1956-05-15

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in view of reports in yesterday's papers indicating that experienced real estate agents feel that the values being paid for properties on the Caughnawaga Indian reserve are well below their actual values, whether the minister is prepared to defer the expropriations or to reassess the prices which are being paid for land in that reserve.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to stay within the rules of the house for the precise purpose of having a debate on this subject, a purpose which has been obstructed by hon. gentlemen opposite. For that reason perhaps I may be allowed two sentences to state what is the position. The first is that the expropriations have already taken place. The second is that no person can suffer any prejudice whatsoever by virtue of that fact. I have assured the house before and I give the assurance again that anyone who is dissatisfied with what he has been offered will have the opportunity of having his case heard by the courts. This work has to go on and the fact that it has to go on is apparent to everyone. In order to avoid every possible hardship we have made arrangements with the seaway authority whereby they will make advances, without prejudice to the final settlement, to those who are not satisfied with the offers being made.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminsier):: Mr. Speaker, further to a question which I asked the minister on April 12 respecting the need for rain gear at New Westminster, at which time he indicated that the gear had been sent, I wonder if he would inquire into this
matter. I have received word that it is raining to beat hell and they have no rain gear.


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: I shall be very pleased to make inquiries.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. On May 2 this house passed a motion for the production of papers as follows:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the province of British Columbia, or any ministers thereof, since January 1,	1956, with
respect to the trans-Canada highway.
Can the minister inform the house if he is now able to table that correspondence?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Yes. I have just received a letter from the minister of highways of the government of British Columbia agreeing, with certain reservations regarding correspondence he would like to have considered as personal and privileged, to have me table the correspondence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask
the minister a supplementary question relating to the answer he just made to the hon. member for Kootenay West. Under what rule does the minister say that the permission of a provincial minister is necessary before correspondence can be tabled in the house? Is not the rule rather that as a matter of courtesy a provincial minister is informed of the intention to table and asked if he has any objection? If he does object, then the decision rests with the minister here as to whether or not he will table the correspondence. Is not the position that the minister cannot table an expurgated edition, that he has to decide whether or not he will table the correspondence?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand the rule is one of courtesy. I simply acquainted the house with the information that was imparted to me by the minister of highways of British Columbia in a letter I received today. I have not yet tabled the correspondence, and I am in the process of giving consideration to that point now.
3892	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry HARBOURS



STATEMENT AS TO POSSIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) on Friday last by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) concerning conferences which have taken place between Mr. Cyrus Eaton and government officials concerning the proposed development of a harbour in Ungava bay. The situation is that on April 10 I met with Mr. Cyrus Eaton, Jr., Mr. W. R. Daley and Mr. L. C. Turnock, Jr. On April 11 these same gentlemen met with officials of the Department of Public Works, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Department of Transport, under the chairmanship of the deputy minister of public works, to discuss the possibilities of harbour development in Ungava bay in connection with iron ore operations in the area.
Local conditions and possible sites for a suitable harbour were discussed. They were shown the hydrographic charts and other information prepared by representatives of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys last summer in that area. After discussion it was suggested that the International Iron Ore Company should appoint private consulting engineers to continue studies of suitable sites and methods of developing a harbour. I understand that the company has done this. The Department of Public Works engineers will be available to provide information in accordance with usual government practice.
The officials of the Department of Transport and the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys similarly undertook to make available to the consulting engineers information in their possession.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Public Works concerning this proposal to develop a harbour in Ungava bay. Does that include an extension of the present railway line from Knob Lake, I think it is, to Ungava bay?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand that is not visualized now.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public


Works. Has the government of New Brunswick requested the federal government to authorize it to participate with the state of Maine in a survey preparatory to building a bridge from Lubec, Maine, to Campobello island, New Brunswick?


Robert Henry Winters: There has been an exchange of correspondence between the deputy minister of public works for the province of New Brunswick and the deputy minister of public works in the federal government, in which the former has informed us that they are very familiar with this crossing and have met with several committees from Campobello and Lubec, Maine, to discuss the various matters involved.
The government of New Brunswick has been informed that there are certain considerations that have to be cleared with the international joint commission, as well as under the terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but that the federal government is quite prepared for the government of New Brunswick to undertake the joint survey with the state of Maine.



ARTS. LETTERS AND SCIENCES DOMINION DRAMA FESTIVAL-INQUIRY AS TO ADVERTISING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Has the Prime Minister any further statement to make in regard to the matter I questioned him about on Friday, having to do with the improper use of the name of the Governor General of Canada?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the important factor, I think, in the hon. gentleman's question was with respect to the use that had apparently been made, by an organization of which the Governor General is a patron, of the fact that he was the patron of the organization. As the hon. gentleman knows, the extension of his patronage to organizations for the encouragement of the arts or to similar organizations is a personal prerogative of His Excellency the Governor General, and the hon. gentleman knows, as I do, from the publicity that has been given by the newspapers and also over the radio that His Excellency is dealing with the matter himself.

Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. S. White (Hasiings-Fronlenac):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in regard to the case of Theresa Anita Fernandes, the adopted daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Walter Fernandes of Toronto. Will the minister reconsider the decision made either by himself or the officials of his department on the appeal against the deportation order?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman was good enough to indicate that he had hoped to ask this question yesterday. In view of the great publicity given to this case, I think I should say that the first time I ever heard of it was when, like the hon. gentleman, I read the Toronto Star. Since then I have been looking at the particulars, and I am giving the case further consideration.



REPORTED TARIFF CUTS BY CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister in a position to give the house any information about the tariff reductions which Canada is reported to be making under GATT?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: No. In due course I expect that my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce will deal with it in the house, but at the moment I have nothing to say.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister state whether a decision has been reached by the Supreme Court of Canada in respect to Ontario's producer marketing boards and, if so, what decision has been reached?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The answer to the hon. gentleman's question is no.



EXTRA HOURS OF SITTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. What arrangements are being made for overtime pay for employees of the House of Commons who may be required to work extra hours tonight and possibly on two or three other occasions, this week and next?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping it would be unnecessary that they should work overtime,, and that we might complete our work by ten o'clock tonight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the government .does not withdraw the closure motion and we' go on, will consideration be given to the matter I have raised?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Your Honour and the internal economy commission will consider every factor they ought to consider in connection with the good work our staff are doing.



DISABLED PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplilny (Dauphin):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Have the officials of his department had discussions recently with officials of provincial departments with respect to the regulations under the Disabled Persons Act? If so, have any changes in the regulations been made as a result of these discussions?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker-


Edmund Davie Fulton: A short answer, now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will be short, accurate and informative.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And probably disappointing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The trouble with my hon. friend who has just interjected is that he always thinks that because he has been a cheer leader any achievement of the government results- in his having scored the touchdown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the Leader of the Opposition said last evening, I have all day. There has been such a conference, and the federal

Inquiries of the Ministry government is now awaiting the reaction of the various provinces to the discussions, I do not think we will be in a position before next September to make any final decision. I might say, however, that when the disability allowance program was announced we estimated that we would have on strength about 25,000 disability pensioners. I am happy to say that as a result of the initiative taken by the government that figure has been exceeded.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimau-Saanich):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence? He has not had one for a long time.


An hon. Member:: He has his wrong ear to you.


George Randolph Pearkes: Are the CF-100 squadrons which are being sent to NATO to be in addition to or to replace the squadrons of the air division now in Europe?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: The number of squadrons in
Europe at any given time will remain at 12 as at present. The four CF-100 squadrons which will replace four Sabre jet squadrons will do so in succession, but the over-all number will remain the same.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melfort):: wonder whether the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is prepared to answer the question I asked last Friday regarding the eligibility of Indians to apply for bank loans against wheat stored on reserves?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have given some consideration to this question and it is a good thing I did, because it is exceedingly complicated. As I am sure the hon. member knows, section 88(1) of the Indian Act provides that real and personal property belonging to an Indian, which property is situated on a reserve, cannot be attached or seized except at the instance of another Indian, and I do not think the chartered banks were chartered as Indians.
If I may summarize the information I have, it would appear that if an Indian stored his

grain off the reserve and applied for a loan he would be eligible like anyone else but that the banks might properly say, if the wheat were stored on the reserve, and they could not realize, that the conditions did not meet with the terms of the bank loan legislation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does this means that with respect to bank loans the minister is an Indian giver?



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he has yet been able to obtain a copy of Trans-Canada's option on the pipe in the United States to which we both referred last Friday?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it had not come to hand when I left the office this morning. I will table it as soon as it does. I have asked for it.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


Mr. Speaker:: Before I leave the chair, may I say that the house is in such good humour today that I hate to go.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You'll be back.
The house resumed, from Monday, May 14, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the constitution of a corporation to be known as Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation for the purposes, amongst others, of constructing, maintaining and operating a natural gas pipe line between the Ontario-Manitoba border and Kapuskasing, Ontario, and of leasing with an option to purchase such natural gas pipe line to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and carrying out such leases, including the disposal by the corporation of such pipe line in connection with such purchase option, and to provide that the Minister of Finance may lend money to the corporation for such purposes.
To provide also that the corporation may, on behalf of Her Majesty, out of moneys advanced by the Minister of Finance, make short-term loans to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited for the construction of a natural gas pipe line from a point on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border to the vicinity of Winnipeg, such loans not to exceed in the aggregate eighty million dollars or ninety per cent of the cost of construction of the said

pipe line, whichever is the lesser, and to be made upon such terms, conditions and security as approved by the governor in council.
To provide also that the corporation may do such things as are conducive to the attainment of the foregoing purposes, and that in the event of default of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in carrying out any agreement for the foregoing purposes the corporation may take possession and control of any or all assets, rights and undertakings of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and conduct the business and operations of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited with respect to such assets, rights and undertakings, and that if such default should occur prior to completion of the pipe line mentioned in the last preceding paragraph hereof the corporation may complete its construction and manage and operate it and that it may, out of moneys advanced by the Minister of Finance acquire shares of the capital stock of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
To provide that the aggregate outstanding at any time of the amounts authorized by the measure to be advanced for the foregoing purposes by the Minister of Finance to the corporation together with the loans authorized to be made by the Minister of Finance to the corporation shall not exceed one hundred and thirty million dollars.
And to provide further for the appointment and remuneration of directors, officers and employees necessary for the administration of the act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to notice given yesterday I move:
That at this sitting of the committee of the whole on the resolution respecting the constitution of a corporation to be known as Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, the further consideration of the said resolution shall be the first business of the committee and that the consideration of the same shall not be further postponed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


Mr. Drew:: The club.


Mr. Rowe:: The guillotine.


The Chairman:: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Motion Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) agreed to: Yeas, 122; nays, 73.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of addressing an inquiry to you. The inquiry is, was the Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal party a member of the committee who voted in favour of the guillotine?


William Alfred Robinson: I think the hon. member will agree that that is not a true point of order. I am not here to identify the members of the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Probably you could give me a simple answer.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that we are not in favour of closure. It has always been our 67509-247
15, 1956	3895
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation practice to have as much free discussion as possible in the house. It may be necessary, when it is clear that there is or will be obstruction to a measure, to enforce closure. Certainly we think closure should not have been put on at this time, and that a considerable amount of time should have been allowed for free discussion. I am only making that statement at this time, Mr. Chairman, because as a result of the conspiracy between the leader of the Conservative party and the C.C.F., we were prohibited from putting forward our views on this matter last evening before ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Coldwell:: On a question-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Major James William Coldwell: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I understand the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is rising on a point of privilege.


Major James William Coldwell: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman; the hon. gentleman has tried to leave the impression that I prevented him from speaking last night. I rose at half past nine and spoke for 30 minutes, which was my right. I resent very much any implication to the contrary being placed on the records of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I presume the Leader of the Opposition is also rising on a point of privilege.


George Alexander Drew: Now that the trained seals are silent, that is what I intended to say.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Perhaps I should rise on a point of privilege myself. I do not think, at the commencement of a debate which promises to be most interesting, it is appropriate for one member to say of other members that they are trained seals. Perhaps we could start our proceedings this afternoon by the hon. Leader of the Opposition withdrawing those words.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I regret that Your Honour was not so conscious of the noise which prompted that remark, and I do not propose to withdraw the words.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am conscious of the noise which prompts these remarks and we
3896	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation are, of course, all very conscious of the tenseness which pervades the atmosphere of the chamber at times like this.
In view of that fact, it is my duty to attempt to allay heat when heat is rising and I believe these words should be brought to the attention of all hon. members at the very outset of the debate. I think most hon. members will agree that this expression "trained seals"-


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about the word "conspiracy"?


William Alfred Robinson: -is not one that one hon. member of this house should apply to other members of this house. I may be wrong, but I feel I am on pretty sound ground.


An hon. Member:: Use "untrained" then.


William Alfred Robinson: May I ask hon. members to refrain from further demonstrations of any kind. I feel I am on sound ground, and I feel that the Leader of the Opposition, after these perhaps futile attempts to allay heat, will agree with me and I hope he will cooperate with me to the extent of withdrawing those words, which I do not feel have a place in this House of Commons.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, what about the word "conspiracy"? ,


George Alexander Drew: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will go so far as to point out that I rose and before I even had an opportunity to express the circumstances under which I rose there was such bedlam in unison that I felt the words I used on that occasion were appropriate having regard to the circumstances. I shall not repeat them on this occasion, and I shall now proceed to deal with the question of privilege that has been raised.


William Alfred Robinson: I am sorry, but the question has gone beyond that. I have asked in as kindly terms as possible for the co-operation of the Leader of the Opposition. I feel he will agree with me that an expression of this kind is bound to raise heat. It is my duty to see that this debate proceeds in an orderly fashion. I am now asking the Leader of the Opposition once more to withdraw those words which I am sure he must agree have no place in this honourable chamber.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, Mr. Chairman-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to you that the reason for the heat is the outrageous conduct of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: -and the words I used which described, I feel accurately, what has taken place have been used before and have not been challenged. Under those circumstances
[The Chairman.]

and in view of the provocation I do not intend to withdraw the words and I leave the matter in your hands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Alfred Robinson: I recall another occasion when the Leader of the Opposition used the same words when I was in the chair. At that time they did not raise the heat which they raised today.


George Alexander Drew: It is a question of temperature.


William Alfred Robinson: I must point out to hon. members that it is the fear of disorder which may arise in the chamber which causes those of us who occupy the chair to rise from time to time to attempt, as I said before, to allay some of this heat. At the beginning of such a debate as we contemplate for today, I do not propose to allow the debate to commence on a disorderly basis, and I must ask the hon. member to withdraw or I shall have to report the matter to Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fleming:: Shame.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, may I with respect suggest that this is an occasion on which we ought to be very careful that we allow all the time possible to the person who has the floor to get on with an extremely important debate. I say that without in any way suggesting it was improper for the leader of the C.C.F. party to raise his question of privilege. I also agree it was quite in order and probably expected that the Leader of the Opposition would do likewise under those circumstances.
Of course there is no reason in the world why we could not be sure that the hon. member who has the floor should have his full time; however, we are about to engage in a rather lengthy debate in which, as I understand it, the speeches are limited to 20 minutes. I would hope during that time the committee would give the greatest attention to what is said with the least interruption.
As it happens, when the Leader of the Opposition rose I thought perhaps the remarks and the noise which greeted him were spontaneous rather than trained, but that might be a matter of opinion. I also recall on more than one occasion the Leader of the Opposition having used the phrase "trained seals". I have never taken the trouble to see if it is in order or out of order according to the book. I think we all discount that phrase, because everyone in this house knows that all parties practically invariably follow a single party line, with some exceptions which may or may not be evident later.
A reference of that kind is only a general reference, sir, to the party warfare which

goes on; and while it may be offensive to some of us toward whom it is directed, I have long since felt that it did not bother me personally.
While I realize your duty is to report the situation to Mr. Speaker, I wonder if under the circumstances it might be possible for us to continue with the debate subject to that and subject to our seeing if there is any precedent which would bear this out; not that I question your judgment or your authority to make a ruling under these circumstances. It occurred to me, however, that we might proceed with the debate and leave the matter as it stands, so that if a report to the Speaker is necessary that report could be made at a later time.


William Alfred Robinson: I think perhaps the minister has succeeded in allaying the heat which I attempted to allay a few minutes ago. As a matter of fact, when the Leader of the Opposition rose I did not have an opportunity to hear his question of privilege because the words in question were spoken early in his remarks. Perhaps I should hear his question of privilege before commenting further on the matter raised by the minister.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the question
of privilege that I proposed to raise was very brief. The question I would have raised, if I could have been heard at the time, was simply this. When I spoke yesterday I explained it was because the situation demanded a long speech and I spoke within the rules. I do not believe there is any right on the part of any hon. member to challenge the propriety of an hon. member using the time provided by the rules for discussing a subject of importance which is before this house.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the Leader of the Opposition I think is well taken. I am sure the hon. member for Bow River would not wish to leave on the record any implication other than that they had availed themselves of their privileges as hon. members of this house. I therefore expect that the hon. member for Bow River will withdraw any implication such as has been objected to in the questions of privilege raised by these two hon. members.
I hope further that the Leader of the Opposition will co-operate with me. He has already said that he will refrain from using the words objected to a short time ago. I hope that will close the question.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I meant no offence and I withdraw any offensive reference. I was stating that when 67509-247i
15, 1956	3897
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the Leader of the Opposition spoke until exactly half past nine and then the leader of the C.C.F. continued until ten o'clock it was quite obvious that we were cut off-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is a matter of fact.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, when I came back from the television station last night I was told I should probably wait until after nine o'clock, that the Leader of the Opposition would likely make a long speech. I came down to the house shortly after nine o'clock and the Leader of the Opposition sat down at 9.30. I sat down at one minute to ten, and I think I was fully within my rights in doing that, as was the Leader of the Opposition in taking all the time he could under the rules of this house.


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


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Bow River is entitled to speak in the committee, and he has been recognized. I wish to make it clear that I consider the points of order raised by these two hon. members to be well taken, and we should not have any further reference to the time taken last evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that the time we have lost is due to the utterances of the hon. member himself, and in view of the fact that we are under a time limit today, how many minutes-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -will the hon. member for Bow River be given?


