in the exercise of some of our prerogatives have been more often conquered by us than generously granted by them.
If we have remained French Canadians, it is certainly not their fault. The scorn, the insults, the persecutions, the contempt, the unfair school laws that my fellow-citizens had and still have to put up with in some provinces are proof enough of the narrowmindedness of some of our rulers.
In this connection here is a news item published in the Gazette of May 5, 1954:
(Text):
English-speaking Canadians have not followed the British example of "being scrupulous to respect the rights and even the sensitivities of the French Canadians", Murray G.. Ballantyne said here yesterday.
Mr. Ballantyne, a journalist and former professor of history at Loyola College, was addressing the Montreal Lions Club on "French Canada and Confederation".
Mr. Ballantyne said "We must accept the fact that Canada is called by history to be basically bilingual and bicultural. Our national destiny is difficult, but enriching.
"Canada is the French Canadians' home, and they ought to be able to feel at home in it from fMr. Gagnon.]

the Atlantic to the Pacific. Together, we French and English-speaking Canadians can build a great nation . . .
"Apart, neither can succeed."
Mr. Ballantyne looked back into the historical record to support his claim:
"The only reason we have a confederation instead of a unitary state is because of the French. We wanted to bring them into partnership with the English-speaking Canadians, yet at the same time we wanted to preserve their rights to their own way of life.
"We divided authority between Ottawa and the provinces primarily so that the French would not be swamped by the majority."
The English in Quebec are perfectly free to teach in their own tongue. The French in Ontario are not," Mr. Ballantyne said.
Mr. Ballantyne went on to point out that in Manitoba the French tongue has been deprived of all recognition and Catholics who want their own schools have to pay taxes to the public schools as well.
"Thus the French Canadians are once again made familiar with the penalty of double taxation," he said.
In Quebec, where nine out of ten people are Roman Catholic and eight out of ten speak French, there is full autonomy and full equality. Dr. James Paton, secretary of the provincial association of Protestant teachers, says:
We're well treated here. We get our full share of tax money. The Catholics go out of their way to be fair and even generous to us. We're only embarrassed because the Roman Catholic schools in other provinces don't get the same break.
Among English speaking provinces only Alberta and Saskatchewan come anywhere near giving Roman Catholic schools the treatment that Protestant schools get in Quebec.
(Translation):
Speaking in particular about the way French Canadians are treated outside of Quebec, Mr. B. K. Sandwell, former editor of Saturday Night, in a book published in Montreal under the patronage of UNESCO and entitled The Canadian Nation, notes that:
The English Canadian can go out of his province' everywhere he will have the benefit of English schools and all the cultural advantages that this entails Once out of Quebec, the French Canadian meets but difficulties if he wants to give his family a French education. In such conditions, we need not be surprised if the patriotism of the French Canadians of Quebec is local rather than national.
It is only in that officially bilingual province that they feel at home; they cannot have such a feeling m other provinces where their language and culture do not enjoy any special right.
And Mr. Sandwell adds the following reproach to which our English-speaking fellow citizens should give their thought:
This conflict opposing the advocates of one language in all the provinces except Quebec to those who want both languages to be recognized is the most serious obstacle to an amendment of the constitution; what is still more serious, it prevents the creation of a truly national spirit.
Mr. Speaker, this charge made by an English-speaking Canadian against a restrict-

ive interpretation of the official rights of the French minority in Canada deserves our attention. The refusal of true bilingualism by the provinces and even by the federal government is the main obstacle to a communion of ideals between Canadians of both cultures.
It does not seem therefore that the French Canadians are at the root of those difficulties; they are rather the victims of a cultural ostracism which hinders the development of a national ideal. As soon as the French Canadians will be treated everywhere as equals, national unity will come as by magic. You cannot build a nation by being unfair and by violating the natural and constitutional rights of one section of the population.
This was written by Mr. Clement Brown in he Droit of April 14, 1954.
According to what is said and done at the House of Commons however, this situation is improving gradually.
There is no doubt that, as far as goodwill is concerned, considerable progress has been made during the last few years.
I am personally very glad to have among my friends the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) who, following the example of some of his co-religionists, has learned French, speaks it quite well and never misses an opportunity to study our problems and to try, to the extent that his socialist background will allow him to do so and as long as the interests of Saskatchewan are preserved, to understand them in the light of reason and common sense in a truly Canadian spirit.
I take this opportunity to congratulate him and to tell him that his contribution to the cause of national unity as well as his support are greatly appreciated.
The sympathy and friendship of our other English-speaking colleagues is to us a source of joy and hope.
When this bill has been adopted, a new step will have been made towards harmony and goodwill between the two great races of this country and towards the achievement of our common destiny.


Mr. Andre Gauthier (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that as a Canadian of French descent, it is my duty to make a few comments concerning the bill that is now before this house. I think there is not much I can add to the remarks of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin). His speech was a model of moderation, and indicates on the part of its author a thorough command of his subject.
I merely wish to add a few general thoughts and take this opportunity of making my position known on this important matter.
Financial Administration Act Quite a number of my supporters have asked me to state my position in this respect.
I have no hesitation whatsoever in stating that I support this bill with all my heart and that I will proudly vote in favour of its adoption.
The origin of bilingualism in Canada dates much farther back than 1867; the ^ French achievement is the very basis of the discovery and' colonization of our beautiful and great country. The hazards of European politics, in which we did not participate, ordained that we were to share with the Anglo-Saxon people the privilege of creating a young and vigorous nation.
This dual civilization, which enriches Canadian life and of which we are proud, must be exteriorized by all means of expression at our disposal.
Every people has its own character, its own genius, its own heredity. It might be thought by some people that we should not attach so much importance to the printing in both languages of government cheques and other negotiable notes. However, in my view, Mr. Speaker, it is a practical way of expressing the characteristics of the Canadian people.
The confederation act officially sanctioned the mutual wish of both racial groups of this country to work side by side for the greatness of Canada, in the respect of one another's rights.
The principle of bilingualism, Mr. Speaker, has been established and recognized by section 133 of the British North America Act. We should remember that section for it had a great influence all along the advance of the Canadian nation towards its maturity. It reads as follows:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
The acts of the parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
From the text I just quoted, it was obviously the legislator's intention to make the use of both languages mandatory in the drafting of official parliamentary documents. I admit that neither cheques nor other negotiable effects are specifically mentioned in clause 133, but if this section of the Constitution is to be construed practically and logically, the use of both official languages should obviously find place in every manifestation of Canadian life. In 1927, postal orders, money orders, postal and excise stamps were made
4710	HOUSE OF
Financial Administration Act bilingual. While this act of courtesy, of justice and generosity on the part of our Englishspeaking fellow citizens hurt no one, it was a great cause of satisfaction to all Canadians of French origin.
A second important step towards bilingualism was the issue of bilingual money in 1936. This took place under a Liberal government and the argument of those who held that this gesture might foster disagreement or create difficulties for the government is easily disproved by the fact that, since 1936, national unity has made giant strides, and the government that was responsible for it has been continually re-elected since.
The bill before us would complete the official recognition of bilingualism by printing in both languages cheques and other negotiable effects issued by the government or by a crown corporation. Once more our English-speaking compatriots are given a chance to show that they understand and appreciate the French element's share in the birth, conservation, safeguard and development of our country.
All through our political history, the Liberal party has been recognized as the party of Canadian unity. Its leaders have always given perfect examples of their broad-mindedness and of their spirit of conciliation. They have long since understood that Canada's future rests on the vitality of two great races having different traditions, marching side by side, but without merging or losing their characteristics and without there being any question of assimilation.
They also understood that each should strive to know the other better, and that while scrupulously respecting the constitutional rights of minorities, a study of both official languages should be encouraged as much as possible.
But to reach that goal, we must first recognize those languages in a practical and effective way everywhere in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, bilingual postage stamps, bilingual bank notes, bilingual cheques are all messages of good will that circulate between provinces. To foreigners they proclaim our bi-ethnical character, and to Canadians they testify to the maturity of our nation and effectively prove our mutual understanding and the reciprocal recognition of our mutual rights.
I do not want to speak too long, so as not to delay the passing of this bill.
In the past, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) has shown his spirit of fairness and understanding. I am confident he will grant


the request made in this bill and that he will give the necessary instructions so that, from now on, all cheques and negotiable instruments issued by the government or by crown corporations will be printed, as the bill says, both in English and in French.
Before 1 resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, let me say once again that I will be glad to vote in favour of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Beauce.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, it is with a true sense of pride that I rise now to give unconditional support to the bill under review, sponsored by my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin).
When this bill was introduced, I hastened to congratulate the hon. member, and I take the new opportunity that is now offered me of congratulating him again most warmly, wishing with him that, in the interest of the great cause of the national unity of our country, this bill will become law as soon as possible.
Since I have been sitting in this house, I have noticed with very great satisfaction that our English-speaking compatriots, on both sides of the house and regardless of party, occasionally paid us the honour of using that other official language of Canada, which is my mother tongue.
We are grateful to them for their magnificent effort, and we hope that several others will follow their example. Thus the relations between the two great races which make up the majority in this country will be facilitated, and this can only lead to better understanding. The more Canadians who can fluently speak the country's two official languages, the more cordial our relations are bound to be and the more can we help cement for all time national unity, without which happiness and prosperity are impossible.
We should no longer have to be taught a lesson by great statesmen of the democratic world who honour us by their visits and who, unlike far too many Canadian members of parliament, address us in both official languages. I need quote no other examples than those of our gracious sovereign and of the Queen Mother, and last year that given by the President of the United States, Mr. Eisenhower, and more recently by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Sir Anthony Eden, and this morning by the President of the Indonesian Republic, Mr. Sukarno.

If those great figures of the free world are pleased to address us in French and in English in the House of Commons, the debating hall of the representatives of the Canadian people, it is because they know and realize that there are in Canada two official languages, and that neither has precedence over the other, that they both have the same value and that they are both on an equal footing. As stated by previous speakers, my argument is based on the spirit of the Canadian constitution which recognizes bilingualism in our country.
Is it not true that in this very chamber, Mr. Speaker, you must use both languages, and are not our debates printed in both French and English?
There can therefore be no doubt that the two languages of Canada are officially recognized and no fair-minded Canadian would dare state the contrary.
This formula was vividly recognized-I may be allowed here, Mr. Speaker, to differ from the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier) who has just resumed his seat-by a Conservative administration under the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett who, in deference to the wishes of the majority of Canadians and more particularly of the French-speaking Canadians, gave us bilingual money which, by the way, lost nothing of its value by reflecting the bilingual character of this country.
It never occurred to our Anglo-Saxon fellow citizens to refuse our country's money because it was printed in both languages.
It seems to me that, after such a forward step in the direction of common sense, even if more than 20 years have passed since that memorable day, we must continue on the road to progress, as far as bilingualism is concerned, by giving our unanimous approval to the bill introduced by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin).
In fact, the bill gives rise to no complication and, contrary to what the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) said, it entails no extra expenditure. In my view, the argument of the hon. minister is preposterous, and his more or less shaky explanation is but a pretext to reject the bill. I dare hope that, since he made that assertion, the hon. minister has revised his views, that he has undergone a complete change of mind and that he will gladly support the bill submitted to the approval of the house by the hon. member for Beauce.
Financial Administration Act
Those who print cheques, drafts, bills of exchange, postal notes, postal money orders and other negotiable instruments will not need more paper and will not charge more to the government for printing these documents in both languages, the more so since these documents are printed in millions of copies and that profits on such printing are very reasonable.
In adopting this bill, the government would show its patriotism and its understanding, and would greatly help to dissipate from the minds of my French-speaking compatriots their feeling of isolation in the province of Quebec.
The time has come to dispel from the minds of those who still cling to this antiquated view, the thought that the province of Quebec is a reservation where only French Canadians have access.
We want all Canadians, whatever their racial origin, to feel at home in the province of Quebec as long as they remain mindful of the law.
On the other hand, we want French Canadians, equally mindful of the laws in the other provinces of the confederation, to feel at home everywhere in Canada.
Why this distinction, why admit French in the province of Quebec and refuse it elsewhere? Yet there are more than a million French Canadians living in the rest of Canada. To my mind, this is a serious injustice which should be corrected in the shortest possible delay.
At this moment, all hon. members in this house are given a chance to show themselves as Canadians in the fullest sense of the word by voting without hesitation in favour of the bill presented by our distinguished colleague from Beauce.
In so doing, they will also rectify the injustice committed every day in the province of Quebec when English-speaking fellow-citizens receive cheques made out in French.
Let us act with justice and tolerance towards all, let us return to the spirit of the Canadian constitution and let us dedicate all our efforts to the making of a bilingual country of Canada.
All the speeches delivered on national unity will be but empty words if we cannot practise, at least in some measure, what we preach.
Mr. Speaker, with a few exceptions, all my electors are French-speaking and many of them have asked me to speak on their behalf on this occasion.

Financial Administration Act
I thank and congratulate from the bottom of my heart the hundreds of citizens of my riding who wrote to me about this matter. It shows that they consider this bill as important. However, I can assure them that, even without a word from them, I would have taken the same stand to demand without the least hesitation what I believe to be logical, fair and patriotic.
I want to congratulate particularly the management of the Paquet Company Limited of Quebec, the largest retail concern in our district, who took an interest in this bill and who acknowledge, even in the midst of a nearly 100 per cent French-speaking population, the necessity of bilingualism back home and everywhere in Canada. This example of true Canadianism should be followed throughout the country.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that every Canadian will appreciate the gesture of all those who, by word and vote, will support the bill which is now before the house and which I support myself with the utmost feeling, on behalf of all the people I represent here.
We are grateful to the hon. member for Beauce whose personal merit and well known patriotism make him a citizen of whom we are proud. He has acquired a new stature, if that were possible, in presenting this bill, and he has won the affection and the admiration of all who are worthy to be called Canadians.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to make a few brief remarks in favour of the bill now before the house.
On March 6 last, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) introduced for second reading Bill No. 149, entitled: An act to amend the Financial Administration Act. In language moderate and to the point, he explained to this house that the spirit of our constitution recognizes bilingualism in both the written and the spoken word. As a matter of fact, the existence of the French language in Canada has unquestionably affected the nature and the development of culture in this country.
In the last 25 years, and especially in the last decade, the constant growth of bilingualism in various parts of Canada is something which we could not help noticing. This development and progress have even had their effects in this house.
During the debate of the last few sessions, we have seen that a goodly number of mem-
[Mr. Dufresne.l
bers from predominantly or almost exclusively English-speaking communities have made it a point to say a few words in the other official language of Canada, and that they have expressed themselves in almost flawless French. This noble gesture on their part proves that they are ready to recognize the survival of the French language in Canada and the advantages of its constant growth as an instrument of culture in the various classes of society.
Indeed, Canada has its Canadian press which, although not always fully in agreement in the matter of ideas, has become an important factor of bilingualism and unity while reporting the national activities of the two main groups of our population. In our own press gallery, correspondents and reporters of both languages work side by side in a true brotherly spirit, in giving the people of this country their own interpretation of the proceedings in this house.
The desire for mutual understanding seems more and more evident among a large and growing number of our people, again as a means of maintaining, and of spreading if possible, the knowledge and the practical point of view of both languages in this country.
In 1936, the government of Canada unequivocally recognized the importance of, and the justification for, bilingualism in this country by giving our currency its present character. However, our money is not our sole means nor our sole aim in transactions. Cheques, in a general way, especially those issued by the federal government in the provision of social services, such as family allowances, old age pensions and others, as well as those which are regularly distributed to civil servants, should also carry that bilingual character which contributes to the solidarity and unity of our nation.
There is no doubt that bilingualism is growing, and is spreading to various areas of the country, without giving rise to undesirable controversy. The year 1955 has been memorable in the history of Canada, more particularly for the small Acadian people, who last year celebrated the second centennial of its deportation. Throughout Acadia, in numerous centres of the other Canadian provinces, in New England and in Louisiana celebrations marked the rebirth and survival of that small group who, exactly two centuries ago, were condemned to dispersal and near extinction. In New Brunswick alone that

small group now represents nearly 250,000 people, i.e. more than 40 per cent of the total population of the province. With its fellow citizens of British and other origins, it largely contributes to the fulfilment of their destiny on this American continent.
The granting of bilingual cheques by the federal government would be welcome, more particularly by New Brunswick, as a token of consideration and appreciation by those good people who offer a striking example of that understanding and co-operation which so largely contribute to the maintenance of our national unity.


Mr. Gerard' Legare (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, we are indeed celebrating this year the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the act that gave our country a bilingual currency.
I remember reading at that time the favourable comments in both the English and the French press, rejoicing over that decision of parliament. Since then, similar statements have been issued on many occasions. Newspapers and magazines have often printed statements of eminent people who earnestly asserted that cultural and racial duality in this country was of great advantage to the Canadian nation as a whole. Furthermore, as an hon. member who spoke before me was saying, we do not have to go back 20 years, 10 years, or even 5 years to find statements in favour of bilingualism in this country. We merely have to remember events that took place in this house since 1953, and particularly what was said by Queen Mother Elizabeth on the occasion of her visit, when in her splendid address delivered in both languages, she stated how privileged we were in Canada to have two official languages.
The President of the United States, Mr. Eisenhower, also made a similar statement in this house. We also heard the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Sir Anthony Eden, express views to the same effect, in French and in English, and praise the extent of French culture in Canada.
The bill moved by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) seeks no privilege nor favour. To my mind, his bill claims the recognition of a right. French-speaking Canadians living in all provinces of Canada are entitled, it seems to me, to have negotiable bills, issued by the federal government, printed in the two official languages of this country. Besides, as has already been pointed out, Frenchspeaking Canadians make up nearly one third
Financial Administration Act of the population of Canada, and in the province of Quebec itself that racial group is equal to 80 per cent of the population. Therefore, English-speaking Canadians enjoy preferential treatment in the province of Quebec, where the right to speak English is acknowledged by all, as it should be. On the other hand, French-speaking Canadians are at home everywhere in this country. That was brought home to me during a visit I made in western Canada, where I was happy to feel at home. That is why I am happy to note that from year to year French-speaking Canadians are more and more appreciated and liked. And this is pretty general. Some may say that they have heard statements to the contrary. I know that in the past we heard statements to the effect that the French language was perhaps badly treated in certain quarters; today such statements do not hold any longer in this country. There is almost unanimity, as I said a moment ago, in favour of bilingualism in Canada.
In the course of my research, going through files on bilingualism both in this house and elsewhere, I came across correspondence between a former member of this house, a Mr. Cohen, who was sitting here in 1936, and a young student in western Canada by the name of Boulanger. This young student was only 14, and has corresponded with Mr. Cohen. As a matter of fact, the first letter written by Mr. Cohen to young Boulanger was to tell him that he didn't want to receive anything in French; nevertheless, he agreed to read his letters and finally Mr. Cohen agreed, in that correspondence, that he had been converted to the necessity of imparting that official character to both languages in this country. Because of the efforts of this young lad of 14, Mr. Cohen graciously recognized the prejudices which he had nourished in the past and which he regretted. He was now ready to admit that the French language had equal rights in this country.
Although he was only 14 at the time, young Boulanger pointed out that the founders of Canada had played a great part in Canadian history and he so convinced Mr. Cohen that he made him recognize his mistake in refusing to accept the French language.
I have given this example, Mr. Speaker, to show that today English-speaking Canadians readily-and I underline the word "readily", because of the marked change in this regard-accept the duality of culture; they recognize that the French language has

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation equal rights in Canada and that we are entitled to express ourselves in our own language, wherever we may be in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, may I move the adjournment of the debate?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: At eight o'clock the house will resume consideration of the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the third reading of Bill No. 298, to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking at five o'clock I described what this government is doing for the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company. I described that it is building the first one-third of the line for the company; it is financing 90 per cent of another third, and in all likelihood, judging by the willingness of this government to do unlimited favours for this company, it seems quite possible that when the time comes, the government will finance the last third of the line for the company. At the same time the government is leaving the company completely free to make all the profits which it can make. Those profits undoubtedly will be many millions of dollars each year. This, Mr. Speaker, is no less than an investor's paradise. The government is making such a paradise out of a company which is owned 83 per cent by wealthy United States financial interests.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that big American companies are in the habit of repaying very generously indeed those who do favours for them. That is why Washington is a haven for the 5 percenters. This particularly applies to United States gas companies. That was the reason why General Eisenhower, the president of the United States, vetoed the natural gas distribution bill on February 17. He described the tactics used by the United States gas companies as

being arrogant and not in the best interests of the American people, and he vetoed that bill.
This company, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, is owned 83 per cent by large United States gas companies, and that is a particular reason why the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) should bring this whole matter before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, in exactly the same way as has been done with every other transportation measure that has come before this house in my knowledge. They invariably are put before the committee and thoroughly examined. The officials of Trans-Canada could be brought forward, and this whole undertaking could be investigated from top to bottom, and parliament could know the details which we have been denied to date.
I believe that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines will handsomely reward the party in power which has handed out to it so many favours and obviously will hand out more favours to it in the future. After all, as I have said, this government is financing the construction of the line and leaving the company free to make profits which are going to amount to several million dollars a year. I think this company, which is an 83 per cent United States company, in thinking this whole thing over will consider that it should deal generously with those who are making this whole operation possible through financing the line for it and rejecting the applications of any other companies that come forward to put forward propositions. All other propositions have been consistently turned aside and not even listened to. I think Trans-Canada will consider, for instance, that a contribution of say a million dollars to the Liberal campaign fund for the next election would be very small repayment for the tremendous and unprecedented and almost unbelievable favours this company is receiving from this government.


An hon. Member:: How irresponsible can you get?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of speculation concerning when the next election will be held. In trying to decide when it will come about, I think we have to bear in mind that April 2, 1957 is the key date. That is the date by which the government must make good on their assurance that they will not take over the company. I feel sure, and I think all of us feel sure that when Trans-Canada Pipe Lines comes forward on that date next year it will be forced to say it cannot complete its financing because there will be no decision

from the federal power commission of the United States by that time; too much evidence is piling up against the application every day. I am told there are 200 pounds of petitions which have accumulated so far, and more come in every day. Therefore I think it is certain that there will be no F.P.C. decision by April 2 of next year. I feel sure, and I think all of us feel sure, that the Prime Minister assured this company when that date came due, the government would not take over Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, otherwise they would not have gone ahead and placed orders for pipe, as they have done recently. Therefore that is the key date for the next election. After that date is passed, I think you will see an election and then, Mr. Speaker, If I am not wrong and I do not think I am going to be-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: -you are going to see the most lavish Liberal campaign this government has ever sponsored. You are going to see a gigantic television program, a gigantic advertising program, the cash inducements to "Vote Liberal" are going to be bigger than any you have ever seen before. This is going to be a Liberal campaign to end all Liberal campaigns.
We have seen, Mr. Speaker, what this government is willing to do for a company owned 83 per cent by wealthy United States interests. What is it willing to do for Canadian provincial governments that come forward to it for meagre assistance just to help them with their limited financial resources to develop power and other natural resources to bring industries to their provinces, and thereby increase the standard of living of their people?
I give you as an example the province of New Brunswick. The premier of New Brunswick came here and asked for federal backing for his power development bonds, so that he could have a lower rate of interest on the money he had to borrow to complete that project, and to lower the charges against his people, to develop power and increase their standard of living. This would not have cost this government one penny, nor would it have cost the taxpayers of this country one penny. It would simply have meant that this government would have backed the power development bonds of that province, and it would have shown that this government was interested in the power development in our Canadian provinces. But was this done? Certainly not. The reason was because they have a Liberal government in New Brunswick and it was felt by them that-


Mr. Hosking:: Wrong again, George.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
5, 1956	4715
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


George Harris Hees: I will make a correction this time. They had a Liberal government, and now a diminishing Liberal party in New Brunswick, which convinced this government that if they gave assistance in the form of backing those bonds, it would be more difficult for them to ever get back into power, and this government listened to the advice of the provincial Liberal party in New Brunswick, and that is the reason the federal government is not backing the power development bonds of New Brunswick.
Another example is the province of Saskatchewan. That province came forward and merely asked for assistance in completing a power dam which will provide 500,000 acres of irrigated land which could be turned into market gardening areas producing crops which would materially assist the people in that province, and increase the standard of living there. It would also have provided enough cheap electrical power to allow them to completely electrify that province; bring industries there, and diversify their economy and materially increase the standard of living of the people of the province of Saskatchewan. What did this government do? It turned them down flat.
It seems to me that you have to be a company which is predominantly American-owned, and has defaulted on the undertaking for which you received your franchise, and then you will be granted whatever favour you ask. As long as you can have the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) wrapped around your little finger and jumping through a hoop, as is the case with Mr. Clint Murchison and the rest of the people who control Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, then you can be sure that this government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce will grant whatever favours you ask. If you are merely trying to improve the standard of living for the people of Canada, you will be turned down flat.
Mr. Speaker, I call on this government to stop using the taxes of this country to bail out the shareholders of a primarily United States company which has defaulted on its undertaking, and to start using the money of the taxpayers of Canada to develop Canada by Canadians for the benefit of Canadians.


Mr. Paul Hellyer (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, this Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation bill-


Mr. Hodgson:: All aboard; let us get on the the gravy train.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -started out as an economic
issue-


Mr. McGregor:: How do you know?
4716	HOUSE
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -and I would like for the first half of my time at least, if I am not interrupted too often, to speak about the economic aspects of it.


An hon. Member:: What are you going to waste the second half on?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If you will contain your soul in patience for a minute or two perhaps you will see. First of all there is the need for power, which is fundamental. There have been various statements on this subject. From my own experience I can say this: Last winter almost every night during the peak load period the electricity was cut off from my hot water heater and that would not have been the case if there had been ample power.


An hon. Member:: You should pay your hot water bill.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This point of view is also held by a friend of hon. members opposite, the premier of the province of Ontario.


An hon. Member:: Ex-friend.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think his opinion is one which is very accurate and well taken.


An hon. Member:: You did not always think so.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: From the point of view of revenue this line should urgently be built and it should be built now; as far as Winnipeg is concerned at least, this year.
The leader of the Social Credit party has stated in this house that every day of delay costs the gas producers of Alberta $50,000. No one in this house has challenged that figure nor that statement.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Nobody knows; they are only guessing.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the line were delayed for two years it would cost the people of Alberta $36,500,000; but what is $36J million to hon. members opposite?