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Bow River.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I should like to start my remarks this afternoon by referring to the resolution. The resolution before us is to set up a crown corporation to be known as Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. The resolution has two main purposes. The first is to build the northern Ontario section of the line with the two governments putting up approximately $118 million. The Ontario government is to advance $35 million and the federal government $83 million. When the line is constructed it will be leased to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited with an option to buy.
The second part of the resolution deals with the building of the western portion of the trans-Canada pipe line. The corporation will be allowed to lend $80 million to Trans-Canada at 5 per cent. This is a federal loan at 5 per cent, which would appear to be a good business transaction.
3898	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
There is a guarantee attached to the contract which states that if the company fails to comply with its terms the government can take over the whole project.
Let it be clearly understood that we favour an all-Canadian pipe line under Canadian control. We have expressed that on numerous *occasions. We have no favourite as to any company in Canada or anywhere else. We *certainly do not offer special favour to nor are we married to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited or any other company. At the moment that is the only proposition that is before the government. If we are to have a pipe line running across this country within the next two years it must be Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.
We want to make sure that the federal government is not handing control over to another country. The minister has indicated that there is certain federal control, that the federal government has absolute control over all export permits. On top of that the federal government has control through legislation passed by this parliament to do whatever they think is right and proper in the interests of Canada. Then in addition there is the control exercised by the province of Alberta in the matter of exporting gas from that province.
In order that there may be no misunderstanding in regard to control remaining in Canadian hands we would make three recommendations to the government. First, we would recommend that 51 per cent of ownership shall remain in the hands of Canadians at all times. Second, we recommend that the majority of the directors of the company shall be Canadians at all times. Third, we recommend that the company make available to Canadians 51 per cent of the stock which shall be negotiable in Canada only, and that the portion not purchased by Canadian subscribers be purchased by the federal government to be held in trust and made available for purchase by Canadian citizens in the future.
If the government will give consideration to those recommendations, along with the other controls which exist, I am sure there could then be no opposition and no question as to the complete control of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines being in the hands of Canadians at all times.
We are pleased to note that at long last the government has decided to go ahead with the construction of a trans-Canada pipe line. Certainly they have, and I think they will admit, caused a good deal of delay in the construction of this pipe line. But now we are pleased that they are about to permit construction of this line. We are pleased in this regard because the people of Alberta


and others have invested a tremendous amount of money in the development of oil and gas in that province.
We as Albertans started out in 1935 to develop the resources in our province. We made a policy statement at that time that as far as the supply of gas and oil was concerned, Alberta's requirements must be met first, then Canadian requirements, and then when there was sufficient quantity to warrant it exports should be allowed. We have reached that point now, and we think it is high time there was some means of exporting this gas to the other provinces of Canada.
There has been a great deal of questioning here, particularly by the C.C.F., over the fact that there has been United States investment in the development of these natural resources. It will be recalled that in 1935 the then premier of that province, the late Mr. Aberhart, along with Mr. Manning and the leader of this group here came to Ottawa to see if they could get Canadian capital to develop those natural resources. That was impossible. They then went over to Great Britain to see if they could get assistance there to develop those natural resources. That was impossible. They then went to the United States, and they were able to get the required assistance for the development of these resources. If it had not been for that assistance we would not be in a position today where we are discussing the building of a trans-Canada pipe line across this country.
Saskatchewan too is in need of a trans-Canada pipe line. The development of their resources has been done by private investment and private enterprise. I am amazed at the attitude taken by the C.C.F. so far in this debate, particularly by the leader of the C.C.F. who opposes the development of these resources by private enterprise. Certainly he cannot be forgetful that the resources in Saskatchewan have been developed entirely by private enterprise. He so stated in the debate the other day. Let me read what he said, as reported on page 3886 of Hansard of May 14:
There is only one alternative, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave it this afternoon. I took down his words and he said that short of public ownership there is no way of guaranteeing Canadian control. I took down the minister's own words.
Let me point out to him that if that is so, then United States organizations and financial interests have complete control of the development of oil in Saskatchewan. There is no question about it. Even the premier of the province of Saskatchewan favours private development. In a letter

dated April 21, 1949, addressed to "Dear Mr. Newkirk" he had this to say:
In response to your request for a statement of the policy of the government of Saskatchewan on the matter of mineral and petroleum development, I desire to reiterate the stand which we have taken and which has been expressed on numerous occasions in the past.
The government is desirous of encouraging mineral and petroleum exploration, development and production to the greatest extent possible, and to that end it has embarked upon a program designed to lend technical assistance and advice to bona fide persons and organizations able and willing to proceed with this work. In addition, it gives a firm understanding that no steps will be taken to expropriate or socialize the mining or petroleum industry in the province.
At the same time, the government will take all necessary steps to protect the public interest, and to that end the mineral rights in certain areas will be defined and reserved in advance to the use of the crown, and royalties will be fixed guaranteeing to the people of the province a fair return from the mineral wealth produced.
That is exactly what has taken place in Alberta. Saskatchewan has followed that plan and as a result of following Alberta's plan they have been able to develop their natural resources. They will benefit from the construction of this trans-Canada pipe line. The premier of Saskatchewan gave the assurance that there would be no socialization of these projects, yet the C.C.F. have the audacity to stand up in this house and say they oppose the construction of this pipe line by private enterprise which will provide further development of their natural resources.
I want to read further from the budget speech of the late-no, not the late, but I suppose he will be after the election-Hon. C. M. Fines, provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan, on Monday, March 5, 1956. They talk about lending money to private enterprise for the development of resources. Look at page 20 of this speech:
In just about five years, it has assisted in bringing to this province such industries as a pipe mill, a plywood factory, a generator winding plant, a garment factory, a farm equipment manufacturing enterprise, a cement plant-to name but a few. The industrial development fund, which a few years ago counted a $50,000 loan to a new company as a major transaction, is expected this year to lend up to $500,000.
How can they stand up and object to the government on this occasion lending $80 million to a private concern at 5 per cent interest? I wish they could be a little consistent.
I turn my attention for a second to the Conservative members of this house. I never saw such a mess as they are in now. They say it was a shotgun wedding that was performed in the amalgamation of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, but I would call this close association with the C.C.F. as almost a companionate
15. 1956	3ggg
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation marriage, because they see no other alternative. I do not think I could outline the stand taken by the Conservatives better than it is expressed by the Montreal Gazette of May 14, which expresses my opinion exactly. It says:
Poor Relations:
Poor liaison has caused a rift between the federal Conservatives and the party's Ontario provincial organization.
How mute was the leader of the Conservative party when he was asked to give Mr. Frost's ideas on this. He stood up here as though he were paralysed, and he never made a suggestion.
The coolness developed at mid-week. Conservative M.P.'s-
I want to emphasize that it was all the Conservative M.P.'s except the one from Calgary South.
Conservative M.P.'s had been hammering away at trade minister Howe and the Liberal government for more than a week for failing to give Calgary oil promoter Frank McMahon and other interested Canadian groups a chance to pick up the torch from the failing hands of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and build Canada's transcontinental natural gas pipe line.
Spilled:
But while the Conservatives were preoccupied with developments in parliament, Queen's park abruptly yanked the rug from under them. Ontario s Conservative government announced blandly its complete satisfaction with the Howe proposal to rush further financial aid to Trans-Canada. As for the McMahon offer-
Notice this. This was the main point the leader of the Conservatives had to offer yesterday in regard to this matter:
As for the McMahon offer, Ontario authorities scoffed at the suggestion that it deserved serious consideration. Ontario, they said, had itself canvassed the field of potential Canadian investors last fall-McMahon among them. And all it had found was a wide open space. The Ontario pronouncements didn't utter a single critical word about the stand taken by the federal Conservatives. But the implication was clear and the effect devastating.
Committed:
Indications are that opposition leader Drew and his followers in parliament (including the Ontario MP.'s), will, however, persist in their stand. They are too deeply committed to it, in any event, to backtrack in the face of the new pressure from Queen's park. Their battle against the continuation of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited as the "chosen instrument'' of Canadian pipe-line policy will remain, it is said, a fight to the finish.
A fight to the finish of what?


An hon. Member:: The Conservatives.


Charles Edward Johnston: A fight to the finish to prevent the construction of the trans-Canada pipe line, good or bad. That is their position. Let me state further the Conservative policy as exhibited in the Ottawa Journal, and let me tell you that this is the
3900	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation underlying core of the whole thing. On April 7 the Ottawa Journal in its editorial had the following heading:
Why All the Mad Rush Over This Alberta Gas Line?
I want to emphasize those words "this Alberta gas line". The editorial stated:
Mr. Frank McMahon, described as "Alberta's multimillionaire oil and gas promoter", bobs up to say-
I like that word "bobs".
-that he and his associates will undertake to build an all-Canada gas pipe line without government assistance.
Note this. Here follows the crux of the whole thing:
But even if some delay did occur what vital difference would that make? Reading certain newspapers and listening to certain politicians one might get the impression that if this Alberta gas pipe line is not built within the next two years half the people in eastern Canada are going to freeze to death for want of gas fuel and most of our manufacturing plants close down for the same reason.
This is plain nonsense; almost a form of hysteria. No one in eastern Canada, Toronto or elsewhere, will perish from cold and not a factory chimney will go smokeless if not a single cubic foot of Alberta gas reaches the east this year or next year or the year after; there are too many other available forms of fuel.
That is exactly the same position the Conservative party in this house is taking. They do not want Alberta gas down here to assist the provinces in western Canada. They do not even want to have that cheap fuel here for industry in Ontario and for the assistance of the people of Ontario. There is their whole argument in a nutshell.


William Alfred Robinson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired. May I say that I charged up a goodly portion of the time consumed on the point of order to myself and a small proportion to the hon. member.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am only about half way through. 1 shall take another opportunity to finish it.


Mrs. Shipley:: As most hon. members know, I come from the part of Ontario that has caused a good deal of the difficulty in the financing of this line. You will well understand how keenly interested I am. During the course of the discussions I watched all the changes and disappointments very carefully. There were no stages that were not of keen interest to my people. We have had power shortages in the province of Ontario before, as is well known to the Leader of the Opposition. At the present time the government of Ontario is determined that this shall not happen again.
fMr. Johnston (Bow River).]

Today, at this particular stage of this debate, I wish to deal primarily with the criticism of the opposition. I have noticed- and I have been in this house for only three sessions-that the weaker the position of the official opposition and the fewer their arguments, the more vicious becomes the attack of the Leader of the Opposition. Yesterday,
I would say, he reached an all-time low. His paucity of arguments reduced him to personal attacks on our leader and our cabinet ministers.
I was very pleased today to hear the chairman call a halt to such terms as "trained seals." I gather I cannot refer to that particular term again. I think it has been ruled out, but I was including that statement. I want to refer to the abuse that has been heaped on the backbench members of this party by the Leader of the Opposition. I see no reason in the world why the men and women of Canada who have been elected to come here because their constituents felt they were capable of looking after their business, should have to sit here, and simply because we show loyalty to our leader and unity amongst ourselves, be called "trained seals", "an anvil chorus", "sheep" and an "organized cheering gang" and told that we are "toeing the party line".


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Marie Ann Shipley: Am I out of order?


William Alfred Robinson: May I express the hope that the hon. member will refrain from this type of discussion. I found a short time ago that we reached an impasse very quickly in that regard, and I should like to express the hope that she will confine herself to the terms of the resolution.


Marie Ann Shipley: Mr. Chairman, I had armed myself with quotations from this debate and previous debates where all these statements had been made by the Leader of the Opposition and I thought I would be in order, but I shall certainly agree to do exactly what you tell me.


An hon. Member:: Trained seal.


Marie Ann Shipley: Oh, I would never do anything that you might suggest. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, I may refer to the shout that went up yesterday when closure was announced. We heard shouts of "dictatorship" and so on. I had heard closure mentioned a few weeks ago and I wondered what it was all about. I took the trouble to read about it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who mentioned it first?


Marie Ann Shipley: It is unfortunate that it did not suit the purposes of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. party

to use the terms "mother of parliaments" and "cradle of democracy", with which these halls would have been ringing yesterday, because closure is a common practice there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not on the first day of debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Even before the first day.


Marie Ann Shipley: I do not understand how they can use the term "dictatorship" when such is not the case. I went to the trouble of counting the number of times closure has been used in England and in the last seven years it has been used an average of 21 times per session, so, so much for your dictatorship. Furthermore, we were informed by one of the would-be leaders of the official opposition-


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Marie Ann Shipley: I will tell you in a minute.


Mr. Dickey:: You are covering the waterfront now.


Marie Ann Shipley: This hon. member announced in Toronto several weeks ago, I believe, that if we thought we had a filibuster last session -of course he did not use that awful word; he called it something else, but that is what he meant'-we had not seen anything yet. Therefore it is a little late, I would think, for the opposition to suggest for one moment that they did not intend to engage in obstruction of the discussion of this subject rather than debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Remember what happened last session. The government retreated.


Marie Ann Shipley: There is one other point to which I think I may refer. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition used the expression "tawdry and nauseating inversion of the truth." When I examined Hansard this morning I was delighted to note that even he could not stomach the word "nauseating" because it has now been changed to "insinuating".


Mr. Gardiner:: Oh, changing Hansard.


Marie Ann Shipley: From the beginning of this debate there has been misrepresentation of fact, misrepresentation of what the minister has said, from start to finish. I have watched it and have made many notes by way of proof. Yesterday I asked the Leader of the Opposition to state at what time and where the Minister of Trade and Commerce had ever said or suggested that the offer of 51 per cent of the stock to Canadians would guarantee control by Canadians. Of course, as all hon. members know, the Leader of the Opposition said he had not said such a thing. I want to refer to page 2172 of Hansard of
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation March 15 of this year, where I find that the Leader of the Opposition had this to say:
He said that control of this company is open to Canadians. That statement is a shallow pretence. That statement has no meaning and is not borne out by the facts.
At other places he said it was an attempt to deceive the Canadian people. Here is exactly what the minister said when he made his statement to the house a few minutes before the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition to which I have referred. As found at page 2166 of Hansard of March 15 the minister said:
This offer has, to my surprise, been met with criticism, even derision, on the ground that it provides no guarantee that Canadians will buy the stock. Of course there is no such guarantee. Short of public ownership ... I know of no means by which control by Canadians could be guaranteed.
The minister has been most meticulous in making that specifically clear any time he has ever mentioned the subject. Then every time any reference is made to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines it is referred to by the members of the opposition as our "protege" or our "chosen instrument". Again and again it has been said, Mr. Chairman, that we did not choose the company. The company was chosen by the province of Alberta. At the time Alberta had surplus gas and was about to permit the export of that gas beyond its provincial boundaries there were two companies and two companies only that applied to the province of Alberta for such permission. Alberta was not quite satisfied that one company alone would be able to finance and handle the surplus gas, so ultimately there was an amalgamation or a shotgun wedding; I do not care what you call it. There was an amalgamation of the two companies.
Therefore at no time did we select the company. It was the only company with permission to export gas from Alberta, therefore if we wanted an all-Canadian pipe line there was no other company with whom we could deal. The federal government is the one that stipulated that the pipe line must remain on Canadian soil, and the people of northern Ontario are very pleased and happy that this was done. While I am on that particular point I should like to say that it is true there are not enough customers through that long stretch of land to make the line economically sound at the present time, but I venture to say that long before I am dead and gone it will be a happy day for Canada that the gas line came through that area.
It has been said again and again that there were other Canadian investors, but the only ones who have been named are McMahon and Gairdner. It has been pointed out again
3902	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation and again that they have no permits either from Alberta or to export abroad, that they have no customers and no pipe. What is more, they have no gas. It would be foolish to start at this late date and attempt to let a new company conduct the necessary negotiations. What they would do about the millions and millions of dollars that have already been spent by Trans-Canada on surveys, the development of customers, and so on, I do not know.
The suggestion was made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. party that the owners of the pipe, by not making the pipe available to McMahon, Gairdner, or anybody else who might want it, were holding a gun or a pipe at our heads. Who ever heard tell of people who pretend to be businessmen or who know anything about business even suggesting that a company in the United States that controls pipe, which is not only non-existent in Canada but is in very short supply and in great demand in the United States, should be told by the government of Canada to hand over the pipe to McMahon or somebody else. These arguments simply do not hold water, and it is a pity that the time of the house is taken up in having to listen to them.
With respect to closure, as I told you before I am a new member, but so far as I can see from my experience in the house closure will mean only one thing. We will have to listen to the same arguments from the same speakers probably six or seven times instead of 20 or 30. Already in the two addresses we have had from the Leader of the Opposition we have heard the same thing over and over again, and his arguments are just as unsound every time.
As to the McMahon proposal that we heard so much about yesterday, may I say this. There is something rather peculiar about that proposal. I would not like to say what it is, of course, but one could ask one or two questions. Here was a strange thing. A personal and confidential letter was sent to the minister concerned. The opposition pooh-poohed the fact and contended that it was not personal and confidential. May I say to them that if that is the way you run your business, that is your business; but we consider a personal and confidential matter to be personal and confidential unless we are released from that restriction, and I hope we continue to do so.
Here is correspondence, marked personal and confidential, in the hands of our minister concerned. But what happens in the meantime? Members of the opposition obviously have complete copies of that document. The newspapers in Canada obviously


have full copies of that information. There is something extremely peculiar about that. When it became evident that the confidential information had been given freely to everyone else, our minister said it must be released. What happened? Within five minutes the offer was withdrawn. If that does not seem peculiar to you, may I say that it seems extremely peculiar to me.
I shall not refer to the statements reported in the Globe and Mail of May 10 made by the premier of the province of Ontario, but I should like to refer to what was said by the Leader of the Opposition in this house the first time this matter was up for debate. Then I should like to cite what was said prior to that time and available to everyone, in the legislature of the province of Ontario. This is what was said by the Leader of the Opposition as reported at page 2179 of Hansard:
The Minister of Trade and Commerce spent some time speaking about the position of Ontario. It is well known that Ontario made another recommendation to this government. It is well known that Ontario prefers another method. It is well known that Ontario only adopted the course they have adopted because they want gas in Ontario. They have no control over this.
I suppose the same kind of pressure was put on the premier of Ontario that it is contended was put on Mr. McMahon. Now let me refer to what was said in the house by Mr. Frost; and may I say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not sitting behind him telling him what to say. I assume he said it of his own free will. I know the gentleman well, and I know that he says what he means. This is what he said, as reported at page 390 of the official report of the debates of the legislature of Ontario:
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, these difficulties are not small.
He was referring to the difficulties.
It was not an easy matter to negotiate the agreement at all.
In reference to his first proposal-that is with regard to the five or more provinces coming in-he said:
Apparently the Trans-Canada Pipe Line agreement provides for the quickest and most effective way of bringing gas to Ontario. I think the Glassco report-
That is the report of Clarkson and Gordon, one of Canada's most reputable investigating companies and one which was used frequently by the present Leader of the Opposition when he was premier of Ontario.
-and the investigations made by our own agencies, show that in connection with an all-Canadian pipe line, owned and financed by the governments concerned. federally and provincially, there could be at least four provinces which would occasion

delay-as set out in the Glassco report-if indeed agreement among the five governments could be reached.
That is Mr. Frost. Then he said:
But if it gets down to a point where the Trans-Canada line falls down, would we then participate in a publicly-owned carrier line from Alberta to Ontario? I would say the answer is "yes", although I cannot overemphasize the great commitments we have already made, and I certainly express the hope that such participation will not be necessary.
That is exactly the feeling of this government. Then further, as reported at page 389 of the official report of February 21, 1956; he said this:
Mr. Speaker, if private enterprise can do the job, I would say it is altogether in our interest in Ontario, and, indeed, in the interest of Canada, that it should do it.
That is the position already publicly stated by the premier of Ontario at the time the remarks I have just read you-about it being well known that Ontario this and Ontario that-were made here. Further, to clinch the attitude of the premier of Ontario, in the periodical "Ontario Government Services" put out by the Ontario government, here is a quotation from Mr. Frost:
The government of Ontario has entered wholeheartedly-
Mark that word.
-into this agreement with the federal government in the fervent hope that the deal will be carried out as scheduled. The provincial government is aware, however, that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited might not be able to carry through its part of the project. In this event, new ways of attaining the same end will have to be investigated.
As has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Bow River, a public statement by Premier Frost was just read with regard to the resolution now before this house.


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


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to comment briefly on two statements of the hon. member for Bow River. The hon. member for Bow River need be in no uncertainty whatever as to what the policy of the Conservative party is with regard to this pipe line. All he needs to do is read the speeches which have been made already in this house on three occasions by the Leader of the Opposition in which that policy was made crystal clear. There should therefore not be any uncertainty in anyone's mind as to what that policy is.


An hon. Member:: What is it? Tell us what it is.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When the hon. member for Bow River attempts to interpret Conservative policy himself from newspaper clippings, 67509-248
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation all he does is becloud the issue and try to confuse people's minds as to what is the clear position we have taken.


An hon. Member:: What is it?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It has been clearly placed on the record and I have not time to take it up again. I have some other remarks to make. The other point is this. The hon. member for Bow River made a completely ridiculous and untrue statement to the effect that the Conservative party does not want a trans-Canada gas line built at all-


An hon. Member:: It looks like it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -and this in spite of the fact that this was the very first party to propose a trans-Canada pipe line.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was the first party to try to get a trans-Canada pipe line proposition going in this House of Commons and in the railway committee, and that at a time when the Social Credit party would not permit the export of gas from Alberta, so no gas line was possible at that time.


John Horace Dickey: Why do you give up now?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the situation with regard to that. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the insults and attempted insults in his speech yesterday do absolutely nothing to make a bad proposition more palatable. I might say that the unpleasant effect of his attempts along this line is heightened by the fact that his attempted witticisms and sarcasms always partake much more of the character of the meat axe than of the rapier. The minister's supreme insult to parliament, however, was his notice of his intention to move closure; and this, Mr. Chairman, before one single opposition speech had been made. Then he implemented that notice by actually moving closure at the beginning of today's sitting.
We have had in this house many examples of the arbitrary and dictatorial attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but this is the supreme example. It is another of the fantastic developments in this whole pipeline picture, and there have been many fantastic developments in it. It is almost unbelievable that the government should be backing a proposition such as we find in the Trans-Canada Pipe Line and be prepared to force that proposition through this house by closure. My home town paper, the Calgary Herald, wrote a long editorial outlining the pipe-line proposition and headed it "An Unholy Mess"; and it is an unholy mess. I am
3904	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation not going to read this long editorial, but I think the heading at the top of it, "An Unholy Mess" is well substantiated by the editorial which follows. I would read only one sentence:
It is almost impossible to believe that the Canadian people will permit their government n Ottawa to get away with its current proposals in regard to the east-west natural gas pipe line.
The plain, ugly truth is that not only is the Liberal government prepared to allow control of a vital natural resource to slip out of Canadian hands, but is actually prepared to finance more than half the cost of turning that resource over to foreign control . . . with the tax dollars of all Canadian citizens.
It is an incredible situation-
I repeat, it is fantastic. Now, in its simplest terms what the Canadian taxpayers are being asked to swallow in the legislation now before us is this. Out of a total expenditure on this projected pipe line of $350 million to $375 million, well over half or approximately $200 million is being put up by the taxpayers, and being put up for what purpose? It is being put up in order to assist a small group of United States oil and gas men to control the transportation, marketing and export of one of our great natural resources. The proposition, Mr. Chairman, is as simple as that. The minister and others in his party can make all the arguments they like to try to becloud the issue, but the issue is just as simple as that. The sell-out is just as apparent as that, and I believe the great majority of Canadian people see it in those terms.
Now, when it comes to the men in control of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, these United States companies, it is only natural and human nature that these men will control it in such a way as to promote their own best financial interests. That is going to be the first object in their minds. The second object will be to serve the needs for gas in their own country; and third and last, to meet Canadian producers' needs for a market and the demands of Canadian consumers for gas. In other words, Mr. Chairman, Canadian interests will inevitably be at the bottom of the heap. Of course Canadian producers and Canadian consumers will get a poorer deal than they would under any reasonable scheme controlled by Canadians and operated primarily for the advantage of Canadians.
The members of the Liberal party seem to be intent on trying to heap as much scorn and ridicule as they can on Mr. Frank McMahon. As was pointed out yesterday, however, he is the only Canadian to build any large natural gas pipe line, or to finance it and have it under construction. I feel, therefore, that he can be considered as more of


an authority on these matters than any of the gentlemen to your right. In his memorandum to the minister on the basic faults of the Trans-Canada plan, Mr. McMahon had this to say; and this is a statement of the realities of the situation, not the cover-up we hear now from the minister and others. These are the realities of this proposition:
2. Trans-Canada as presently constituted is controlled by United States financial interests and is dominated by Tennessee Gas Transmission Company so that the principal interests behind Canada's pipe line is dealing with itself as the principal purchaser in the United States. Trans-Canada, so influenced and dominated, proposes an uneconomic plan to favour Tennessee Gas to the detriment of Canada and at the same time requests the governments of Canada and Ontario to subsidize a $122 million pipe line "bridge" across northern Ontario in order to make it possible to put the proposal into effect.
Those, I think, are the realities of the situation. Any gloss the minister and others attempt to put over the facts I think will be detected for what it is.
Since that memorandum was written by Mr. McMahon the government has put forward the proposal now before us to lend Trans-Canada $72 million to $80 million to construct the easy part of the trans-Canada pipe line from the Alberta boundary to Winnipeg. The government has thus made what was an improvident proposition infinitely worse. The minister has attempted to offer a sop to Canadian sensibilities in regard to United States control by saying that 51 per cent of the stock of Trans-Canada would be offered in Canada, and thus control would be or could be kept in Canadian hands. What a palpably weak and unconvincing attempt in the face of the realities of the situation as outlined by Mr. McMahon, to which I have just referred. Does anyone in this chamber or anyone in Canada believe for a moment that the United States controlled companies which control Trans-Canada will not buy sufficient of this 51 per cent of stock to maintain that control? Does anyone believe for a moment they will ever, under any circumstances, voluntarily relinquish that control? It is another of the fantastic assumptions which the Minister of Trade and Commerce and others apparently would like to have us accept. It is just not in the books.
I should like to consider for a moment the position of the producers of gas under this present scheme. Is it more advantageous to the producers of gas than the alternative schemes which have been proposed? The answer is no. In that regard I refer once more to the evidence of Mr. McMahon, as found in that same memorandum. I should like to put point No. 4 on the record:
4. The existing pipe-line companies and utilities in the great plains-midwest area of the United

States are the logical markets for Canadian gas and are best able to pay a fair price and purchase large volumes for their present markets. Instead of selling gas in this market to the existing companies, Trans-Canada proposes to sell its gas to a company which cannot pay a fair price because it does not control the market and must construct millions of dollars of duplicating facilities to market Canadian gas and unnecessary pipe line link to its system in Tennessee merely to comply with the policy of the United States requiring the use of Canadian gas only as a supplemental supply. This is shown by the fact that the Tennessee company will pay Trans-Canada some $2 million a year less for Canadian gas than would have been paid by Northern Natural Gas Company an existing pipe line from the United States, under its proposal to purchase approximately the same volumes.


John Horace Dickey: But they were turned down by the federal power commission.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They were not turned down by the federal power commission, because Canadian gas was not available and was not going to be available for some time.


John Horace Dickey: They were turned down
because the price was too high.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think there is no doubt that from the producers point of view we have, in this present proposal, a plan which will give the producers a lesser price in order to benefit the United States, the Tennessee company. The minister attempted to confuse this issue also by pointing to the example of the Westcoast Transmission Company, where you have a totally different situation and where the federal power commission as a matter of fact tried to put the Westcoast Transmission Company at the mercy of the United States producers, by refusing to allow it to carry the gas across the boundary. When you try to compare the price the company is getting under those circumstances with the price you might be getting at Emerson, that is a wrong type of comparison.
In addition to all this, the success of the Trans-Canada plan is dependent upon the United States federal power commission giving permission to Tennessee to import Canadian gas at Emerson and at Niagara. It is abundantly clear that this permission will not be secured for some years, if ever; yet in the face of all these facts which I have been talking about the minister in announcing the proposal now before us said at page 3665 of Hansard for May 8:
The action proposed today is another declaration of independence by Canada, affecting the building of an all-Canadian pipe line.
I would say it is hard to imagine any statement on the pipe line which contains such utter nonsense as that. The Winnipeg Free 67509-2484
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Press in commenting on that statement on February 9 characterized it as poppycock and went on to say:
Under the new plan, all we will have without United States approval is a hopelessly uneconomic pipe line. The taxpayers of Canada will have spent $80 million on a white elephant.
Surely the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not so hopelessly confused on this issue as to believe his own statement which I have just read. If he is that confused I do not think many other Canadians will suffer from what we should perhaps call equally childish mental processes. The thing is so palpably wrong and ridiculous that I wonder how the minister could ever make such a statement.
To turn to another phase of this matter, the chief argument and bait put forward by the government and its supporters in favour of this scheme seems to be in regard to the urgency of getting the pipe line built at once. They say in effect that this must be done immediately, that this is the only scheme under which it can start in June in order to have the Alberta-Winnipeg leg completed this year. This line of argument, these cries on the part of the government, remind me of two phrases which we used to hear very frequently before the last war. These are phrases which all hon. members will remember; "peace in our time," and "peace at any price".


Mr. Hosking:: The Conservative slogan.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If we paraphrase those slogans we would have "a pipe line this summer", and "a pipe line at any price". These seem to sum up in slogan form what the government are saying and the arguments they are advancing.
As far as the first slogan is concerned, I think all Canadians would like to see the first part of the trans-Canada pipe line built this year. But I do not think many Canadians are in favour of a pipe line at any cost; at the cost of United States control of this great resource; at the cost of reduced returns to the producers, and at the cost of an uneconomic line. The cry of the government now is the absolute urgency of getting the pipe line started. In view of that it may be well to ask who has been responsible for the delay of some six years since this project was first talked about. To begin with, the Alberta Social Credit government held it up by refusing to permit the export of gas from Alberta.


Mr. Blackmore:: Why did they do that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Therefore the first responsibility for delay lies with them. In spite of anything they may say, the first responsibility for delay lies with the Social Credit government of Alberta. Since the time Alberta
3906	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation agreed to permit export the responsibility has been shared by the dominion government and the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company. The latter failed to live up to the assurances it gave when it received its charter, and did not succeed in its financing. For a long time the government could not make up its mind what to do. Finally the Minister of Trade and Commerce performed this shotgun marriage of the original Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company and another company.
The new company failed to finance once more, and the government did not know what to do. There was another long delay and a lengthy period of indecision while the government was trying to make up its mind. Then it brought forward the proposal for the northern Ontario bridge to help the company. The latter still failed to get going. And now in the past few weeks we have the government labouring mightily to try to reach a decision as to what is to be done. Finally the present scheme is put before us and after all these weeks, months and years of delay and indecision on the part of the government, we are asked here in the House of Commons to rush the thing through immediately. It is suddenly urgent and must go through without any delay whatever. The Minister of Trade and Commerce moved closure even before anyone else had a chance to speak on the matter.
It is quite apparent, Mr. Chairman, that the real urgency in this matter is political. I have not time to go into that, though I had hoped to do so to some extent. That is the real urgency as was stated in another editorial in the Calgary Herald of May 4 which says:
There will almost surely be a general election next year. And the Liberal government has no stomach for that fight if it has to go in to the ring with a half-dead pipe line project around its neck.
It is plain that the urgency is political, not urgency to do the proper thing in the national interest. It's important to remember that.
I think Canadians will remember that. I am sorry I cannot go into what is the actual emergency in regard to this matter from the economic point of view. There is some real urgency as far as Alberta is concerned to get a market for its gas; there is no question about that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I hope you will not deduct this outburst from my time, Mr. Chairman. That is the only real economic urgency there is, to assist in the development and exploration of Alberta gas and oil resources but-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to have to inform the hon. member that he has exceeded his time.


Mr. Beaudry:: Mr. Chairman, it is a great pity-


George Harris Hees: Well, this is strictly for laughs.


Roland Beaudry: Is it not a great pity, Mr. Chairman, that the Leader of the Opposition has selected this occasion and the topic of pipe lines to play Don Quixote and joust with windmills, especially with windmills of his own fabrication?


George Harris Hees: It did not go over; no laughs on that one so far.


An hon. Member:: That was a dud.


Roland Beaudry: The time, the place, and the subject hardly call for the levity of mountebanks-


George Harris Hees: There is nothing flatter than a joke that does not go over.


Mr. Bell:: Who wrote that one?


Roland Beaudry: Mr. Chairman, did I hear
"once upon a time" Hees?


George Harris Hees: Still very weak laughter.


An hon. Member:: You mean "once too often" Hees.


Roland Beaudry: [DOT]-or the petulant, puerile and often pompous plea for procrastination.


George Harris Hees: No laughs at all on that one.


Roland Beaudry: We are talking about a fairly serious matter, at least on this side of the house. I would like to believe that the concern of the Leader of the Opposition for the ownership of natural gas pipe lines by Canadian majority interests stems from both a sense of realism and a sense of public duty. Having failed to convince one, at least, of his followers-and that one the most likely to best assess the situation and the weight of his leader's views-I fear he will also fail to convince this house and the country. The country will not forget that if at this time in our political history it is possible for anyone to even suggest that a billion dollar project should be undertaken or could be undertaken with Canadian capital only, it is precisely because Canada has made such tremendous economic strides in recent years, and this under the very aegis of the sponsor of this resolution and of this government. As between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Trade and Commerce this country has good and sufficient reasons for believing in the deeds of the one rather than

in the flow of words of the other. There has been no equivocation as to that since 1935, and still less since 1948.
The Leader of the Opposition will not convince the country because he omits to mention that his bosom pal, "autonomic" Duplessis, has just sold to what I believe to be United States interests the exploitation of-fancy that-the gas branch of Quebec hydro. He will not convince the country because the current president of the Conservative federation and the immediate past president have not yet determined which theory or speech sounds best, and where, when, and which version is' best suited, for Quebec, for Ontario and elsewhere, and which one of Duplessis' Ungava policies or of Bennett's hegira to London is best adapted for public wooing.
There is natural gas in Alberta, and approximately one-sixth of it is going to waste daily because it is not being tapped and is seeping out and vanishing into thin air. There is natural gas in Alberta. Alberta is one of the ten Canadian provinces, and it is the duty of Canada to help exploit a natural resource. So far this seems to be sound, even to the opposition, the more so since a large part of Canada will benefit from the advantage of gas. This would eliminate imports of natural gas and would be particularly interesting to the hon. member for Cape Breton South, because it would reduce our imports of United States coal by approximately $200 million a year. To achieve this a pipe line has to be built.
But in the many words of the opposition we should not have a pipe line yet because the Canadian people would have to endorse a note for $72 million redeemable on April 2, 1957 and carrying a 5 per cent interest charge. Is there any security? Yes, there is the pipe line and all movable and immovable assets of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. But to the Leader of the Opposition that is hardly enough. It is not substantial and concrete enough. He would rather ask for names on a board. The need for a pipe line is urgent. The hon. member for Calgary North has just stated that. Many Canadians realize the need is vital, but all the opposition, whether Conservative or C.C.F., seem oblivious to one thing.
We of the Liberal party who constitute the government are the ones, and the only ones, to whom for 21 historic years the financial, economic and social advancement of this country and the stewardship of Canada's patrimony have been entrusted. We are, and we have been for better than two-thirds of the life of confederated Canada, the country's trustees for what is good
15, 1956	3907
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation and sound for Canada. I have seen many elections, and in all the elections since the advent of the present Leader of the Opposition we have been happy to have our policies, our concept of Canadianism and our administration scrutinized and I trust approved by the six million-odd citizens of Canada who in the final estimate select those who occupy these seats.
Come that time of scrutiny, and fortunately it will be soon enough that no one may have forgotten this debate, neither the protagonists of the pipe line nor the antagonists, whatever the premise may be for their views, we on this side shall have this to say to our fellow Canadians: Entrusted by you with the task of safeguarding your interests, moral, physical and financial, now and in the future; satisfied that the future of Canada and of each Canadian, old or new, lies in the fruition of each of the natural assets with which providence has endowed Canada; believing in deep conscience that one of the ten provinces of Canada, Alberta, offers undeveloped natural assets, the exploitation of which would enhance the economic position of a great number of Canadians, if not of the majority; fully conscious of the responsibility which devolves upon us through the trust placed by you in us to implement your hopes for a greater Canada by deed, by constructive deed and by effective and speedy deed, we deem it our duty to Canada, to the vast majority of Canadians who have told us by their ballots to look after their interests, to do this and to say this: "There shall be a pipe line; it shall be constructed as of early June this year; the means: whatever is best for the purpose of speedy, efficient construction in the interests of Canada, and not the means advocated by dilatory parties for dilatory purposes and for spurious reasons."
If all Canadian capital is not available today and if the money of the taxpayers is required and if construction should start today -and construction must start today-let us use all sources of capital. The origin of the capital is relatively unimportant provided we do not lose sight of the country's interests. What is important, what is essential and what is paramount is that we act now. We shall; and we will stand on our doings come the next election.


Mr. Campbell:: Mr. Chairman, the matter we are discussing today is without doubt one of the most important matters that has come before the House of Commons for many years. What is the House of Commons set up for? What have we a parliament for? My idea of parliament is that it is a debating ground, a place where policies are hammered out. The government presents its policies to the
3908	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation house; the house has an opportunity to debate such policies and toy its decision indicate what it thinks are proper policies. In my short time in the House of Commons I have seen the odd time when the government has recognized as good some ideas that have come from the opposition. That has not been very frequent, but they have accepted some of those ideas. But on this most important matter-no debate. If the government had been faced with a long debate where it had got to the point that there was a repetition of speeches by the opposition, they might have had some excuse to' put on closure. I think there is absolutely no excuse for putting on closure the second day, and this government will live to regret the action it has taken.
When I prepared my speech I put it in two parts. The first part was to discuss this company, and the next part was to discuss the policy we in the C.C.F. thought the government or the people of Canada should put into effect. Under the 20-minute rule our leader was not able last night to bring out the policy of the party in this regard as well as cover the other matters that are in the resolution.
However, first of all I want to protest against the unholy alliance and this wildcat scheme the government has at the present time. What is the position of Trans-Canada today? They want to build a pipe line on a shoestring. They do not have any money. They want the people of Canada to build a pipe line for them; then they will operate it, control it and make the profits that are to be made out of it.
This company came before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines in 1951 and made a number of commitments. I had intended to put some of those commitments on the record, but I have not time to do that. A great many of those commitments they have not been able to carry out. The whole picture has changed. From what they said in 1951 the picture has changed very materially. To be brief, I claim that this company after five years has shown a total inability to fulfil its contract. It is not worthy of any further consideration, and should be ruled out of the picture at the present time.
Now I want to deal with what the minister said about the only other alternative policy. I am one of those who recognize that the province of Alberta has a tremendous amount of gas it wants to sell. We realize that, and we want them to have the opportunity to get rid of that gas. We recognize also that power and heat are needed more and more as eastern Canada has been growing so rapidly, and we want to see these two brought


together. But to do that we have to have something more than a company that is built on a shoestring.
The minister, speaking yesterday, made the statement that there was only one other alternative, and that he did not want that because it would not be very popular with some people. I do not think "popular" was the word he used. This is what he said, as recorded on page 3860 of Hansard:
No criticisms or tags such as "chosen instrument" here cast upon Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited will alter the fact that only that company has gathered together the gas purchase and sales contracts, the governmental permits, the organization and the access to pipe which make possible a start this year upon the pipe line.
There is no indication there that this line will be built to Winnipeg this year, but the minister says they are the only ones who can make a start. I just want to analyse that short sentence, "the fact that only that company has gathered together the gas purchase and sales contracts."
This company cannot fulfil its contracts. This company cannot fulfil those contracts it made with the province of Alberta. The province of Alberta is going to sell that gas to whoever has the pipe line. There is no question about that. If the government set up a crown corporation to build that pipe line right through Canada, would there be any doubt that the province of Alberta would sell that gas? They have to get rid of it. Then I come to the sales contracts. Do you mean to say that people in eastern Canada are too much interested in who is going to operate the pipe line, as long as they get gas?