An hon. Member:: What's a million?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That's peanuts to the Prime Minister.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Globe and Mail in an editorial dated May 31 stated that one reason for early completion of the line concerns costs.


Mr. Lennard:: Why?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Every year the price tag on it goes up by another $25 million.


Frank Exton Lennard: Why?



OF COMMONS

Paul Theodore Hellyer: But what is $25 million to hon. members opposite? What about the balance of payments with the United States? Members opposite have been alarmed at the deficit that we have had on current account with the United States. The gas to be exported at Emerson will bring in 50 million American dollars per year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have to reckon with the federal power commission first.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: But what is $50 million to the hon. gentlemen opposite? The gas consumed in eastern Canada would supplant the importation of United States gas and coal to the equivalent of two million tons of coal per year. This means a saving to the Canadian people of 35 million more American dollars each year.


Frank Exton Lennard: Where did you get your
figures?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Any way you look at this project, the Canadian people will be in pocket to the tune of $100 million if the line is built to Winnipeg this year. To me, any government which, by making a loan of $80 million at 5 per cent, can come up with a $100 million dividend on behalf of the Canadian people is investing in a course of action which is both prudent and profitable. No one will benefit one-tenth as much from this project as the Canadian people will.


Frank Exton Lennard: Where did you get your figures?


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: He didn't get them in Wentworth.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What does this project mean in terms of jobs? Getting the line built will mean thousands of new jobs for Canadians. Someone may ask, what about the inflationary effect, and how do you reconcile the $80 million loan with the policy of the central bank at the present time? As the Minister of Finance has already explained, it is granted because a great many physical assets that will be used for the stage of the line which will be built this year are to come from the United States, so it will not put a further strain on our Canadian physical resources.


An hon. Member:: But your pet company had the franchise five years ago.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 
Frank Exton Lennard: Another red herring.


Pierre Gauthier: You are pretty red yourself.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1 am not convinced that public ownership would save the taxpayers of Canada a penny. On the contrary, I feel that the whole operation will be more economical under private ownership and that the increase in efficiency will provide ample return to the owners of the equity from time to time. Incidentally, I hope that when the time comes for a majority of the common shares to be offered in Canada they will be fully subscribed and held by Canadians. We as a people are notoriously reluctant to invest in this type of security. This is another opportunity for us, and I hope that we will take full advantage of it.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, by no conceivable stretch of the imagination could the project, under public ownership, proceed as far as Winnipeg this year. This proposal now before us is the only one which gives any assurance that the line will get under way now. However, even if the saving to the Canadian people were $1 billion, I would not support the bill if I thought that parliament was in fact in jeopardy.


Frank Exton Lennard: Tell that to Toronto.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We have had some evidences here this afternoon of freedom to say things which I do not think most of us would accept. The hon. member for Eglinton-


Frank Exton Lennard: You were bombarded on Sunday.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member for Eglinton said this afternoon that he wished he had more time.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: He has spoken 30-some times already.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Since the debate began, much time has been spent on points of procedure.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Stick to the truth.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Progressive Conservatives have taken 1,200 column inches in Hansard on procedure.


Frank Exton Lennard: What are you doing now?
4718	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Mr. Hellyer: The C.C.F. party has taken 650 column inches.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Points well taken.


Frank Exton Lennard: What are you doing now? You had better save a little hot air right now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Liberal party has taken only 201 column inches.


Frank Exton Lennard: Because you were ashamed of the whole proposition. That is why.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This notorious waste of time could have been well employed by the hon. member for Eglinton and others, and he would then have had ample time to discuss the merits of the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With closure applied the first day?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He also told us this afternoon that he had a whole envelope full of amendments. If he had spent just part of the time wasted on procedure in putting his amendments before the house he would have made some little contribution to the debate.


Frank Exton Lennard: You would not listen. That is why.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You applied closure at every
stage.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The same hon. member who is interjecting now referred to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) as putty.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Putty in the hands of the strong man.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: When he says this type of thing he is defaming a man whose shoe laces he is not worthy to unloosen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Exton Lennard: Who wrote that for you?


Mr. Bell:: You are pretty good on the shoe polish.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Frank Exton Lennard: Order nothing. There is no order here any more.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Following that he made a quotation to this effect, of all passions, lust for power is the most enduring. Very true.


Frank Exton Lennard: Careful, now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is the first time in a long while that parliament has had as much space in some of the newspapers as crimes of lust but perhaps, Mr. Speaker, what we have witnessed here is in fact a crime of lust, a lust for power-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -by people-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Government lust for power. You said it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -who would frame the
government and slander the officials of this house in order to achieve their own political ends.


Frank Exton Lennard: You have not been here long enough to know your way around.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Toe the party line now.


Frank Exton Lennard: You have not been here long enough to know your way around. You do not know what you are talking about.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He went on in his characteristic fashion and said something along these lines: -


Frank Exton Lennard: California here we come.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -something in the minister's mentality, referring to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), does not harmonize with the interests of Canada.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: He was right.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada will never be able to repay the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the government will call an election they will repay him all right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Bring on the election.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They will never be able to repay him for his contribution to the development and safety of this country in war and in peace.


An hon. Member:: What's a million?


Thomas Miller Bell: If you paid Cockfield, Brown for that speech you are a damn fool.


Frank Exton Lennard: California, here we come.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) may think he is the liberty bell but it is interesting to note that he, like it, is a little bit cracked.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: But I always ring true, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Dumb-bell.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member for Eglinton went on to say that the $80 million-


An hon. Member:: Where did you get that note?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -for this corporation will denude the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation and hold up construction of the northern Ontario section. I do not know whether or not my saying that this is a complete falsehood is parliamentary but, in my opinion, that is exactly what it is. On the contrary, the building of the northern Ontario section will be enhanced and speeded up by the action now proposed by the government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: By parting with their capital?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps the hon. member would build the northern Ontario section first and hope some day he had some gas to put through it, but other more practical people would do the thing in the right sequence.
5, 1956	4719
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation handle recalcitrant schoolboys who refused to abide by the common rules of conduct. And expulsion was always a disgrace. Mr. Fleming's conduct after expulsion was much like that of the juvenile delinquent of today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Frank Exton Lennard: On a point of order, I should like to ask the hon. member where the PostExpress is published.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Napanee, Ontario. It is one of the strongholds of Toryism in Ontario.


Frank Exton Lennard: Why did you not say that
before?


Frank Exton Lennard: We are getting the gas right now.


An hon. Member:: Right over there.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then, Mr. Speaker, the same hon. member carried on and said, "Where is the rule of law?" Mr. Speaker, how well he might ask this question of himself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And the Liberal party.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is what the Post-Express has to say about the hon. member, and the Post-Express describes itself as an independent newspaper. It is a central Ontario newspaper published in the constituency of the chief whip of the Progressive Conservative party.


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: Napanee.


Frank Exton Lennard: What is the name of the paper?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In an editorial in the issue of May 31 it has this to say:
Serious undermining of the rules of parliamentary procedure, such as the disgraceful conduct of Donald Fleming last week__


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is this in order?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I continue:
-coupled with the above-mentioned lack of support from Ontario, spells doom for the Progressive Conservative party federally.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If you believe it, why do you not call an election?


Frank Exton Lennard: What is the name of that paper?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Post-Express.


Frank Exton Lennard: From where?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The editorial continues:
Closure is a very common form of procedure in Westminster. It is not even unique in Canada. It is simply an expedient to get work done. But expulsion of a member of parliament for refusing to recognize the chair is a very different matter. Historically, expulsion was the means used to


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Winnipeg-


Mr. Hansell:: On a question of privilege, if I may, the other day when I was speaking I referred to the incident whereby we expelled the hon. member for Eglinton, and I was informed by the chairman that it was a closed incident. I pointed out the hon. member who has just spoken and to you, sir, that evidently the incident is not closed. I wish it were, and I wish that the rule might be adhered to.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree with the hon. member for Macleod that matters of that type are not any more to be referred to. May I ask hon. members to do all they can in order to proceed in an orderly fashion to have a debate in which there perhaps may not be as many interruptions as there have been and also to observe the rule of relevancy. I understand that the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) wishes to raise a point of privilege.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I wish to raise a question of privilege. I should not like to have left on Hansard a reflection on the former member for York West. The late Rodney Adamson was too patriotic a Canadian ever to have supported legislation of this kind.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Hellyer) was supposed to have accompanied another two or three members of this house to a meeting in Toronto last Saturday but unfortunately he was unable to get a reservation. Having listened to the speech he has just made, I congratulate him; for had he obtained a reservation, had he gone to Toronto and had he made the speech he has just given he would have been eviscerated. I am not sure that is the right word. Many words were bandied about at that meeting, and I claim no credit or guilt for this. The hon. member for Davenport was called something that was very
4720	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation unparliamentary. He was called a gutless wonder. I have no proof of that whatsoever. I have no knowledge of his intestinal circumstances. All I know is that he was fortunate in not having been there. However, Mr. Speaker, I wish to cross swords with foemen more worthy of my steel, namely the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the leader of the government.


An hon. Member:: Don't fall and break your neck.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I have forgotten the hon. gentleman's constituency, oh yes, Iles-de-la-Madeleine-but I have heard him interrupt on many occasions in this house. The impression he gave me is that he is merely tilting at windmills; not that I suggest there is any comparison between him and Don Quixote. That is not so. I have regard for Don Quixote. But this hon. gentleman, as usual, mounts his charger and dashes madly to the fray, quite indistinguishable from the rump on which he is perched.


Mr. Cannon:: That is a hot one.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Now I am
going to deal with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The other night he said this as reported at page 4632 of Hansard:
It has been represented that this will be a great gold mine for the owners of the shares.
I said so and I proved that on the basis of the figures which were submitted to the minister by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. I said then-and the minister has not denied it

that by 1962, on the basis of the company's own projection, certain shareholders will be getting about 15 per cent per annum in dividends, some would be getting 20 per cent and others would be getting 45 per cent. I do not know what the right hon. gentleman's definition of a gold mine is, but I think there are very few gold mines in this country which are going to pay dividends such as those which Trans-Canada Pipe Lines will pay. Then he went on to make this admission. He said that an investment in this company will be a fair investment. If he thinks this is going to be a fair investment, why should not private enterprise undertake it? If the right hon. gentleman thinks this will be a fair investment, why does he have to come to the parliament of Canada and ask the taxpayers of Canada to put up the money to finance this company; and not only to lend them the money with which to finance it but in effect to subsidize them through rates of interest? If it is a fair investment, surely free enterprise can handle it. This is what the minister says is a fair investment. Yet he comes and asks money from parliament for


the benefit of this company. As reported at page 4632 of Hansard he said this:
I think it is most unfortunate when the hon. member for Winnipeg North starts counting up the millions of dollars that will go to the owners of the common shares.
What is unfortunate about it? Is it unfortunate that these figures are being placed on the record? Is it unfortunate that in the opinion of many people this company will be a gold mine and will be able to pay these dividends of which I have spoken? Surely there is nothing unfortunate in that statement. What the minister should have said was, "I think it is most revealing when the hon. member for Winnipeg North is able to do this". Many of these facts and figures have not come from the government. We have had to put them on the record.
I think time will show that this pipe line will be successful, and to that I have no objection. I think it will be extraordinarily successful. But I object to the taxpayers of Canada having to put up this money when private enterprise itself ought to be in a position to do it.
Then the minister goes on to tell us about the capitalization again, of the shares which will be issued at $8 each; some shares which will be issued at $8 plus interest back to the time of the inception of the company; some shares which will be issued to the distributors at $9; and still other shares which will be issued to the public at $10, of which only $9 will go into the treasury of the company, $1 being taken off for underwriter's fees or some other expense of which I know nothing. But there was still another share I mentioned. I refer to that share which was attached to the subordinated debentures, whereby those who bought debentures for $50 will be able to buy a share for $3.32. I said in the past that if this method of capitalization goes through, not many of the people of Canada are going to get a chance to buy these subordinated debentures. Then the minister went on to say this:
This idea that the insiders are making a killing is absolutely wrong.
What is the 20 per cent per annum but a killing? And it would be more than 20 per cent because as time goes on and the bonds are redeemed there will be less interest to be paid. Therefore there will be more money available for distribution as dividends. If this is as good a financial proposition as I believe it to be, as the minister believes it to be and as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) believes it to be, why can the sponsors not finance this thing? Why have you to come to Canada and ask the people of Canada to finance it? Why do you go almost to the

extent of total financing and yet say, "This must be given back to free enterprise"? Why not go the other 5 per cent and say, "This will be owned by the people of Canada"?
It is profitable in more senses than we are told. It is going to be profitable on the basis of the company's own projection. Let us take also the projection of the firm of chartered accountants, namely Clarkson, Gordon and Company who made a report to the treasurer of Ontario. They said, as regards public ownership alone, that the income projection shows the estimated results from the government-owned line in one set of circumstances that on the basis of public ownership there would be $10 million available after all interest had been paid and after depreciation had been paid to go into the treasury of Canada. When one takes into consideration the other 200 million cubic feet per year which ultimately will be exported at Emerson, there is going to accrue to the company a profit of $8 million a year through carrying that gas. In other words, there will be a minimum of $18 million a year available to go into the treasury of Canada.
Then the minister says that this legislation is not improvident. I think it is truly and completely improvident when a monopoly is allowed to make this sort of profit in Canada, a monopoly which is to be financed by the people of Canada but which could be owned by the people were there any desire that they should do so. The minister went on to say this:
Many times the men who have been working at this problem,-
And this is heartbreaking; this rends the heart strings.
-working their hearts out trying to get it moving,-
Let us see who are these people who are working their hearts out. Who are these people who have come to see the minister with their hearts working overtime? Canadian Gulf; Hudson Bay Oil; Tennessee Gas Transmission Company; Canadian Delhi Oil; International Utilities Corporation-this group which owns 83 per cent of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. Have they been working their hearts out? What they have been doing is working their heads to the bone. The following quotation from the minister is interesting because the minister goes on to say this-[DOT] referring to these men, these great financiers, these tycoons:
-have said to me, "If we could get $8 back and have a chance to buy the same shares at $9 or $10 when the line is in operation, it would be the greatest transaction we have ever made".
In other words, what these men did was to go to the minister and say, "If you will
5, 1956	4721
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation give us $8 for our shares today, next year we will give you $10 for them". I suppose that could be called financial wizardry but I think that is pure, sheer fatheadedness. If the men who are running this corporation are such utter fatheads as to make such a proposition as this, then I do not think we can trust them with the running of this corporation. The minister, in his rebuttal, did not make a very effective answer to the arguments we have advanced. We have said, and I think rightly, that this whole proposition should be under public ownership. We have shown from the figures of the company itself and we have given from the figures of Clarkson, Gordon that this company would be very profitable, so profitable it should be financed by public enterprise, for since it is a monopoly those profits should go to the treasury of the country.
There is one more particular matter I want to talk about. We have been told that we were going to stop this legislation in the house. It is true. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has said, as have others, that it was our intention within the rules of the house to use every device, every stratagem, whereby we could stop this legislation. We had the right to do it, just as the government had the right to stop us or thwart us if they could. We used every manoeuvre we knew and we outmanoeuvred and outfought the government. The government was stopped cold until that unhappy day last week when the Speaker of this House of Commons came before us and asked a brute majority to support a proposition which he submitted to us. That was a prostitution of the rules of this parliament, but the majority carried it. In defence of what happened afterwards, we have the spectacle of this knight in shining armour, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), who said last night when dealing with this same question as recorded at page 4683 of Hansard for June 4, 1956:
Both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the C.C.F. this afternoon said that all of us ought to regret what has happened particularly what happened on Friday.
Then the Minister of Finance goes on:
I am going to agree with both of them. However, I hope that in expressing agreement in that sense I am not to be taken as having accepted any responsibility for it.
Pontius Pilate come to judgment. The Minister of Finance takes water and washes his hands. In the meanwhile, what is the Prime Minister of Canada doing? While this whole unhappy scene was being enacted he sat there quiescent and impotent, the leader of parliament, who could not restore order in this house. On the other hand, to protect
4722	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the petty prestige of this government, he sacrificed the Speaker of this house.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: You certainly can.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Where was the hon. gentleman at that time? Was he in his seat?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I was protesting on the floor of the House of Commons at this iniquity; that is where I was. I am prepared to account for that to my constituents, and I know what is going to happen when I meet my constituents.


John Whitney Pickersgill: More gas.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: What the Prime Minister did was to co-operate in the destruction of the Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask hon. members to debate the measure that is now before us.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to do so but I call you to witness that the Minister of Finance introduced this subject into this debate last night.


Mr. Speaker:: I will go along with the hon. member that too much extraneous matter has been injected into this debate, but there are only a few hours left before the debate is concluded-


An hon. Member:: Why?


An hon. Member:: Whose fault is that?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not blaming anyone at the moment; I am merely asking hon. members to co-operate with the Chair if they feel that, for the purpose of making their arguments pro or con on this bill, they can avoid personalities and avoid introducing into this debate matters which are completely extraneous to it.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, with all deference, you are about three weeks too late in making that appeal to this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I merely asked the hon. member if he felt that he could accede to my request. If he feels he cannot, of course, because of the precedents that have been created in this debate I would allow him to go along the way he wishes.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Let me
make my position clear, and I hope to have a chance to say this in the adjourned debate.
I think you have no moral authority to be in that chair but I respect the Chair and so I am going to do as you ask.


Mr. J. A. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: In
rising to take part in the last stage of the discussion on this bill to establish a pipe line from Alberta to eastern Canada, I do so with some humility. I am one of the younger members in this house, Mr. Speaker, and a long time before I became a member of parliament, long before I left school, I was taught to appreciate and give consideration and respect to authority, particularly to the established parliamentary rights that have been handed down to us in Canada throughout the years. During the course of this particular speech I will not attempt to point my finger at any one particular member or to bring up matters which I think would be well forgotten. I will, however, attempt to put on the record a few facts on behalf of the party which I am privileged to represent.
It has already been pointed out that we in Alberta have had the privilege of enjoying the use of gas as a fuel for a great number of years. This is true, particularly of the southern part of the province. However, in the part of the province which I am fortunate enough to represent, the development of gas and oil reserves has been a more recent thing. Just a few years ago it was our privilege in the small town in which I live to have gas introduced. I could speak at length on such gas fields as the Turner valley field, the Medicine Hat field, to which I believe the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) referred last night when he spoke of the gas fields as being over 40 years old, Kinsella, Viking, the Lloydminster, Vermilion and other fields. So far as I am concerned personally I do know that the development of gas and petroleum resources in Alberta has meant a great deal to the industrial development of that province.
On the other hand, I want to point out that the use of this fuel has meant a great deal to the mothers of families throughout our province. I am looking forward to the day when the mothers of families from the Alberta boundary to the heart of Quebec will be able to use gas to cook their meals and heat their houses. In the early days of gas exploration in Alberta, particularly after Mr. Manning took over, there was established what was called the gas export policy of that province. He insisted that so far as the use of gas was concerned, the first consideration in Alberta should be domestic use; the second concern should be the use for the development of Alberta industries; and third, the export of gas out of the province.
It has been established time and time again in this house during the course of the debate that we do have sufficient gas to export and that is why we in this group are supporting this measure. The question of gas export from

Alberta was one which was bitterly fought in our provincial legislature, and it was a major issue in one of our provincial elections. However, that is past history and I am very happy that all Alberta members, with the exception of one, have seen fit to set aside politics and support this measure which means so much, not only to the province of Alberta but to Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec. As far as that is concerned, it means much to Canada as a whole, as the use of this fuel will further the industrial development of our great country.
We are supporting this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, because we see in it the only possible way by which our surplus gas can be disposed of and the only way in which the development of the great petroleum resources of Alberta will continue. For some years we have recognized the need for the construction of this line. Our premier made this statement in 1953, and I am reading now from an editorial in the Globe and Mail of May 31, 1956:
Alberta's failure to get markets for this huge surplus is stifling exploration and investment in its whole gas and oil industry. As long ago as December, 1953, Premier Manning declared:
"It is important to the continued development of the gas and oil resources of western Canada that an adequate market for gas surplus to local requirements be established at the earliest possible date."
This particular editorial goes on to point out:
Ontario's need to buy gas was stated by Premier Frost just last week. By 1960, Mr. Frost predicted, all of this province's hydro electric resources would be in use, and some other form of energy besides coal and oil would be required to supplement them.
We happen to have the fuel that is needed, or will be needed, in Ontario, and we shall be very pleased to bring it down. It has been pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that we in this group have been speechless during the course of this debate. That is not a true statement. We have made comments; we have taken part in every phase of the development of this bill from the resolution stage to the present time, but we have not taken the position, as some have, that we want to hold up the final passage of the bill. We made our point clear and concise.
In that connection I should like to quote from an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen of May 9, as follows:
The shortest speech from the three opposition groups in the commons after Mr. Howe's announcement of a new plan to hasten construction of the Alberta-to-Quebec gas pipe line was that of the Social Credit spokesman, Mr. Quelch. In a single sentence, Mr. Quelch said his group was happy that a start would be made in 1956 and that further comment would be reserved until the legislation came down.
5. 1956	4723
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything wrong, even now, with the speech of the hon. member for Acadia. It was short; it was the truth and it was not time-wasting, nor was it embellished with time-wasting fluff. The editorial goes on to point out that we of Alberta will enjoy the monetary returns from the sale of this gas. That is something that is true. We will enjoy it. The Alberta government and the people of Alberta will receive 12| cents out of every dollar's worth of fuel that enters the pipe line at the eastern boundary of Alberta. But are we the only ones who are to gain from it? Surely, the people of Saskatchewan, surely the people of Manitoba, of northern Ontario, of central Ontario and of Quebec will gain the right to use the fuel that is there.
By-products have been mentioned time and time again in the course of this debate. We shall have some benefit from those byproducts that are taken out of this gas as it leaves Alberta. During the past season we have passed a bill authorizing the construction of a hydrocarbon pipe line which will permit the flow of the materials taken out of the gas to be sent to the provinces of Canada, and chemical industries will likely spring up in the other provinces as well. I maintain that this gas is needed. Its need has already been pointed out in the town of Sudbury for the great nickel mines, and so on. This is a Canadian project as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, and one that is worthy of support.
Our position has been put on the record, Mr. Speaker, time and time again during the course of this debate.


An hon. Member:: You are in bed with the Grits.


James Alexander Smith: I have never interrupted anybody since I came to this house. I always felt that I would be highly discourteous if I were to do so, and I should like to have the same courtesy extended to me that I have extended to others during the short time that I have been here.
Much has been said about United States control of the so-called trans-Canada gas pipe line. We have been told that 83 per cent of the shares of this company will be in the hands of United States buccaneers, and so on. I am not prepared to accept these statements as being exactly the truth. However, as a group we have asked that 51 per cent of the shares of Trans-Canada be offered to the people of Canada. We have been told that better than 51 per cent, that over 60 per cent, will be offered to the people of Canada. We also asked that the control of the management of this company remain as it is now, for all time to come, in the hands
4724	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of Canadians. It is a Canadian company, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, and it is guaranteed that it will remain so. We have heard a great cry about United States investment and United States money coming into Canada from my friends to the immediate right, and I am not singling out any particular one of them. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that the members of the C.C.F. group are in harmony with their provincial government in Saskatchewan, because no later than June 1, 1956, the following report appeared in the Ottawa Citizen:
$60 Million Pulp Mill in Saskatchewan
That is a wonderful project and I agree with my friends from Saskatchewan that it is going to make Saskatchewan a better place in which to live; but who owns that company? Sixty per cent of the money that is to be put up for this company will come from where? Not from the people of Saskatchewan-


Mr. Knight:: Not from the Canadian taxpayer.


James Alexander Smith: Not
from the people of Canada, but 60 per cent of it will be United States money. Where is the produce from this pulp mill to go to? It is all committed for sale to the United States of America. Certainly, that is not the case in so far as the trans-Canada gas pipe line is concerned because safeguards have been taken to see that Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and the rest of Canada are safeguarded.
As was pointed out this afternoon, we do have in the province of Alberta what is known as the natural resources and development conservation board, which was established several years ago to make sure that the development of Alberta's natural resources was carefully handled. 1 believe that at one time the minister of natural resources of the province of Saskatchewan spent some time in our capital city of Edmonton finding out what type of plan we used to protect the development of our resources in Alberta and whether he could institute a similar plan which will eventually work in the province of Saskatchewan.
I want you to remember, in summarizing this point, before comments get too heavy over here, that 40 per cent of the interest in this pulp mill will be left in the hands of Canadians if they are ready to take it up. Sixty per cent of it will be United States-controlled investment.
Last evening I noticed that queer things happened in this house. I thought I had been as startled as it was possible for one individual to be during the course of this debate.


However, when I heard the Leader of the Progressive Conservatives move an amendment to the present bill last night, part of which reads-anyway, he made an amendment which suggested that if in the final analysis everything else fails nationalization of this line be the case. On May 22 we had a vote on an amendment to the amendment which had been sponsored by my good friends to the right, the C.C.F.'ers. At this time the Progressive Conservatives had occasion to vote for practically the same thing they brought in last May. What happened? What did the hon. member for Eglinton do? He voted against it. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? He voted against it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: A different thing altogether.


James Alexander Smith: 1 am
sorry, the hon. member for Eglington was away at that time and I must apologize for that statement. However, he did not vote in favour of the, amendment to the amendment. All the Conservative members who were in the house at that time either abstained from voting or voted against the amendment to the amendment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it has been said this afternoon that we have something new in this house today. What is it? We have Tory socialism. That is quite a term. Before yesterday we had what were known as Progressive Conservatives and now we have Tory socialism. Let us not forget it.
My time has just about expired, Mr. Speaker. In closing I would like to express my deep regret that such an unfortunate page in the history of the parliament of Canada has had to be printed as the result of the introduction of a bill which, in my opinion, means so much continued development for our great country.


Mr. G. S. While (Haslings-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak very briefly in this debate and simply for the purpose of making as strong a protest as I can on behalf of the riding which I represent, the riding of Hastings-Frontenac. My protest is against the dictatorial manner in the matter of the procedure adopted by this government in ramming the pipe line bill down the throats of the Canadian people I also protest against the actions of this government in their total disregard for the rules of this house and their flagrant abuse of them.
It is difficult to understand the reasoning and the thinking of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), a man who has had a very distinguished career as a counsel at the bar. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) is also a member of the bar, as are many other members of the cabinet. All of these are men

who have had years of legal training and experience and they should at least be able to understand and appreciate what we refer to as the rule of law. They should appreciate the value of the rules of this house and they should understand what properly constituted authority means. Above all, they should realize and appreciate the responsibilities of the private members of this house and the rights and privileges of minorities.
I would like to ask what the Prime Minister or any member of his cabinet who is a member of the bar would say if any court in the Dominion of Canada were to proceed to try a case during the course of which the presiding judge said he would hear only one side of the case or if he were to refuse to hear one of the counsel or disallow the full production and examination of all the facts relating to the case. Why, every single member of the bar would protest in a most vigorous and violent manner. They would say it is contrary to law, contrary to what we describe as British justice, contrary to the rights of individuals, and they would be quite within their rights in disapproving and condemning any such procedure.
In this parliament, which we regard as the supreme court of all the courts in the Dominion of Canada, we have seen the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Finance and all those who support this government gag, stifle and prevent the free elected members of this house from presenting the views and opinions of the people they represent. They have used the gag to prevent full disclosure of all the facts and the production of all the evidence in relation to this most iniquitous bill, which is simply a sell-out of one of our great national heritages to United States interests. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that it is a farce, a tragedy and a mockery of parliament. It is a travesty of justice and the rights and privileges of individual members of parliament. But the day will come, Mr. Speaker, when the full truth and the facts now behind the scenes will be revealed to the Canadian people.
The hon. member who recently spoke on behalf of the C.C.F. party referred to certain statements made in this house yesterday by the Minister of Finance, where at the top of page 4684 of Hansard the minister expressed the opinion that he was not accepting any responsibility for what had happened in this house on Thursday and Friday of last week. I say the Prime Minister and his government must accept full responsibility for what has happened, because it was the Prime Minister, his cabinet and the members who support him who brought in the closure measure which 67509-300i
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation gagged and stifled parliament. The Prime Minister and his cabinet were the ones who agreed upon and decided what procedure would be used in forcing this bill through the house. Any member of the cabinet with a little foresight could easily have seen what would likely happen.
People have said that it could never happen here but these same people have seen it happen here. They have seen the parliament of Canada reduced to the status of a parliament in a country under a dictator. We in Canada are inclined to scoff at what goes on in the so-called parliament that meets in the Kremlin where once or twice a year the representatives of the 16 Soviet republics meet for a two-day session and simply vote for and pass everything that is placed before them.
There are many members of this house who have served in the two world wars. Many other hon. members in this house have sons and daughters who served in one of these wars. Concerning the first war there was a slogan to the effect that the first war was to make the world safe for democracy. To me, if democracy means anything, it certainly means a free parliament. The second war was to defeat Hitler and Mussolini and all the things for which they stood and the methods used by those dictators to achieve power. It is difficult to believe that it has actually happened here, for is parliament not the very cornerstone of democracy? Is our parliament not the custodian of all the cherished hopes and ambitions of free Canadian people? Yet these things which mean so much to the Canadian people have been ruthlessly brushed aside in this house. The rights and privileges of individual members of parliament, along with the rules of this house, have been thrown into discard. This whole tragic farce on the part of this government is simply for the purpose of handing over to United States interests one of the great natural resources of this country, which belong not only to this generation but to many Canadian generations yet to come.


Pierre Gauthier: Change the record.


George Stanley White: He says, "Change the record." I have observed many times during this debate many hon. members on the other side of the house have exhibited mocking, sneering laughter when anybody on this side has stood up and spoken on the rights and privileges of members of parliament. I would like simply to tell whoever made the interruption that in the province of Ontario I have the honour to represent in this house the very large riding of Hastings-Peterborough-no, Hastings-Frontenac.
4726	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


An hon. Member:: You do not know your own riding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a reminder of redistribution.


George Stanley White: A redistribution that this government shoved down my throat to cut out a Conservative member. My very large riding of Hastings-Frontenac was settled many years ago by United Empire Loyalists, and their descendants are still there today, the very finest type of citizens in the Dominion of Canada. The descendants of these United Empire Loyalists today have the same respect for the Crown, the flag, British institutions and properly constituted authority as their forefathers had. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the descendants of these United Empire Loyalists in my riding will never condone or sanction-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Attacks on the Speaker.


George Stanley White: -the
actions of this government and what they have done to our free parliament. Has Mr. Jumping Jack something to say? Then stop speaking.


An hon. Member:: Take care of your second-class babies.


George Stanley White: Other hon. members in this debate have already traced the growth of the free parliament in the commonwealth, what a free parliament stands for and what the rights and privileges of individual members of parliament are. I shall not repeat them. But apparently parliament means very little to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In my opinion, no one in this house tonight will ever live to see the day when the prestige of the parliament of Canada will be restored to the position it held before black Friday, June 1, 1956.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh! Hear, hear.


George Stanley White: Something has gone, and it has gone forever. Call it an intangible, if you wish, but that intangible is something that hundreds of thousands of young Canadians fought to preserve, and this government has thrown it away. No magic wand can bring back what has been taken away. Centuries of tradition have vanished overnight, and what has been accomplished? We now see that the will of the Minister of Trade and Commerce will prevail.


An hon. Member:: How about the majority?


George Stanley White: As other hon. members have suggested, only a new parliament can face the future in this country. The people of Canada must decide the issue,


but the Prime Minister made it fairly plain yesterday that he would not have an early election. I would like to draw the Prime Minister's attention to an editorial that appeared yesterday in the Ottawa Journal and a second editorial which appears in today's Ottawa Journal, and I am going to read part of it. The heading of the editorial is "Parliament Should Dissolve". It reads as follows:
Parliament should be dissolved, and the sooner the better.
For if any one fact emerged from last week's pitiful scenes in the House of Commons it is that this parliament has come to an inglorious end.
It can no longer serve Canada usefully. For it no longer represents the Canadian spirit, but has become an alien thing, inviting not respect but distrust and contempt. To continue such a parliament in being, to drag out its life in miserable futility, would be a sin against Canada . . .
Aware of these things, as he must be, Mr. St. Laurent will be incurring grave responsibility, taking heavy risk against public good if he insists that this parliament stripped now of moral authority and national respect be dragged on for another year.	^
If the Prime Minister is not going to have an election, if he is not going to place this issue before the people of Canada, then it is just another example of political expediency on behalf of the Liberal party.
This morning in this chamber many hon. members had the opportunity of hearing the very fine address by the distinguished President of Indonesia. Everyone who heard him speak must have been impressed with his words as he described the struggle in his country for independence and the pride that he expressed when he told us of the first free election of a free parliament in Indonesia, but I say it is fortunate that this statesman was not here in this chamber on black Friday to witness the execution of the Canadian parliament by the guillotine.


An hon. Member:: By the Tory party.


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: As all
hon. members know, I do not often participate in debates. I am very proud, both as a Canadian and as an elected representative, to take part in this debate this evening. I hope the remarks I will make will be worthy of the momentous decision that has to be made in the interests of Canada. Before dealing with the subject of my remarks, in which I wish to prove that this is a beneficial project for the people of Canada, I wish to express my feeling of the atmosphere in which this debate has been conducted and to express my regrets in that connection.
I have the greatest possible respect for the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). I respect him as a man; I respect him as a lawyer; I respect him as a leader in Y.M.C.A. activities; I respect him as a parliamentarian;

but, when he seems to arrogate to himself a superior moral tone, I find that leaves in my mouth a great feeling of distaste. I have listened with considerable regret to the remarks he has made in this house, particularly in reference to my honoured leader and to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). The cruel and caustic remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton are something that I am sure he will live to regret. The mean and unworthy insinuations he has made with respect to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) are entirely unworthy of the hon. member for Eglinton. They are something that I am sure will recoil upon his head. Weak indeed must be the argument, sir, when he has to resort to such tactics. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) outside of the house was kind enough to tell me that he got a kick out of me. When I asked him why, he said: "It is because you are never nasty." I should like to return the compliment to the hon. member for Prince Albert. I respect his abilities as a lawyer, as a parliamentarian, but I think he is very much miscast in the role he is called upon to play. He should be treading the boards in New York and not trying to lead the Canadian public down this blind alley which his party is supporting.
There are also some actors on the other side, the juvenile actor for Broadview whose comments I have heard tonight and which are not worthy of reply. Then we have the celebrated team constituted by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I am sure that upon the dissolution of that firm, which I can see is coming very shortly, they should offer their talents to some of the Canadian rugby coaches because I am sure they would make a place as two of the greatest blockers in Canadian football.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: You had better fire Cockfield, Brown.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: I am also glad to note that the Senate has not seen fit to remove divorce from the parliament of Canada because when the divorce takes place between the C.C.F. party and the Progressive Conservative party we are going to have a spectacle that will be well worth seeing. I wonder whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre remembers the time that his party defeated the leader of the Conservative party. I wonder whether hon. members of the Conservative party remember when the members of the C.C.F. party defeated their present leader in this house in the riding of High Park, which I have the
5, 1956	4727
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation honour to represent. When the divorce proceedings are instituted in this high court of parliament it will be a show in which all the people of Canada will take a great deal of interest.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that?


Mr. Nowlan:: Cockfield, Brown.


Thomas Miller Bell: You had better fire Cockfield, Brown.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: I should also like to say something about the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) who made some remarks about the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Hellyer) not being present at a meeting which took place in Toronto on Saturday. There is a very good reason for that. The hon. member for Davenport was here until the last vote was cast early Saturday morning.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: So was I.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: That may be perfectly true, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North says, but undoubtedly, knowing the nature of the meeting in Toronto, organized as it was by the C.C.F. party-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: No, it was
not.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: -I am sure that the C.C.F. party made certain that they would have their representative there, come low tide or high water.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was not organized by the C.C.F. party.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: I resent the remark that the Liberals from the Toronto area were afraid to be there. We are prepared to face our opposition at any time and look them squarely in the eye.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Then dissolve the house.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: We have nothing to be ashamed of, and we are proud of the record of our party in this particular debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: We are on the pipe line debate. Did you know that?


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Provision of financial assistance by the federal government to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to assure the building of the western section of the line this year is a good business proposition. This country stands to gain whether Trans-Canada can repay the loan by April 2 of next year or whether the pipe line company defaults.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Pick it up.
4728	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Alan John Patrick Cameron: I will be very glad to accept the hon. member's suggestion. The agreement executed between the Canadian government and Trans-Canada on May 8 last requires the repayment of the loans in full plus interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum, a rate which, in itself, provides a profit for the people of Canada.
Should the pipe line company be in default, the government can foreclose and assume full ownership of this essential utility at a rate equal to only 90 cents on the dollar of its actual cost. This factor, coupled with the recognized fact that construction costs of the pipe line are increasing at the rate of several million dollars each year, and the Globe and Mail says $24 million each year, makes extraordinary financing of the line this year by the government not only prudent but sound economically.
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited stands to lose several millions of dollars in cold hard cash and years of intensive unrewarded effort to get the project started. This government and the people of Canada stand to lose nothing; rather, the profit is all on their side.
As at present constituted, the majority interest in Trans-Canada is held by United States interests. In this respect, it fits the ownership pattern of the over-all Canadian oil and gas industry, an industry which we must all sincerely appreciate could not have made its tremendous contribution to our booming economy without the venture capital which has poured into our country from the United States and Europe.
There have been numerous opportunities and invitations for additional Canadian participation in Trans-Canada. This has been a costly venture to support in the past six years. Important is the appreciation that this has been a purely speculative venture. There have been many periods in Trans-Canada's history when the sponsors have had to meet bills running between $200,000 and $400,000 per month. This has represented real venture capital even for the substantial interests behind Trans-Canada. There have been times when the continual demand for financial support has been trying on the sponsors. On such occasions efforts have been made to broaden the base of support through inviting the participation of other Canadian interests. In these efforts Trans-Canada was not successful.
Too, it must be recognized that the ownership pattern of Trans-Canada will change materially when the company is publicly financed. Canadians will be afforded the opportunity to purchase at least 51 per cent of the common stock outstanding at the time
[Mr. Dufresne.l

of public financing. The present sponsors, consequently, must make more than half of their present controlling position available to Canadians. Whether Canadians avail themselves of this offering is, of course, something over which neither the government nor Trans-Canada has any control but the opportunity will certainly be presented.
Beyond financial control, whatever its final result, is the vital factor that the pipe line will remain forever under the complete jurisdiction of Canadian law. Not a cubic foot of gas can be exported to the United States without a permit from the Canadian government. By the terms of the export licence itself, prices to United States customers cannot be more advantageous to the buyer than those offered Canadian customers. The national interest of Canada is and will be completely protected.


Mr. Mitchell (London):: Page 6.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: It is just page
3.	It is utterly ridiculous for opposition members to contend there has been inexcusable delay in making a start on the Trans-Canada project. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, as presently constituted, is little more than two years old. It was in January, 1954, that the original Trans-Canada company amalgamated with Western Pipe Lines Limited to present an entirely new natural gas transmission project.
It is true that the original Trans-Canada company was incorporated by this parliament in 1951. But it is equally true, and of public record, that the original Trans-Canada company failed in its objective, its proposal to build a pipe line across Canada from Alberta to Quebec which would be entirely dependent on Canadian sales. The original Trans-Canada company spent millions of dollars on gas exploration, extensive market studies and detailed engineering in a sincere effort to reach its goal but found that markets were not immediately available in Canada in sufficient volume to meet the stringent requirements of pipe line financing. Too, the government of Alberta refused to grant the original Trans-Canada company an export licence on the conviction that marketing restricted to Canada could not provide a fair return to Alberta producers.
The Alberta government was firm in its insistence that export to a substantial and readily accessible United States market be at least an integral part of any plan to take surplus gas out of that province. A new Trans-Canada company emerged from this deadlock in January, 1954, a company whose objective represented a compromise between the declared policies of the government of Canada and the government of Alberta.

From the outset, export of Canadian gas to the United States was part and parcel of the new undertaking.
Now we hear much idle talk of delays and failures on the part of Trans-Canada. What are the facts? The facts are that the new Trans-Canada company has made tremendous progress. It must not be forgotten this is to be the biggest pipe line in the world; its capital requirements far exceed those of the St. Lawrence seaway development. Its building will result in a billion dollars being spent in Canada on natural gas facilities within the next three years.
Within four months of the formation of the new company, on May 10, 1954, Trans-Canada was granted an export permit by the petroleum and natural gas conservation board of Alberta to take four trillion three hundred and fifty billion cubic feet out of Alberta in the next 25 years. This export quota represented the total estimated market requirements of Canada in that 2J decade period and enough to export 200 million cubic feet of gas daily to the United States for 25 years.
Two months later, in July 1954, Trans-Canada appeared before the board of transport commissioners in Ottawa and was granted a provisional permit to build the line across Canada and a spur south from Winnipeg to carry export gas to the Canada-United States border at Emerson, Manitoba. The permit was provisional to the degree the company still had to prove financibility.
In the same month, July 1954, Trans-Canada applied to the board of transport commissioners for a permit to build a pipe line from Niagara Falls to Toronto to bring in a temporary supply of American gas for the metropolitan Toronto area. This interim supply was important because it would temporarily satisfy a pressing need of the Consumers' Gas Company and would assist in the development of a much larger market for Alberta gas when it arrived in Toronto. This Niagara-Toronto line was started within three weeks after the transport board permit was granted, was completed three months later, and the conversion from manufactured to natural gas was in effect in Toronto by November 7, 1954. This 76-mile line cost $5,300,000 and its cost was borne by the sponsors of Trans-Canada.
Simultaneously, Trans-Canada, equipped for the first time with proper authority, embarked on vigorous purchase and sales programs, buying hundreds of billions of cubic feet of natural gas from the Alberta producers and arranging to sell it to utility companies and industries along its 2350-mile route to Montreal. Some considerable progress was made in both directions but, in
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation both cases, Trans-Canada was faced with problems beyond its control. With the exception of a section of southwestern Ontario, none of the communities along the pipe line route had used natural gas nor knew much about it. Utility companies, either public or privately-controlled, had yet to be established in most communities. Thus, in many instances, there was no second party with whom Trans-Canada could negotiate. This is still the case in many centres but most of the large market areas now have gas utility companies and have firm contracts with the pipe line company.
At the other end of the line, in Alberta, purchase contracts were lagging too; it was evident many large producers were going to hold out until they achieved strong representation of their industry within the framework of the pipe line company. This led to a broadening of the base of the Trans-Canada company to include Canadian Gulf Oil Limited, which owns one of the largest gas reservoirs in Alberta, and Hudson Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited, another major and respected gas and oil producer.
Appreciation of the extension of sponsorship was soon evident among producers. Purchase contract negotiations were speeded up; long-term agreements, favourable to both the pipe line and the producers, were much easier to negotiate. At this moment, June 5, 1956, Trans-Canada has signed purchase contracts with Alberta producers for the limit of its export permit.
In the early summer of 1955 Trans-Canada signed a contract with Tennessee Gas Transmission Company to export to this company, at the Manitoba-Minnesota border, 200 million cubic feet of gas daily for a 25-year period. The requirement of the Alberta government to export to an accessible and substantial U.S. market was met to the best of the ability of Trans-Canada. This export requires the approval of the federal power commission of the United States and it is now being considered.
By midsummer 1955, the prospect for making a start on the line in 1956 appeared quite bright. Plans were completed for the importation from the United States of additional interim supplies of gas to serve the area from Toronto to and including Montreal as a market development measure pending the arrival of Alberta gas. The necessary pipe for this line was placed on firm order and an application was made to the federal power commission of the United States for a permit to import the temporary supply. This application is also under consideration by the United States commission at this time.
As late summer, 1955, approached it was necessary to arrange for the scarce 34-inch

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation diameter steel pipe for the 575-mile line to Winnipeg. This created a real problem. The pipe would cost close to $40 million; it was in heavy demand. A firm order was required and this large amount of money-still a highly speculative risk-posed a large problem.


An hon. Member:: Read more slowly.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Not so fast.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: In late October, with a November 1 deadline for the order looming, Trans-Canada decided to ask Tennessee Gas Transmission if it would consider placing the order on that company's line of credit with the steel company and, in return, assume, if it desired, a sponsoring position in Trans-Canada. Tennessee Gas agreed to the proposal, came into Trans-Canada on an equal basis with Canadian Gulf and Hudson Bay Oil and Gas, and assumed its share of the sponsoring cost of the pipe line company.
Sales contracts continued to grow in overall quantity but still fell short of the amount required to pay the fixed charges on the line, the prime requirement in pipe line financing. It soon became evident that without some form of extraordinary financial assistance, the line could not be started in 1956 and the Canadian government was advised of the problem. It was decided parliament would be asked at this session to provide assistance of assuming the responsibility of building the costly section of the line between the Mani-toba-Ontario border and Kapuskasing. At the same time, the strongest possible case was placed before the federal power commission of the United States for the important export to Minnesota, a sale which, had it been approved in time, would have made the entire project immediately economical and financi-ble. This, however, was not to be the case; the import licence was contested by other interests in the United States and the hearing is still in progress.
Meanwhile, time was running out for the 1956 construction period. At best, Trans-Canada needed 120 construction days to build the line from Alberta to Winnipeg.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to remind him that his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are opposing third reading of this bill, as we have opposed this legislation right from the start, because we regard it as a bad deal for the people of Canada. There are on the other side of this house those who seem to have fallen for the notion that the purpose of this bill is to build

a line that will distribute gas in this country. Surely any who have studied the matter realize that the whole purpose of the promoters of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and Tennessee Gas Transmission Company which is behind Trans-Canada is to make use of Canadian gas for the purpose of breaking into the profitable industrial market in the central and mid-western part of the United States. True, contracts have been signed as a sideline to distribute gas to some areas in western Canada, including my own city of Winnipeg; but with regard to that I simply say that it has already been made clear that the Winnipeg and Central Gas Company which expects to get gas from Trans-Canada for something of the order of 28 cents a thousand cubic feet has applied for permission to sell that gas to the consumers in Winnipeg at a price of $1.10 a thousand cubic feet. That, of course, is run-of-the-mill practice so far as a private corporation of this kind is concerned.
There are those who think that they are voting on a proposition that will eventually get gas into Ontario and perhaps into Quebec. That could happen. It might happen. But the chances are it will not. To those who have studied the matter-to those who have listened to thoughtful discussions of this matter such as that which we saw and heard on "This Week" on Sunday night over the C.B.C. -it is clear that there is a great deal of uncertainty as to whether this line will ever result in gas being brought into the eastern Canadian market. The purpose of the Tennessee company, the purpose of Trans-Canada, is to get hold of this Canadian gas so that they can use it to break into the United States industrial market and make huge profits out of this resource that belongs to the people of Canada.
There are those who dare to hope that the day will come, despite the efforts being made by the promoters of this company, that there will be a system of considerable proportions distributing gas through the various parts of Canada. If there is any hope that that realization might come about I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that makes it all the more important that this whole project should be under public ownership and control. If the picture that has been painted for us regarding the distribution of gas in Canada is to be realized, it means that in due course some 30 per cent of the people of this nation could be concerned in this project.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a project of that significance, a project that might concern some 30 per cent of the people of this country, should not be under foreign private ownership, should not be under private ownership

at all, but should be under the ownership and control of the Canadian people. Because this bill sets out to alienate control over this resource and over its distribution to foreign private interests, we maintain that this bill is a bad deal for the people of Canada. We in the opposition are trying our best not just to delay this bill. Let me disabuse others on the opposite side of that opinion. We do not want just to delay this bill. We are still trying to defeat it. In doing so, we are carrying out our responsibilities to the people who sent us to this free parliament.
We have heard a great deal from the other side, including many interjections from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill), though I do not believe he has made a speech in the debate. I imagine if someone did the arithmetic involved in counting the number of times his name is on Hansard, as has been done for some of the rest of us-quite a compliment, I might say-it would be found that his name is on Hansard quite often, but he has not yet given us a speech. May I say to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and to the rest of the government, particularly to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and there is something very pointed I want to say to him tonight, that they do not yet seem to have appreciated the fundamentals of this situation. They have made up their minds they want to put this bill through. They come before us and they talk about the will of the majority. They talk about majorities having the right to vote and decide on the issues. I want to deal with that in terms of what I call the fundamentals in just a moment. Before I do so may I indicate just how this decision of the so-called majority was reached. It is set out very clearly for us on page 202 of "The Canadian Liberal", for the first quarter of 1956. This is certainly an official publication because the editorial advisory board is headed by D. K. MacTavish, Q.C., who seems to head a great many things. On page 202 I find a part of the speech which was made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) at that Liberal banquet which was held earlier this year. He said:
I heard a song a while ago entitled "What Lola wants Lola gets". But the point about all this is that when the decision is made, when the Prime Minister says, "This is the course we will take", Mr. Gardiner follows the party line without the slightest deviation. There is never a word expressed outside the council chamber that he had ever had a different point of view about the matter at issue.
In other words, this decision of the majority that the Prime Minister and the rest of the
1956	4731
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation cabinet tell us must be accepted by parliament is a decision that was first of all made in the cabinet on the basis of that slogan, "What Lola wants, Lola gets".
Now, Mr. Speaker, apart from Lola let me get down to fundamentals. We have heard references in this debate to the British North America Act and Magna Carta. May I remind those who may be quoting the British North America Act that section 50 provides for parliament to remain in office for not more than five years. Section 50 does not say that every elected parliament must remain here five years. No, it allows a parliament to last not more than five years, subject to being sooner dissolved by the governor general. What is the fundamental proposition involved in section 50 of the British North America Act? It is that we have what is known as responsible government. It is different from government in some other countries where a congress or an elected legislature is elected for a set period of time. We have responsible government which is based on the proposition that the government has the constitutional right to go ahead and put legislation through parliament only so long as it has the confidence and support of the majority of the electorate of this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, the majority of the members of this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the time is reached when there is any doubt about that matter, when there are serious apprehensions amongst large groups of citizens in the country as to the course the government is following, there is only one thing for that government to do and that is to take a proposition of this magnitude, especially three years after an election, to the people of this country.
Lest my professorial friend, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, is of the opinion that I am just uttering my own dictum let me refer him to an authority on parliamentary procedure. Dr. Arthur Beau-chesne. I refer in particular to page lviii, of his third edition.


An hon. Member:: That is page 58.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I recognize that is page 58, but it is really page lviii of the early part of the book which is just before page 1. Not only is it just before page 1, but it is basic to everything else that follows. If this debate only went on long enough I would have a chance to read the whole of Beauchesne.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Have you not already done that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I ask the Prime Minister to listen to this paragraph.
To hasten drastic and contentious legislation through parliament, except on the basis of the
4732	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation clear and unmistakable approval of the majority of the electorate, might, strictly speaking, be legal.
Mr. Prime Minister, what you are asking parliament to do tonight is legal. You have the authority and power to do it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And constitutional.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend would do well not to put his name on Hansard quite so often.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot hope to compete with you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I go on to the next sentence and while I am talking to the Prime Minister I do not mind the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration listening in.
But it would be unconstitutional in the sense that it would offend against one of the foundations of parliamentary government, the principle that no party in office shall act so drastically along party lines as to cause grave apprehension among large numbers of citizens or as to be regarded as action designed solely to protect one class of the community, and not the community as a whole.


An hon. Member:: Tut, tut.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, some wiseacre over there says, "Tut, tut". That is their regard for the fundamentals of our parliamentary institutions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When my 20 minutes are up I shall be delighted if the minister asks all the questions he likes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have only one question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I say that the government is doing precisely what that quotation from Beauchesne says is unconstitutional. It is hastily putting through something on party lines, something that has already caused grave apprehension among large numbers of citizens throughout this country. The Prime Minister knows that the majority of the people in this country do not support him on this pipe-line proposal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you are so sure why do you not tell the Prime Minister to dissolve this house? As a matter of fact, it is my suspicion that the Prime Minister realizes that he should dissolve this house, but it is those members behind him who do not want an election who are trying to keep him from doing it. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, what is being done here tonight by the Prime Minister and this government meets exactly the prohibition in the last part of that quotation:
. . . designed solely to protect one class of the community, and not the community as a whole. fMr. Knowles.]