An hon. Member:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: No, I will not.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Does the minister or anybody on the other side of the house-and they may follow me whenever they like-say that the people who want to use gas in eastern Canada are going to turn down the possibility of getting gas if it is operated by a government agency? Absolutely no. Those contracts are just as good for a pipe line operated by a crown corporation as they are for the present company, which cannot fulfil its commitments.


An hon. Member:: Who is going to get a permit to transport it?


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: That is all right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Speak at the proper time.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Just keep your mouth buttoned up for a while. The minister says this is the only company that has access to pipe,

and that they have an option on this pipe. Surely if anybody takes out an option on something, it does not matter what it is, and if they cannot take up that option, what happens? Is that option going to continue forever? No; there is a time limit on all options. When those options expire, the pipe company is in a position to sell its pipe to somebody else. The government says it will perhaps take until 1958 to get pipe. That pipe was made for the trans-Canada pipe line, and the company that made the pipe will sell the pipe to whatever agency builds the pipe line.
I want to say something about private ownership. I believe the people of Canada will be better served under a public ownership system such as the minister has himself been talking about, because a government agency or a public utility is set up for the purpose of providing that public utility at as low a cost as possible. We have had illustrations of public utilities in Canada for many years. This year the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission, which had a wonderful period of success, are celebrating their fiftieth anniversary. I want to read to the house just two of the congratulations that appeared in today's issue of the Globe and Mail to Ontario hydro on their accomplishments during the past years. I just picked out two at random. The Davis Lumber Company said:
We wish to extend our best wishes to Ontario hydro on the celebration of their 50th anniversary and to offer our congratulations on their magnificent accomplishments through the years.
I just wonder how many congratulations we can offer to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines today on the accomplishments they have made during the past years, and I wonder whom in the next 50 years the people of Canada are going to congratulate-


An hon. Member:: C. D. Howe.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: -on their accomplishments. Are they going to have an opportunity to congratulate a crown corporation that has given them gas at cost, or as near cost as it is possible to offer it, or are they going to say, "We wish we had never seen Trans-Canada Pipe Lines"?
Another statement of the minister's about which I wish to say something is the one he made about the organization of this company. The minister said:
It has an organization of men experienced in pipe-line construction and operation.
I wonder just how much of an organization these people have. These people have been drilling oil and gas wells. That is the kind of organization they have. They have got an organization to drill oil and gas wells.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
I want to say something about what has been done to give the minister an idea of what can be done. In the province of Saskatchewan we found gas only two or three years ago. What did we do in Saskatchewan? The government decided that the best policy, the policy that would suit the interests of the people of the province, would be for the government to build the pipe lines. The government did not have an organization but it did not take very long to set up an organization. They set up their organization. They got an experienced contracting firm with experienced men from the United States to come to Saskatchewan and build their pipe lines for them. The people of Saskatchewan, especially the people in the city of Saskatoon, were amazed at the speed with which the pipe lines were built. Within the next year our cities will all have gas and we are rapidly approaching the point where every fair-sized community in the province will be served.
I want to say something else to support m>
contention that the federal government should have its own crown corporation go ahead and build the pipe line. It is quite significant that the Toronto accounting firm of Clarkson, Gordon and Company, who were appointed by the Ontario government to look into the economics of the whole pipe line, declared in their report that "an all-government owned pipe line would be economically feasible even though no sales were made to the United States."
Other advantages of a publicly built line are obvious. The government can build the line much more cheaply because it has the ability to raise money more cheaply than a private enterprise firm. The interest rate factor is extremely important. A crown corporation with government guarantees could raise money at 3 or 3J per cent, while private firms would have to pay, for a construction project of this kind, almost double the interest rate on money borrowed.
The annual carrying charges on a government owned project have been estimated at 6 or 6i per cent and on a privately financed project 13 to 14 per cent, or about double. It is quite apparent that, apart altogether from the important fact that a government owned line would place the control of this vital energy resource in Canada, it would also mean a substantial financial saving to Canadian consumers.
Again, an income and a sales tax apply to privately financed projects but not to a project built by a crown company. Further, government backed schemes can be amortized for a period as long as 40 years while privately financed schemes can only be amortized for about a 20-year period. As a result, for the
3910	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation publicly financed scheme carrying charges over the period can be reduced approximately by half.
I should like to make an appeal to the Prime Minister that he and his government reconsider the attitude they have taken, that they reconsider the closure motion and that they tell us before eight o'clock tonight that closure has been removed. I should also like the Prime Minister to talk over again with his ministers the idea of stopping this wildcat proposal and bringing in another resolution which will set up a crown corporation for the purpose of building this pipe line.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Calgary South.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you have had a list of the speakers who are supposed to speak for our party today and the next speaker on our list is the hon. member for York-Humber. I should like that understood and I think she should be given the floor.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra raises as a point of order the order in which speakers are called from the chair. I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the committee as a whole will realize that officially there is no such thing as a list and that the chair is not bound by a list. I am going further perhaps than my responsibilities at the moment go because I consider that it is fair to all that the situation in which I find myself at the moment should be known.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra as spokesman for the official opposition-I do not mean to say this personally-states that a certain member was the next speaker on the list for his party. I may say that it had been my intention, and I think it would be the intention of whoever was occupying the chair, to call that member when the next understood turn for the official opposition came around. In the ordinary routine, which is not a matter of order and not binding either on the chair or on the house, it would not at the moment be the turn of the official opposition. It would be the turn of another party.
I may say that all the whips with the exception of one-I have not seen the Social Credit whip today-have indicated the order in which they wish their members to speak, and all the whips have agreed on the persons who should speak in the time unofficially allotted to their particular parties. Any time taken by the hon. member for Calgary South, who as a member of the house has full right to be heard in the same way as any other member, and it is the duty of the chair to


call him, will not be charged up to that unofficial time which as a matter of courtesy, is allocated to the party for which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra speaks.


Howard Charles Green: On the point of order, I take it then that I am to understand that this time is being allotted by the Liberal party?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I may say first to the hon. member that the question of the order in which persons are heard is not a matter of order other than that it is the privilege of anybody to rise to his feet and move at any time that a certain hon. member be heard. That motion, as I understand it, is always accepted. But as there is no desire whatever to put the party of the hon. gentleman who has raised the point at a disadvantage, I may say that I would most likely have seen a Liberal member at this time if I had not seen the hon. member for Calgary South.


Howard Charles Green: As long as we understand it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: However, the
matter is not a point of order. I answered the point because the hon. member who raised the question quite obviously thought that an injustice was being done to the party to which he belongs.


Charles Edward Johnston: As a matter of information, it is a little difficult to hear and I should like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, if the acting leader of the Conservative party is now ruling out one of their own members from the right to speak?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government has already ruled out a great many by their infamous closure motion.


Mr. Nickle:: Mr. Chairman, I trust that the time that has been devoted to the discussion of the point of order in the last two or three minutes will not be charged against the 20 minutes allotted to me. I rise to support this resolution providing for government assistance to get the trans-Canada pipe line project rolling this year. I support the plan not because I believe it to be the best solution but because the only other politically possible alternatives to it would involve more long delays, higher costs, a further denial of industrial and population growth particularly in western Canada, and a far heavier burden upon the whole Canadian economy than the present plan.
I deeply regret that some have chosen to inject various elements of emotionalism based largely upon inaccuracies of fact and also upon misunderstandings of the basic problems

at issue. The necessity for this present resolution stems from just such elements in the months prior to the 1953 Canadian general election. The disregard of economic factors then has, to some extent, carried on to the present. Efforts to make political hay now for the 1957 general election by similar strayings from the realm of fact into emotionalism might win some votes, but at the expense of lasting damage to Canada's future.
I deeply regret that I am at variance with my Conservative colleagues in this house on the issue now before us, for I firmly believe in the basic principles of the Conservative party, and believe also that, for Canada's sake, it is logical and essential that the Conservatives rather than some other party should succeed the Liberals as the government of our country. But where the application of political expediency is contrary to what I honestly believe are Canada's best interests, I have no alternative but to disagree.
Later in my remarks I will deal specifically with various points raised in this house and in the press, criticizing this particular resolution and the Trans-Canada company. I hope these facts in rebuttal will be of some value to this house in its deliberations.
I mentioned earlier that there are possible alternatives to this present pipe line plan. Regretfully, I can no longer include among prospective alternatives the policy of soundest economic planning of pipe line routes and markets, of which I have been an advocate for several years. That must be ruled out as an alternative-at least now-because neither the major advocates nor the major opponents of the proposals now before us are willing to back away from their commitment to the costly and uneconomic northern Ontario pipe line route as a prime requisite of the first pipe line east from Alberta. I am confident that we would not now be debating this resolution had it not been for that requirement, for a major gas pipe line reaching into eastern Canada by a more economic route would have already been financed by free enterprise, and would have been either in the final stages of construction or fully in operation.
Who is to blame for this situation? In part, blame must be assessed on the Clint Murchison interests of Texas, original proposers of the trans-Canada pipe line, for coming forward with a proposition based on meagre engineering and economic studies, one dependent for "financeability" on a tight squeeze at both ends of the pipe line-low prices to producers, high costs to consumers-and a greater willingness than normal on the part of insurance companies and other investors to put up about $275 million without real
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation assurance of any normal return. I might point out that the present Trans-Canada company is a far different proposition than it was in the days that Murchison was the sole owner. Murchison and his interests have now been reduced to a minor interest and will become a much more minor interest after public financing when they will be replaced in large degree by a large measure, I hope, of Canadian public investment.
But, Mr. Chairman, even greater blame for the present situation lies upon those in politics-and they come from Liberal, Conservative and socialist parties-who quickly leaped without looking upon an "all-Canadian gas pipe line policy'' bandwagon in the preliminaries to the 1953 general election. You may recall that it was in March, 1953 that I first took public issue with my party and the government and pointed out that a gas pipe line from Alberta to eastern Canada confined to a Canadian route and to Canadian markets was not economically feasible, and urged a careful reappraisal of that and more economic alternative plans. The request was disregarded.
During the 1953 election Liberals and Tories rather solidly committed themselves to and sold the Canadian public on the "all-Canadian route and market" idea, in some of their statements going well beyond even what the agents for Murchison were willing to commit themselves to. So did the socialists but they, unlike the two major parties who favoured private ownership, plumped for a socialized project with all the evils that I am confident a socialized project would involve.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the hon. member is reading every word of his speech from a prepared statement.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I submit that the hon. member is reading every word from a prepared statement, contrary to the rules of the house.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think it is fairly well known in this committee and in this house at the present time that so far chairmen and Speakers have found it impossible to enforce any rule against the reading of speeches.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But there is such a rule, is there not, Mr. Chairman?


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I am following extensive notes. I would far rather follow notes for the short time left to me and deal with this subject in detailed form than talk blindly without them.
3912	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
In 1953, nearly all blindly ignored evidence that eastern Canadian gas distributors objected to the proposed high selling prices under the "all-Canadian" plan and that western Canadian gas producers also objected to selling their product at a somewhat lower price than available through another proposed pipe line that would initially serve Canadian prairies and United States markets, and at a later stage serve eastern Canada. Worst of all, none of the advocates of the so-called "all-Canadian" policy, which was essential, they claimed-and still do, and there is a good deal of merit in the argument -to the national interest and to the industrial development of northern Ontario and to which they were publicly committed, were publicly willing to admit any obligation of the nation and particularly the province chiefly benefiting, namely Ontario, to relieve producers, consumers and investors of any part of the extra burden imposed by the national policy. I refer, of course, to the much higher capital costs and lower potential earning rate of the politically desirable project as compared with the most economic pipe line route and market development plan.
The delays in starting construction-to which gas purchase and gas marketing contracts, and finances are essential-stem primarily from the slow descent from the clouds of patriotic emotion to the ground level of economic fact-facing by Canada's political leaders. Also a major factor in the delay has been the rising cost of the "all-Canadian" project, now up a cold $100 million to an estimated $375 million. The biggest part of the cost increase is due to rising labour, steel and other material costs; the balance to a change to bigger-diameter pipe, and route changes in northern Ontario. Pipe, labour and other costs are going higher, making more urgent an early start of construction.
Meantime, out in western Canada-particularly in Alberta-new discoveries of natural gas reserves have been piling up surplus, shut in for lack of markets, at an average rate of some 4,000 billion cubic feet per year. So far, some $150 million in hard cash has been invested by a host of Canadian and foreign companies in gas lands and wells which have no market and no income and are eating up interest at a rate that could soon crush some of the smaller Canadian companies and seriously curb even the big firms if the bars to export are not quickly torn down by the construction of pipe lines.
The successful results of gambling large sums of money on gas exploration, and the growing knowledge that only the surface of our west's huge gas potential has been scratched, are rapidly convincing more and more Canadians in high places that our
[Mr. Nickle.l

national gas policy should be based on recognition of long-term surplus and not fear of shortage, a stand I have urged in Alberta and in this house for several years.
The Social Credit government of Alberta and the Liberal government of Canada have become increasingly realistic in their recognition of gas surplus, and thus their growing willingness to allow a larger-but still tiny- percentage of the rising surplus to go into markets outside Canada. This government also now realistically recognizes-although I regret some of my colleagues in the Conservative ranks apparently do not-that the larger the volume of gas sold by Trans-Canada into American markets, the more economic will the project become, for the benefit of Canadian consumers and producers, by reducing the transport cost of gas moved between Canada's west and east.
There is also another vital fact that is realistically recognized by this Liberal government and by the Conservative government of Ontario, even though some of the Conservatives and Socialists in this house seem to be unwilling to concede it. That fact is that no pipe line company, no matter who its backers are, can hope to secure full finances from the insurance companies, banks and private investors-Canadian or foreign- until it ties up sufficient gas purchase and sales contracts, and necessary government export and import permits, to ensure an adequate minimum of income at least to service its bonded indebtedness.
The present Trans-Canada company which has been greatly increased in financial strength and vastly altered in its pre-publicfinancing ownership, has since the changes a few months ago made a tremendous amount of progress in gas purchase and sales contract negotiations. Its gas purchase contracts in Alberta now amount to almost 100 per cent of requirements, and the small balance will be arranged for very shortly. Sales commitments in eastern Canada and the prairies now amount to over 90 per cent of the required minimum. A firm contract has been entered into with Tennessee Transmission company for large volume highload factor sale of Canadian gas at Emerson, Manitoba, at most satisfactory prices, contrary to some erroneous reports, and for short-term import of American gas at Niagara for use in the buildup of Canadian markets east of Toronto as far as Montreal.	.
Trans-Canada also, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce pointed out yesterday, has the only available guaranteed supply of pipe to be found to do the job this year. One vital factor still stands between Trans-Canada and its ability to publicly finance the

quarter of one billion dollars it needs for the portions of the pipe line in Canada not covered by the northern Ontario government project. That is, of course, the federal power commission approval in Washington of its contract with Tennessee. Particularly important is the $8 million per year minimum that approval of the United States import would provide Trans-Canada for transport of gas between the Alberta-Saskatchewan border and Emerson, Manitoba. This income is after deduction of the purchase price of gas at the Alberta border. This anticipated income was a major factor in enabling Trans-Canada to reduce its proposed selling prices to Canadian customers to a level that made signing up of customers possible within recent months. Without the assurance of that minimum income from transport of gas for export, it is unlikely that Trans-Canada, or any other company, can raise money for construction, unless the consumers of eastern Canada would be willing to boost their prospective gas bill by $8 million yearly or the Canadian and Ontario governments would be willing to provide annual subsidies of that amount. Both of these alternatives are highly unlikely.
I am not as riled up about the federal power commission hearing in Washington or as pessimistic about timing of imports approval by the federal power commission as some members of this house. I believe, approval is not only inevitable, but that the odds now favour a decision before next spring. The actual construction of a pipe line across the prairies this year, assuring the federal power commission that the availability of Canadian gas at Emerson is a reality and not the pipe dream it was during the abortive federal power commission hearings of an important application over one year ago, is the best guarantee possible by Canadian action to win the desired result. This proposed export at Emerson, which the government approved despite strong resistance from some in this house, takes a sizeable part of the burden off Canada in making an all Canadian route pipe line financeable. Canadians are the beneficiaries, regardless of whether Canadians or foreigners own the shares of the pipe line.
Another step to help make the project feasible is one of those involved in the government's resolution, the joint federal-Ontario construction of part of the northern Ontario pipe line, for leasing to an ultimate purchase by Trans-Canada. Under the contract involved, the government company will get less than normal return of interest and depreciation during the initial tough years of eastern Canadian market buildup for gas,
15, 1956	3913
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation thus greatly improving the financeability of the over-all project, but is guaranteed a return of at least 3-5 per cent on investment plus depreciation by levying a first charge against profits of the whole balance of the privately owned pipe line system when that system gets into a profit position. Over the term of the lease, Trans-Canada is going to average out with a cost saving of only the difference between 3 [DOT] 5 per cent and normal commercial interest rate, which would amount to around $1,250,000 yearly, although the deferred portion of costs during early years will in effect provide a greater aid during the early years.
Contrary to some claims, the Trans'-Canada company will not get the benefit from the interest saving. All the benefit, and more, will go to the gas consumers of Canada, with the principal benefit going to the Ontario consumers. This is because, as a direct result of the government plan, Trans-Canada has been able in recent months to reduce its contract charges to Canadian gas purchasers by an amount that will exceed $2,500,000 per year during the first few years, and by progressively larger amounts as Canadian gas purchases increase.
The second phase of the resolution involves a federal government short-term loan, at 5 per cent interest, of 90 per cent of the cost of construction of Trans-Canada's pipe line as far east as Winnipeg in order to get it done this year and, among other things, meet the urgent need for gas at Winnipeg. Trans-Canada itself will provide about $7,500,000 of the cost, boosting its total investment to over $21 million by this year end. The plan is sound, from the government's point of view, for if the company cannot complete its full quarter billion dollar financing by next April 1, the government takes over a going pipe line for 90 per cent of cost, plus the very sizeable other assets of the company in the form of gas purchase and sales contracts, rights of way, engineering data, and so on.
The prairie pipe line, so long as it is confined to prairie markets, will earn operating costs from gas sales, but cannot earn interest charges. The $4 million a year interest will, however, be money well invested; for if the pipe line is not built this year at current steel and labour costs, it will cost an additional amount to build in future years far greater than the interest lost. If the company finances its project in full by next spring, which I am now quite hopeful of, it will pay off the government with full interest. If it fails in its earnest efforts the government gets a pipe line and other assets at far less than cost, and the companies who now back Trans-Canada will take a financial licking 30 to 40

Private Bills
times the mere $500,000 that Frank McMahon offered as a performance bond.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It is my duty to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Carl Olof Nickle: I shall carry on the next time I have the opportunity.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for York-Humber. It being five o'clock, the house will proceed to consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. John Decore (Vegreville) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 291, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in this bill the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is seeking authority to build a branch line of railway for a distance of some 20 miles southerly from a point near Brocket, Alberta. As most hon. members probably know, all railway companies must come to parliament for authority to build a branch line which is longer than six miles, by virtue of section 183 of the Railway Act. Brocket is situated in the southwest corner of the province of Alberta and is on the secondary main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway between Vancouver and Medicine Hat, which runs through the Crowsnest pass.
The branch line will be built in a southerly direction to a property owned by Canadian Gulf Oil Company, where at the present time a plant is in the course of erection to process the natural gas developed from the Pincher Creek field by the Canadian Gulf Oil Company. It is not expected that the construction of this line will cause any great difficulty. The first five miles of this line will pass through the Peigan Indian reservation and I understand satisfactory arrangements have been made between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Indian band on that reservation.
I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that one of the significant sources of natural gas in Alberta is in the Pincher Creek field in the southwest portion of the province. This field has been discovered and developed by the Canadian Gulf Oil Company.
The gas at Pincher Creek is a sour wet gas. In other words, it contains approximately 10 per cent hydrogen sulphide. In the formation the pressures are in the order of 5,000 pounds per square inch. Because of these pressures, and because of the large percentage of hydrogen sulphide which the gas contains, the gas is very corrosive.
fMr. Nickle.]
In its natural state this gas cannot be placed in transmission lines for sale as a fuel. It must first be stripped or purified. Purification means removing all the hydrogen sulphide, almost all the carbon dioxide, and a large percentage of the liquefiable hydrocarbons. From the process of purification the following products will be obtained: sulphur, propane, butanes, natural gasoline and condensate.
The removal of these products requires the installation of a plant of considerable magnitude, and involves the installation of precision equipment. As a matter of fact, two plants must be built. One will recover the stabilized condensate and the hydrogen sulphide. When these products are removed the other plant will recover the elemental sulphur from the material taken from the hydrogen sulphide gas. At the initial stage, of course, the purified gas thus obtained will be reinjected into the formation on which the sour gas was obtained.
Construction of the Gulf plant at Pincher Creek began on April 1, 1956, according to the information I have. It is hoped that the plant will be completed by September 1 of this year.
The important purpose of establishing the plant now at Pincher Creek is to recover the elemental sulphur. A company known as Northwest Nitro Chemicals is now completing a plant at Medicine Hat, Alberta. This plant will produce a fertilizer with an ammonium base. To produce this fertilizer, sulphuric acid will be required. The acid will be manufactured from the elemental liquid sulphur supplied by Canadian Gulf Oil Company. This elemental sulphur will be shipped in a liquid state, in tank cars, from the Pincher Creek plant to Northwest Nitro Chemicals at Medicine Hat.
It is expected that the sulphur will be produced at the rate of 225 long tons per day. The stabilized condensate which will be another by-product of the purification will be produced at the rate of 76,650 imperial gallons per day. This condensate will be shipped to refineries at Calgary.
While the immediate customer for sulphur is the new fertilizer industry established at Medicine Hat by Northwest Nitro Chemicals, there will be a market for the additional sulphur produced by Gulf in the pulp and paper industry to the west and to the south of Pincher Creek. Northwest Nitro Chemicals plant will be in production, it is expected, by about September 1, 1956.
I am also informed that the only feasible and practical way to ship the volume of these by-products from the Pincher Creek gas field is by rail. The sulphur is, of course,

in molten form and must be transported in special tank cars. Furthermore, owing to the severe winter season in Alberta, highway service would be erratic because roads are frequently impassable because of heavy snow storms. Transportation otherwise than by rail would require multiple handling of the product and would be quite expensive. It would appear that transportation by rail is imperative in these circumstances.
If this bill is now given second reading, Mr. Speaker, I propose that it be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Representatives of the Canadian Pacific Company and the Canadian Gulf Oil Company will appear as witnesses before that committee and will explain in further detail the various aspects of this proposed project.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that this short branch line from the Canadian Pacific Railway's Crowsnest pass line, extending from 20 miles south to the area of the Pincher Creek gas field, is going to be built. As indicated by the sponsor, primarily it will make possible and assist in the development there of the sulphur and petro-chemical industry which will be of considerable value and importance in southern Alberta and, as a matter of fact, as far as Canadian industry generally is concerned.
Whilst that is the primary reason for its construction it will also provide certain services as far as the agricultural economy of that section of the country is concerned and as far as grain and cattle producers are concerned.
As the bill is going to the committee where we will get the details concerning exactly where it will run and what stations or trackage will be provided, and information concerning the purposes it is expected to serve,
I think there is no need of my saying anything further about it at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) closes the debate on second reading I wonder if he could give the house the positive assurance that this 20-mile line of railway will be built wholly within Canada and that the company will not come back five years from now seeking a 90 per cent loan of a large sum of money?


Mr. McCann:: That is too smart.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Welaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to say very much concerning this project at the present time. Undoubtedly hon. members will have more to say in the committee. I do, however, welcome
Small Loans Act
this proposed extension of the Canadian Pacific Railway into the southern part of Alberta because there is an area there which needs the outlet now and will particularly need it after the chemical industries which will come about as the result of the exportation of gas are located there. This bill will certainly do a great deal to improve the financial status of that part of southern Alberta, and we certainly welcome it.


Mr. R. F. L. Hanna (Edmonton-Sirathcona):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) speaks, would he tell the house whether any consideration has been given to building this branch line out of the town of Pincher Creek? I understand that the town of Pincher Creek has made some representations asking that the line be connected to that town.


John Decore: Mr. Speaker, answering the question asked by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, may I say that representations have been made by the chamber of commerce of the town of Pincher Creek as to whether or not it would be possible to have this line run from Pincher Creek rather than from Brocket. As a result of those representations the chief engineer of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company investigated the matter and made certain findings.
He came to the conclusion that owing to the heavy grading that would be required by this other route and the necessity of crossing highway No. 8 an additional expenditure of $170,000 would be required, and in addition there would be an extra maintenance cost per year of $20,000. Taking all things into consideration, it would appear that the best route to be followed would be the one proposed.
In reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), may I assure him that if he looks at the map of the province he will find Brocket and will note that a point 20 miles south is still within Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But we remember the assurance you gave five years ago.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 213, to amend the Small Loans Act (advertising).

Small Loans Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of this bill I should first like to put on the record the explanatory note, which reads:
The purpose of this act is to amend the Small Loans Act, so as to require any money-lender or small loans company, in any advertising in which the amount required by way of monthly or periodic payments in order to repay a loan is indicated, to state what the cost of such loan amounts to in terms of percentum per annum.
In my opinion the significant words in that explanatory note are "terms of percentum per annum". The matter at hand concerns advertising by small loan companies which in my opinion is sometimes deceptive. For some reason or other there has been considerable Interest at this particular session in the operations of small loan companies. I think this is the fifth bill which has been listed this year. First there was a bill moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue); then there was the bill sponsored by the Minister of Finance; then there was Bill G5 of the Senate which was a private member's bill to change the name of a loan company and to increase its capitalization; then there was Bill H5 of the Senate to incorporate a new small loan company which was sponsored by an hon. member of this house; and then we have Bill No. 213 to amend the Small Loans Act with respect to advertising.
If the records of this house are any indication, small loan companies are becoming more important in the lives of individuals and families. I am not discussing today whether or not that is a good thing, but I have my own opinion about it. The discussion today concerns the advertising by these loan companies and in my opinion there should be some restrictions upon that advertising.
I think it is a rather sad commentary on our society that we have come to accept commercial advertising as certainly exaggerated. I think I can go further and say that most of it is misleading and some of it is dishonest. It is important to our economic life. We have the ridiculous type of advertising claims for cars which we see in every magazine we pick up. We have the advertisement of one cigarette company claiming that their cigarettes will cure the sore throats caused by the brand advertised on the previous page. Fbrtunately some of us have built up a resistance against that particular type of advertising.
The small loan companies sometimes use that type of advertising. They make statements such as those which were quoted by the hon. member for Assiniboia when he was dealing with his bill. We see references about small loans being the happy answer to

your money needs, that they are our pals and such things. We see pretty pictures of children under the Christmas tree revelling in the proceeds of a 26 per cent loan obtained the week before from a small-loan company. No one of course would be naive enough to pay any attention to that type of advertising.
But there is a more dangerous type of advertising, probably because it is not so patent. For example, we have the statements by one loan company that banks are not equipped to handle this kind of business, and then there is another statement in the same brochure that credit unions are poor places to go for that particular type of loan. Statements like that are perhaps plausible to some people but they are manifestly untrue. Here is a quotation from one of these advertising pamphlets:
Would you hazard a guess as to how much money we do make on small loans only?
They give the answer as one-fortieth of one per cent. Of course that is a plain lie, and there is no other term that could be applied to it. It is an ingenious method of advertising, a method once employed by a great packing company which had been accused in this house of falsifying its profits in that type of advertising. This is the profit on the dollar lent, which, of course, is a completely different thing from the profit on the funds invested. But the type of person borrowing this sort of money usually does not look into that.
Here is another statement under the heading of "The Rates We Charge". This, of course, is another complete falsification. My hon. friends on the other side will say that the government gets blamed for everything. They are blaming the government for this one. They say:
The charge presently stipulated by our federal laws is 2 per cent per month on the outstanding balance of a loan to $500.
If I have any knowledge of the English language in general, and in particular of that word "stipulated", I would characterize that as not even a white lie but a deliberate one, with the deliberate intent of fooling the customers.
The third type of advertising is one which I wish to speak against this afternoon. I am not intending at the moment, as I say, to criticize the loan company. I would be out of order, possibly, if I did so. That has already been done in speeches in the previous debates. Their operators have been called harsh names in this house.
They have been defended, may I say, in all honesty by my Liberal friends, who have with one or two exceptions leaped to their defence valiantly both by voice and by vote in this

house. They must look upon these companies as being a beneficial part of our economic lives. I am sorry 1 cannot agree with them. They were in favour of incorporating that new company and they were in favour of granting a change in name and increased capitalization.
Of course, one might say that those things were being done completely within the law. We had, too, the fact that the national chairman of the Liberal party was mixed up with a couple of these small loan companies. We on this side of the house were frankly surprised that a man of such eminence and connected with this great party that has formed the government here for all these years should bother with such small potatoes, as somebody said, battening upon the misery of the poor. However, I see the Speaker looking me over, and I shall proceed no further in that particular direction.


Mr. Philpoif:: You have been out of order for five minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That rule has been thrown out the window.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The assumption is then, and I am going to accept it for today, that these are legitimate concerns doing legitimate business under the law. I am prepared to admit that for the moment, and it may be that the operators of these legitimate concerns are also honourable men. They may be all honourable men; I do not know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So was Brutus.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: At any rate, as such they have something to sell. They are advertising their wares in the public press and they should be willing, if they are honourable men, to make clear the price of their product and the conditions under which that product is sold. If these honourable men, then, are under the shadow of the law and in fact countenanced, and indeed encouraged-it would appear from the debate that took place in this house-by this government, we would expect them to be open and honest about their operations.
I should like to talk for a while about advertising generally and about some of the ridiculous things that we do about advertising. I am thinking of liquor advertising, for example. There is a foolish idea that you must not advertise liquor on a bottle. It is all right to put it on the label but not on the bottle, because that makes a difference in law. We hear about magazines transferring from some "holier than thou" province to certain dens of iniquity in order that they might be able to carry on the business of liquor advertising in magazines and that sort of thing. We have so much of this sort of
Small Loans Ac*
thing in Canada, and we have an historical background for it all. We have so much of that rationalization. I could use a stronger word, but I shall not.


Walter Edward Harris: My hon. friend is pretty
rational.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Some may say that we should hesitate about telling people how to run their businesses and what they should or should not do. This has come up in regard to this bill. Some classical student may quote at me the words "caveat emptor", or "Let the buyer beware". In other words, they may say it is up to the user of the product to decide whether or not this particular bill is to his advantage. But I would point out to you, sir, that there are members of the public who are in need of protection. We do not allow people to use motor cars, for example, to run roughshod over everybody; we regulate the traffic. We are not supposed to sell liquor and tobacco to minors. We have an interference there with their liberty, surely. Under the Food and Drugs Act, I take it, labels are placed on all products to make the contents clear so that there is no doubt as to what you are buying.
After all, when the customer goes into an ordinary store, there is the piece of goods in front of him, and there displayed on it is a price ticket, so that he knows what he is taking. In other words, that particular buyer does not have to beware so much, because he has a chance. He sees what he is buying, and he knows what he has to pay for it. However, in the case of small loans, what is the situation? The one big point I wish to make here is that this small loans advertising never actually shows the interest in terms of rate per annum. You may ask, "what does it show?". It shows all these nice little things that I have been reading about and which have no significance, but it usually shows a scheme for repayment. You may say, "People ought to be able to figure that out." They do not. As a matter of fact, these people who will become the victims of small loan companies are usually people who are distraught about something. They are in serious financial trouble. They are in no condition to argue, either about the amount of interest or whether or not it is beneficial for them to take a loan at all. It seems so horribly easy. You just go down and you get the money on the same day, or, if you telephone a little ahead, you can get it when you go there. It all seems so terribly easy.
Further, a great many of them are, educationally speaking, incapable of working out the cost. I do not know whether you have noticed those advertisements, but they are

Small Loans Act
very seldom in terms of round figures. There is. always a balance of 73 cents or 99 cents or something awkward that is indivisible by almost anything, and it is a difficult proposition because you have 12 months and that is the thing that they do not realize.
The type of advertisement to which I particularly object and which I would like to see amended, together with this Small Loans Act, is the type of advertisement which shows the repayment month by month and does not show the rate of interest charged. By design or by mathematical accident, it may well be, these things are almost always stated in odd numbers which make the arithmetic difficult.
Lest I be misunderstood, I want to take a simple example, and I have given an example in a previous debate. I will put the matter in simple figures and I am thinking of the situation that existed some time ago before Bill 51 imposed certain restrictions on the interest. Let us say you are going to borrow $1,200. The advertisement says that you get $1,200. We will say that at the end of the first month you repay $112, at the end of the second month $112, until you get down to the twelfth month. We will assume that the loan is for a year. At the end of the 12 months you look the matter over and you discover that for the use of that money-I am saying nothing further for the moment; I am not mentioning the terms-you have paid $144. The person who is none too adroit at figures and who is perhaps not too particular because of the trouble he happens to be in will say that he has paid $144 for the use of that money and that looks like 12 per cent. He will say that is pretty high but that he needed the money and that maybe it was worth 12 per cent to get the money.
The catch is, of course, that it is not 12 per cent. It is not even double 12 per cent, or 24 per cent. It is more than double the 12 per cent that on its face it appears to be. The explanation is perfectly simple. Actually he only had the use of $1,200 for one month. At the end of the first month he repays $100 and at the end of the second month another $100, at which time he only has the use of $1,000. So it goes down the line until he gets down to the last month when he only has the use of $100 for the final month but pays exactly the same amount of interest. No, I did not say the same rate. He pays the same amount of interest each month but in each month on a different and decreasing amount of money. Therefore, it does take something of an arithmetician to sit down and calculate exactly the rate of interest he has paid.
Personally, I have had complaints about these things. People get into these jams and
ftlr. Knight.]
they come to me or to some other member of parliament and talk about their troubles. I have had these complaints and people have said to me that they never realized they were getting themselves into anything like that. You see, they had read an advertisement saying something like "just come to us and end your money troubles." A so-and-so loan "ended my worries." Look at how this man's worries were ended. He had been paying $60 or $65 a month on furniture or something else and discovered he could not do it. So he went to the loan company and he says, "You know what they did for me? Not only did they lessen the amount I had to pay back each month but they actually gave me some more money to take home with me." They lowered the amount he had to pay each month and he was a happy man. Of course, the thing that he neglected was that his troubles were not ended but were just beginning because he had contracted to double the time of his contract and repay a somewhat smaller amount per month than he had been paying.
For that reason and for the other reasons I have stated, I think that the government would be justified in passing a bill of this sort. Here is a class of people who in the first place are perhaps somewhat underprivileged. They are a class of people who need protection, and I think something should be done because there is no doubt that these people are being victimized. It is the type of people who want very small loans who are the worst victimized.
Even under the new government legislation, Bill 51, which I welcome, the interest rate on such small loans is untouched. It is still legal to charge a rate of 2 per cent per month. On loans between $300 and $500 the situation is not much better. It is true that the rate is perhaps something like 2 per cent per annum less but actually there is not much difference in the case of loans under $500. The situation is still pretty bad. These companies claim they have to have that amount of interest on account of their losses, and so on. That has been said before but I do not think they can justifiy their position on that basis because their actual losses are very small.
I ask this simple question. Why do these companies not disclose the actual interest rate in their advertisements? Is it because they fear that if the actual rate in percent per annum were disclosed the public would shy away from them and that would be detrimental to their profits? I ask a further question. Is it honest to conceal the rate? The purpose of the bill is to have the cost of the loan to the customer stated in the advertisements in terms of per cent per annum.

When a man can see that there will be some excuse then for saying caveat emptor, let the buyer beware, because what it is going to cost him over the period that he is using the amount he borrows will be printed plainly in front of him.
I would plead with the government to take action. I do not expect any particular action at this moment but I think this is a matter that does deserve consideration along with what has already been done by Bill 51 in making some small reduction in the interest rate.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give a certain amount of qualified moral support-


An hon. Member:: Be careful now.


Elmore Philpott: -to the hon. member for Saskatoon. Let me say at the outset that I agree entirely with his main point. I definitely think that in all advertisements of small loan companies and similar institutions which are directly or indirectly in the business of lending money the effective rate of interest should be plainly stated in the advertisement. I think if we were to do the one thing with respect to our small loan legislation that would probably be of the most benefit to the public we could not do anything better than to stipulate that one simple thing and to say that everybody who lends money must state in his advertisements the actual rate of interest which he charges. When Bill 51 goes before the banking and commerce committee and we have competent witnesses before us who can give us evidence on the matter I certainly hope that we will have evidence on this particular question.
But I should like to submit in all earnestness to my hon. friend opposite that the method of getting this thing applied may not be quite so simple as he seems to think. I suggest that this whole question of small loans is tied up with a vast amount of the business life of Canada. For instance, where are you going to draw the line between small loans actually made by lending institutions and loans made indirectly by furniture companies, electrical companies, automobile companies, and all the rest?
Earlier this year we heard the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) give some examples of what he thought were exorbitant interest charges. In doing so he did not refer at all to the small loan companies but referred to Simpson's, Eaton's and some of the other big mail order companies in this country. I should like to submit that if we want to even bring into the discussion the charges made by these admirable institutions, who have such a wide measure of support in
Small Loans Act
the house, some of the charges made by credit unions would not compare any too favourably with the charges made by some of these small loan companies.


Mr. Argue:: There is none over 12 per cent.


Elmore Philpott: I can remember going to the old Toronto Globe as a very young working newspaperman some 30 years ago when they had a kind of benefit society which we would now call a credit union and which they probably now call a credit union. The society used to make loans against our pay on a shortterm basis. Had the law been in effect which my friend the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) wants and which I agree with him we should have in Canada, and had we been forced to advertise the actual rate of interest charged, that would have been an exorbitant rate of interest indeed. A little earlier in my life I remember having a job for nearly two years and having some 20 salesmen under me selling electrical appliances. In the thousands of cases where we sold electrical appliances and in the years I was with that particular company, which was a very fine company, I had only one salesman ever tell me that any one of his customers ever sat down with pencil and paper and did all the intricate figuring that would be necessary to prove exactly what effective rate of interest she was paying per year. But when I listen to some of the remarks we have heard in this house this year, I wonder whether there is not another side of the story. For instance, we have been told about the poor borrower of money, about how he is getting soaked, and about how he is paying far more in the rate of interest than he deserves to pay. I do not know whether the hon. gentlemen opposite always listen to the same radio broadcasts to which I listen, but coming over the radio I hear "SomethingSomething Jewellers, nothing down"-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Credit Jewellers.