No, it does not quite meet it, Mr. Speaker. It is not designed to protect one class of the Canadian community; it is designed to provide huge profits for a few people outside of this country altogether. I say to the Prime Minister, in the words of that quotation, he has the power to do what he is doing tonight; it is perfectly legal; it will stand up in court but in the strict parliamentary sense of the term, by the rule of everything that is moral and proper, it is unconstitutional what he is asking parliament to do tonight, and that is the reason we are taking the stand that we are, not just a delaying action, but a stand'-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Our aim, Mr. Speaker, is to defeat this bill and we hope that even yet the arguments that we are permitted to make in the next three hours and five minutes will persuade the government that it is trying to foist upon the people of Canada a bad bill.
Last evening the Minister of Finance paid me the compliment of suggesting that I had spoken more than 30 times in this debate. I do not mind that reference, but just to keep the record straight-and I suppose this will produce a bit of humour, but let us have the record straight-this is only the second time that I have actually spoken in this debate itself. All of the other times that I have risen to my feet-and it may be 28 other times or even 50 times-have been on points of order, and I make no apology for doing my best to persuade this parliament that it is not only important to get things done; it is important to do them in the right way.
I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that during the course of this legislation there have been a number of instances of what we regard as the breaking of the rules of this House of Commons. It is not my purpose in reciting them at this moment, or reciting just a few of them, at any rate, to argue each case over again. The house has made its decision, but I think we should have a catalogue of what has been done by this government. First of all, a second resolution was put on the order paper when an earlier resolution was already there. We fought that three different times because we felt it was wrong. Then, skipping over some of the minor infractions of the rules, we reached the occasion when, in my view, the government sought to go beyond what was included in standing order 33, the first night we were met with closure, when it brought in the bill the same night the resolution was passed. The government also broke a fundamental rule and presented parliament with a gross insult when it gave us a bill without the agreement attached to it which is referred

to in the bill. In due course, we got into committee and we had the Minister of Trade and Commerce, imposing, even before official closure under standing order 33, a form of closure that he devised-unless the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration suggested it to him-that of postponing discussion on the first three clauses, with the result that the only clause we discussed in committee was clause 4. In that connection, since the Prime Minister is fond of reading Redlich, an ancient authority, may I ask him to read a page other than the one he read yesterday. I refer him to page 92, paragraph 3, which reads:
We may, then, say that the centre of gravity of the whole legislative action of the House of Commons lies in the region of the work of committee of the whole house. It is in committee that the fate of a bill is really decided; its ultimate form is there settled in the clash of parties and opinions or by the compromises made between them. In this stage debate is quite free: members may speak to each question as often as necessary.
Over on page 93 Redlich says this:
The rules provide, of course, for the application of the closure to debate in committee as well as in the house. It may be moved and carried upon every question before the committee. But its use in committee, except sparingly, is regarded as unwarrantable conduct on the part of the majority. All opinions ought here to have an opportunity of free expression.
That is Redlich, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's authority, used by him in another debate. I suggest that he read these pages and realize how grave is the sin that he has committed in asking this parliament to give third reading tonight to a bill which, when it was in committee of the whole, was discussed, so far as this house was concerned, only with regard to one clause because we had this vicious form of closure, not only the application of standing order 33 in a way which I feel was in violation of the rules, following the bad precedent of 1932, but we had this other form of closure that the Minister of Trade and Commerce introduced right from the start. That, I say, Mr. Speaker, is in violation of the basic principles laid down in Redlich as well as in other authorities.
I see that my time is running out. I will not be able to complete the catalogue of the rules that have been broken; but, Mr. Speaker, let me say this to you. What has happened throughout this debate? It is not just so much that an individual standing order, an individual rule, an individual citation here and there has been broken; the terrible result is that there has been built up an over-all precedent, an over-all fact that this parliament can never forget; not just that the rules can be broken, but the precedent that has been established in this debate is that
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation parliament can be made to bow to the will of one man. If it has been done once, as it has, it can be done again. No pipe line is worth it.
I conclude with these words. I direct them to the Prime Minister in the hope that even yet, between now and one o'clock tonight, he will reconsider this matter and tell these men behind him who do not want an election that this whole matter is too serious, and take it to the country.


Mr. Viau:: We want gas in Winnipeg.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for St. Boniface says, "But we want gas in Winnipeg." Yes, we want gas in Winnipeg, but we do not want it at inflated prices such as we will get under private enterprise.
If I may get back to what I was saying before the interjection of the hon. member for St. Boniface, there is something far more important than gas for Winnipeg, far more important than a pipe line for Canada. That something far more important is parliament, which has been wounded seriously, wounded by what has happened in the course of this debate. I say again that I did not have time to catalogue all the instances of the rules that have been broken in this debate. They are important in themselves; but the over-all result is that a serious precedent has been established, the precedent that the parliament of Canada can be made to bow to the will of one man. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the Prime Minister, what shall it profit Canada if we gain a pipe line and lose this nation's soul? What shall it profit the people of Canada if we gain a thousand pipe lines and lose parliament?


Mr. Martin:: Will my hon. friend permit me to ask a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is in the conclusion that he has drawn the suggestion that there has not been enough time for the discussion of this bill. The leader of the C.C.F. acknowledges that to be the case. Will the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre not agree that the longest time ever permitted by the Labour government in the United Kingdom-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let me put my question. The longest time ever permitted by the Labour government during the years 1945 to 1951 on a money bill was four hours and 44 minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the minister may I send him a copy of May's fifteenth edition and ask him to read the rules under which the parliament at Westminster
4734	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation operates including rule 29 having to do with closure, where he will see there is quite a different setup so far as closure in that country is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It really works there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members are laughing, but the Speaker nods his head. He recognizes the truth of what I am saying. I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that if he is concerned about the fact that there has not been sufficient time to discuss the pipe line bill in this house I agree with him.
I would also agree there has not been sufficient time to discuss what has been happening to parliament. But so far as the time to discuss the pipe line measure is concerned, may I remind him that we were first given notice of the pipe line bill in the speech from the throne on January 10. The Minister of Trade and Commerce gave notice of his first resolution on February 6. On March 15 that first resolution was debated for one day, but it was not until May 14 that we were given the chance to start discussing what was at long last the government's proposition in this field. If anyone is responsible for cutting down the time for discussion of this measure it is the government on the other side of this house.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have risen to take part in this debate on the pipe line but I thought I could devote a few moments to dealing with the beneficial effect that the construction of this pipe line would have on Canada. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) said that this would mean the expenditure in Canada of about $1 billion which would include the capital cost of the construction of the pipe line, the capital cost of the distribution of the gas plus the capital cost of assembling and purifying the gas.
In my county of Welland a new company, the Welland Tubes Limited, has been formed as a subsidiary of the Steel Company of Canada and of the Page-Hersey Tubes, Limited. This company is presently building a plant five acres in extent to make 30-inch pipe to build a part of the line from Winnipeg to Montreal. In fact, it has already been announced by Trans-Canada Limited that this company will be awarded a $45 million contract for 30-inch pipe. They should be in operation early in the new year. Besides this, Page-Hersey Tubes, Limited', will be making much of the pipe required in the smaller subsidiary lines necessary for the distribution of gas.
The total length of the pipe line from Alberta to Montreal is about 2200 miles. The 

pipe for the 34-inch line from Alberta to Winnipeg will be supplied by United States companies at a cost of about $40 million. The 30-inch pipe for the distance from Winnipeg to Montreal will be supplied by British and Canadian firms. The British share is $32 million and the share of the Canadian firm is $45 million or 60 per cent of the 30-inch line. This is' a very sizeable order indeed for a company which has the know-how but as yet has no buildings and no machinery, or at least not much machinery for building pipe of this size.
I am impressed with the capable management of Page-Hersey Tubes, Limited, and no doubt they will direct this project. I know many of their men and I feel confident that they are admirably qualified in a technical way to build this pipe.
Ever since the pipe line was proposed I have been in constant touch with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I want to thank the minister for saying he would do his best to see that all the pipe that could be made in Canada for this project would be obtained here. I think the minister has been most fair. He has always been out to help Canadian industry and when he has kept Canadian industry at work he has maintained employment at a high level.
Before departing on his trip to Australia I called to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce the fact that the Atlas Steels company of Welland was somewhat slack. They were making stainless steel. I asked him if he knew about any new market for stainless steel and he told me he would see what he could do. The minister went to Australia and it was not long before the Atlas Steel Company in Welland was working on the stainless steel requirements of the Australian railways. This has opened up a new market for this company in that part of the world and I would express the hope that they can continue to get sufficient nickel to fill their expanding export markets.
I have a letter in my hand dated June 1 from Mr. De Young, president of Atlas Steels company. In this letter he asks me to express appreciation to the minister and his department for the help his company is receiving in their export business. This is a typical attitude I find in industry in my area concerning a man who many opposition members say is a dictator.
The manufacturing of pipe will be a year-round operation. Many workmen experienced in various technical skills will be employed and this will help alleviate the condition of seasonal unemployment in the wintertime. The manufacture of this pipe in Welland will help to boom the economy of Welland
.	JUNE
county, the Niagara district and Canada as a whole. A good many men will be employed.
I am very much in favour of the immediate construction of this pipe line and will not at this time go into my reasons. I am ready to accept the word of the premier of Ontario as to the need for power and energy in my province.


Mr. Small:: Pretty weak.


William Hector McMillan: I recently read an editorial which said in effect there was no shortage of coal and therefore the gas was not required. I think this editorial missed the point completely because if we do not need to import coal because of the availability of gas we will save many Canadian dollars. Then, too, the Consumers' Gas Company of Toronto will be using Canadian gas instead of United States gas as they do now. The opposition parties say we are favouring the money barons of the United States. That is just as sensible as it would be for me to say that by their actions they are favouring the coal and oil barons of the United States. We must not forget that if Trans-Canada makes money, and no doubt it will according to the opposition, the three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal must have about a 50 per cent share in these profits.
Much has been said about the rules of the house. I have been here since 1951 and it seems to me it is becoming progressively more difficult to expedite legislation particularly if it is of a contentious nature. Democracy here could be more efficient. We have been here for six months and the order paper seems full and not many estimates have been passed. We seem to debate the smaller items at great length and just before parliament adjourns we pass estimates affecting the expenditure of millions of dollars in just a few hours.


Robert Hardy Small: Why didn't the government bring it down before?


William Hector McMillan: The government brought it down in time. The point is, our system lends itself to a certain inefficiency becoming, in my mind, more apparent with the growth and expansion of our country.


John Borden Hamilton: Let closed debate fix that.


William Hector McMillan: Considering the pipe line debate from a surgeon's point of view, I have often wondered what would happen to a patient if a surgeon working in the chest or abdomen of a patient had to stop his surgery to listen to long conflicting arguments from his assistants.


Robert Hardy Small: Sometimes they do.
5, 1956	4735
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


William Hector McMillan: I am afraid it certainly would not be advantageous to the life of the patient. In the same way, this long debate has not been advantageous to the Canadian people. I never realized and I never imagined that so much pain would be experienced in giving birth to this project.


An hon. Member:: Gas pains.


William Hector McMillan: I agree that we must have rules of procedure and that these must be based on decisions of the past, but too many rules, many of which seem to conflict, to my mind tend to make our democratic processes inefficient. We should strive to make them effective and dynamic. I think we should be able to contrive rules that would leave protection with the minority but at the same time afford rights to the majority, who in the final analysis must take the responsibility of government. After all, it is the differentiation of these rights that comes into play in the procedure of closure.
Our mother of parliaments at Westminster conducts its business much more expeditiously than we do here. I understand that closure is used there as often as 22 times a session. True, it is more often by agreement, but forced closure does occur as occasion requires. But agreement on closure is more readily arrived at when there is a suggestion of forced closure behind it.
I think that if our parliament is to have the confidence of the people we should be spending more time on the business for which we were sent here rather than on long procedural debates. Repetition of argument on succeeding stages of a bill, particularly by the same speaker, is inexcusable, since it is time consuming and costs the taxpayers money. Some hon. members in this house seem to think that there is something wrong with the application of closure. Even the Prime Minister said it was distasteful to him, but he is to be admired for going through with it when it is for the good of the Canadian people as a whole. The Conservative party has used it two or three times this generation. Now we have used it, supported by the Social Credit party. I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) speaking for the C.C.F., said the other night that it should be used on occasion.
Why then the outcry when approximately three-quarters of the members in attendance in this house have been consistently voting for this pipe-line bill? Under these conditions, would any reasonable, disinterested person say that the bill should not pass? Majorities rule in all western democracies; minorities rule behind the iron curtain and in those parts of the world where tyranny still exists. Why should a minority rule here?
4736	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
It is time that some sanity returned to this house. The Prime Minister is both gracious and generous. He is too much of a gentleman to reply in kind. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is also a fine gentleman and has done more in a practical way than any other man in this generation to make Canada great. During the pipe-line debate they have both been smeared by insinuating questions and statements, the like of which I would not like to be on record as using against any person in this world.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Some three weeks have passed now since the government started its plan of muzzling parliament and since it adopted a new type of closure, which is a type of foreclosure to prevent disclosure. One question which has been asked and which has not been answered by the Prime Minister or any of the other ministers is this, and I again throw the challenge out to the government to answer it When in all parliamentary history has this course ever been followed before of adopting closure before discussion begins? I have perused the records of parliament, the history of Britain; I have taken the records of closure during the years; and in large measure it has been imposed as a result of agreement. I can find no trace where in the mother of parliaments such a course was adopted whereby parliament was frustrated from discussion by reason of the actions of the Prime Minister and those associated with him.
As I listened to my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), last evening, I enjoyed hearing a parliamentary speech made in parliamentary style and I compliment him for that speech. I say to him that he did not answer that question; he evaded that question. History shows that Gerry, the governor of one of the states, finally achieved the unusual distinction of having his name used in connection with gerrymander. Another politician, Roorback, achieved the doubtful distinction of having his name associated, by reason of his conduct, with false and frivolous stories a few days in advance of an election when it was too late to deny them. My hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, too has achieved immortality in having created what I think in future years will be known as the Harris closure, whereby the mouths of parliament are silenced in advance because of the fear of the government that disclosures would defeat the purposes of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I am one of those-and there are many of us-who love parliament. The House of Commons-with its traditions, its dedication to preserve and maintain freedom, its necessary dependence on the fact that an opposition

COMMONS [DOT]
must be able to express itself fearlessly and powerfully upon the issues of the day- requires rules that are interpreted fairly. As you know, Mr. Speaker, being about to publish a book on the subject of the rules of parliament, the rules of parliament should not be altered, dare not be changed in order to meet the demands of an overwhelming majority. Only yesterday the Prime Minister, in the course of his speech giving one of the reasons for the action the other day which denied the rights of parliament, when the decision of the previous day was reversed in the morning, said that after all that prejudiced the government. I have his exact words, and I asked him to repeat them. "To the prejudice of the government." Is that the basis upon which parliament is operating? Is that the basis by which we in fact, as members of this house, are to be attendants at the will of the Prime Minister and those associated with him? Sir, the events of the last week will be forgotten, but not forgotten in this generation will be the short-cuts through freedom that have been made by a government that has set the zero hour and then curtailed the rights of parliament in order to achieve an arbitrary date. Yes, I did not get the opportunity to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) last evening what it was that changed his attitude in the last year. Was it not a fact that a year ago he was opposed to advancing money to this corporation? Was it not a fact that a year ago he did not wish to guarantee the bonds of this corporation? He nods assent.
What changed his attitude? What brought about this change? Why this alteration of attitude? Has the Minister of Finance finally concluded that to his left sits the king maker, the Warwick, the man who will determine the next leader of the party to which he belongs?


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, act your age, John.


John George Diefenbaker: He has dominated parliament. Having dominated parliament, are we to say that in the lesser sphere of party politics it would not be beneficial to those who have ambition to have him within their corner? Yes, I ask that, for I find it passing difficult to understand why the Minister of Finance should have deemed it necessary to alter his direction, to change his viewpoint in a matter of a few months. The company that for five years broke every promise, that denied the achievement of everything it advanced, suddenly became even in the mind of the Minister of Finance a puppet equal in favour to the favour it enjoyed in the mind of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Why the change? In order to achieve a temporary victory, the victory of the opportunity of a

majority to say "yes", every right of parliament has been mercilessly and brutally mutilated. Yes, Mr. Speaker, your book is out of date even before it is published.
And we have had all of that in but a few weeks, all of that in order to achieve the glory of a victory that depends upon evasion of the rules. Why, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine how the rules have been perverted when today becomes yesterday because, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said, otherwise it would have prejudiced the government? Oh, it is a dreadful picture. It is one that the members of this government will hear about, it is one about which the Canadian people are beginning to realize what my hon. friend who just took his seat so emphasized, the need of efficiency. Has that not been the cry of every dictator and every potential dictator in every generation? Parliament works too slowly. They want action now. The rules have been with us for generations. Dump out the rules. Evade them. Place Mr. Speaker in an unenviable position, having established the apex of authority and prestige.
Surely, sir, never in the history of this parliament has there been such sordid action to place Mr. Speaker in a position whereby all of the things for which he stood are to be subverted to the temporary desires of an immediate victory, of a fixed date. Oh, it is quite a picture. It is one that governments in the years ahead will look back upon and their members will say: Was that Liberalism in 1956?
I am going to refer for a moment now to one or two matters that have arisen during the course of the debate, and one of them has to do with prices. On May 29 I spoke in the house and I referred at some length to the representations being made by this favourite corporation, this corporation of which 24 per cent is owned and controlled by Clint Murchison. He is a remarkable man, Mr. Speaker. It has been said of him that he can take one dollar and one dollar and make $11 million. He himself has said that when he has been asked, "How do you do your financing?", he has said, "I do my financing by finagling". Oh, there is a man, a man who, according to his own biography, in his early life thought of the day when he ultimately would be able to take the rest of the United States and add it on to Texas. He has looked a little farther north under this bill. This is the man for whom the rights of parliament have been subverted and the traditions of generations swept aside.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) answered me the other day when I produced the record, and I have it
5, 1956	4737
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation here, the evidence given by Mr. Lowe to whom reference was made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). This is the only price list that has been placed by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines before the federal power commission. When I brought up this matter what did the Minister of Trade and Commerce say? He was aided and abetted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), although it is a little out of his ambit. As found at page 4426 of Hansard of May 29 the Secretary of State for External Affairs said of myself:
He does not know what you are talking about.
Charity begins at home, I say to my hon. friend. None of the ministers of the government knew anything about this, or at least the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not, and he went on to say this, as found at page 4426 of Hansard:
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.
Then he went on to say that the prices were as follows and he set them out. That was his statement. That was his manner of deluding parliament. He answered me and he said that I distorted. He did not know, Mr. Speaker, that the sales manager of his beloved corporation, Trans-Canada, had given evidence on the 11th day of April in Washington. I can give him the page if he would like to have the page. This man was showing how advantageous this deal was. But the right hon. gentleman said to me that I did not know what I was talking about, that I distorted. Well, Mr. Speaker, the next day he rose in his place in the house and, with that circumspection that does not always characterize his actions, this is what he said as reported at page 4475 of Hansard: I have a correction to make. That is the omnipotent man, the man who dared to say to me that I had placed before the house something distorted. He said, "My figures were not revised".


Clarence Decatur Howe: You would not correct anything.


John George Diefenbaker: He said my figures were not the truth. I have them here, and if my hon. friend will allow me to place them on Hansard, I will do so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do it.


John George Diefenbaker: They were given in evidence placed before the federal power commission of the United States. This is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said as reported at page 4475 of Hansard:
I have a correction that has to do with the figures I gave on the cost of gas. The figures
4738	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation appearing on page 4426 of Hansard for May 29 at the end of column 1 and the beginning of column 2, relating to interruptible gas are in error.
That is the man who told me that I distorted, the man who produces evidence that he had to evacuate the day following. His statement continues:
They were quoted as being the current revised rates, but were read from an unrevised tabulation.
Mr. Speaker, he was not answering me. He was answering his pet corporation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not bother to answer you. You never made an accurate statement in this house in your life.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask my right hon. friend to maintain silence and listen to the truth. As I say, Mr. Speaker, that is what he did, and he did not have the courtesy to say, "When I said my hon. friend distorted, charity begins at home". No. He did not do that. Here is the record and I challenge my right hon. friend to let me have the same right as that which we gave him the other day, that of placing this record on Hansard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly. I have been asking you to table it for the last week.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the same consideration as that which we extended when my right hon. friend produced the revised revised edition.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the permission of the house to have this document added to Hansard for it tells the story. It reveals the facts. It indicates that Canadians, under the representations being made to the federal

power commission of the United States by this favourite corporation; this corporation that has been cajoled, nourished and helped; this corporation whose promises, however often broken, have always been forgiven-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Put your table on Hansard and let us see how phony it is.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I wanted to do. I submit the table.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You read from both tables.


John George Diefenbaker: I submit the table.


An hon. Member:: The boss gave you permission.


John George Diefenbaker: I submit the table which was submitted by Mr. Lowe on April 1, setting out in detail the prices that are expected will be charged between November 1, 1956 and November 1, 1957 and thence year by year until November, 1962.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would you mind telling me who Mr. Lowe is?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We told you who he is and you would know if you had been listening.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. gentleman wish to have this table put on Hansard interspersed between his remarks?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. That is the purpose.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman unanimous consent to have that done?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: The boss says yes.


John George Diefenbaker: The table is as follows:
[Mr. Diefenbaker.1



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES LIMITED-ESTIMATED ANNUAL SALES AND REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
Docket No. G-9451 Exhibit
November 1, 1956 to November 1, 1957
Max. day demand MMCF
Annual
delivery
MMmef
% annual load factor
Average
rate
t/mci
Annual
revenue
[Stage Direction]
November 1, 1957 to November 1, 1958
Max. day demand MMCF
Annual
delivery
MMmef
% annual load factor
Average
rate
ff/mcf
Annual
revenue
[Stage Direction]
November 1, 1958 to November 1, 1959
Max. day demand MMCF
Annual
delivery
MMmef
% annual load factor
Average
rate
^/mef
Annual
revenue
[Stage Direction]
Manitoba-
Winnipeg & Central Gas Others	
1.	Saskatchewan.
2.
3.
4.	Total, Western Canada
5.	Mid-Western Gas Transmission at Emerson...
6.	Sub-total, W'innipeg
West	
151
28-1
232-1
Ontario-
Union Gas Company... Others-
Western Ontario	
Northern Ontario....
International Nickel.... North Bay to Toronto.. Provincial Gas Company	
Dominion Gas Company	
Toronto and area....
East of Toronto to
Montreal	
Ottawa and area	
Total, Others	
Undistributed, Niagara.
Quebec, Montreal	
Sub-total, East of Winnipeg	
23. Total Sales.
Allowance for-
Losses	
Fuel	
3-3
50
37
26-i
32-!
40-!
1,086
23-3
5-1
50
37
32-!
40-!
1,678
17-5
31 0 4-5
6-8
50
50
1,741
2,534
10-8
77-5
15,476
61-430
25-!
15,941
67-014
63-307
17,217
18,475
77-814
8-	32 3-65
9-	2 [DOT]85
1-1
5-8
1-	97 [DOT]87
2-	5 [DOT]12
[DOT]2
1 -49 1-40
65
37
75
75
52-7
77-5
66-2
51-	5
52-	1
458
1,288
922
7,107
729
12-9
10-0
1-9
7-3
9-0
2-24
[DOT]3
16-4
1-97
65
75
50
70
90-82
12,375
102-00
28-928
35-67
10,319
5,471
4S-0
13-1
63-778
28,165
76-484
46,640
1-50
[DOT]706
[DOT]297
9-50
1-	333
2-	158
13-0
3-063
Total Annual Purchases-
14-73 p.s.i.a	
14-4 p.s.i.a	
241-41
64-	310
65-	783
500-41
139-932
570-58
162-544
35-0
42-2 52-7 51 -5 77-5
66-2 51 -5
52-1
52-1
2,237
3,368
20,322
3,510
1,291
1,180
1,391
1,079
8,446
1,017
1,026
15,862
8,280
6,825
34,477
54,799
<-«
[Stage Direction]


Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation

TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES LIMITED-ESTIMATED ANNUAL SALES AND REVENUE-Concluded
-	November 1, 1959 to November 1, 1960	November 1, I960 to November 1, 1961	November 1, 1961 to November 1, 1962	Max. day demand MMCF	Annual delivery MMmcf	% annual load factor	Average rate jf/mcf	Annual revenue $(000)	Max. day demand MMCF	Annual delivery MMmcf	% annual load factor	Average rate i/mcf	Annual revenue $(000)	Max. day demand MMCF	Annual delivery MMmcf	% annual load factor	Average rate fi/mcf	Annual revenue $(000)1. Saskatchewan	19-5	3-6	50	26-6	958	21-5	3-9	50	26-6	1,037	23-5	4-3	50	26-6	1,144Manitoba-	2. Winnipeg & Central Gas	39-3	8-6	60	32-9	2,829	46-9	10-3	60	32-9	3,389	46-9	10-3	60	32-9	3,3893. Others	5-5	[DOT]10	50	35-0	350	6-5	1-2	50	35-0	420	7-0	1-28	50	35-0	4484. Total, Western Canada	64-3	13-2	4,137	74-9	15-4	4,846	77-4	15-88	4,981
5. Mid-Western Gas Trans-															
mission at Emerson....	204-0	70-737	95	24-9	17,629	204-0	70-737	95	24-9	17,629	204-0	70-737	95	25-94	18,350
6. Sub-total, Winnipeg															
YVest		268-3	83-937			21,766	278-9	86-137			22,475	281-4	86-617			23,331
															
7. Ontario-															
8. Union Gas Company...	18-5	10-1	150	39-0	3,939	20-0	10-9	150	39-0	4,251	21-5	11-6	150	39-0	4,524
9. 0 tliers-															
10. Western Ontario	16-3	3-87	65	42-2	1,633	19-6	4-65	65	42-2	1,962	21-9	5-20	65	42-2	2,19411. Northern Ontario	13-63	3-23	65	52-7	1,702	16-95	4-02	65	52-7	2,119	18-65	4-42	65	52-7	2'32912. International Nickel....	10-7	2-9	75	51-5	1,494	11-8	3-20	75	51-5	1,648	12-8	3-50	75	51 -5	1! 80313. North Bav to Toronto..	3-5	[DOT]47	37	77-5	364	4-2	[DOT]57	37	77-5	442	4-5	[DOT]61	37	77-5	47314. Provincial Gas Com-	pany	7-0	2-56	100	46-1	1,180	8-00	2-92	100	46-1	1,346	9-0	2-95	90	47-9	1,41315. Dominion Gas Com-	pany	2-75	[DOT]5	50	66-2	331	3-3	[DOT]60	50	66-2	397	3-8	[DOT]7	50	66-2	46316. 1 oronto and area	61-6	16-84	75	51-5	8,673	62-9	17-20	75	51-5	8,858	64-0	17-5	75	51 -5	9,01317. East of Toronto to	Montreal	8-65	2-09	66	55-3	1,156	9-8	2-38	66	55-3	1,316	10-5	2-55	66	55-3	1,41018. Ottawa and area	9-5	2-60	75	52-1	1,355	11-4	3-12	75	52-1	1,626	12-7	3-48	75	52-1	1,81319. Total, Others	133-63	35-06	17,888	147-95	38-66	19,714	157-85	40-91	20,91120. Undistributed, Niagara.	81-5	26-407	35-67	9,419	47-6	15-207	35-67	5,424	28-2	8-777	35-67	21. Quebec, Montreal	62-0	17-0	75	52-1	8,857	79-0	21-6	75	52-1	11,254	90-0	24-6	75	52-1	12,81722. Sub-total, East of Win-	295-63	88-567	40,103	294-55	86-367	40,643	297-55	85-887	41,383
23. Total Sales		563-93	172-504			61,869	573-45	172-504			63,118	578-95	172-504			64,714
															
Allowance for-															
24. Losses	4-40	1-725	4-40	1-725	4-40	1 -725	25. Fuel	14-80	3-804	14-80	3-804	14-80	3-804	
Total Annual Pur-															
chases-															
26. 14-73p.s.i.a	583-13	178-033	592-65	178-033	598-15	178-033	27. 14-4 p.s.i.a	596-56	182-112	606-28	182-112	612-01	182-112	
o
s
[Stage Direction]
o
5S
w
BEL/jp.
November 23, 1955
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation

A simple perusal of this document indicates as follows. My leader yesterday placed on record the figures for the period from November 1, 1957 to November 1, 1958 and so on year by year. In every year until 1962 Canadians are going to pay on the wholesale price approximately 7 cents to 10 cents more per thousand cubic feet than will the Americans. The Midwestern company, of course, is in a dual position.
An hon. Member:: Time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Gardiner Symonds is in the position of being a director and one of the bosses of Trans-Canada. He is also the head of Midwestern because it is a subsidiary of Tennessee. He buys cheaply from the Canadian organization and he sells at extremely high prices in the United States. My right hon. friend says that these were phony figures. The only thing phony about them was that they were given by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines corporation before the federal power commission of the United States. I make this suggestion. If they are right-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am glad you put in that qualification, "if they are right".