Elmore Philpott: -four years to pay". But when you go in to check up the price, you find that they are paying exactly the same price for the product as is the poor deluded creature who goes in and pays cash. I sometimes think that the forgotten citizen of Canada is the good old citizen, raised on the principles of Scots thrift, who believed that it was a sin to go into debt, that you must pay cash on the line for everything you bought. I sometimes think that our great merchandiser Timothy Eaton, who founded a great business on the principle of paying cash and paying less, must be turning over in his grave if he knows that people are going up and down the streets in the suburbs of

Small Loans Act
Toronto, knocking on the doors and asking people to open charge accounts and to go more into debt every month. So I say let us remember that there are two sides to this story, even on the question of these credits and on the question of debts.
I for one hope that when we get this Bill No. 51 into the banking and commerce committee we can have competent witnesses there first of all to show us how much the effective interest rate is and, second, to show us whether or not this advertising which is being used in showing the amount of repayment per month is deceptive. I submit that this is a big and complicated question, intertwined and involved with all the question of merchandising and time payments in Canada over which this federal parliament has little if any control. I submit that you might be putting our whole small debt legislation in jeopardy if you were to take an unwise step which would be held to be invalid.


Hazen Robert Argue: Are you for or against the bill?


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest and pleasure to the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) because I observe that he discussed this problem and the men who carry on the business on the basis that they were honourable men carrying on a business which is under supervision and which honourable and decent men could carry on. It seems to me that the idea he has in this measure is sound and that no fair-minded man should object to it. 1 will therefore vote for the measure. I am impressed, however, by the difficulty which has been outlined by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott). I think there will be difficulties. However, I shall not spend time in discussing them now because I think we can do that to much better advantage before the banking and commerce committee. But when we are considering this measure I suggest that we do not overlook the fact that the problem is perhaps not as easy to solve as it appears to be on the surface.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of this bill has indicated, we have had several debates recently in the broad field related to small loans legislation. This is a fairly recent proposed amendment. It was introduced after the Easter recess. I was much interested to hear the sponsor say that, having regard to the fact that a government bill had received second reading by this house this session and was soon to receive the attention of the
[Mr. Philpott.l
banking and commerce committee, he surmised it might be appropriate not to press this particular legislation at this time prior to the intensive type of review that all hon. members know is available when a bill is referred to a parliamentary committee.
As I have said before in discussing this subject in a broad way, this legislation in this small-loan field is of relatively recent origin. It had its beginning as a result of activities in parliamentary committees which examined private bills in the first instance seeking incorporation for small loan companies. From those discussions it finally appeared to be desirable to attempt to legislate in this field under the authority of the section in the British North America Act which gives the federal parliament certain rights with respect to the subject of interest. Early in these parliamentary inquiries, not only to the parliamentarians who were giving this subject attention but to the officials in the department of insurance to whom the administration of any of our legislation was likely to be referred, it became evident that very possibly there could be a legal difficulty owing to the possibility of a rather thin legal line between the rights of the provinces under section 92 of the British North America Act and any rights that were extended to the federal parliament on the subject only of interest. Very early in these discussions the superintendent of insurance was sufficiently impressed with this factor that, in his annual report, he commented upon this matter of legal jurisdiction. I refer to appendix B to his 1936 report on small loan companies, page 117. There the superintendent of insurance, who at that time was Mr. Finlayson, had this to say:
It will be apparent from the foregoing that there may be question as to the relative jurisdictions of parliament and the provincial legislatures in regulating the total charges for loans of money to borrowers. Section 91 of the British North America Act assigns "Interest" to the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, but there is nothing in that act to say what charges, other than interest so-called, are to be regarded as interest in disguise. Section 92 of that act assigns to the exclusive legislative authority of the legislatures of the provinces "property and civil rights in the province" and it is conceivable that the regulation of some class or classes of charges in connection with loans of money may fall within that heading.
I am referring to this matter in order to show that, even with respect to any imposition of a cost or charge to a prospective borrower, there was some considerable uncertainty as to whether or not all costs could be placed within the definition of interest. My hon. friend, in the legislation he proposes, would go further than that and, under the guise of dealing with the subject

of interest, suggests that it is appropriate for this legislature to pass a law respecting the field of advertising.
My hon. friend has referred to advertising in some other lines of business. In doing so, he was referring to the general question of caveat emptor. He said that laws have been passed dealing with advertising in the field of dispensing liquor. He indicated that there were certain fair trade laws under which misrepresentation or anything misleading in the field of ordinary merchandising was prohibited. He referred to certain laws with respect to the driving of cars and other things. I point out to my hon. friend that in every instance to which he referred with respect to existing laws relating to advertising, those laws were passed within the federal system, operating in this country, by provincial legislatures under the general jurisdiction of the provinces for legislating in the field of property and civil rights.
This question, as I say, has been constantly in the mind of anyone who has been giving careful consideration to the small-loan field. The superintendent of insurance, both the gentleman I quoted, Mr. Finlayson, and later the present superintendent of insurance, Mr. MacGregor, after consultation with the Department of Justice, have expressed some doubts as to whether or not it would be proper for this parliament to legislate with respect to the style of advertising permitted in the small-loan field. When they considered this problem, of course, they have always pointed out that while it is open for the Department of Justice to give an opinion and it is open for the superintendent of insurance to act upon that opinion in the advice he gives to the government with respect to the sponsorship of any government legislation, the final decision on the legality or otherwise of action of this kind would have to be made by the courts.
I have pointed out that there was some doubt in the late thirties as to how far in the legislative authority over interest it was possible to go and define interest as inclusive of all forms of charges on borrowing. The house is aware that subsequently the legislation in the small-loan field has been tested in the courts with respect to this matter of all charges. It was established that mortgage costs, legal costs and anything else associated with these loans were properly to be considered as in the federal jurisdiction as something in the nature of interest in the borrowing of money. But I would suggest to the house that we are going to have an excellent opportunity to examine something that was
Small Loans Act
not examined as carefully as it might have been in the late thirties, namely, regulations respecting advertising. I am quite sure the banking and commerce committee would be able to call as witnesses officials of the Department of Justice. Of course, an essential witness in any committee meeting considering the Small Loans Act will be the superintendent of insurance. I think hon. members will have an opportunity of forming an opinion as to whether or not we are going a step farther than the courts might support if we were to accept the legislative proposal advanced by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight). If this parliament goes farther than the courts will uphold, then of course the danger is that the base legislation, as worth-while as the Small Loans Act has proven to be, might as a whole, be termed ultra vires and we would not have legislation at all.
My hon. friend has referred to certain types of advertising that have been made by companies operating in this field.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Might I ask my hon. friend one question. Does he remember the action that was taken here under federal jurisdiction in regard to the striped packages for bacon, and the prohibition put upon the people in the bacon trade?


William Moore Benidickson: But that was with respect to a special statute on the marking of goods under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. That is something my hon. friend will have every opportunity of examining the deputy minister of justice upon.
Now, falling short of placing on the statute something that might weaken the act itself and the whole basis of our legislative action, the superintendent of insurance has from the very beginning of the administration of this act gone as far as he thought he could go in the matter of advertising. I see I have not the time to give the full details of his memorandum to small loan companies to the house, but I could quickly give the reference to it and the hon. members will be able to look it up for themselves. I refer to the introduction to the 1940 report on small loan companies at page 11. There is a memorandum there indicating the direction, which is of long standing, from the superintendent of insurance to the people in this field and it says what would be and what would not be regarded by him as offensive in this field.
On motion of Mr. Benidickson the debate was adjourned.
3922	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION



CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the constitution of a corporation to be known as Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation for the purposes, amongst others, of constructing, maintaining and operating a natural gas pipe line between the Ontario-Manitoba border and Kapuskasing, Ontario, and of leasing with an option to purchase such natural gas pipe line to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and carrying out such leases, including the disposal by the corporation of such pipe line in connection with such purchase option, and to provide that the Minister of Finance may lend money to the corporation for such purposes.
To provide also that the corporation may, on behalf of Her Majesty, out of moneys advanced by the Minister of Finance, make short term loans to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited for the construction of a natural gas pipe line from a point on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border to the vicinity of Winnipeg, such loans not to exceed in the aggregate eighty million dollars or ninety per cent of the cost of construction of the said pipe line, whichever is the lesser, and to be made upon such terms, conditions and security as approved by the governor in council.
To provide also that the corporation may do such things as are conducive to the attainment of the foregoing purposes, and that in the event of default of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in carrying out any agreement for the foregoing purposes the corporation may take possession and control of any or all assets, rights and undertakings of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and conduct the business and operations of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited with respect to such assets, rights and undertakings, and that if such default should occur prior to completion of the pipe line mentioned in the last preceding paragraph hereof the corporation may complete its construction and manage and operate it and that it may, out of moneys advanced by the Minister of Finance acquire shares of the capital stock of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
To provide that the aggregate outstanding at any time of the amounts authorized by the measure to be advanced for the foregoing purposes by the Minister of Finance to the corporation together with the loans authorized to be made by the Minister of Finance to the corporation shall not exceed one hundred and thirty million dollars.
And to provide further for the appointment and remuneration of directors, officers and employees necessary for the administration of the act.
William Alfred Robinson: It being six o'clock, I do leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock. Miss Aitken: Mr. Chairman, the first few words of the resolution before us read, "Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a
rMr. Benidickson.j
[Stage Direction]
measure;" -resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure that will enable the government to use the taxpayers' money to build parts of a trans-Canada pipe line 83-4 per cent of the control of which will be in the hands of United States interests.
To be expedient, according to the dictionary, is to be suitable, fitting or convenient. We in this party do not consider it suitable, fitting or convenient to surrender our economic independence to a foreign country no matter how friendly that country may be. We do not consider it suitable, fitting or convenient that our business or the future of our national resources should be dependent on such foreign bodies as the federal power commission. We do not believe there is anything expedient in this resolution. I think the best description has been given by the Toronto Star which referred to it as a Canadian tragedy.
I wish to read the last paragraph from an article which appeared in the Toronto Star on March 17:
The Trans-Canada deal is so bad that it deserves to be laughed out of parliament. But with the government standing pat, and the Liberal majority evidently ready to fall into line, it is no laughing matter. The stage is being set for a Canadian tragedy.
This is what might be called the third plan for an all-Canadian pipe line. I call it a plan rather than a policy because the government does not appear to have any policy, even today, five years after the first plan emerged.
What is the government's policy in building an all-Canadian pipe line? First, the Minister of Trade and Commerce selected Trans-Canada as the chosen one, the white-haired boy. Trans-Canada sold itself on the basis of its ability not only to finance and build the pipe line but to operate it without financial assistance from the government. Then it became obvious that Trans-Canada could not finance and build the line without financial assistance. Not only does this company need help to build the uneconomical part of the line, but Trans-Canada cannot even build the easiest part of the line from Alberta to Manitoba without help.
During the five years we have waited for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to get going on the pipe line, several suggestions have been bandied around in parliament and in the press. The first of these is that the government might guarantee Trans-Canada bonds. There were hints that the minister liked that idea but that some of his colleagues did not like it. Then another idea emerged, that Trans-Canada should borrow from the international development bank. Nothing came of that idea. Now, finally, there is
[Stage Direction]
this resolution, that the government will build parts of the pipe line, the most difficult part and the easiest part, and Trans-Canada will lease-purchase the government-owned parts and eventually own them.
Where does that leave us? According to a well-known Canadian oil expert whose name has been mentioned several times today in this house, Frank McMahon, it leaves us with a pipe line subsidized by Canadian public funds and controlled by United States financial interests. The chief concern of those interests will be to sell gas as cheaply as possible in the United States. It is a government sell-out of Canadian resources to powerful United States interests.
Yesterday the minister accused the opposition of scaring the goose that lays the golden eggs. Well, Mr. Chairman, we in this party are only too happy to sell the golden eggs. But I believe the government is not killing the goose that lays the golden eggs; instead it is putting it on a silver platter and handing it to the United States.
William Earl Rowe: And they are not even getting the platter back.


Miss   Ailken@: Let us look at the bewildering facts. Five years ago this house was asked to grant a charter to Trans-Canada to build an all-Canadian pipe line. Parliament was given assurance by the officials of the company that the undertaking could be achieved without government assistance. A representative of Trans-Canada appeared before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to say that this project, and I quote, "would be entirely economic and go along by itself". And so, in 1951, the parliament of Canada gave Trans-Canada the franchise to build an all-Canadian pipe line on the company's own assurance that it would be entirely economic and would go along by itself.
A moment ago I suggested that we look at the bewildering facts; today we must look upon them not as facts but as fiction. Today, without any detailed facts, with no clear explanations, we can only assume that this project, so economically sound in 1951, is no longer entirely economic, nor can it go along by itself.
If Trans-Canada cannot fulfil its undertaking, why does it still have the exclusive franchise to build the pipe line? Why were Canadian companies not encouraged to finance it? The government has given us no evidence that this project cannot be financed in Canada and nothing will convince me there are not a good many Canadians who would be only too happy to take on such an attractive project, one part entirely financed
15, 1956	3923
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation by the government and the other part 90 per cent financed by the government.	*
One has only to look at the entire pipe line business during the past eight years to feel confident a trans-Canada pipe line could be financed by Canadian enterprise. Millions of dollars have been spent in building pipe lines in Canada and handsome profits have been made by all concerned-builders, investors and operators. The government ignores these basic facts which are not fiction.
I believe there is an overwhelming national opposition to this plan whereby foreign industry grows fat at our expense. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is showing complete contempt for that national opposition just as he is showing contempt for parliament in introducing closure. But I believe that better men than he have seen the wisdom of changing their minds. Indeed, one of the most interesting examples of this sort of thing-not a man but a newspaper in this case-occurred recently when a newspaper changed its mind, therefore showing bigness. The newspaper in question was the Calgary Herald, which was mentioned earlier today.
Last month the Herald reversed its previous editorial stand declaring that this may yet be one of the most important issues of our generation. In explaining its reversal, the Herald admitted that nationalist sentiment is more important than pure economics. The Minister of Trade and Commerce obviously has no intention of changing his mind nor has he any intention of listening to the voice of parliament.


An hon. Member:: He changed it last year.


Miss Aitken:: The guillotine has been introduced. Earlier today I detected something of a sensitivity in the back benches of the Liberal party when they were being called trained seals. I am not going to call them trained seals because I think it is an extremely sad state of affairs that there is no opposition in the government ranks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: The only divided party is the Tory party.


Margaret Aitken: There are no trained seals over here. What has happened to the great Liberal party of yesterday?


An hon. Member:: It is united.


Margaret Aitken: Surely there must be at least a baker's dozen in that vast Liberal majority who have the courage to speak up for the future of Canada.


George Harris Hees: No, not one. They are all dead; all gone. Pouliot has gone.
3924	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Miss   Aiiken@: Surely there must be ten men, five men, or even one man with the intestinal fortitude to say, "No, C. D. Howe".


Douglas Scott Harkness: You would think so but it just is not so.


Miss   Aiiken@: I find it sad that today this great Liberal party of yesterday is nothing more than a caricature of Hollywood yes men. What has happened to the Liberal breed that it has degenerated into rubber stamps?


Marie Ann Shipley: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. This afternoon I was refused the privilege of commenting on similar remarks which had been made by members of the opposition. I submit that hon. members of the opposition should not be permitted to continue in that same vein if we are not to be permitted to refute such comments.


Miss   Aiiken@: Mr. Chairman, I can say in all truth, in sorrow more than in anger, that it is a sad thing for Canada that no man in this Liberal government today will show the vision and courage and faith of his forefathers. With this resolution before us today we have indeed come a far way from the vision and courage of our forefathers. In his history of Canada Stephen Leacock called the building of the C.P.R. one of the greatest triumphs of our history. Today the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is telling us that it is expedient to bring about one of the greatest disasters of our history.
Our leaders of the 19th century had the courage of their vision. They began building a trans-Canada railway when there were only 24,000 people in British Columbia. Winnipeg was a town of less than 8,000 inhabitants. Regina was what the Indians called a pile of bones. Calgary was not even on the map. Despite those handicaps of geography and population we built that trans-Canada railway. We invited foreign investors to help us. We welcomed their help and we gave them profits. But we made sure that control of the railway stayed in Canada. We invite foreign investors to help us build a pipe line. We will welcome their money and we will make profits for them, but let us make sure that control of that pipe line stays in Canada.
If this resolution goes through, I should change that and say when this resolution goes through, or when this resolution is forced through, we will have a pipe line it is true, or at least we will have part of a pipe line. The only thing Canadian about this pipe line will be its geographical location. Public funds are to be used to ensure private profits for foreign investors. Public funds are to be used to ensure that United States consumers
fMr. Hees.]

get Canadian gas through an all-Canadian pipe line cheaper than Canadians can get it.
I do not believe that any other country in the world would put itself in such a position, not even a country less richly endowed than Canada. For instance, in India back in 1948 Mr. Nehru saw the danger of economic domination from outside and he issued this warning:
We would rather delay our development, industrial or otherwise, than submit to any kind of economic domination of any country. This is an axiom which is accepted by everyone in India.
We believe that the time has come for Canadians to assert authority over their own resources. No longer should we stand by and watch foreign industry control our resources. Presumably the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, and indeed I imagine the entire government, must be aware of the widespread resentment against United States capital dominating our pipe line while public capital takes all the risk. I do not believe that any Canadian government, or perhaps any government, has ever subsidized private enterprise in this way. No Canadian government, in fact no government anywhere has subsidized private foreign enterprise in this way. Whoever described this plan as one of the most bungled government transactions in Canadian history spoke truly.
The minister has said more than once that he is assured by Trans-Canada that more than half the common stock of the company will be made available to Canadian investors if they care to subscribe to it. That brings us to the question which has been brought up here more than once. Is the right hon. minister talking about a Pickersgill Canadian, someone born in Canada, or is he talking about someone who has a postal address in Canada? Is that a Canadian? If so, then the wholly-owned United States subsidiaries in the pipe line scheme are Canadians.
What we are facing today is not merely the building of a pipe line; we are at the crossroads in Canada's future. We are being faced with a basic policy which the Liberal party is trying to ram down Canadian throats. That policy can be summed up in five words: United States first, Canada second.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the hon. lady a question.


William Alfred Robinson: May I point out that the termination of this debate is fixed and I think it might be preferable to refrain from interrupting.


Mr. MacDougall:: Mr. Chairman, I rise in this debate to speak as a Canadian who comes from a province which will be neither a buyer nor a seller of any of the gas that will go

through Trans-Canada's pipe line. I believe it is my duty as a Canadian to rise on this occasion because I have no axe to grind in any way whatsoever.


An hon. Member:: You made a good messenger boy for the last day or two.


An hon. Member:: What about that political axe?


John Lorne MacDougall: I think I have been quiet when some of the opposition members have spoken but, as far as I personally am concerned, I do not care if they howl their heads off. They can call me all the trained seals they like, stool pigeons, and what have you, and it makes no difference whatsoever to me. I have listened for a long time to certain members of the opposition party-not all- crying blue ruin and damning the government because of the fact that the government attempts to run parliament. I am welcoming this action by the government in finally taking the bit in its teeth and determining to run parliament.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You mean "run over
parliament."


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is a witticism for you.


John Lorne MacDougall: I have heard some good speeches from some members in the opposition, but I listened to a magnificent speech from the gas expert for the Tory party. I never thought I would see the day however when my learned friend from Vancouver-Quadra woud get up and attempt to prevent free speech in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word. The hon. member will realize that again this evening we shall see opportunities to interfere with an hon. member's speech if the debate should get out of hand, and I feel I should rise immediately to ask him to co-operate with me by revising those words he has just uttered with regard to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, who is not in the house tonight.


An hon. Member:: Yes, he is.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, you were not in the chair this afternoon when this incident arose. I pointed out to the chairman at that time that he had the name of the hon. member for York-Humber as our next speaker on the list, and he finally admitted that the hon. member for Calgary South was being put on in place of a Liberal member.


William Alfred Robinson: I do not think I should
allow a repetition of an occurrence which took place this afternoon. As soon as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard uttered
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation words which I thought would be objectionable under our rules, and not seeing the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in the house, I immediately rose to my feet with the intention of asking the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard to withdraw those words. I am sure he will be happy to do so.


John Lorne MacDougall: Mr. Chairman, what
words do you wish me to withdraw?


William Alfred Robinson: I must ask the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard to withdraw the words that another member attempted to prevent free speech in this house.


John Lorne MacDougall: I am very glad to comply, because the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and I have been friends for a long time. I do not think that there is any invidious meaning. I said that I never thought that a Tory member would do anything like that.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


John Lorne MacDougall: I withdraw.


William Alfred Robinson: I do not think any member could ever have received a more spontaneous withdrawal.


John Lorne MacDougall: The hon. gentlemen on my left would prefer that I crawl back into my hole, but I am not prepared at this time to do that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Your party has just withdrawn free speech from the whole parliament.


John Lorne MacDougall: May I be allowed to
go on?


An hon. Member:: Go on.


An hon. Member:: Have you anything to
say?


John Lorne MacDougall: More than my hon. friends to the rear. Prior to the introduction of this resolution that is now before the house, I have witnessed possibly some of the most absurd attacks upon our Prime Minister and two or three of our ministers that I have ever heard in the years I have been here.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Why does he not answer for
himself?


John Lorne MacDougall: As far as I am concerned, I am 100 per cent in favour of the closure that was invoked by the administration. Now, if I am not completely drowned out by the magpies around me, I would like-


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


John Lorne MacDougall: -to point out a few salient facts with respect to the addresses that have been delivered by my good friends, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.
3926	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation I was stumped, and I am sure all members of the house were stumped, in trying to find exactly what policy, if any, the Leader of the Opposition had in mind on the various occasions when he addressed this house.


An hon. Member:: He never had any.


John Lorne MacDougall: It is quite evident, according to their tenets of faith, that the socialist party stands for public ownership. I can quite understand their attitude and the attitude of their leader on that occasion. But if the day ever comes-and I hope it will not-when the people of Canada and the government of Canada will of necessity have to take over the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, I can assure this house that they will do a much better job than has been done by so-called crown companies in the province of Saskatchewan. I should like to point out that there have been five crown companies in Saskatchewan that have gone down the drain. There have been more than that, but I am only including five in my remarks tonight. They are the leather products factory, the box factory, the woollen mills, the fish board, and the tannery.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Tell us about the insurance company.


John Lorne MacDougall: I have pointed those out, and I also want to say that it is a most intriguing thing for me that, when the socialist government of Saskatchewan has been asking and receiving foreign aid to come and develop the resources of that province for the past two and a half years to the extent of approximately $50 million a week, some of my socialist friends here from Saskatchewan get up and condemn it. Now that we all recognize, Mr. Chairman, that that great race horse, Citation, is dead, now that we have invoked closure, I am very happy to see that for the duration of this debate citations are also largely dead.
With that idea in mind I should like in the few minutes at my disposal to satirize the situation as far as my good friends of the Tory and C.C.F. parties are concerned. About the most concrete suggestion we have had from the Leader of the Opposition has been that we might consider running the trans-Canada gas line on railway property from Alberta to Quebec. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition has ever considered for a moment how volatile gas is, and how much additional insurance the railroad companies would have to bear if by any chance this suggestion as to the route of the trans-Canada line were ever carried out? So to me it has been most difficult to plot what might be considered a statement


of policy on the basis of any of the utterances of the Leader of the Opposition.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are always a little dull, Jack.


John Lorne MacDougall: I admit it. The only unfortunate part about that interjection on the part of my hon. friend is that he is a great deal duller than I am.


George Harris Hees: Grade 5 humour.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Another Bob Hope.


John Lorne MacDougall: It has been stated that the rules have largely gone by the board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Lorne MacDougall: That condition now being a matter of history, I wonder whether I might be permitted to summarize and satirize the positions of the government and the Tory and C.C.F. parties by naming batteries for these opposing teams in the House of Commons. If that is permissible, Mr. Chairman, for the government side I would announce as pitcher that veteran speedball artist, C. D. Howe, and as catcher-


Donald Methuen Fleming: He is throwing curves.


John Lorne MacDougall: -that pipe line specialist, the Conservative gentleman who sits behind me-Carl Nickle. For the opposition it is a little more difficult to select the battery mates but I cannot help remembering that the other night the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar nearly burst a button-


An hon. Member:: Is that all?


John Lorne MacDougall: -when he rose to speak on the resolution after the Leader of the Opposition. I think his closing word was "buccaneer". Therefore, for the opposition I am naming as pitcher "buccaneer Coldwell" and as catcher "I am working on the railroad Drew". There is a gentleman behind me, Mr. Chairman, who said he would like to play outfield. I should like to play shortstop or second base on the government team because I am quite sure I would be able to put across many double plays.


An hon. Member:: This is a real double cross.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This government is expert in double plays already.


An hon. Member:: Double shuffles.


John Lorne MacDougall: Mr. Chairman, as I said when I rose, I am not going to go into the intricacies of gas distribution in Canada.


An hon. Member:: You have not.


John Lorne MacDougall: I profess to know very little about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Lorne MacDougall: I wish that some of the gentlemen to my left were as honest as I in that admission.


John Horace Dickey: They prefer to prove it to everybody else.


John Lorne MacDougall: You know, it is a very nice thing to have friends in all parties, and when one does not indulge in smears I do not think it is a very difficult thing to do. I speak as a Liberal who has no axe to grind, political or otherwise, with respect to the pipe line. The Leader of the Opposition suggested yesterday that he would like to hear a Canadian speak on this matter. I think that without exception we are all Canadians but I happen to fall into a different category. I am what might be termed a neutral Canadian as far as the trans-Canada gas line is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Lorne MacDougall: I am neutral in this respect, that as far as my own province and city are concerned if and when we get natural gas in Vancouver and the province we will get it through the medium of the Westcoast Transmission line. Further than that, I believe it is well that a so-called neutral viewpoint on this question should be expressed. Originally I was raised on the prairies in the province of Saskatchewan, and I want to tell you without fear or favour that the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba are crying today for the admission of natural gas from the province of Alberta. There used to be an old saying in our schoolboy days-


An hon. Member:: Time.


John Lorne MacDougall: -that trade follows the flag. I did not call time on you, Doug.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not say a word, not a word.


William Alfred Robinson: It is my duty to call time and advise the hon. member that his time has expired. .


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there comes from our province of Manitoba a Liberal who is in the cabinet. He is a gentleman who sometimes, whether he likes or not, blurts out the truth. He did that yesterday noon, according to this evening's edition of the Ottawa Citizen-


Mr. Mclvor:: He always tells the truth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -when he was speaking to 180 high school students taking part in an adventure in citizenship. The press report tells us that he told them that democratic government is still on thin ice.
15, 1956	3927
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That same minister came back to the house yesterday afternoon and saw his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, endeavour to push democracy through that thin ice. The Minister of Justice also stated at that meeting yesterday:
One of the possibilities which make our times so interesting and fateful is whether this great innovation will survive and expand or fall back into thousands of years of bondage.


Some hon. Members:: Boo, boo!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the use by the Minister of Justice of that word "bondage" made me wonder whether he is aware of the famous words attributed to John Pym who said this centuries ago:
Parliaments without parliamentary liberty are but a fair and plausible way into bondage. Freedom of debate being once foreclosed, the essence of the liberty of parliament is withal dissolved.
That is what this government is seeking to do, Mr. Chairman, under the alleged excuse of necessity. What is that necessity? That necessity arises from the fact, so far as the government is concerned, that it has already signed a contract with a private company. The make-up of that private company has already been described in full. In that agreement this government has virtually pledged that parliament will get this measure through in time for the required amount of money to be turned over to this private company by June 7. In other words, Mr. Chairman, this free and independent parliament of a sovereign nation is bound by a commitment that the government of this country has made to a private company.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is because of that commitment that the government has made that we are now under not the threat but the fact of closure. I remind hon. members of what my leader drew to their attention last night when he indicated that Mr. King in 1932 had certain fairly strong words to say about closure when it was put in effect after a debate had been going on for a month. In this instance closure is announced the very first day on which the debate is in progress. As recorded at page 1626 of Hansard of 1932 Mr. King said this:
They have used the weapon of closure twice in the course of a short debate-
I do not know how many times we shall get it in this still shorter debate.
-in order to end all discussion and debate on the most important question which has engaged the attention of parliament since this ministry was formed.
3928	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
I should like hon. members to note the next sentence Mr. King used on that occasion:
If ever in this world there was evidence of an autocratic power used to the 'nth degree, we have it in what we are witnessing at the present time.
If there is anything in spirits and ghosts walking this earth after a man like Mr. Mackenzie King has passed on, I am sure his ghost must be haunting every cabinet minister every night during the course of this debate.
Necessity they say; necessity arising from the commitment that this government has made to a private company. May I remind them of another famous quotation by William Pitt in the debate on the India bill in 1783 when he said this:
Necessity is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes that are at my disposal may I come to the issue that is before us at this present time, namely the issue of the across-Canada gas pipe line. As a Canadian, Mr. Chairman, I am intensely interested in this great national project of an across-Canada natural gas pipe line so as to make available to other areas in Canada this economic fuel of which there is such a tremendous abundance in the province of Alberta. Further, Mr. Chairman, as a Canadian from the city of Winnipeg I am particularly interested in the immediate building of a pipe line across the prairies so that, without further delay, this economic fuel might be available at cost of production and distribution to the people of that city as well as the people of other cities and towns in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
We in the city of Winnipeg have learned that there are times when you must look at certain propositions a second time. We recall to our sorrow what our city fathers, the city council of Winnipeg, did in the year 1881. It is familiar to all of us in Winnipeg but I happen to know something about it because, when I was on the city council myself in the early part of the 1940's, we took the first steps to try to do something about the mistake the city council had made in 1881. What was that mistake? In order to get the Canadian Pacific Railway to build its main yards, so far as Manitoba was concerned, in the city of Winnipeg it passed a by-law in 1881 and made an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway


Some hon. Members:: This is the pipe line.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -which made that railway free and exempt from all municipal taxes, rates, levies and assessments of every nature


and kind. For how long? For ever. Mr. Chairman, the city of Winnipeg has since tried to find whether there was not some way to change that arrangement, which has cost us many millions of dollars. The matter went through all the courts of this country, to the Supreme Court of Canada and to the privy council but it has been ruled that that bad deal which the city council of Winnipeg made in 1881 binds us in Winnipeg in perpetuity, for all time, for ever-and then some.
Mr. Chairman, it is because of our experience with bad deals like that, that we in Winnipeg-much as we want gas from Alberta in our city as soon as possible-realize that we must take a second look at any proposition that is presented to us, particularly when it is presented to us by the present Liberal government. When we look at this present proposition, what do we find? Do we find that it is in the main a way of getting gas to the cities and towns of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and eventually into Ontario and Quebec as well? No; we do not. We find that this is a proposition to aid Tennessee Gas and its associates in its gamble, its effort to try to break into a lucrative, profitable American market. That company knows that if it could get cheap gas from the inexhaustible supplies in Alberta and get that gas into the central and mid-western American market, it could compete with the other companies that are distributing gas in that area and make huge profits. That company has found that it cannot get a permit from the federal power commission to import gas into the United States. That company has the notion that, if it had the line built from Alberta down to Emerson, its case for getting a permit to import gas into the United States might be that much better. But despite the fact that the company believes that its case might be that much better, it has not been able to persuade private investors that it is a gamble worth putting private money into. People with private money are afraid that the federal power commission's permission will not be given and so it would be money put into a white elephant. So this same Tennessee Gas company comes along and asks the people of Canada not only to let it have Alberta gas as a pawn in its competitive game but asks the taxpayers of Canada to put up $72 million or $80 million-actually up to $200 million-to enable them to get into a position to strengthen their case in applying for a permit from the federal power commission.
Mr. Chairman, this parliament of Canada is being asked by this bill to put Canadian gas and Canadian taxpayers' money on the

chess board as a pawn in the game of a group of private financiers who are not interested in getting gas into the towns of Saskatchewan or Manitoba and who are not interested in getting gas into Ontario or Quebec. They are interested only in the profit they might make out of our gas and our taxpayers' money. That is the reason that we in Winnipeg, with the experiences we have had in the past, anxious as we are to have a pipe line built-and perhaps we are more anxious than anybody else because of where we are situated with respect to the line that is supposed to be built this summer; indeed it was promised for last summer -despite our anxiety we realize that this is a bad deal and that we should demand something better.
But, Mr. Chairman, we do not believe that it is necessary .to wait for something better. We believe that a better way can be entered upon this summer just as readily as can this plan which is proposed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We say that this plan which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is trying to bulldoze through this parliament is one that is almost sure to fail. He practically admitted that himself in his speech yesterday. He referred time and time again to what would happen if the company were to fail, and talked in terms of the government taking over as if it were almost a certainty that was what would happen. If the plan succeeds we will be at the mercy, in Canada, of a private monopoly controlled by financiers mainly foreign, and a monopoly that will not be interested in getting gas to the consumers of this country at a reasonable price. They will be interested only in the profit they can make out of the project and our consumers will be charged the limit. If they fail, the project will end up under public ownership. Someone says, is that not what you want? Why do you not go along with this plan and get public ownership that way? We want public ownership, but we want' to come at it directly and honestly, not indirectly and dishonestly.
Furthermore, we know from our history and experience in this country that when the government takes over an outfit that has defaulted and become bankrupt, far too often there are financial arrangements made that set up a capitalization that provides a false picture for years to come and the people really do not get the value out of public ownership which they get when we go in for it first, directly and honestly as we propose. So, Mr. Chairman, we say that the time for action on this question is now, this year, 1956. We are not fooled and the people of Canada are not fooled by the assertion made by the Minister 67509-2491
15, 1956	39291
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of Trade and Commerce that if he does not let this private company do it he cannot get it done until 1958. The minister does not know his own strength, his own power, his own capabilities for organization. This minister organized Trans-Canada Air Lines and the Polymer Corporation at Sarnia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This minister, whom the Liberals are so happy to applaud, knows very well that if he would shake off these shackles that are blinding him to the possibilities of public ownership he could do something for Canada with respect to this great national project that would be a star in his crown far brighter than any of the others that his Liberal colleagues like to boast about when they are singing his praises.
Yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that we could not get going with this proposition unless we put it in the hands of this favoured company, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. I am not sure that it will be done even if we put it' in their hands. We still have not got a clear statement from the minister as to what are the terms of the option this company has on the pipe that is still in the United States. I asked him as recently as 2.30 this afternoon whether he had yet obtained a copy of the option, and the answer was no. Yesterday he told us the option was being altered. Here we are within four hours of a vote forced upon parliament by this dictatorial government and we still do not know who has this pipe or whether the option is any good at all. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask you to note the attempt that the government is making not only to bulldoze us but to force this thing through without our having all the facts that are involved.
I say to t'he minister that if this company is in the position that he says it is to proceed with this project this summer it is only because of the favours the company has received, from this government and the constant extensions it has received from the government and the board of transport commissioners^; it is only in that position because of the loan that is involved in this proposition now before us and of the proposal by the government to build the line through northern Ontario for this private company.
If this company, as I say, is in this favoured position because of what the government has done for it then the government owes it to the people of Canada to take over that company now and start building this project for the people of Canada, a trans-Canada pipe line across western Canada and completed to Winnipeg before this year is out. The Minister of Trade and Commerce
3930	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation made a great many references in his speech yesterday to the question of public ownership. He kept insisting it had been looked at, but so far as he was concerned he could not recommend it to parliament. I noticed, Mr. Chairman, that the minister made it very clear to this house that he knows, he, the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce knows, and said so yesterday afternoon, that public ownership is a better way. Dealing with this proposition yesterday at page 3864 of Hansard for May 14, 1956, the minister said:
I repeat that, short of public ownership, it-
Referring to the plan he is trying to push through parliament.
-goes as far as could reasonably be asked to protect the Canadian interest.
What is that, Mr. Chairman, but an admission by the minister that public ownership goes farther than this present plan in protecting the public interest. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says he knows of many instances of public ownership. Yes, he is responsible for some of them. He is the proud father of some of them. In so far as gas is concerned, he does not know of any. Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce so old that he has lost his pioneering spirit? Is he so lacking in vision in so far as this Canada of ours is concerned that he is not prepared to make the venture into a gas pipe line under public ownership? Knowing some of the things he has done I call him, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as the best witness in this house to the assertion that public ownership is a better way rather than bulldozing this parliament into voting for a proposition that is little more than placing Canadian gas and Canadian money as pawns in the hands of United States financiers.
I call upon him instead to withdraw this proposition. It is not too late yet to withdraw the order that is on the order paper today, No. 17, and to withdraw No. 12 as well. We will do our part in giving unanimous consent to do it. He could then bring in a new proposition to provide for public ownership of this tremendously important national project so the Canadian people may get real value from the gas we have and the labour power we could put into it, so our economy could reap full benefit from such a project. This is an extremely important issue. We are being led down the garden path by a minister who has it in his power to lead us to tremendous advances in our economy. I call upon him tonight to withdraw this motion and bring in one he himself knows would be infinitely better, a motion


putting this whole project under public ownership for the people of Canada.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to take too much time of the house tonight on this subject because I feel it would be advisable to allow as much time and latitude as possible to the perpetrators of the filibuster to have their say, because if we should take a few minutes then they are going to go out in the country and say they were denied any right to speak on this.


Alfred Claude Ellis: What filibuster?


Solon Earl Low: Of course, hon. members who are shouting "What filibuster" have just given us an example of the histrionics of which they are capable on such occasions as these.
To begin with, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the statement he made yesterday. I thought it was straightforward and it was factual. I congratulate the government on bringing in this measure. I want to say right off that we in this corner support it. We will go along with it and we do not intend to contribute in any way to a filibuster on the matter at any stage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Solon Earl Low: I would like to examine for just a few minutes the validity of the position that has been taken by the dog that attempts to wag its Conservative tail, and the tail as well, because I think it is important for us to see what is going on. It must be remembered that both the Conservatives and the C.C.F. served warning before this measure ever came on the floor of the house that they were going to filibuster and completely destroy it if they possibly could. Now, under those circumstances and in the light of the demonstrations which we have had in this house over the past three or four days, let nobody say the Conservatives and the C.C.F. did not bring what has happened upon themselves.
I think, Mr. Chairman, the Conservatives should know better because the Conservatives have not very much of a case. In tribute to the C.C.F. I will have to concede that I think they are quite honest in their proposal concerning nationalization of the pipe line, but the Conservatives are doing nothing but scraping the bottom of the barrel. They are like a cat on a tin roof trying to find some dirt and manufacture for themselves an election issue. They have been so utterly bankrupt of ideas and propositions that they have to grasp at straws. They are trying their level best to make an issue out of this. I am going to tell them this and I am saying it particularly for the benefit of my friend the hon. member for Calgary North who

spoke in this house this afternoon. He will find out what it means to kill or be killed. He killed himself in Alberta and when the next election rolls around he will find out exactly what I mean. The people of Alberta are going to question the position he has taken.


Thomas Miller Bell: What about you in Quebec?


An hon. Member:: Leave Quebec alone.