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I say "if they are right". If they are right my right hon. friend, regardless of what the law may be in Canada, is actually helping a corporation to soak Canadians for the benefit of these very desirable promoters, these adventurers from Texas trading into Canada, and away with Canada's resources. On the other hand, if they are false,-and I want to be fair to my right hon. friend because it is his suggestion that they are-may I say that they are the only figures that this company has presented before the federal power commission of the United States. If they are false, the Trans-Canada officers and officials are trying to obtain, by false pretences, an order of a United States commission. I do not care which alternative you take. On the one hand, they are defrauding Canada, if you believe that the figures are correct; and they are certainly in the evidence of Mr. Low, the sales manager. If they are false, the purpose is to delude a United States commission into believing-in order to secure an order from the United States of America- that the price will be advantageous to the United States.
That is the kind of thing that we wanted to have before a committee, Mr. Speaker. The government say they gave us the right to speak, the right to question. In committee, when we asked one question after closure, we were out. We lost our position. We could not follow up. We wanted to see that
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation benign and benevolent man, Mr. Gardiner Symonds. We desired to have an opportunity of finding out how he, on the one hand, as a director of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, would be able to secure the best price for Canadians and how, as the motivating genius of the Tennessee company and the Midwestern company, he would at the same time be desiring to secure the lowest possible price. Mr. Speaker, the record is there. The Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day was obliged to rise and say to my friend the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener), "If my figures are right"; because he pointed out that on the figures given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Canadians were being mulcted for the benefit of the people of the United States. He said, "If it is right,
I will stop it; I will use the law". What have you been doing?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Confession is good for the soul, even in the dying days of a debate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There has been no gas export permit issued.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly what the minister has been doing, nothing, but endeavouring to railroad through the House of Commons legislation for a company the desirability of whose claim is subject to the most serious suspicion. Certainly, there should have been a most serious examination.
Sir, I should like to have dealt with the McMahon plan. I should like to have some of the ministers conduct a little Gallup poll of their own. How many of them saw the McMahon plan?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have seen lots of Gallup polls.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the Minister of Mines? I never saw it. There were only three copies and the minister had three and they were all private and confidential. I put it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he told McMahon to write "private and confidential" on there. McMahon produced the record and the minister said write "private and confidential"-


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is an absolute falsehood, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: My right hon. friend has often said that. He said it to me the other day and I have proven now that it was he who was deceiving parliament.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming),
4742	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation in a speech part of which at least I hope he will regret, suggested that we on this side, and especially we in the government, were putty in the hands of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).


Frank Exton Lennard: Aren't you?


Lester Bowles Pearson: He went on to say, with that fine disregard for accuracy which he so often displays-


George Clyde Nowlan: He studied under you.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member was a disgrace to my teaching. "Where are all those members of the government? There is not one of them who has stood up here"-I am proud to be the eighth member of the government to speak on this bill.
We are now, Mr. Speaker, ending a debate which began, and we often forget this, on May 14th.	,


Edmund Davie Fulton: It began on May 17th, and you know it. Why persist in falsifying the record.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In the immortal words of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), I asked the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) to maintain silence and listen to the truth. We occasionally forget also that this is a debate on a pipe line. The opposition to this bill has been long and vigorous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: At times it has been frenzied. It was forecast many years ago, the tactics that should be followed by a Conservative opposition in such a discussion.


George Clyde Nowlan: That was when you were a Tory.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can stand heckling, but' I do not like to be insulted in that way. A great Canadian, Mr. Speaker, the late John W. Dafoe, in his book "Clifford Sifton in Relation to his Times", had this to say in describing the tactics of the opposition of 1897 to a railway bill introduced by Mr. Sifton. From his book I quote the following paragraphs which have a peculiar relationship to the debate we have been having in this house. He said:
If any Canadian satirist wishes to write an oration for the use of an opposition resisting a government proposition to build or assist in building a railway-
Or, if you like, a pipe line.
-he can readily find his material in that vast repository of talk, the Canadian Hansard. The lines of the attack are defined by usage and sanctified by tradition.
This was written many years ago.
First it must be urged that the building of the road is too early or too late . . . then the route is 

all wrong; it either starts at the wrong place or follows the wrong course. The parties to whom the building of the road-
Or the pipe line.
-is given are not the right parties.
Then, Mr. Dafoe put in quotes some of his own reflections on this.
"Is not the government aware, Mr. Speaker, that the bankers of London, New York, Paris and Kalamazoo, in alliance with the engineers of Great Britain, the United States, Germany and Kamschatka are eager to build this railway, and given the opportunity are prepared to make a proposition which will save this country millions and rescue the people from the hands of the exploiters whom the government delight to honour?"
Then, Mr. Dafoe went on:
Since the government cannot tear up the contract any alternative offer can be put in the most attractive light; while conversely, the arrangement, to which the government is committed, is to be painted in the darkest colours. Flagitious, corrupt, improvident, perfidious, knavish, faithless are words very suitable to be used. Any member of the opposition can be trusted to say that the treasury of the country is being robbed in order that means may be obtained for the debauching of the electors;-


George Clyde Nowlan: That is obvious.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I continue the quotation:
-but only those most skilful in the art of innuendo should be permitted to hint that there is a private and sinister explanation of the favouritism displayed by the minister. By the use of some such formula an opposition running to interminable length can be offered.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the opposition has undoubtedly run to an interminable length, but there has not been as much discussion on the bill during this interminable length as on things external to the bill. This is probably a good reason why the Minister of External Affairs should take part.
The opposition, of course, claim, and they claim very often, to be gagged. If that is true, Mr. Speaker, they are the noisiest group of gagged men in history. They have talked, gag or no gag, endlessly on the bill, around the bill, above the bill and below the bill. They have ranged far and wide from Alcibiades, through Shakespeare down to poor old Guy Fawkes and then on to Hitler. They have raised endless points of order, questions of privilege, especially from one or two members.
A charge, and it is a serious one, has been levelled that what we are witnessing in this debate is the end of our parliamentary freedom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, that is the charge, Mr. Speaker.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Absolutely right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What in reality are exaggerated and excitable statements cannot destroy the facts any more than carefully contrived scenes in the House of Commons can obscure them. Parliamentary government is in danger when the government elected in a democratic way is prevented from carrying on the business of government by a minority using and exploiting the rules of the house. To prevent that, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: What about closure?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if some of the apostles of free speech would allow me to continue my speech. To prevent this, there are rules of closure recognized in every deliberative assembly, and in most of them the rules are far stricter than they are in this assembly. That rule has been applied here, not to stop debate but to limit it. In that connection, reference has been made very often to the use of closure in the mother of parliaments, about which we have heard so much in the discussion. Let us see what happens in the parliament at Westminster. From 1945 to 1951, which was the period when the Socialist government was in power in the United Kingdom, the maximum time actually devoted to the consideration of any government money bill by the House of Commons during that period of six years was 21 hours and 25 minutes.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It was defeated since.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And of that total time,
including 44 minutes on the resolution preceding the bill, 7 hours and 18 minutes were given to second reading, 10 hours in committee, 22 minutes on the report and 2 hours and 35 minutes on third reading.
In the six Socialist sessions covered by this period, 55 money bills became law in the United Kingdom. Altogether, they took up 260 hours, 9 minutes, of parliamentary time, which would suggest-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good legislation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -that the average time
spent in debate on a bill over there during that parliament was 4 hours and 44 minutes That country, Mr. Speaker, the home of parliamentary freedom, also understands the necessities of parliamentary government, the responsibilities and rights of the government as well as of the opposition.
There is going on tonight in Paris, Mr. Speaker, a debate on which the government of that country has staked its existence. Before that debate began a period of three days was allowed for it. Is that the end of democracy in France?


Some hon. Members:: Pretty much.
5, 1956	4743
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Lester Bowles Pearson: Or is the real danger to democracy in France from the extremists in that country, right or left, who delay, obstruct, provoke scenes, shout down the presiding officer, or walk out? Extremists in those countries know, Mr. Speaker, that the best way to destroy democratic government -and in some of them they have succeeded -is to prevent it from governing; that the way to destroy freedom is to promote licence and confusion, and the best way to destroy democratic authority is to bring it into ridicule.


George Harris Hees: Is this your pitch for the leadership?


Frank Exton Lennard: No; it is his swan song before leaving.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member for Broadview, whose interruptions in this debate are as vociferous as they are vacuous, must remember that all members are not consumed with the political ambition that seems to consume him.


Mr. Sinclair:: Back to the bush leagues.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The people of this country are not going to believe that a Liberal government headed by the present Prime Minister is going to destroy the liberties of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is no one in this country who is also going to believe that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who has done so much for Canada in peace and war, is-to use, Mr. Speaker, the shameful phrase that came from the other side- the tool of United States interests.


George Harris Hees: Do you think you can catch Walter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member for Broadview is a physical heavyweight but a mental featherweight.


George Harris Hees: You were ahead last year but not this year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If we could have a little free speech for once I would appreciate it. I now come to a very important aspect of this discussion which has been referred to by a good many speakers, and that is the international side of the question. It has been suggested in the debate that our relations over this bill with the United States have been humiliating; that this bill represents a sell-out to United States interests.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is no
reason for not speaking very frankly on our
4744	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation relations with the United States of America on any subject. I have done it in the past and I hope to do it in the future. But it is no service to our country or to the United States to indulge in unfair references to Americans, to make destructive and insulting comments on United States investment; to use coarse epithets and charge that our resources are falling into the hands of United States buccaneers.


George Clyde Nowlan: What does the New York Times say today?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is humiliating and degrading to suggest that we are becoming hewers of wood, drawers of water and diggers of holes for our United States neighbours.


George Harris Hees: That is your Montreal speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a defeatist attitude. It is as defeatist as some of the references on the other side to 54-40 or fight, or to suggest that we are becoming a banana republic. I know the members of the opposition get quite violent in denying that they are unfriendly to United States investments in Canada. Well, if they are so friendly to United States investments in Canada why scare them away with this kind of talk?


Frank Exton Lennard: Oh, rot.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hand it to them on a platter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: Where else would they invest it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Their attitude, Mr. Speaker, reminds me of the old English music hall ballad:	"I forgive you, my dear, for dissembling your love, but why did you kick me downstairs?" There is no danger of our losing control in Canada of any investment in Canada in connection with any project under Canadian control, federal and provincial, as this one is.
A good deal of talk has occurred in this debate about the analogy of the Canadian Pacific Railway. There was a case of a Canadian enterprise being controlled, not in theory, but in fact, out of Canada, in London, and at a time when Canada was not a selfgoverning free country as she is now, but at a time when Canada was a colony ruled from Downing street. Did it stop our growth, politically and economically? It did not. Who says, then, that this trans-Canada pipe line project will stop our growth politically or economically, or sell us to any outside country?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Now I have heard everything.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is just as well that we should stop talking, even the hon. lady from


Hamilton, if it is not too much to ask, in a way which is going to disturb the inflow of needed capital into this country.


George Harris Hees: You were ahead last year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: 
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Let us get the $80 million, too.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -unless we want to slow down the development; but let there be no suggestion, because we have had this $600 million worth of capital come into this country last year and maybe more next year, that that makes us a satellite.
This country, Mr. Speaker, Canada, in the councils of the world has won a reputation for frankness, for independence, above all, for courage in facing the problems of development and for energy to conquer them. Therefore, let us get ahead and pass this bill and take one more step in national development.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, some years ago when it was my good fortune to first speak to this house I happened to follow the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and although I was a very junior member of this house I regretted the fact at that time, having just come in the same day as I did, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and five others, that he had seen fit to make a narrow-minded partisan speech thereby projecting the Department of External Affairs into the realm of party politics. He is my personal friend but at the same time he is the gentleman who happens to occupy the position of Secretary of State for External Affairs and all I can say is that if the world is now dependent on three wise men of whom he is one then I hope they are following a star which is brighter than that which is leading the Secretary of State for External Affairs tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Aw.


An hon. Member:: Can't take it, eh?


George Clyde Nowlan: He is going to lose his bearings in this debate and also in international situations and I think we all regret the fact he had to intervene-


Henry Alfred Hosking: Sour grapes.


George Clyde Nowlan: My hon. friend says "Sour grapes".


An hon. Member:: You are jealous.


George Clyde Nowlan: I would like to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs go from the government of Canada to democratic assemblies throughout this world and say, "I represent a democracy". He cannot do it.


Mr. McCann:: Says you.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is why he spoke so forcibly and that is actually why he feels so bad about the situation. We are trying to maintain a situation in this parliament and we all have a personal respect for individuals in this house. Many of us have a personal liking as well as a respect for many on the other side of the house but this is a situation which transcends those things and tonight-it is now five minutes after eleven; no, six minutes after eleven, because every minute counts, every second counts-in one hour and 54 or 55 minutes we are going to have-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The axe.


George Clyde Nowlan: -the axe fall. Like the
condemned man who has had his breakfast at midnight, we are going to hear the footsteps of the hangman coming down the corridor.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Clyde Nowlan: All right, I know that you can make these noises and perhaps one tends to be a little melodramatic but nevertheless that is the situation as many of us see it tonight, Mr. Speaker.
Two weeks ago tonight I happened to be speaking on the second reading of this bill. We had had interminable discussions about procedure but two weeks ago tonight when I raised a certain matter the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) said, "Defer that until you get to the committee stage and we will deal with it there." Where was the committee stage, Mr. Speaker? Clause 1; moved consideration be deferred. Clause 2; moved consideration be deferred. Clause 3; moved consideration be deferred; and tonight I heard the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration say it is the right of parliament-not of the people but the right of the majority of parliament-to decide what shall be and what shall not be done.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


George Clyde Nowlan: I grant that, under certain circumstances; but the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is a student of history. I think he will remember what happened to the Long Parliament. He will remember how the members of that parliament said exactly the same thing, that it was up to the majority
5, 1956	4745
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation to control, until in the end someone came along and said, "In the name of God be gone; you have tarried here altogether too long."
That is the situation which perhaps confronts us tonight, Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with this matter at this time, because we have gone through debate. As my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out tonight, this is not a debate on a pipe line bill as such. That was authorized five years ago. Those things were sanctioned by parliament and the franchise was granted by the Department of Transport five years ago. What we are considering tonight is not the operation of a pipe line as such but the financing of it by this parliament, which is an entirely different thing. What we are considering tonight is the-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Loaning the money.


George Clyde Nowlan: -loaning the money, as my friend the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) says.


John George Diefenbaker: United States investment in reverse.


George Clyde Nowlan: We are considering the fact that having authorized the franchise of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited five year? ago, and that company having made application to the board of transport commissioners and all the rest of it, we are now asked to provide the money for the project. Someone has said that we the opposition, the C.C.F. and this group, are delaying this matter- after five years!
Where are we tonight, Mr. Speaker? We are asked to provide the money. We started out presumably to build the so-called bridge across northern Ontario. We moved from that and now we have to loan millions of dollars for the construction of that portion of the line which these entrepreneurs, when they came before us five years ago, said was the easiest part. They said it presented no difficulties whatsoever and as a matter of fact neither did the northern Ontario line because even if the northern Ontario section cost more, think how cheap it was to build the line across the prairies and they could average the two. On the basis of those assurances the committee of this parliament and the board of transport commissioners gave authority to them to go ahead and now we are facing this situation tonight. It is really a ludicrous situation in many ways, because, as the member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, the pipe line has already been authorized, and as appeared in the press tonight from the pen of a distinguished Canadian columnist there is going to be lots
4746	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of gas to be transported in this country; we are simply laying the foundation of how it is to be transported and it is a most unfortunate thing that in this we should have bogged down in the way we have.
Why have we done it? Because before this measure came before parliament the executive saw fit to enter into an agreement whereby they said this shall be done by June 7. There was no reference to consulting parliament in the agreement or the passing of legislation by parliament. The executive said, this shall be done by June 7, and that was the thing with which this parliament was confronted when this bill first came into the house. I can say, without any fear of contradiction, there has never been a more indecent form of closure imposed upon any parliament in the world than that in the form of the agreement entered into by the executive with the United States tycoons before the executive brought legislation into the house.
I think I can say this. I notice the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) is not here at the moment, but I think I can say this as one Baptist to another. This Machiavellian Baptist on the other side of the house now says, "Well, my friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said in a radio broadcast-


An hon. Member:: Another Baptist.


George Clyde Nowlan: -that there was going to be a filibuster and the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) made a statement to the effect that a filibuster was going to be made." Those are not the reasons why closure was imposed; they have nothing to do with it. Closure was inevitable once this government, behind the backs of parliament and with no consultation with it, went ahead and entered into this agreement whereby June 7 became the date of execution by parliament. Make no mistake about that. They tied the hands of this parliament. When they hide behind certain indirect statements or direct statements which may have been made, then it simply shows the weakness of the case.
That is the only reason why we have closure at this time. My hon. friend, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) once said he had a crystal ball into which he gazes from time to time. Probably he gazed into the crystal ball and saw there was going to be some resistance to this in parliament. And why should there not be? If the opposition realizes its responsibilities, why should there not be? In addition to whatever may be said about the bridge across northern Ontario, we are called upon to lend $80 million to United states entrepreneurs so that they may build a


pipe line across Canada whereby they can carry Canadian gas into the United States. That is the situation.
There have been many United States visitors sitting in the galleries in the past few days, and I hope there are some sitting here now. The other day a friend of mine was sitting in the gallery, and one of them was sitting alongside him. He was asking what this fight was all about. My friend said, "It is a question of a bill whereby the government of Canada is asking to borrow money whereby it can finance a company that is 83 per cent United States controlled to build a pipe line whereby Canadian gas ultimately can go into the United States." The American replied, "If they had the sense that God gave geese, they would be opposed to that." I think that is common sense. That is why some of this debate has gone on in the way in which it has.
Much has been said about the fact that there have been 14 days of debate. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) dealt with that today. The time that has been given to the debate on this pipe line per se has been very much restricted. No one knows it better than my friends over here, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who have a knowledge of history and some understanding of what I mean. If they had been sitting in this opposition-


An hon. Member:: Where they should be.


George Clyde Nowlan: I wonder what the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have said about this if he had been sitting here. I can imagine the fulminations, the speeches he could have made about this horrible, atrocious thing that a government was doing at this time and under these circumstances. That is why, when they talk for 14 days or 16 days or whatever it may have been, the opposition has been trying to develop, during the latter part of this debate at any rate, the rights of parliament itself. Those are much more important than the pipe line itself, important as it may be.
Why are we facing this step tonight? We were told from the beginning that there was a great need for haste. We were told that the steel necessary for pipe might be sold to the Arabians or somewhere else, that it was in such short supply that unless the parliament of Canada passed this bill by June 7 Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited might lose that steel. That was the only argument that has ever been advanced, as far as I can remember, for the passage of this bill.
Yet what did we hear this afternoon? What did we hear from the Minister of Finance? He said that for 14 or 16 days, or whatever

the number of days may have been, the government had been urging that the bill had to be passed because there might be a shortage of steel, but perhaps they were wrong and perhaps, looking at the economic situation, there would not be any shortage of steel. Perhaps there is going to be a depression; perhaps there is going to be unemployment. He suggested that there might be a surplus rather than a shortage of steel, that there might be unemployment rather than full employment and therefore we should pass this bill to provide employment for Canadians who might be otherwise unemployed if by chance there is a surplus instead of a shortage of steel. I suppose the minister has been so close to the United States entrepreneurs who have said, "Heads I win; tails you lose", that he said that if he could not be right in one way he would be right in the other. If they said there was going to be a shortage of steel and then there was a surplus; if they said there was going to be a tight employment situation and then there was a need for employment; the legislation should still be passed.
I wonder just what the government intended. I wonder what the Prime Minister thinks. A few moments ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to this government as headed by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is one for whom all of us have a great deal of liking and had a great deal of respect, but I hold in my hand a statement from the Winnipeg Free Press with respect to that gentleman heading this government. I can quite understand why he has sat nebulously quiet, why like a chameleon he shifted from one colour to another and said nothing and did nothing. Apparently the government itself did not know what it was doing or what it was going to do. This is by Mr. Grant Dexter who certainly is no Conservative. Referring to this debate in the last few days, he said this in the Winnipeg Free Press.
Through all of this hubbub, the most arresting figure on the government side of the house was Prime Minister St. Laurent. He sat, impassive, expressionless, chin in hand, an open book on his desk, silent.


An hon. Member:: And dignified.


George Clyde Nowlan: It goes on:
His aloofness is almost unbelievable.
Especially at a time of high controversy, Prime Ministers, regardless of who the house leader may be, always dominate proceedings and lead their own party. Mr. St. Laurent does neither.
That is a statement from one of the leading Liberal newspapers in Canada, if not the leading one. When my hon. friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, asks, "Can we not have unqualified and undoubted 67509-301
5, 1956	4747
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation trust in this government led by the Prime Minister", against this I cite this statement of Mr. Grant Dexter and I ask him how the two may be reconciled.
I come from a province which is not directly affected by this pipe line. We are going to help pay the bill. We are going to get no benefit directly or indirectly from it. In fact, we are going to suffer detriment because of it, because when the gas flows, if it does-and we do not know how we are going to bridge the gaps or tie them together-but assuming by some legerdemain they can do that, then the coal miners in Nova Scotia, my province, are going to suffer because of this bill. I say that notwithstanding the fact that they say this pipe line has to be built, it had better all be built by the government rather than built of this conglomeration of misfits and misjointed pipes such as we have at the moment.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I come from a province that produced another Howe, Joseph Howe, the leader of the Liberal party of Canada, the one who objected to agreements made behind the back of parliament, the one who opposed the family compact, that which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) personify today, the one who established responsible government in Nova Scotia because he fought those very same things that our friend, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, today personifies. So the wheel has come full circle, Mr. Speaker. We have the Joseph Howe of 100 years ago who established the Liberal party in this country now being confronted by the machinations of the C. D. Howe who controls the Liberal party in this country today. Dust to dust, ashes to ashes and Howe to Howe, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Elmore Philpoit (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, when the famous Canadian novelist, Lionel Shapiro, returned to Canada a month or two ago he wrote a special editorial for Maclean's magazine. He said that Canadians were too dull, that we never got excited, that in particular the parliament of Canada, the House of Commons of Canada, was dull as dishwater, that nobody ever lost his temper and that it would be a very good thing for the parliament of Canada and for the whole of Canada if somebody got excited once in a while in the House of Commons of Canada. On June 1, which was last Friday-


An hon. Member:: Black Friday.


Elmore Philpott: Black Friday for my friends opposite. On June 1 last, black Tory Friday,
4748	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the London news service carried the following cable reporting the comments on Canada of the famous novelist, J. B. Priestley, as found in the Ottawa Journal and other papers:
The average Canadian was beginning to feel frustrated and was experiencing a desire to express his Canadianism. These "wary, dubious, rather shy and withdrawn" people, struggling to assert their individuality, needed to have "their temperature raised".
That was written at about the same time last Friday when my hon. friends opposite were in the centre of this house. I am going to try tonight not to raise anybody's temperature but although I may have something very nice to say a little later about my old personal friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), I have to set him straight on his history because I am afraid that the same history professor that we both sat under, the late Professor George Wrong, would not have thought too much of the ideas he was giving about Gladstone last night when he was holding up Gladstone as a man who was against closure. The way I read the history books and as I was taught by Professor George Wrong-


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


An hon. Member:: Wait till after.


George Alexander Drew: -I am not going to have history rewritten in this way because the quotation I gave from Gladstone written in 1878 had nothing to do with closure but had to do with the legitimate demand for the dissolution of parliament when a condition arose in which there was no justification for parliament continuing.


Elmore Philpott: I am glad to see that the Leader of the Opposition, like the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), can make a correction too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Newspaper columnists might do the same.


Elmore Philpott: It is very clear if we study the history of closure and how we got closure, and it should be clear to my hon. friends opposite, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who certainly knows better although he has pretended not to in this debate, that the great old mother of parliaments, the country that gave the parliamentary system to all of the democracies in the world, applied the first closure in the whole British commonwealth in the year 1888, and applied closure then after about five or six years of deliberate sabotage of the parliamentary system by the Irish nationalist party led by the great Parnell. But with all the great tricks of obstruction which 

Parnell used and which forced the institution of closure in the British parliament, I think that even Parnell never brought up anything such as the obstruction twins, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have brought up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What a Liberal.


Elmore Philpott: So, Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to put on the record, in the same way that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) did, a much shorter table than he put on the record a few minutes ago. I ask permission to put on the record a brief statement giving a complete analysis of the number of closures in the last seven sessions of the British parliament from 1948 to 1955 inclusive.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is your source?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the source?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Has' the hon. member unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. As there is not unanimous consent the table may not be placed on Hansard.


Elmore Philpott: I take that as an example of exactly the kind of courtesy we have in this house.


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


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is never any denial of consent to put tables on the record if their source is given. The hon. member has made up this table himself.


An hon. Member:: Oh, listen for a change.


Elmore Philpott: I will now give the figures which the obstruction twins will not permit to be put on the record.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Your party put on closure.


Elmore Philpott: In the 1948-49 session, from October 26, 1948, to December 16, 1949, there were 15 closures by agreement and four closures not agreed to, that is, opposed by the opposition, or a total of 19. In the 1950 session, from March 1, 1950 to October 26, 1950 there were eleven closures by agreement and two closures not agreed to, a total of 13. In the 1950-51 session, from October 31, 1950 to October 4, 1951 there were 23 closures by agreement and 11 closures not agreed to, a total of 34. In the 1951-52 session, from October 31, 1951 to October 30, 1952 there

were 50 closures agreed to. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that it seems there was a sudden rise after the Churchill government took office. There were also ten closures not agreed to, or a total of 60. In the 1952-53 session, from November 4, 1952 to October 29, 1953 there were 20 closures by agreement and seven closures not agreed to, a total of 27. In the 1953-54 session, from November 3, 1953, to November 25, 1954 there were 23 closures by agreement and 7 not agreed to, a total of 30. Finally, in the 1954-55 session, from November 30, 1954 to May 6, 1955 there were six by agreement and four not agreed to or a total of ten.
For the seven years there is a total of 148 by agreement and 45 not agreed to, or a grand total of 193. Therefore when my hon. friends opposite have the unmitigated gall or colossal ignorance to say in one and the same breath, why do we not have British fair play in this house, why do we not follow the British system, how ignorant can they get or how deceptive can they be?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us what the Canadian practice has been.


Elmore Philpott: Let us look at the British rules. At page 23, rule 29, we find the rule on closure of debate and it shows very clearly that any member, not just a cabinet minister giving 24 hours' notice as here, may move closure at any time and provided that motion passes by a majority, which includes 100 members of parliament, closure is effective immediately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read the qualifying clause.


Elmore Philpott: I am making my own speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read the qualifying clause.


Elmore Philpott: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has been obstructing this house for six months and his time is up.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation accepted that suggestion in the spirit in which it was given, without one moment's hesitation it was rejected by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and my hon. friends opposite.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What a distortion.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Hans Andersen.


Elmore Philpott: I understand that the real objection of the C.C.F. is, of course, that closure is all right if it is done 148 times in Britain by agreement-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How many times in Canada?


Elmore Philpott: -and 45 times by non-agreement, a total of 193 times. I understand that my hon. friends opposite claim that closure in this case was too soon, or that the debate was choked off too soon. I have here in my hand Hansard of March 15, 1956 on the very first day that the very first pipe line resolution was introduced into the house. As reported at page 2162 we find this:


Clarence Decatur Howe: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That was the resolution on the first pipe line bill. There is the first motion. Right oft the bat every C.C.F. member who is sitting across there tonight voted against that resolution to introduce the first pipe line bill into, the house. Let us remember who were the: men who voted against it, and they were t??e only ones in this whole house in any of the three parties. They were:
Argue
Barnett
Bryce
Bryson
Cameron (Nanaimo)
Campbell
Castleden
Coldwell
Ellis
Gillis
Herridge
Johnson (Kindersley)
Jones
Knight
Knowles
McCullough (Moose Mountain) Nicholson Noseworthy Regier Zaplitny


Stanley Howard Knowles: Knowles is still against the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You omitted the part about what happens when the closure motion appears to the Speaker as an abuse of the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Elmore Philpott: Just a minute, your time is coming. About 10 days ago in this house you could have been saved from your folly if you had heeded the wisdom of the wise old man in your party who dragged himself from his sick bed and tried to tell this house that they were on the wrong track; who said he believed in closure and that we had to get back on the track somehow. When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) almost immediately 67509-301i


An hon. Member:: We are still opposed to it.


Elmore Philpott: A few pages over we see what happened on that day and we have seen what has happened since and how my hon. friends the Tories since that time have been led down the garden path by their new allies. Here is what my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) said about that gesture at that time as reported at page 2171 of Hansard:


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, we supported the
motion that the Speaker leave the chair, not because we approve of the motion now before the committee but because we wanted an opportunity before this committee to indicate why we think this resolution should be opposed.
4750	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the comments from hon. members to my left I would point out that nothing is gained by the silly gesture they made this afternoon.
I would suggest therefore that although the C.C.F. opposition have said that we had closure too soon, if they had had their way we would have had closure before one single word was allowed to be said by any member of any party in this whole house.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen in this house in this past few weeks scenes which would better be forgotten as quickly as possible. We have had protests raised about the death of parliament and all that sort of tommyrot. I do not believe there is an hon. member in any part of the house who thinks so, including hon. members in the two parties or the parts of the two parties that oppose this bill, because I think we should never forget that it is only part of the two parties which have opposed this bill, and that the whole Frost Conservative government has supported the government in this matter and is still supporting the government in it and of course the Conservatives' own oil and gas expert, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle).


Mr. Palletl:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Elmore Philpott: Let us remember, Mr. Speaker, why there was disorder.
Mr. Pallet!: On a question of privilege-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This is a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Do I understand that the hon. gentleman is rising on a question of privilege?
Mr. Pallet!: Yes.


An hon. Member:: A fraudulent one.
Mr. Pallet!: Having regard to the statement about the whole provincial Conservative party, I would direct the hon. member's attention to today's press.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, I hope that you are not docking my time as a result of the obstruction tactics of the hon. gentleman .opposite.


An hon. Member:: Talk all night.


Elmore Philpott: We saw tonight quite a demonstration of the great histrionic abilities of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). But the hon. member for Prince Albert has one great weakness as a


politician. He has a great faculty of letting the cat out of the bag too soon. On March 10, in a radio broadcast, five days before the first bill was ever introduced into the house, this is what he said:
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.
I would mention the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) but he is not here. He is elsewhere and has been all through this debate. I will therefore let that matter skip.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is out with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).


Elmore Philpott: I say that all of the obstruction that has occurred in this house was deliberate and planned obstruction and that all of this great wail that is going up now about the loss of rights was the inevitable result of what was planned by hon. gentlemen opposite. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that democracy cannot function-


Frank Exton Lennard: It has not been functioning for the last couple of weeks.


Elmore Philpott: -unless there is a full opportunity for fair discussion and free debate;-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Elmore Philpott: -and unless the majority is willing to respect the rights of the minority-


An hon. Member:: They have not done so.


Elmore Philpott: -and to allow the minority to advance all of the arguments they have to advance. I will submit to hon. gentlemen opposite that they would be much farther ahead in this debate and certainly much farther ahead in the respect of the people of the country if, instead of carrying on the obstruction tactics which they have been using in the past several weeks, they had debated the merits of public ownership versus private ownership or who was going to build the pipe line.


Frank Exton Lennard: Oh, sit down and write your column.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, every hon. member in every part of the house who had any point of order to raise was given every possible chance to raise that point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not true.


Elmore Philpott: So long as hon. members opposite were willing to act as Her Majesty's loyal opposition they had every right that is

granted to them in this and every other British parliament. But when they chose to pervert their points of order to points of deliberate disorder, we had the chaos that we had last Friday afternoon.
I would say just this in closing, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to make any personal references, but I would like to say a word concerning the unfortunate incidents that occurred to one member from Tory Toronto. Of course, there have been Toronto members here who were, shall we say, given a leave of absence from this house before now. I am not even going to say anything about the terrible use or abuse of the most sacred symbol of a country, the flag of this country, which was draped on the desk of a man who had broken the most fundamental rule of this house. But I would say this.


Frank Exton Lennard: Time.


Elmore Philpott: If for any reason-


Some hon. Members:: Time. Order.


Elmore Philpott: -my hon. friends opposite bring out a flag again for that kind of thing, let them bring out the right flag for the occasion. Let them bring out the skull and crossbones, the black and white flag of piracy.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am recognizing
the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron), but do I understand the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) is rising on a point of privilege?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I take great exception to the remarks which have just been made. There are times when the only answer to actions which have been taken in this house is to display the great symbol of democracy and for that action I make no apology.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I cannot hope, of course, to compete with the oratory of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) but I can start with a complete reading of a clause in the British rules of procedure which he omitted. He read part of that clause, but he very carefully omitted this:
After a question has been proposed a member rising in his place may claim to move that the question be now put, and unless it shall appear to the chair that such a motion is an abuse of the rules of the house or an infringement of the rights of the minority the question shall forthwith be put.
I can understand perhaps the hon. member deciding, in the light of certain things that have happened recently, that such a clause is totally irrelevant to this house.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Since we have heard many great authorities on parliamentary procedure, Mr. Speaker, I want to place on the record a very humble authority, no one of any great distinction particularly. He is Dr. Arthur Beauchesne who today in the Toronto Star has expressed his views about this government and the manner in which they have treated parliament. I put it on the record now:
The government had invoked closure too soon, before the debate even started, Mr. Beauchesne said, "They should wait until questions have been debated two or three weeks, then give notice of closure." He also described as incorrect Right Hon. C. D. Howe's device of postponing "further discussion" of clauses in committee stage-when there has in fact been no discussion.
Correct procedure would have taken time, he admitted, "but if we are going to sacrifice parliament to build a gas pipe line from west to east, then I say to hell with the gas."
As if aroused by his own words, he exclaimed: "Our freedom was won in England, on the battlefields; they beheaded Charles I because he interfered with parliament. Are we to go back now to Runnymede?"
Let my hon. friends on the other side who claim that they have been behaving within the rules of parliamentary procedure eat that, swallow it and digest it.


George James McIlraith: He was the Tory candidate in the last election.


Colin Cameron: I do not care what kind of a candidate he was. He is an accepted authority on parliamentary procedure, except perhaps by these witlings on the other side of the house who are understandably infuriated because they did not have a single member capable of debating points of order. The other evening a man said to me that this was most extraordinary. He had never before seen a hockey game in which one side relied on the referee to shoot all the goals for them.
I am very sorry that the minister of external affairs, after having favoured us with a rather irrelevant speech tonight, has left his seat because I should like to ask him to take the statements of Dr. Arthur Beauchesne and read them in conjunction with a particular paragraph of the North Atlantic treaty, a paragraph of which we are told this particular minister is singularly fond. I refer to article 2 which reads:
The parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them,
I commend to the minister of external affairs this very favourable article of his

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation and suggest that he read it in conjunction with Dr. Arthur Beauchesne's very vivid comments on the manner in which this government has prostituted parliament.
I want now to deal with the silly and ridiculous-I was going to say something unparliamentary-the silly, ridiculous, unfounded statement that is repeated again and again from the other side of the house to the effect that there has been plenty of time given for this debate and it is only the obstruction of the opposition that has prevented it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perfectly true.


Colin Cameron: Their justification for bringing in closure, as Dr. Beauchesne has said in defiance of parliamentary procedure, has been based on two things. The first is the arbitrary date of June 7, agreed to by the government without consultation with this parliament, and the other is the statements by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) that there was going to be a strong vigorous opposition to this measure when it came to the house. Now, sir, I suggest to you that any government, having been told months before that there was going to be vigorous opposition to one of their measures, if that government had the slightest consideration of the decencies, the rights and properties of parliament, they would have seen fit to bring this measure in as soon as possible.
What happened? On January 10 it was foreshadowed in the speech from the throne. Then, we heard no more about it for almost a month. On February 6 a resolution was placed on the order paper. Then again it was put on ice for more than a month, about five weeks. Finally this resolution was brought before the house on March 15 and debated briefly at that time. Then on May 9-nearly two months had again elapsed before they brought this measure that they are so anxious to pass and for which there is so little time to debate-they brought it back to us. Then, they complain because in the 18 sitting days much of the time has been taken up by procedural disputes. I suggest to them that Dr. Arthur Beauchesne probably realizes the real nature of that fight. It was a fight to preserve the rights, the dignities and proprieties of parliament. This has been a fraudulent argument presented to the Canadian people deliberately to deceive them into believing that the opposition was given plenty of time but through sheer obstructionism were blocking discussion of this bill, when the record shows that this government had this measure in mind as far back as January 10. They

delayed for a month before putting it on the order paper; they delayed another five weeks before finally bringing it up for discussion, and then they delayed for two months before bringing it before parliament. What a nonsensical delay! Do they think the Canadian people are going to believe them? They are going to believe that there was something that this government wanted to hide, that they did not dare have discussed.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: They are still hiding it.


Colin Cameron: They are still going to believe, and they are going to be right, that this government was determined that no questions would be asked on it. Therefore, the Minister of Trade and Commerce took the course that has been so roundly condemned by Dr. Beauchesne. They did not want to answer any questions. Quite rightly, we have been asking certain questions here and there has been no answer from any government member, not even from the eloquent Minister of National Health and Welfare when he rose to speak, nor from the equally eloquent Secretary of State for External Affairs when he delighted us this evening. One would perhaps not expect that either of these gentlemen could be expected to know much about it, but I would think that the Minister of Finance might have known enough to answer, and certainly the Minister of Trade and Commerce would.
The questions that have been asked them and to which we have had no answers are these: Has the government any firm undertaking or guarantee and, if so, why has it not been presented to parliament, that the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company will build the stretch from Winnipeg to the Ontario border and from Kapuskasing east? Nothing that has been presented to this house indicates that there is any firm undertaking on the part of that company to build that part of the line. If the government have a firm undertaking, then why have we not been told of it, why has it not become part of the schedule to this bill and why has it not been presented to parliament?
Last night when the Minister of Finance was playing so engagingly the Merry Andrew he did not bother to answer these questions. They were beneath his dignity; they were not important at all. All he was interested in was scoring sophomoric points on various members of the opposition.


Walter Edward Harris: I enjoyed myself, if you did.


Colin Cameron: He engaged, I
noticed, Mr. Speaker, in a discussion on the rise of nazism, arising out of some statements from the press that were placed on the record

by my friend, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I have not had time to go back and read all the history of the advent of the nazis to power. It may be that the minister is right. I do not know, for instance, sir, whether the nazis found it necessary to take the speaker of the Reichstag, to break him on the wheel of government necessity, to strip him of all dignity and decency and to toss the corpse back to the chair and pretend that everything was as it had been before. I do not know that they did that, but I do know of something they did. I do know that they also took an old man full of honours, a national figure, a hero to his people, and they befuddled that old man and they stripped him of honour and dignity and used him as a stalking horse for their assaults on the freedoms of the German people.
We are going to build a pipe line? Why? We were told quite pointedly the other night that we were going to build a pipe line as a monument to a stubborn, determined old man who wants to snatch some measure of immortality before he shuffles off the scene.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a question of privilege, you praised me highly last night. What has happened in between?


Colin Cameron: The qualities I have attributed to you tonight are in no way inconsistent with your former abilities, in no way inconsistent at all. No, we are going to build a memorial to this stubborn, ruthless, determined old man, this modern Ozymandias, king of kings. Look on my Works, ye mighty, and despair. We may well despair, Mr. Speaker, about some of the evil works upon which this particular monument is going to be raised. I would suggest to the minister that it would have been better for him to have bought a tombstone.


Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the 17th day of this debate,
I realize that I cannot reach the heights of forensic eloquence of the two great orators from British Columbia who have preceded me tonight. However, I hope that in my speech tonight 1 shall not indulge in any personalities and that I will not arouse the heat that might have been aroused earlier in the debate.
In the earlier part of the debate, Mr. Speaker,
I have been impressed with the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle). From the time that he came to this house the hon. member for Calgary South gave evidence that he was probably the best informed member in the House of Commons on oil and gas issues, and he was recognized as such in all parts of the house. His opinions were valued by the colleagues who sit in his
5, 1956	4753
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation group, but recently a change has taken place in the attitudes of his colleagues. During the course of his remarks, the hon. member for Calgary South pointed out to hon. members the many new discoveries of gas and oil which have taken place in the province of Alberta. He has explained to the house that year after year a great surplus of gas and oil has been piling up in the province of Alberta, on account of lack of markets, at the average rate of 4,000,000,000 cubic feet a year. It is his estimate that $150 million has been invested by Canadians and foreign investors to explore, to investigate and to develop wells producing high-value oil and the resultant amount of gas. The $150 million which has been invested by those Canadian and foreign investors is now carrying interest which is not only a great burden to the larger companies but is also pressing some of the smaller companies.
Last year I had the personal privilege of going to the northern part of Alberta and while I was there I was flown into the Pembina oil fields. I had the opportunity of standing there and seeing one of the derricks erected. I saw some of the wells that were in operation, and on one corner of this particular field we saw a head of gas probably 15 feet to 20 feet high. I said to the engineer in charge: "What are you doing there?" He said: "We are burning off the surplus gas because we have no way of exporting it to eastern Canada. We are burning each day in this particular spot enough gas to heat the city of Toronto for one day." It is my submission, Mr. Speaker, that this country cannot afford to expend energy; to waste a valuable commodity for any great period of time. I say we should proceed with this scheme because each year that passes $25 million more is required to build the line.
This bill proposes a short-term federal loan of $80 million at 5 per cent for 90 per cent of the cost of the construction of the trans-Canada pipe line to Winnipeg. It is admitted that Alberta has a great surplus of gas. They have realized within the last year or two that there is no fear of shortage. Premier Manning has now issued a permit to export 584 million cubic feet of gas a day.
I think we must see that this surplus is used, that it is not sealed up in the earth or, worse, burned off as is being done in the situation I alluded to a moment ago. We are told the city of Winnipeg needs gas badly and must have it this year. Ontario needs gas. Because of the great industrial expansion we have had in Ontario in the last 15 years we have a need for greater energy in the banner province of Canada. I think I am permitted a licence to make that statement

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation because I come from that province. We have shown great industrial expansion in Ontario and have used up to a great extent our electrical energy and we now must turn to other sources of energy.
I would like now to refer to Ontario Hansard of February 21. At page 389 of the proceedings the Hon. Leslie M. Frost, premier of Ontario, had this to say on February 21, 1956:
We think there has never been, since the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the great opportunity to do an outstanding job for our country as there is at present.
The federal government has, in its wisdom, negotiated the agreement with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, and no doubt the consummation of this deal was premised upon our participation in the building of the northern Ontario section.
I submit it is good for us to commence the section of the line which will extend from Alberta to Winnipeg.
Again at page 390, Mr. Frost, speaking in the Ontario legislature, had this to say:
Undoubtedly, northern Ontario was benefiting, as undoubtedly was our province generally, since we represent half the industry of Canada and have one-third the population. Obviously Ontario should not back away from a proposition of that sort. I do not think we could afford to do business that way.
We have taken a generous view with the federal government, recognizing their position in this matter has not been simple or easy. I have no intention here of making it more difficult for the federal government to carry its arrangements through. If I did that, I would be doing a disservice to this country.
If Mr. Frost would be doing a disservice to this country in putting bars in the way of this scheme, then I submit that as a member of this house representing the constituency which I have the honour to represent I would be doing a disservice to this country if I did not support third reading of this bill.
I should like to refer to a meeting held at Niagara Falls, Ontario, on May 25 last. This meeting was addressed by the Hon. Dana Porter, treasurer of the province of Ontario. The meeting was reported in the May 26 edition of the Toronto Daily Star the day following the meeting and the Toronto Star reports the meeting in this manner:
Mr. Porter stood flatly behind the Liberal government in Ottawa and took a position opposite to that of the national Progressive Conservative leader, George Drew on the subsidization of U.S. interests to construct the trans-Canada pipe line.
Mr. Porter was further quoted as saying, and I cite his words:
As a provincial government we are satisfied that a supply of natural gas is essential to the exploitation of the future and we feel that a delay of that supply would be a detriment to our own success.

Mr. Speaker, if these are the opinions of the premier of Ontario and his provincial treasurer-men who have good knowledge of this matter and I am sure they must have -then I believe it is right that this government co-operating with them should see that opportunity is given to extend the western leg of this line.
Later in his address at Niagara Falls, Mr. Porter pointed out that the 30-inch pipe line will carry energy equivalent to 8 million tons of coal and the very nature and quality of the fuel makes it of great value, particularly to the province of Ontario. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is why the premier of Ontario and his government are ready to put up $35 million for the northern leg of the pipe line which extends across the northern part of our province. They are willing to extend the time under which the arrangement could be made in order that we could provide that line. We must be ready next spring to join in a partnership with the province of Ontario in order that we can assist them to do this job. It should be borne in mind that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited has already provided $14 million and they will provide another $7J million which will boost their total investment in this enterprise to $21 million.
I have mentioned the words of Premier Frost with regard to northern Ontario. This line will pass through such centres as Kenora, Port Arthur and Fort William, Timmins, Kapuskasing, Kirkland Lake and North Bay. Here a great industrial development awaits the people of northern Ontario and the domestic users as well will have the opportunity of using this gas. They will have a fuel which will substitute for a fuel which they now import from the state of Pennsylvania in the United States of America and they will get it at a lower cost.
So far as southern Ontario is concerned the line has already been built. From the Niagara river at Queenston crossing the counties of Lincoln, Wentworth, Halton, Peel, York and extending into the city of Toronto, Tennessee gas is flowing through a pipe line that was laid last summer. This gas is being purchased by the Consumers Gas Company of the city of Toronto for use by consumers in the city of Toronto and other consumers along the way in Niagara Falls, Welland, Grimsby and Hamilton. It is the intention of this company to block up the pipe line at the international boundary in the Niagara river and bring in Alberta gas from the opposite direction when the remainder of the line is completed. I am sure the citizens of Canada will agree that due haste should be taken to see that at the earliest possible

moment in this great industrial sector of Ontario we are using Alberta gas rather than Tennessee gas.
On May 21 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) spoke in this house and I was impressed with the fact that he felt great expenditures would take place in the development of the project. The building of the line itself, installations in consumers' homes, installations of equipment in industry and installations in various municipalities will run to over $1 billion in the next five years. If this gas is to be capped and used -and I am sure that it will-and if the companies sell their product at a profit-and I am sure that they will-then the federal treasury will profit to the extent of about 45 per cent of the profits received.
Those of us who live in the Niagara peninsula have already realized the business developments in that area. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan), speaking in this house earlier this evening, has pointed out to you that Page-Hersey Tubes have already a $10 million mill under construction. They propose to manufacture pipe for 150 miles of line from Sarnia to Port Credit. In addition to that, Welland Tubes Limited will manufacture the 30-inch pipe for the nothern Ontario section of this line. This cannot help giving employment not only to these particular industries but to other subsidiary industries in that area, and it will mean that industries coming into that area will provide a great impetus to business in the whole Niagara frontier.
During the course of this debate and in the newspapers of the country, we have heard a great deal about closure in the past few days. I think that a number of our people are of the opinion that we have closed the mouths of the opposition members. Members have said in this house that they have been gagged, that freedom of expression is at an end, that parliament has died. Those are some of the expressions that have been used. Last evening I thought I would look at the record of the proceedings in the house since May 10 last.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance made certain statements regarding the time expended by certain particular members. I have not counted those figures but I know that this house has been in session on this debate for 17 days. During those 17 days, up to last evening-and I think that during the course of the debate today honours have been fairly well divided-the members of the official opposition party have spoken 82 times, and members of the C.C.F. group have spoken 58 times, for a total of those in opposition to this measure of 140 speeches. In 67509-302
5, 1956	4755
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation perusing the debates I noted that Liberal members had spoken 52 times during the debate, Social Credit members 11 times, and one independent member has spoken in the debate, making a total of 64 speeches in the 17 days of debate.
So I feel that the rules have not closed the mouths of opposition members. Whilst it may be said that a great deal of this time was taken up in procedural matters and discussion of matters with the Chair, nevertheless an opportunity was given during those 17 days to discuss the merits or demerits of this bill. I think that the opinion should not go abroad that we have endeavoured to stop, obstruct or deprive any member of this house of having an opportunity to speak on this measure. Rumour has it that during the latter part of this evening a flag incident will appear in this house. All I can say is that we have had one flag incident; let us have no more.
I stand at this time speaking on the bill providing for the development of a trans-Canada pipe line. I hope that before too many years have passed we shall have many other bills dealing with gas pipe lines in this country because I can foresee that the development of this line will promote such expansion of industry and business throughout the country that we shall need other branch lines to complete the job.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have been in this house now for 11 years, since the year 1945, during which time I have had fully confirmed, and indeed heightened, the love and admiration which I have always felt for this institution of parliament; but never did I expect to see, and never before have I seen, such an iniquitous piece of legislation as is now before us. Nor did I ever expect to see, and I hope never to see again, such strong-arm tactics as have been used in the attempt to ram it through.
What we have seen, during the whole course of time in which this bill has been before the house, is a spectacle of a government motivated by fear, confused by doubt and dictating by force. What we are presented with in this bill and in the course which has been followed is an example, in its most crystal-clear form, of an attempt to subvert parliament to the will and purpose of a government in order to meet a self-imposed deadline accepted by that Canadian government in order to meet the wishes of a company dominated by United States interests.
I say to you, sir, and I say to the Prime Minister and the government, that the Canadian people resent very deeply that their parliament should have been used in that
4756	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation manner and for those purposes. I have said that we have seen a spectacle-and we still see that spectacle-of a government motivated by fear, dictated to by fear, in the tactics that they have followed in this debate, and still lacking the moral courage to take the issue to the people.
We were told at the outset, we have been told again tonight and we have been told on numerous occasions during the course of this debate, that closure was being applied, the rights of parliament to discuss and debate were being cut off, because of two speeches which forecast a fight, made outside the house by members of the opposition. What a spectacle we have. There is the government- they are not all here tonight because apparently they are ashamed even to witness the final passage of their own measure by the methods they have adopted-but there they are, a government with the support of 170 members, with a majority of approximately 100 over all other parties in the house. What a picture-there they are, panic-stricken, motivated by fear, because of two speeches made outside the house. We and the C.C.F. party have only 75 members against this monolithic structure of 170. Yet we are told that because two members made speeches outside the house they were so afraid of what we might do inside the house that they had to apply closure at the outset.
Fear is an ugly motive, and ugly motives produce ugly results. That is what has happened in the course of this debate: closure at the outset and at every stage of the debate, closure of a vicious type never before used in the history of this parliament or any other parliament, because they were afraid.
We have been told, the Canadian people have been told so often by spokesmen for this government, that this is the only party that can govern-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr, Fulton:: -that these people sitting over there are the only party that can govern. Look at them. There they sit. They cannot even govern by unparliamentary methods, let alone parliamentary methods. They could not even get the closure motion, their iniquitous motion backed solidly by every one of their members and the Social Credit members, through the house in one day. It took them a day and a half to complete the murder of parliament.
And today they have raised or attempted to raise, by the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), another spectre, another fear to hang before the Canadian people, the fear of a possible depression.


Mr. Casselman:: Do not shake your head.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is the Minister of Finance whose budget was predicated on the assumption that we were in for an inflationary boom, this is the Minister of Finance whose fiscal instrument, the Bank of Canada, has been and is pursuing policies which can only be appropriate if they are designed to head off or to minimize an inflationary boom, this is the man who stands up today and tries to justify this absurd measure by another resort to fear, the fear of a depression.
Well, sir, this wonderful, monolithic government, having been panic-stricken by two speeches made outside the house, having adopted the ugly course that they did as a result of that fear, and having done their best to frighten the Canadian people by holding over them another bogey, this government of bogus men, bogeymen, now see only one other obstacle to the accomplishment of their desires. That obstacle we all know, and we all have respect for it. It is the Senate, composed in the main of elderly men, distinguished men, many of them, but those who can be counted upon there to oppose the government's desire number, in the opposition, at the most six elderly gentlemen.
This government, once again motivated by panic, has tried to eliminate even that last obstacle by thrusting down the throat of the other place, even in anticipation of the debate, a change of the rules so that these men will not have a chance to thwart the wrongful ambitions of this government. What a shameful process-


John George Diefenbaker: That is reform of the Senate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -dictated by unreasoning fear and an unreasoning desire to dominate every part of this country, including every part of the legislative processes of this country. There they sit, 170 men who cannot govern by parliamentary methods or unparliamentary methods and have now even guillotined the Senate.
Sir, resorting to closure in advance of debate and at every stage of debate here, and now in advance of debate in the other place preparing for the guillotine there, why, sir, what a shameful comparison that makes with the past history of this country and with some of the other great men who have sat here and some of the other great governments who have contributed to the welfare of Canada. Sir John A. Macdonald, with far smaller majorities, passed bills having even greater import for the people of Canada. In the over-all picture it took him some five years to accomplish his designs for the building of the railway. Did he ever resort to

closure, although he had a much smaller majority? Or take the Criminal Code, a bill of some 700 sections, which has stood, by and large, the test of time for some 70 years,- that was enacted in those days, but they did not have to resort to closure. They did not have the majority of this government which we have been told is made up of the only party that can govern.
But this bill, sir, under this party which says it is the only party that can govern Canada, has been guillotined more often and more viciously than any other piece of legislation in the history of Canada. That is the way the Liberal party governs Canada today, and the only way it can govern.
And so we have the spectacle, and the Canadian people see the spectacle of the government-if we are to believe their own word that they introduced closure because they were afraid of what the opposition might do, and that is what they said-quaking in their shoes because of two opposition speeches made outside parliament, a spineless government, sir, an eviscerated government which has not got the courage to rely upon parliamentary methods.
But while we resent what is being done, still when we look at who is responsible for it-and there are three men primarily responsible, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Finance- I think we can say and say fairly that we should not make the Minister of Trade and Commerce the target of our main criticism over what has happened to parliament. With respect to parliament, that minister does not know what he is doing. He is completely in character. Here is the man who said: "If we want to get away with it, who is going to stop us?" Here is the man who said: "What's a million anyhow?" This whole proceeding is in character so far as he is concerned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Here is the bright boy from Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But the Prime Minister does know what he is doing.


Frank Exton Lennard: I wonder.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He is the ex-president of the Canadian Bar Association. The Minister of Finance also knows what he is doing.


Frank Exton Lennard: Don't be too sure about that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: 
that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) be heard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I thank the hon. member for the compliment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was resented by the leader of the house and the Minister of Trade and Commerce because it did not suit their plan.
Let us be accurate and not indulge in distortion when we look at this matter. Of the 10J days of debate of the measure up until 11 o'clock tonight there have been 50 speeches made in debate by Liberal members and there have been 44 speeches made in debate by Progressive Conservative members, including three by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Nickle). Since one can hardly say that the hon. member for Calgary North supported us, I think perhaps it would be fair to say that there have been 43 speeches made from our point of view as against 50 made by the government. We have then the situation that the Liberal party has made more speeches in debate than has any other party in the house. There we have the new method-


James Sinclair: It is the largest in number.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friends opposite
support that course. There we have the new method-putting on closure and then take up the majority of the time by pushing in their own members. And yet they say they have not attempted to stifle debate.


An hon. Member:: Tell the truth.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When I tell the truth it hurts hon. members opposite and they resent it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Mr. Dickey:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: After all, the government put on closure and I am not allowed to speak again. If hon. gentlemen opposite would revoke their closure, I should be glad to answer any questions that are asked. As matters stand, I would be strictly out of order if I did so. We believe in maintaining the rules even though hon. members opposite do not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I would suggest that the hon. member for Kamloops has established that it would not be in order for him to accept a question.


An hon. Member:: Not a word about the pipe line.


Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take part in this debate because it gives me a chance to stand behind the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) who stand so high in the esteem of the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: Not any more.


Maurice Boisvert: Nothing that has been said by hon. members opposite will diminish that esteem. For 20 days in this parliament we have been experiencing something which will destroy our democracy if it is repeated time and time again. It started last year, with an import from another country called a filibuster. This year, long before we brought before this parliament an extremely important piece of legislation, we were told that the government would be subjected to a worse filibuster. Is there anything worse in a parliament than a filibuster for the purpose of playing politics with respect to legislation which is for the good of all Canada and which will bring about a development- and this was said in this parliament-as big as that brought about by the railways at the end of the last century?


Mr. Van Horne:: You are talking about a sell-out of Canadian resources. That is what you are talking about.


Maurice Boisvert: I will come to that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When?


Maurice Boisvert: If my hon. friend is patient enough, I will come to it. Let us ask ourselves what this bill which is before this parliament means.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It means dictatorship.


Maurice Boisvert: It means the construction of a pipe line from Winnipeg to Montreal.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It means a sell-out.


Maurice Boisvert: The purpose of this bill is to form a corporation. There is nothing complicated about the bill. It is very simple legislation. It involves the development of Canada as a whole, it invokes the development of a means' of transportation for gas which will benefit the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta!


Thomas Miller Bell: Do not say New Brunswick.


Maurice Boisvert: This purpose was well put by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) when he introduced that measure. He said, as recorded at page 3864 of Hansard for May 14, 1956:
Its purpose is to hasten the day when Alberta will have an adequate outlet for its surplus gas, and the day when the cities, towns and industries of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec
5/ 1956	4759
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
within economic range will have access to this fuel. It is an undertaking of truly national scope, which we must either launch now or see languish for years to come.
No hon. member from the C.C.F. party, no hon. member from the Tory party has proclaimed before this parliament that what the minister said that day was untrue, was not factual. No one dared to attack a measure to bring about this development, but they have introduced what we call a filibuster to prevent this parliament from legislating.
We were told about freedom of speech. We were told thousands of times that we were violating the freedom of speech. There is a freedom in any democratic country in the world more important than any other, and that freedom is the right to legislate, the right to pass laws for the development of the country and for the good of the people in the country. That is what this government was trying to do and the opposition was trying to prevent this parliament from legislating. The right to legislate is incorporated in our constitution. Section 17 of the British North America Act says, and I quote:
There shall be one parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an upper house styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.
Section 91 of the British North America Act says:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada-
That is why we are sitting in this parliament, to legislate, to pass laws and not to listen to speeches for 20 days without being able to arrive at a decision. It is the duty of this parliament to arrive at a decision on any question which is placed before this parliament. I am in good company, and I will give you a citation now which must be well known by members of the Tory party but which they have not brought before this parliament in the course of the long discussion we have had about closure. Closure is embodied in our rules for one purpose only and that is to put into effect the legislation which is requested by the people of the country and which is necessary for the progress of Canada. To this the opposition have been objecting for 20 days and abusing- that is the strongest word found in the dictionary-the rules and destroying and diminishing the dignity of the parliament of Canada which is so much respected by every province in Canada.
Let me now quote Mr. Meighen.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: How much did you have to pay for that speech?

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Maurice Boisvert: My hon. friend should have done what I have done. He should have remained in his place during the course of this long debate. I did not miss one sitting but often when I have looked in his direction I have not seen him.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was at the demise of the Liberal party, which was brought about by-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska must not be interrupted without his consent.


Maurice Boisvert: Mr. Meighen, that great leader of the Tory party, said this on March 2, 1926, as reported at page 1440 of Hansard for that date:
The closure rule is all right; it is perfectly defensible, justifiable and necessary. But never in the history of any parliament was closure adopted for the purpose of giving its members a holiday. Those who stoutly resisted this rule when applied only for the purpose of learning the will of parliament on absolutely essential legislation, only for the purpose of getting the decision of this house on important legislation submitted by the government; those who fought day and night to prevent the application of closure for such purpose, come into parliament this afternoon and call upon all their own followers and their allies to the left to stand up and support closure in order that parliament may adjourn.
The opinion of Mr. Meighen was that closure is justifiable and necessary when it is to bring about a decision on important legislation. Let us see what Mr. Bennett said. He was a great leader of the Tory party. On March 2, 1926, Mr. Bennett, as reported at page 1477 of Hansard for that date, said:
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. friends opposite on the courage they have displayed in moving closure. It is a courage, of course, born of necessity, but nevertheless I congratulate them because it indicates a recognition on their part that closure is an efficient instrument in the hands of a government to permit public business to be transacted. I have nothing to say as to the reasons why they have changed the views they held in the days long since passed. I feel that it is not to be held against those who govern that they see fit to change their minds and adopt more modern methods when they have seen the error of their ways and realize the virtue of that to which they were opposed.
Those two quotations represent the views of two great leaders of the Tory party. Why have we been sitting in this parliament for 20 days with measures of obstruction directed against the Chair, to destroy the dignity of the Chair and to destroy the confidence this parliament had in the chairmanship?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Out of order; it was decided this afternoon that one cannot talk about that. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Maurice Boisvert: I will say no more.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I have already told the hon. member.


Maurice Boisvert: I will say no more about it. I have said enough to show the people that there was something wrong-I will use the proper word-there was something shameful. The hon. member for Kamloops used some other strong words. He designated the member of the government who imposed closure as an ugly man. We have heard strong-and I am repeating it-we have heard the strongest words in the discussion of this measure to bring about a sentiment in Canada which would cause the people to ignore the true facts, because facts were distorted with respect to our parliamentary duties. The duty of the House of Commons and of parliament is to develop Canada; it is to make Canada prosperous for everyone; to make Canada one of the greatest countries of the world. No one in this parliament is able to say that he has done his duty toward the country when he has abused the rules of parliament to prevent this parliament from legislating.
My time is running short. It was said at the outset of this debate that we were submitting ourselves to United States buccaneers. Let me say to the opposition who have fought this measure that it was not dignified for a member of parliament to use such words. Since the name of Tim Buck has been introduced into this debate, I know the kind of buccaneer that the C.C.F. members would be glad to have on their side. I prefer to be with the Americans who are trying to help this country to develop itself into a great country than to follow those buccaneers who are aiming at the destruction of our economy, the destruction of the rights of this parliament and the destruction of the duty of this parliament to legislate. I am glad tonight to be on the government side and to be with the majority of the people because this House of Commons represents the will of the people of Canada, not the will of the opposition members who have fought this measure.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, there is an expression in baseball that you can be at bat, on deck or in the hole. Mr. Speaker, I have been in the hole in this debate now for two weeks, but little did I think that I was going to come to bat right after murderers' row.
The galleries will clear tonight, the press will go to bed and the tumult will die. Would that I could be a Churchill to sum up all the points that have been raised in this debate. One thing I am sure of. Although I have read tonight in the press that the fight is all over, I am sure that the people of this

country are going to carry on this fight until this government reaps the justice it deserves.
You know, Mr. Speaker, we have been told that this is a bill to permit the construction of a pipe line.


Some hon. Members:: That is right.


John Borden Hamilton: How ridiculous can you hon. members get? Permission to build this pipe line was passed by this house in 1951. I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, what has he been doing since that time? If we are going to be surrounded by the great believers of "get things done", then, what is the explanation of the inertia that has faced this house and this government since 1951? This bill deals with only one thing. It deals with the financing of a pipe line, my hon. friend, and with one thing alone. If I have asked a question, what has been done since 1951 about the financing of a pipe line, perhaps I can ask what has been done since 1954 when the Minister of Trade and Commerce arranged the deal to put the companies together to carry out this undertaking? What has been done since 1954?
If I might ask another question, what has been done by the minister since last fall when we first read the news that this bill was going to go through? What has been done by the minister since the month of January when we heard in the speech from the throne of the plans for this pipe line? Why, Mr. Speaker, is June 7 so important? The only reason I can think of that June 7 is such an important date line is that this government is afraid to let us look behind the propaganda screen and see the facts. The reason it is afraid to let us look behind the screen is that this government is sick, this government is tired, this government is shop-worn, this government is lazy and this government lacks the courage to bring the facts before this house.
Who has sold this June 7 deadline? Well, I wonder who it is? I understand that the public relations director of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines is ensconced in suite 514 of the Chateau Laurier, and he is the same man who was the public relations director of the Prime Minister in his last election campaign, and he was able to sell the people of Canada at that time a man that we have not seen in the House of Commons during this session. He is the same man, and I understand that he is turning out some speeches and I have wondered, Mr. Speaker, whether they may have been some of the speeches that we have heard read in this house.
I ask the Prime Minister, did he ever go into court with a case prepared like this one? Did he every try to prove a case without one bit of primary evidence, not a single bit?
5, 1956	4761
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Did he ever refuse to the court or to the jury the facts as they have been refused now. And he asks us to accept these pieces of paper? Why, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would not have his law student turn out material such as this.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, does not provide the financing wherewithal of the trans-Canada pipe line. This bill, I am afraid, may be the subject of numerous cases of litigation. Why is it this way? It is because there was no opportunity in the committee stage in this debate for the opposition to propose the amendments which would have read some sense into this bill.
I have heard criticism voiced in the past concerning our speaking on the pipe line. I spoke on the pipe line two weeks ago but no one took the trouble to answer me. The only reply we have had to any questions we have asked is that our questions are frivolous and vexatious. I would say to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) tonight that I have looked at his bill. It provides for the leasing and purchasing of the northern Ontario section of the trans-Canada pipe line but it makes no provision if default takes place for an agreement with any other group or company. Oh, Mr. Speaker, this is not going to solve our problems tonight. We are going to be back here debating this all over again.
I think I am in order on third reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the clauses. In addition, clause 5 (1) subclause (c) says it is drawn to fulfil any agreement or arrangement made before or after the coming into force of this act. What other agreements has the government in mind in connection with this legislation? What other type of deal are they going to tell us about at some future date?


An hon. Member:: Another sell-out.


John Borden Hamilton: Under financing in clause 6 subclause (3) it says the total amount that can be loaned by this company is $130 million. I wonder why they put the default clause in because if the government is going to take this line over, if the company does not fill the bill, then they will not have enough money in the kitty to do the job.


Mr. Hunter:: You are breaking our hearts.


John Borden Hamilton: If I am breaking your hearts, I say to the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hunter) I have done a much better job than the others who have attempted to make you show some heart in connection with the rules of this house.
In clause 7 (1) we again find the words "this agreement or any other agreement that is to come into force as a result of this act". I ask again, what other type of deal had you
4762	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation in mind, Mr. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and Mr. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in connection with this phase of the bill? Then they have a provision here covering the acquisition of the shares, and this is an important feature too, Mr. Speaker. They have made sure they have the same wording in this clause also; it is this agreement or any other agreement. I wonder what type of arrangement this government has made with the shareholders of this company which is so interested in developing the natural resources of Canada? I wonder about all the good names they have. I think this has been referred to before. There is the Hudson Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited, 75 per cent controlled by the Continental Oil Company of Tulsa; and the Canadian Gulf Oil Company, which is another very good name. This company is controlled 60 per cent by the Gulf Oil Company of the United States. Of course there is also the Tennessee Gas Transmission Company; that is Gardiner Symonds' outfit. There is also the Canadian Delhi Oil Company Limited; that is Mr. Murchison's job. There is the International Utility Company of New York, too. Of course, they let1 a few shareholders out in Calgary and Edmonton get into this. I wonder what special arrangement has been made to bail these shareholders out if default takes place. As a matter of fact there probably is some arrangement because I see they still have Mr. R. A. C. Henry in there and he has been in with the government ever since the Beau-harnois scandal.
Reference has been made to default, Mr. Speaker, and they drafted a default clause in the agreement. Oh yes, here it is, on page 3 of the agreement. It reads:
Such notice of default shall be given to Trans-Canada as may be specified in the indenture but the indenture shall not specify a period for giving such notice that is in excess of 90 days from the date upon which the crown company becomes aware of such default.
They made sure about this in the agreement covering the shares, too.


An hon. Member:: Careful, John.


John Borden Hamilton: They made
sure of it because they provided for relief in connection with the forfeiture. The 90 days' notice was there but there was also a provision that there could be relief against forfeiture.
Well, Mr. Speaker, there does not seem to be any doubt about what direction this company is taking. I am sure these docu-
IMr. Hamilton (York West).]

ments do not provide for the financing which this company requires to do the job. These documents do not provide for a firm contract which will not be subject to being re-opened at the whim and fancy of the gas promoters in the United States.
I have heard my hon. friends opposite talk about the similarity between the promotion of the Canadian Pacific Railway by our party and what they are doing now, but there is a great deal of difference. At that time this country was an integral part in thought and in every way of the country which provided the financing, and when Sir John A. Macdonald spoke about it he was talking about ensuring that that great company was financed by British subjects. That was the important thing to him. What a difference it made to him to have it done that way instead of having it come from the United States. As I speak here tonight I am reminded that it is past twelve o'clock-


Henry Alfred Hosking: It is past one o'clock.


John Borden Hamilton: It is past
twelve o'clock for my purposes. I am reminded that this is the anniversary of D-day. This is the anniversary of the day upon which hundreds and thousands of Canadian boys' lost their lives to ensure that Canadian sovereignty would always remain in Canadian hands.


George Harris Hees: Today is the day of the sell-out.


John Borden Hamilton: In closing I want to use some of the words of Sir John A. Macdonald, spoken in circumstances such as these. I am going to read from Hansard of 1880-81, volume I, page 494. I am going to take poetic licence and I am going to substitute the gas companies in this instance. This is what Sir John A. Macdonald said: Mr. Speaker, I can trust to the intelligence of this house, and the patriotism of this country, I can trust not only to the patriotism but to the common sense of this country to carry out an arrangement which will give us all we want, which will satisfy all the loyal, legitimate aspirations, which will give us a great, an united, a rich, an improving, a developing Canada, instead of making us tributary to American laws, to American gas companies, to all the little tricks and big tricks that American gas companies are addicted to for the purpose of destroying our control over our own natural resources.


George Alexander Drew: Here comes the axe.


Mr. Marlin:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Proudfool:: I was paired with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the main motion lost. The question now is on the main motion. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur), seconded by Mr. Harris, moves that Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation be now read a third time. Those who are in favour of this motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that hon. members consider that, for the purpose of this division, their members have been called
in?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
4764	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. Speaker:: Will the whips be good
enough so to indicate?


Murdo William Martin: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Did the hon. member for Pontiac-Timiskaming (Mr. Proudfoot) wish to declare a pair?


John Hugh Proudfoot: Yes, sir. I was paired with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order. My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is to the effect that this house should do no further business tonight. I base this contention on standing order 33, upon the terms of the closure motion which was moved this afternoon by the Prime Minister, and on the basis of your own interpretation of standing order 33 as given on May 15 and May 22 of this year.

The motion moved this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was as follows:
That the debate on the motion for the third reading of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, and on any amendments thereto, shall not be further adjourned.
It is my contention, of course, that everything that was provided for in the Prime Minister's motion has now been done. This motion called for the debate on third reading, and on any amendment thereto, to be concluded and the necessary votes taken thereon. It does say in standing order 33 on this point:
But all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
The question that now faces us is as to whether there are any other proceedings that are necessary to be dealt with in order to conclude such adjourned debate and the debate on the amendment. I submit that everything that is necessary to conclude the adjourned debate has been done. The debate is over. I make no comment on that. I recognize the fact the debate on third reading, indeed, all possible debate in the House of Commons on this bill is over unless the Senate amends it and sends it back to us.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I said that I would also base my contention on rulings that Your Honour gave on the night of May 15, or perhaps it was early in the morning of May 16, and also on the night of May 22, or in the morning of May 23. On those occasions it was your contention that we had to continue so long as there was an unbroken chain. It was your contention that certain proceedings followed 'Upon, or were part of, other proceedings, and therefore they had to be dealt with before the house adjourned, even though we were past adjournment time. But it was also your admission that in certain instances there was a point at which one came to the end of the chain. I disagreed with the position you took on the night of May 15. I felt that the chain was actually broken before you felt it was, but, at any rate, you have laid down the proposition that one had to go only as far as the chain of events would take one. Relying on that same interpretation of standing order 33 Your Honour on the night of May 22 or in the morning of May 23 did say that after second reading had been given to the bill the motion for the house to go into committee of the whole on the bill was a different proceeding which could be left over until the next day. As a matter of fact, we did not have any argument about it because Your Honour laid that down as your view as soon as that point was reached. In other words, on that night we reached a
5, 1956	4765
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation certain point and went no farther. Of course, in all of this my view and the argument that I am now presenting, and your view, and the position you took on the night of May 22, is that once the proceedings covered by closure have run out we are past ten o'clock and cannot take up any other item of business.
So far, I think Your Honour will agree with me that I have set out the situation correctly. If there is any argument, it will be over the question as to whether or not the one other proceeding which has to be taken before this bill is sent to the Senate is separate from or a part of the motion for third reading. That other proceeding is, of course, the motion that the bill be now passed and the title be as on the order paper. It is my strong submission-in my view there is no question about it-that the motion that a bill be now passed and the title be as on the order paper is a distinctly separate proceeding from the motion for third reading which has now been passed by a vote of this house. I refer Your Honour to standing order No. 75 which reads as follows:
Every bill shall receive three several readings, on different days, previously to being passed.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is clear from that sentence that being passed is a separate proposition, a separate proceeding from the third reading; indeed, the three readings which are referred to in that sentence. There is another sentence in standing order 75 but it does not have any application to anything at this point. I also ask Your Honour to read standing order 76, which reads as follows:
When a bill is read in the house, the Clerk shall certify upon it the reading and the time thereof. After it has passed, he shall certify the same, with the date, at the foot of the bill.
Again I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the wording of that standing order is abundantly clear, namely, that the passing of the bill is something quite different from a reading of the bill, be it first, second or third. The fact that it is clear is underlined by the instructions to the Clerk that he is to certify on the bill each of the three readings, and also that he is to certify the date on which the bill itself is finally passed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in addition to what I have said, based on standing order 33 and your interpretation thereof on the nights of May 15 and May 22, and in addition to these clear-cut standing orders-remember, it is the standing orders which are supposed to guide our proceedings here-I also ask Your Honour to take note of page 166 of Beau-chesne, third edition. I am sure Your Honour is familiar with this page. It is the third of a group of pages in which Beauchesne sets
4786	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation out in some detail the proceedings on money bills. In fact, Dr. Beauchesne itemizes these various proceedings by number all the way from 1 to 30, and on previous occasions from the chair as well as from the floor persons have indicated that the numbering does specify a distinction between one proceeding and another. You will note, sir, that item No. 29 on page 166 reads as follows:
Speaker: "When shall this bill be read a third time?" (If bill to be read third time now):
"Moved by Mr	seconded by Mr	
that said bill be now read a third time." "Carried."
Then, as a distinct item of procedure appears item No. 30, which reads:
Speaker: "Moved by Mr	seconded by
Mr	that said bill do now pass and that
the title be as on the order paper." "Carried."
There is a little bit more in No. 30 but I need not read it. I will only say that there is another sentence indicating what will be done if the title of the bill were to be changed from what appears on the order paper.
Now, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is a clear-cut indication of how we are to proceed, which was given by Dr. Beauchesne in his third edition, to support my contention that the motion that the bill do now pass and the title be as on the order paper is a separate proceeding from the motion for third reading, just as separate as was the motion to refer the bill to the committee of the whole from the motion for second reading which, on the night of May 22, you agreed was so distinctly separate that it had to be left over until the next day.
I now move on to another authority in support of my contention. This time I refer to Bourinot, and just to keep the record straight, may I point out that Bourinot, like Beauchesne, is a Canadian authority. I ask Your Honour to note what Bourinot says on page 532 under a paragraph bearing the Roman numeral XVI. The paragraphs immediately preceding this one deal with third reading. I am on page 532 of Bourinot, fourth edition. Once Bourinot has described third reading, he then says:
XVI. Motion, that the bill do pass. The next question put by the Speaker is;
"That this bill do pass, and that the title be, etc."
This motion generally passes nem. con. immediately after the third reading, . . .


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear my friend the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) say "Hear, hear". That is perfectly correct; it generally passes right after third reading.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is the hon. member who represents practically nobody.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has the book in front of him which is more than I can say for the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine, and so has the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton).


An hon. Member:: And so have many other hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, I am very glad to note that a couple of hon. members over there are following me. I continue:
. . . though it is quite regular to defer the final passage until a future day.
Now, there is more in that paragraph but I will not confuse the issue by reading the other lines or trying to claim anything on the basis of what is in the rest of that paragraph. As a matter of fact, I looked up all the footnotes referred to in that paragraph and some of them are from English records which obviously have no bearing on our Canadian practice but the references indicated by the letters (x) and (y), as Your Honour will note by looking at the bottom of the page, are to the Canadian Journals. There, in addition to all the other authorities I have given, is a clear-cut statement that the motion that the bill do now pass and that the title be as on the order paper is a distinctly separate proceeding from the motion for third reading.
I recognize that when one starts to cite authorities around here it is common practice for someone to try to find an authority on the other side and I would not be surprised if someone picked up May and tried to throw a sentence at me from May in contradiction to the position I have been making. Before someone throws that sentence at me I will read the sentence that someone might find.
I have in my hand May's fifteenth edition. The same sentence will be found on other pages in other editions but it appears on page 554 of May's fifteenth edition near the bottom of the page under the heading "Bill passed" and it reads:
The question "That this bill do pass" is no longer put in the House of Commons and, according to established usage, a bill, when read the third time, has passed.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, there is my friend the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine with his "Hear, hear" once again; apparently he has not studied this very much. But the fact is clear to anyone who has studied it that May is describing the practice in the parliament at Westminster where for their purposes when the third reading has been given it is taken that the bill has passed.

Now, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) knows, because I had occasion to refer to them earlier this afternoon-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you for the compliment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -I have made some study of the standing orders of the parliament at Westminster. As a matter of fact they appear in May's fifteenth edition as an appendix thereto. When one goes through the standing orders at Westminster one discovers that there is nothing in those standing orders corresponding to what is our standing order 75 and our standing order 76 where a definite reference is made to the passing of the bill. There is no requirement under the standing orders at Westminster for a motion that the bill do now pass but in our Canadian standing orders there is a requirement that there be a motion that the bill do now pass. This is provided in standing orders 75 and 76; it is spelled out on page 166 of Beauchesne's third edition and it is spelled out with abundant clarity on page 582 of Bourinot's fourth edition where he says:
The next question put by the Speaker is:
"That this bill do pass and that the title be, etc."
This motion generally passes nem. con. immediately after the third reading, though it is quite regular to defer the final passage until a future day.
May I assure you sir that-


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Would the hon. member permit
a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: For the benefit of those who are following this debate and do not have a copy of the standing orders before them, in order that they could understand it better would the hon. member mind reading the second sentence of standing order 75?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure Your Honour agreed with me a moment ago that I was quite justified in not reading the second sentence of standing order 75 because it has no applicability to the present situation.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Would you mind reading it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not mind reading it. As
a matter of fact, I would be glad to read all the standing orders in the book. I think it might be a good idea to put them on the record. Standing order 75 reads:
Every bill shall receive three separate readings, on different days, previously to being passed. On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Very interesting.
5, 1956	4767
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member contend that this is that kind of urgent or extraordinary occasion?


An hon. Member:: Certainly he does.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, he is just obstructing. He wants to delay the proceedings of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend thinks that this is one of those occasions where the majority should rule and where proceedings that normally cannot be changed except by unanimous consent should be changed because the majority wants them changed.


Mr. Coldwell:: It has been that way all through.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this interruption in our discussion was made necessary because the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Made-leine wanted the whole of standing order 75 put on the record.
I should like to draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that there have been in the past a number of occasions when our Journals have recorded the motion for the passing of the bill separate from the motion for third reading. As a matter of fact, the footnotes on that page of Bourinot we were looking at a moment ago, page 532, direct one to the Journals of 1874, 1876, 1877 and 1879 where you will find such instances. I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will not object to my going back that far because after all he referred us yesterday to something that happened back in 1604. But in addition to these instances in the Commons Journals there was a very interesting instance recorded in the Journals of the Senate where on May 2, 1879, a bill-it was the marine electric telegraphs bill-which had been passed through all its other stages-[DOT] indeed it had been given third reading-was actually defeated on the separate and final vote that the bill do now pass and the title be as on the order paper.
In other words, although it is perfectly correct that generally this last motion goes through without any difficulty, there has been at least this one occasion I have found in the other place where it was the point at which the bill was defeated. It is a separate proceeding and the very fact that Your Honour would have to put the motion and that it would be subject to a vote-in fact, I feel it should be voted on so that we can express our attitude on this bill right down to the end-but the fact that it is that kind of a completely separate proceeding makes it clear to me, and I think I have so persuaded a good many hon. members of the house, that it is the kind of proceeding that ought to be left over until tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, Mr. Speaker, I know some hon. members of the house are not convinced-


An hon. Member:: Most of them are not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and no doubt they will say that this is another of those technicalities. Mr. Speaker, this will probably be the last point of order I will raise in connection with this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: You must be getting sleepy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not at all. The appreciation expressed by the Liberal members for points of order and technicalities is noted. I feel it is my duty to give this house this one last chance to pay some attention to a technicality. All kinds of things have been said by Liberal members about technicalities but I stress their importance in our concept of the rule of law and our belief that parliament should function according to rules that are laid down and are not changed in the middle of the game.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are perfectly right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, although it is perhaps only a technicality, if the rule is clear respect should be had for that technicality. I give the house this one more chance to pay respect to a technicality but I suggest there is even something more that I am giving to at least one person who is listening to me right now, and I refer to the Prime Minister. If we will follow the rules it will be recognized that it is after ten o'clock, a long time aften ten o'clock, which means that we have gone beyond the application of the closure rule. The government has no right to put this motion. If the government will follow the rule and leave the motion that the bill be now passed and the title be as on the order paper over till tomorrow-


John Hornby Harrison: It is tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -until 2.30 this afternoon, then, if it is more satisfactory for my hon. friend from Meadow Lake-that would at least give the Prime Minister one more night to think over this important piece of legislation.
There can be no doubt that it is a separate proceeding. If I had not risen, you would have put the question and there would have been a vote on it. I do not see how anyone can contend that it is part of the proceedings necessary to conclude the adjourned debate on third reading. That is over; that has gone. All that is left is this one motion. It is not debatable when it is called. Whether Your Honour puts it tonight, completely against my view on the matter, or whether it is put


tomorrow afternoon, it is not debatable. It is simply to be voted on. But I think it is far better to leave it over till tomorrow afternoon so that this house at this stage of the game will have paid attention to an important technicality, and also so that the Prime Minister might have one more night to think over this matter and think over the speeches that were made tonight and the appeals that were made to him and the chance he has to come back to this house tomorrow when the vote is called on that final motion and admit to the house that this is something that parliament should not be asked to pass but rather is something that should be dealt with in another way.
Hon. members know what I think that other way should be-an appeal to the country

but I am not enlarging on that now because I am on my feet only on my point of order. I present this point of order to you, Mr. Speaker, realizing that it is not as serious a technicality as some of the others I have raised in the past three weeks but it is a serious one, and the house has this one more chance to respect a technicality that is very clear. The rules indeed are clear, and I hope that you will give this point the consideration that it deserves.


Leon David Crestohl: The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has expressed meticulous concern for technicalities. Whilst you heard the hon. gentleman I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that you should not have heard him. I quote from that same standing order 33:
... if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before one o'clock in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour . . .
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that you must give strict interpretation to these words:
... no member shall rise to speak after that hour.
It cannot be contended that the wording here is intended to apply to the debate. It would say so if it were intended to apply to the debate, but the language is simple and clear. I should like to say to the hon. gentleman that it is to me crystal clear that no member may rise. It does not qualify the circumstances under which a member might rise.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why are you speaking?


Leon David Crestohl: I too am out of order, but I am drawing to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that you should not have heard the hon. gentleman. It is after one o'clock, and no member should speak after that hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Leon David Crestohl: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he contends that it is not possible for him or for me to rise at this time to speak, would he tell me how the minister could rise to move that the bill be now passed and that the title be as on the order paper?


Leon David Crestohl: I should be very pleased to answer that. That forms part of standing order 33, which states:
. . . but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
That is part of the proceedings which must be concluded tonight.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are begging the question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not
necessary to add very much to the extremely cogent argument put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but there are one or two things, based on what has happened on June 1, which I think should be brought to your attention, Mr. Speaker, in support of his argument.
The point made by the hon. member is that this is a separate proceeding which requires a separate question and that, it now being after one o'clock and this not being included in the closure motion, no one can move that motion, and therefore the question cannot be put. In this connection I should like to suggest that there is an absolute parallel between the situation which arises after third reading and the motion that the bill pass and the situation which arises after report from committee and the motion that the bill be read a third time at the next sitting of the house. You will observe, if you look at Bourinot at page 532, to which your attention has already been directed, that Bourinot, in dealing with the motion that the bill do pass after third reading, says:
The next question put by the Speaker is:
"That this bill do pass, and that the title be, etc."
May I refer you then back to page 528, where Bourinot is dealing with the stages necessary on report from committee of the whole and where he says:
Accordingly, when a bill is reported without amendment, the Speaker puts the question, "When shall the bill be read a third time?"
So there is an absolute parallel between those two situations. I submit to you that you, sir, recognized on Friday, June 1, that the question, "When shall the bill be read a third time?" was a separate question and therefore a separate proceeding from the receipt of the report and the adoption of the report of the committee. If you will look at Hansard of Friday, June 1, you will observe that you did not put that question, "When shall the bill be read a third time?" on that
5. 1956	4769
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation night. I submit-and it is the only conclusion that can be drawn-that the reason why you did not was that you recognized that the question was a separate question, not necessarily involved in the preceding stage, and therefore could not be moved or put after one o'clock. Let me read from Hansard of June 1 at page 4641, second column. We had certain points raised. It states:
After the taking of the vote:


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Bill ordered reported.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Goodbye.
BUI reported.
The bill was reported to you, sir. Hansard continues:


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, the people in the galleries have seen a farce tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Joseph McCann: Looking at you. You are the farce.


Major James William Coldwell: This is the worst proceeding that has ever been seen in this parliament, Mr. Speaker. The chairman has tried to muzzle the committee.


An hon. Member:: The Speaker is on his feet.


Mr. Speaker:: This house stands adjourned until Monday at 2.30 in the afternoon.


William Earl Rowe: Why not dissolve it and go to the country?
So, sir, you left the chair without putting the question, when shall this bill be read the third time, and I submit that the only basis upon which you could have left the chair without putting that question was because you realized and recognized that that question is a separate question, a separate stage of the proceedings from the report of the committee, and therefore could not be put after one o'clock. That is on all fours with the submission now made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the question, shall the bill pass and the title be as on the order paper, is a separate question from the third reading of the bill.
Since, therefore, it is made clear by the authorities that the two questions in both cases are separate, and since you have recognized that by what you did on the night of June 1, then I submit that following upon example you cannot put the question as to whether the bill shall pass tonight.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, to be very brief on the subject and with particular reference to what the hon. member for Kamloops has just said, it is quite correct that Hansard of June I does not record you as having said anything after the deputy chairman reported to you. I only say that others were speaking during that time and the dialogue is as has been read by the hon. member for Kamloops. But I should point out to you that in Votes and

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Proceedings ot Friday, June 1, I read the concluding sentence on this particular subject which is as follows:
The house resumed consideration in committee of the whole of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, which was reported without amendment, and ordered for a third reading at the next sitting of the house.
It was on that basis that the third reading appeared in Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day for Monday, yesterday. May I also point out to Your Honour that in my submission the hon. member for Cartier is quite correct in that if there is a parallel here the parallel is not only that which I have recited with respect to the report from the committee of the whole and third reading but also the parallel that the ruling that you made with respect to the resolution on May 15, as I recall it, was that you held that it was an essential and continuing part of the resolution that upon the resolution being reported you should proceed and did proceed to give first reading to the bill. That is, I submit, the situation at the moment.
I have listened to these references to Bourinot, fourth edition, and may I point out that while I have not had the advantage of reading all the citations, because I ignored the ones in the United Kingdom, the ones of Canadian origin which were cited are dated much earlier than our modern rules. I would point out that there has been no recent precedent since the rules were revised in 1892, as I recall, although I cannot give the date precisely, and that the present practice of Your Honour and those occupying the chair of making a separate motion or a separate inquiry, shall the bill pass and the title be as on the order paper, is now in fact obsolete having in mind the fact-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Standing order 75.


Walter Edward Harris: My hon. friend refers to standing order 75, but I say that it is an essential part of the third reading of the bill and is only essential to that extent.


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to citation 810 in Beauchesne, second edition, which reads as follows:
If the bill is reported without amendment, the Speaker puts the question: "When shall the bill be read a third time?" The house, at this stage, may decide by a majority vote either that the third reading will take place immediately or at some future day. If, to the Speaker's question, the answer comes "now", he will at once put the third reading and the motion "that the bill do now pass and title be as on the order paper."
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that bears out what the leader of the house has just said, that this is now in effect one proceeding and

that when we get to the stage where third reading is ordered to be given by the house it is then your duty to put the motion at the same time that the bill pass and the title be as on the order paper, and I cite to you that citation found on page 229 of Beauchesne, second edition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May 1 ask the Minister of Finance if he overlooked the position that Your Honour took on the night of May 22 when you did recognize that the chain of events did not go on to the motion that the bill be referred to committee of the whole after second reading? The Minister of Finance refers to what happened on the night of June 1. Even if what Votes and Proceedings records is correct, I point out that no attempt was made that night to move third reading. All that was done that night, even according to Votes and Proceedings, was that the third reading was ordered for the next sitting of the house.
By the same token, Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting that what Bourinot calls the further consideration of Bill No. 298 should now be ordered for the next sitting of the house. Ordering something for the next sitting of the house is quite different from putting the motion itself. So far as citation 810 in Beauchesne, second edition, which the hon. member for Rosthern has read, is concerned, all it does is support that long set-up on page 166 of Beauchesne, third edition, making it clear that if the house wishes to do so_ it can take third reading and the other motion on the same day. They do not have to be on separate days like the first, second and third readings.
But in this instance we have passed the time for doing business this day. We are now four and a half hours past ten o'clock, and I submit that this other proceeding is just as separate from third reading as was third reading from the committee stage last Friday night and that the only thing Your Honour can now do is order the further consideration of this bill, in other words, that the motion for passing it at the next sitting of the house be placed on tomorrow's order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank hon. members for the consideration they have given to this matter of order. I want to say that I expected that a point like this might be raised at this time, and in all the time available to me since the beginning of the day when I was not in the chair I have examined the point. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says that standing order 33 at this moment is satisfied because he says that all the motions that must be

decided have been decided, and he bases his remarks on the last part of the standing order, which reads:
. . . but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate . . . shall be decided forthwith.
I have taken that view and I still hold the same view. As the hon. member knows, an order of the house has to be made when we ask the question, when shall this bill be read a second time, either now or at the next sitting of the house. An order of the house must take place. The same thing applies with respect to third reading. One must ask the house the question: When shall this bill be read a third time? If the second reading has been on the same day the answer to the question will inevitably be "Next sitting of the house" unless by leave the house agrees to have it read a third time immediately. But an order must be made for the house to proceed from one reading to the other. So it is for the first reading and so it is for the second, and it is also so with respect to the third reading. See Beauchesne's third edition, citations 652 and 703. That is why after second reading and after third reading, once the house has given the order, the Clerk needs to have this order in order to insert it in his Votes and Proceedings.
If the hon. member looks at the Votes and Proceedings he will see what constitutes the various entries in the Votes and Proceedings. He will find that "Bill read the first time and ordered for a second reading" constitutes one entry. These procedures are so purely linked together and so purely formal that they constitute only one entry. They do not even deserve a second entry. On the second reading we find: Bill read a second time, ordered to be committed: one entry, bill reported and ordered to be read a third time This is also a matter of one entry alone. The third reading of the bill and the motion that the bill do now pass and the title be as on the order paper, even when the title has been changed in committee, and that the title be as amended in committee is declared at the last motion, this also constitutes only one entry. It is just one move.
The hon. member places a great deal of emphasis on standing order 75 because the word "passed" is found there. Standing order 75 reads in part as follows:
75. Every bill shall receive three several readings, on different days, previously to being passed.
Once a bill has gone through its three readings, effectively it is passed. If the title has not been amended in committee, the motion that the bill do now pass and the title be as on the order paper, although we maintain that it is still votable, is merely a purely
5, 1956	4771
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation formal motion linked and connected with the motion for third reading. It is there only in case we may need to use it for the purpose of declaring that the bill has been amended in committee. I have here instances where amendments have been made.
I have here an instance of an amendment to a bill moved by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) a few years ago, having to do with the Criminal Code which was amended in committee. See Hansard, volume III, 1949, page 2699. He himself said consequential to the amendments which have been accepted the title will have to be changed and he himself moved, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker)-who was then the hon. member for Lake Centre-that the title be changed. If the hon. member reads the Votes and Proceedings of that day-and I have them here-he will see: Bill read a third time, ordered that the bill do now pass and the title be as amended in committee-and the new title was inserted in brackets-motion agreed to. It is just one step. See Journals, 1949, volume XCI, pages 331-2.
Hon. members at this moment, for various considerations which it is their privilege and right to hold, may wish to have this last motion perhaps postponed. But I want to tell hon. members that when I took the Speakership of the house in 1953 I found several documents in the files in my chamber. Among them I found a memorandum which had been prepared long before, about 10 years ago, I would say. It deals with various questions and answers on closure. It is in that memorandum that I found all the references as to when closure had been imposed in the past since 1913. At the last page of that memorandum that I have here in a notebook where hon. members may see it, on standing order 39, which was the previous number of order on closure, I find the following:
Question-Does a notice of closure on third reading of the bill also cover the motion that "The bill do pass and the title be as on the order paper?"
Answer-Yes. This is a purely formal motion which is not debatable under standing order 38-
Which is now standing order 32.
-and must be put forthwith in accordance with the provisions of standing order 39-
Which is now standing order 33.
-which requires that all questions connected with the main motion shall be decided forthwith.
See Beauchesne's third edition, citation 227.
Let us look at citation 227.


Edmund Davie Fulton: For the information of the house, could Your Honour tell us who drafted the memorandum?
4772	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Mr. Speaker: There is no name attached to it. However, I suppose that it was prepared either by the Speaker of the day or by one of the clerks of the house. There is no name attached to it. I took all the documents that were there and examined them, and this is what I found. But because I found that memorandum, that does not mean that I must say that is the Bible and I will not decide otherwise. Nevertheless, someone at one time gave full consideration to what should be the proper interpretation of standing order 33 and has divided the matter into questions and answers. On the question with which we are now confronted, whoever prepared it-and I do not suppose it was anybody interested in anything else but procedure who would have worked on that standing order-has said that in his view the question that the bill do now pass is a purely formal motion connected with the motion for third reading.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It might be permitted to suggest that it has lain anonymous for all these years because the Speaker of the day did not agree, and therefore it never saw the light of day.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I did not hear what the hon. member said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said that it might be permitted to suggest that it has lain anonymous for all these years because the person for whom it was prepared did not agree, and therefore it never saw the light of day. One suggestion is as valid as the other.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must also consider that closure has been applied in the last few weeks but prior to that several years had elapsed during which closure was not applied. I presume that memorandum might have been prepared at one time when there were perhaps intentions of using closure but finally the intentions were modified. Nevertheless, this memorandum refers to citation 227 of Beauchesne's third edition. Citation 227 reads as follows:
227. If debate is on an amendment under closure, and a division takes place on that amendment before two o'clock in the morning, a new amendment may then be proposed, but the speeches thereon will be limited to one for each member who has not already spoken and shall not be longer than 20 minutes. A division may again take place on this new amendment, and another one be again proposed, and so on until two o'clock. The government members, in order to prevent the opposition from proposing such amendments, may keep up debate until two o'clock in the morning,-
And these are the words that are applicable. -when all questions connected with the main motion have to be decided forthwith.
Standing order 33 says this:
... all such questions as must be decided . . . 

Citation 227 says:
. . . when all questions connected with the main motion have to be decided forthwith.
Citation 717 of Beauchesne's third edition reads as follows:
717. Bills should be certified upon each of the three readings. The certification is usually made by the Clerk Assistant. Unless it is duly made, the bill cannot be dealt with by the clerks of Votes and Proceedings or of the Orders of the Day, nor can it be sent to the Senate. The original bills, thus certified, form part of the records of the house.
Reference has been made to the wording of standing order 76. There is no indication in citation 717 of Beauchesne's third edition, which is a clear comment about what is being said in standing order 76, which would support the interpretation that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has placed upon it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which takes priority, a citation or a standing order?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is contending that unless there is a motion that the bill do now pass and title be as on the order paper, the bill is not effectively passed. I say that the motion that the bill do now pass and title be as on the order paper is a relic of the past. It is kept merely for the purpose of amending the title which, because of certain consequential amendments in committee, has to be amended. Once the three readings have gone, the bill has been passed.
I am sorry to take so much time, but I shall be very brief from now on. At page 194 Campion says:
No question is put on the title, unless it is required to amend it in consequence of amendments made in the bill, and, when so amended, no question is put on the title as amended.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What edition of Campion is that?


Mr. Speaker:: Campion in his first edition refers to May's thirteenth edition, page 411, where May says:
When all the clauses and schedules have been agreed to, and any new clauses or schedules added, the preamble is considered and, if necessary, is amended; and the chairman puts the question, "That this be the preamble of the bill." Lastly, in the Lords, the title of the bill is considered and agreed to; and in the Commons, any amendment that may be necessary is then made to the title.
Then in May's fifteenth edition, at page 554, there is this:
The question "That this bill do pass" is no longer put in the House of Commons, and according to established usage, a bill, when read the third time, has passed. The form, however, is preserved in the Votes and Proceedings and Journals, where the bill is recorded as having been read the third time and passed, . . .

I would say that here we have kept the form. The form has not fallen into desuetude as it has in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom when they amend the title in committee they do not even refer to it after third reading. The entry is made, "Bill read third time and the title be-" and they repeat the new title as amended in committee, whereas here when a bill has been amended in committee we put the motion that the bill do now pass and title be not as on the order paper but as amended in committee. See Beauchesne's third edition, citation 692. So, although the form has fallen into desuetude in the United Kingdom, we still use it, but I say it is used merely as a formality. It is a link connected with the main motion which is the third reading of the bill.
Now, I have taken enough time and this is the ruling which I feel I should make.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect, but because I believe this final motion is separate from the third reading, according to our Canadian practice and our Canadian standing orders, I appeal your ruling.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rose to submit his point of order before the Deputy Clerk had a chance to stand up and say "Third reading of this bill", may I be permitted now to ask the Deputy Clerk to perform that duty?
The Clerk Assistant: Third reading of this bill.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
Mr. Knowles raised a point of order to the effect that, when the motion for third reading of the bill had been disposed of, the terms of the motion adopted in this sitting had been met; and since the motion "That the said bill do now pass and the title be as on the order paper" was a distinctly separate question, it could not be taken after the ordinary hour of adjournment.
I ruled that the motion "That the bill do now pass and the title be as on the order paper" was votable, but since it was a formal procedural motion connected with the question for third reading, it must be decided forthwith, in accordance with the terms of standing order 33; whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed to the house from my ruling.
1956	4773
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


John Hugh Proudfoot: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the Speaker's ruling sustained.
The question is now on the motion. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) moves, seconded by Mr. Harris:
That the said bill do now pass, and the title be as on the order paper.
Those who are in favour of this motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Do hon. members consider that their members have been called in for the purpose of this division?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the whips be kind enough to so indicate?


Murdo William Martin: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


John Hugh Proudfoot: I was paired with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
++NAYS
Messrs:



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Aitken, Miss
Balcer
Barnett
Bell
Blair
Bryce
Cameron (Nanaimo)
Casselman
Charlton
Churchill
Coldwell
Diefenbaker
Dinsdale
Drew
Dufresne
Fairclough, Mrs.
Fleming
Fulton
Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace)
Hamilton (York West)
Hees
Herridge
Howe (Wellington-Huron)
Jones
Knight
Knowles
Lennard
MacLean
McBain
McCullough (Moose Mountain) McGregor Michener
Mitchell (London)
Monteith
Montgomery
Nesbitt
Nicholson
Nowlan
Pallett
Pearkes
Perron
Rea
Robinson (Bruce)
George Alexander Drew: What is the order of business for tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: It would be the government's intention on government orders to take interim supply.


George Alexander Drew: There has been no notice given that would make it possible for this to be taken up tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: Are you going to abolish the rules on that too?


George Alexander Drew: There is nothing appearing on the order paper.
It being 3.20 a.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Questions