Solon Earl Low: Let me say that as I listened to the Leader of the Opposition last evening I could not help feeling that the hon. gentleman, much as I respect and admire him personally, was proceeding in his address on the assumption that if he made exaggerated and unfounded statements often enough and loud enough they would eventually become true. I should like it to be known that I like the hon. gentleman and I want him to know that. All throughout his speech he continued repeating time after time statements he could not back up, statements that are completely unfounded and which I think he should be called upon to prove or to keep quiet about.
Now, as far as the C.C.F. is concerned, let me say this. As I said, I think they have honestly put forward their view with respect to nationalization of the pipe line but let me hasten to add I do not think they have a moral right to base a filibuster upon the principle of nationalization and I will tell you why. The C.C.F. have been putting forward this argument and this principle for the last 20-odd years in Canada and in every election campaign nationalization has been one of their major platforms. Election after election the people of Canada have turned down the principle and the proposition overwhelmingly. Under the circumstances I do not attempt to deny them the right to put forward the principle of nationalization of the pipe line here but I do say that morally they do not have the right to base a filibuster on it in an attempt to kill this bill.
One thing which interests me about the C.C.F. argument is the fact that they have closed their eyes to a lot of realities. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who just finished speaking closed his eyes to realities when he said the government could go ahead this year and build a pipe line under government ownership. He knows better than that. The government could not possibly start a pipe line this year and I will tell you why. If the government of Canada were to enter into a nationalization program for the building of a pipe line today it would be up against the problem of getting a supply of gas and I am telling you they would have a very difficult time getting a supply of gas.


Alfred Claude Ellis: So that's it.
15, 1956	3931
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Stanley Howard Knowles: Aren't you a Canadian?


Solon Earl Low: I am a Canadian. I will tell you why the government would have a difficult time obtaining a supply of gas.


An hon. Member:: Talk to the Alberta government.


Solon Earl Low: It is not a question of the Alberta government at all. If we can keep the goon gang quiet for a moment I will continue. I want to tell you briefly why the proposition of nationalization of the pipe line is untenable. I heard mention here today of a similarity between the Ontario hydro and ' a nationalized pipe line. There is no similarity at all. The fact of the matter is that in the case of Ontario hydro you have a government enterprise that manufactures the service and the product it has to sell to the consumer. In the case of a pipe line, if the government were foolish enough to try it, the government would hot own the supply and it would have to make a deal with a dozen private enterprise producers in my province and other provinces in an effort to obtain a supply of gas.
Now, that is not all. If the government were ever foolish enough to attempt to go into the nationalization of a pipe line of this kind it would find itself confronted with the producers on the one hand. The producers are attempting to get a return on the risk capital they have put into the exploratory work to get gas. They want to have a fair return on that gas. All they ask is a fair return and I believe they are entitled to it just as the government of Saskatchewan has already acknowledged that private enterprise developing its oil and gas also wants a fair return. As I said, the government would be between that group and the great group of consumers in eastern Canada. Let us never forget that the producers in Alberta look upon the proposition this way.
The number of consumer voters in Canada would be 50, 60 or 100 times as numerous as the producer voters in this country. Whom are the government going to consider first in any case where it finds itself in a squeeze between the consumers and the producers? The producers of Alberta are quite certain that no government with any sense of reality would put itself between a group of consumers 50 times as numerous as the group of producers and have to make a decision as between the two groups with respect to price.
The producers in Alberta do not want to be in that position. I do not want them to be in that position and the government does not want them to be in that position. For that
3932	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation reason and for many other reasons which I could cite, the people who are producing gas in western Canada today do not want to be in the position of having to sell or of being ordered to sell gas to a nationalized pipe line. Not only that, but the government of Canada does not own any right of way. It would have to get a right of *way and to do so it would have to negotiate in exactly the same way as a private company. It would take a long time. The government would have to secure a licence to export gas out of the province of Alberta. The government would also have to get a lot of other things all of which would take time.
If we should take the principle of nationalization

and God forbid that we ever do

it would probably delay the realization of a pipe line and a market for Alberta gas for a good many years to come. There is urgency, -Mr. Chairman, in securing a market for Alberta gas. Let us see what that means. I wonder if the Conservatives who are playing fast and loose with other people's money today in this filibuster realize-[DOT]


Mr. McGregor:: Have you gone nuts?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Solon Earl Low: I wonder if they realize that the position they are taking actually means $50,000 a day to the people of Alberta in return for their gas. It does mean $50,000 a day. But that does not phase them a particle. Some of them will stand up and say, "Oh, well, it will not hurt to set this back one, two, three or four years". I want to tell hon. members of this house that there is a real urgency to get a market for Alberta gas and to get it at the earliest possible time.
Not only is it a question of dollars and cents to the actual producers of gas, and there are many hundreds of them in Alberta; it also means that there is waiting today in the province of Alberta a $100 million industrialization expansion program which depends upon the finding of that market for gas. Every day that this filibuster goes on that program is set back and made more difficult of realization. Any time industrialization takes place in the province of Alberta it helps not only the people there but the people of all Canada. We have to look at it in that way.
We have not been wholly satisfied that the government policy has been 100 per cent sound right from the beginning, but we decided at the beginning to go along with it because we felt it was in the interests of Canada to accept that policy and try to work for its realization.


An hon. Member:: How much money is Alberta putting in?


Solon Earl Low: You are forcing us to put in $50,000 a day which is now going up in smoke. Not only that, but there is something else that should be told to this house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Social Credit government held it up for three years.


Solon Earl Low: If you will just dry your tears, sister, I will answer you in a minute. There is a very important matter which I think hon. members should consider. The exploration in future years will be set back materially and perhaps for all time unless we do get busy soon and get a market for Alberta gas. We have something like 16 trillion cubic feet of reserves which we think will supply the needs of Alberta, the needs of the population of eastern Canada and the needs of the United States market if it is realized for some 25 or more years. But if a proper market is found for Alberta gas it is more than likely that further exploration will be stimulated which will result in the extension of those reserves at a rate of not less than one trillion cubic feet a year for the next ten years.
It is important that we get a market as soon as possible in order to realize something like the full potential of that tremendous gas field. We need to be put in a position to be able to export some of our surplus to our neighbour to the south in order to balance up our unfavourable balance of payments which in the current year amounted to one billion and thirty million dollars. That is one argument which we need time to develop and I do not intend to do it tonight. I shall have further comments on another stage of the bill.
Before I close, may I just answer the hon. member for Calgary North. He mentioned the fact that Alberta had been responsible in the initial stages for the delay. I deny that most emphatically. May I tell him that the only delay that ever occurred in the province of Alberta with respect to the export of gas was in those days more than 5i years ago when the province was determining by careful exploration the extent of their reserves. When they knew the extent of those reserves Mr. Manning and his government came out and announced the government's policy and it was followed immediately by an announcement by this government. The hon. member for Calgary North does not know what he is talking about and he will find that out when he gets back home.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, faced with
one of the most important measures ever to come before this house, the Canadian House of Commons has been gagged and fettered in this debate by a despotic government. This

is indeed a black day in Canadian parliamentary history. The government has inflicted lasting humiliation upon parliament.
The moving of closure has been resorted to only half a dozen times since confederation, the last time being 24 years ago on April 1, 1932. At that time a Liberal statesman, the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King, applied these adjectives to closure, which will be found at page 1611 of Hansard of that date:
. . . the most coercive and arbitrary act of which a government is capable . . .
I wonder if the present Prime Minister has forgotten those words. It must be remembered that when closure was applied in 1932 it was after days and days of debate; it came only at the final stage; it came only after the house had gone through various stages of a money bill, in committee, first reading, second reading and then finally in committee on the later sections of the bill. It was only then that closure was applied after weeks of debate.
But here this despotic government announces closure in the opening speech by the minister introducing the resolution in committee. This is a money bill. The amount of money involved in the present bill is $130 million, and the bill before the Canadian parliament in 1932 involved $140 million. Yet the debate on that occasion ran to the final stages. Listen to these words of Mackenzie King:
I submit that the discussion of a matter of such colossal proportions and so all-important to the taxpayers of this country should not be restricted under closure within a day and a half of the time it has been entered upon.
He was speaking only of the final stage.
Action so extreme in character has never been taken by any British government in regard to public taxation. The action of the present administration reduces parliament in its most essential functions to mere futility and complete farce.
What would he have said if the government of that day had imposed closure in the opening speech of the minister introducing the resolution instead of weeks after that stage? We have seen today a gagging and fettering of parliament by the government, aided and abetted by every Liberal member of this house and now supported by the Social Credit. Every Liberal in this house has toed the party line today and this synthetic enthusiasm we have seen on the Liberal benches remains completely unconvincing.
The hon. member for Peace River has made reference to a filibuster. This debate started yesterday and closure was announced before the debate was even begun. Yet we hear talk of a filibuster. Did you ever hear
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation such rubbish as we heard from the member for Peace River tonight? Yesterday that same member was busy disowning the announced alliance in the province of Quebec between the Liberal party and the Social Credit l'union des electeurs. Now we find the same Social Credit leader, not only carrying his followers into the Liberal camp but actually engaging in a warm embrace. Politics indeed makes strange bedfellows. This is an extraordinary alliance between the Liberals and the Social Credit.
In the kind of mentality exhibited by those who have forced closure upon this house today we see an attempt to create a situation in parliament where there is no place for an opposition. They do not want an opposition. Yet I would remind you that the function of an opposition is of the very essence of our parliamentary institution. The minority in the house does not speak by leave of the majority. If that were the case it would be the end of the freedom of speech. No, the minority in a free parliament speaks as of right. What has been done today has been to deprive the minority in this house of their right. When you tamper with that right you are jeopardizing the institutions that have proven themselves the bastions of democratic freedom, and destroying the rights of the minority in the house. This is but a lighthearted assassination of free institutions, and it is perpetrated now by those who call themselves Liberals.
This stratagem was not given birth in any democratic mentality. It is the evil spawn of a fascist mentality. But assassinations always must be performed quickly. It was Macbeth who, on the eve of one assassination, said:
If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly.
That is the mentality of this government. Having decided to perpetrate this assassination of free institutions, they decided that if it were done when it is done, then it were well it were done quickly. That is what their intention is now.
Is time of the essence? Well, they have let five years run by and, if their memories are so short, let me remind them that this house met on January 10 in this session, over four months ago. Even in his first speech of the session, the Leader of the Opposition called for the reference of this subject to a committee, in order that the facts might be laid before the parliament and before the public. This is a deliberate action now. No Cromwell could more swiftly and devastatingly have showed his complete antipathy to parliamentary institutions than the Prime Minister and his government have done here yesterday and today.
3934	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
We hear a great deal about the function of the committee on money bills. It is one of our parliamentary safeguards in relation to one of the most important functions of parliament, to protect the public against oppressive taxation. Yet what do we see here? The house is not given an opportunity to obtain information. This whole proceeding of the resolution before a money bill has been made a farce by this government. Here is a major project, one of the most important ever to come before parliament, involving the expenditure of millions of dollars, and parliament is not to be permitted to pursue its duty to seek information upon it. Information is not what the government wants parliament or the people to have.
If there were a committee, as there should have been, witnesses could have been called before it, papers could have been called for. But the government will not face a committee. They fear to face the revelation of the facts that will be exposed in a committee and they do not want to discuss it according to parliamentary processes. They do not want to produce letters, correspondence and memoranda. The time factor in this debate is entirely of the government's own creation.
We come now to shameful paradox No. 1. The more far-reaching the issue, the less debate is to be permitted by the government upon it. The more important the measure, the less parliament is to be permitted to know about it.
What of this project? Here we are engaged on a measure in relation to the vital subject of development of resources in Canada, the construction of a pipe line across half of this great country from Alberta to the markets in the east and particularly the market in Ontario, by this Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company, over 83 per cent of whose stock is owned by Americans and will remain under United States ownership, make no mistake about that. As. regards this fictitious argument that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has trotted out twice already, that under clause 6 of the agreement there is to be an offering of stock in Canada, I do not think any child is going to be misled by that kind of eyewash. In a public offering in Canada, Americans will have full opportunity to come in and order what stock they want through Canadian brokers.
This company entered into two solemn undertakings at the outset: first, that they could finance this project without government assistance and, second, that they could finance it without gaining the right to export gas to the United States. They have not fulfilled their obligations. They are in default.


This is a continuing default. In the face of this the government has simply temporized. They have dilly-dallied, they have entered into undercover deals, secret negotiations, and the secrecy was carried further by their denials of the existence of correspondence when correspondence was already in existence in their files.
What does this government's proposal amount to? It proposes to use public funds drawn from Canadians in all parts of Canada from British Columbia to the maritimes, and it is going to use that money first of all in constructing at public expense that portion of the line in northern Ontario. Even that portion of the line which should be easiest to build-on the prairies-they are going to use the money of the people of all Canada to build. If this company has any hope of honouring the undertakings into which it entered at the outset, surely it could have financed the construction across the prairies, but the government is coming to its rescue, and the company set up to construct a line through northern Ontario is to be denuded of its capital by this measure in order to finance the construction across the prairies. It is a wild venture on that basis. If the company cannot even finance the construction across the prairies, then I am afraid it is useless for any hon. member to expect this company to be able to finance the repayment of $80 million by April 2 next. It is a wild venture as it stands right now. The house is invited to take a wild leap before looking. There is no assurance of the financing by the company. It would not only be irresponsible on the part of the house, it would be utter madness to take this wild jump. The company is years in default. Has that not registered on hon. members opposite?
So we come to shameful paradox No. 2. The bigger the scale of default, the more aid this government gives. The longer the delay and the longer the continued default on the part of this company, the more benevolence this government is prepared to extend to it at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. We do not believe in policies of that kind, and we shall fight them. This policy on resources, indeed, is in its essence a proposal to put the money of the Canadian taxpayer at the service of United States investors, and I for one do not think that is the right or duty of any member of this Canadian parliament.
There are alternatives. In view of that company's default, why is not the door opened wide to allow others to come in who may be prepared to finance it? There was Mr. McMahon. It would be interesting to know, -and we could find out in a parliamentary committee-just why he was scared off at

some stage. There is the Gairdner proposal. That ought to be given very serious consideration. There may be others available if the government would stop making a political football of this.
We well know the way in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has for a long time now wielded his big stick over business, terrorizing business. If you wonder why more offers have not been forthcoming, you will find the reason in the big stick of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
They have money aplenty to hand over to the assistance of United States investors but they have not money for Canadian municipalities. They have not what is needed to help Canadian municipalities-[DOT]


An hon. Member:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -in the matter of housing and other essential services. Interest rates are going up, and many municipalities are going to find it infinitely more difficult than in the past to finance their essential services. Yet the government can find ample money to assist these United States investors. They are not Canadian philanthropists.
Who is the author of this infamous proposal? I say to you it is the same minister with the same mentality who sought a year ago an extension of absolute power at the hands of the house; who remains unrepentant over his own lust for power; who is indifferent to the fact that we are buying from the United States nearly $1 billion worth of goods every year more than we sell to that country; who will not lift a finger in the face of the growing concentration of Canadian trade in the American basket, who views with equanimity and indifference the growing United States economic influence over Canada, who demands of his followers that they toe the party line, who is up to his ears in unsold wheat, who has made such a monstrous botch of the marketing of wheat and now would make a botch of the marketing of natural gas in Canada, who wants to play fast and loose with a great national heritage, who will not have a committee because he does not think it is good for members of parliament, including his own followers, to know very much about the facts because they are only troublesome and unnecessary people, to whom communications are not communications and whose statements indicate, as I do not need to remind hon. members who have sat in the house this session, let alone memory going farther back, that he does not know so often what he is talking about.
So, sir, we see events reaching their inevitable climax. Here is the toeing of the party line. It is this same minister who said, "If we
3935
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation wanted to get away with it, who would stop us?" Now we will see the full fruits of that kind of attitude, that kind of mentality, on the part of a despotic minister.
But it is not only the Minister of Trade and Commerce, for others share the responsibility with him and principally the Prime Minister who sits silent in this house in the face of a major issue, who voted for closure today, who has retired in all but name, who is not doing his duty in this house in sitting silent and allowing measures like this to be perpetrated upon the Canadian parliament, who is' hiding behind a reckless Minister of Trade and Commerce. Behold the wantonness of power!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of Trade and Commerce concluded his words on May 8 with this sentence:
The action proposed today is another declaration of independence by Canada . . .
That is an interesting expression. There never was a declaration of independence in the history of Canada, but there was a declaration of independence in the history of the United States. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is confused, you see, as to what country he is supposed to be serving. What the Minister of Trade and Commerce really meant to say was: "The action proposed today is another American declaration of independence with Canadian assistance."
So I say to you, sir, in conclusion-would that I had more time!-that it is the duty of free men in a free Canadian parliament to assert Canada's independence of United States economic domination. That right was won for Canada by Sir John A. Macdonald in the construction of the C.P.R. as a Canadian enterprise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was won for Canada in the national policy of 1878. It was preserved by Sir Robert Borden in 1911, and if there is any-


An hon. Member:: What about 1930?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -respect for freedom in this country, Mr. Chairman, that right of Canada to preserve her economic independence will be maintained and assured to her not by the worn-out government opposite that has forgotten all sense of responsibility, but by those who value and understand the meaning of freedom and are prepared to struggle in this House of Commons to preserve freedom and to resist every arbitrary measure
3936	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation inflicted upon it by a despotic government headed by a Prime Minister who is not doing his duty.


Mr. Prudham:: Mr. Chairman, tor a few quieter moments I propose to place some facts on the record about this project, the greatest national project that has come before parliament in our generation. I should like to review the development of the gas industry in Alberta. In 1901 gas was discovered at Medicine Hat. In 1912 the first pipe line was built from Bow Island to Calgary. It was a 16-inch line and about 170 miles long. At that time it was an outstanding feature of pipe line construction on this continent. It was later extended to the Foremost and Turner Valley fields.
The second major pipe line in Alberta was from the Viking-Kinsella field to Edmonton, which was later extended to other nearby communities. The first major era of gas production in Alberta came with the discovery of the Turney Valley field. Turner Valley gas is wet gas. In other words, it contains a large amount of by-products in addition to the methane or dry fuel gas.
The flares of gas which burned in Turner Valley for 30 years are a black mark in the history of conservation and use of our resources. From the discovery of Turner Valley in 1924 until 1952 more than a trillion cubic feet of gas from that field was burned to waste with nearly all the by-products also lost. This represents a loss in equivalent heat value of 40 million tons of good grade coal.
The discovery of oil and gas in Alberta was no accident. The exploration which eventually led to the discoveries was based on painstaking and careful study by the geologists of the geological survey of Canada as well as by private companies and to some extent provincial governments.
The knowledge of the geology of the western provinces was built up over a period of 50 years by the geological survey of Canada. Their maps and reports have always indicated that western Canada was a very promising area for production of oil and gas. In 1947, following the discovery of Leduc, the men of the geological survey of Canada became very concerned lest the history of the waste at Turner valley be repeated. Dr. Hume, director-general of scientific services of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, in an article published in the magazine, Western Business, for November, 1947, discussed the prospects and had this to say:
It would seem highly improbable that a gas pipe line southeastwards from the Peace river area to Edmonton would be feasible in view of the gas supplies already available there and at


Athabaska. On the other hand, an outlet to Vancouver has many desirable features, such as a large market and the obvious advantage from the national standpoint of greatly assisting the development of the whole Peace river country. Such a plan would also have the further advantage of leaving the gas from central and southern Alberta available for other enterprises and if the reserve was found to be adequate it might be piped even as far as the industrial part of Ontario, supplying various prairie cities, including Winnipeg, en route.
The pattern of pipe line development that he suggested at that time is now being followed. In 1948, before I had the honour to come to this parliament, the Minister of Trade and Commerce asked the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to make a survey of gas reserves in western Canada. That survey was undertaken by Dr. Hume and Mr. Ignatieff and their estimate of gas reserves in 1948, in Alberta and Saskatchewan alone, exceeded 3 trillion cubic feet. At that time there were no proven reserves in British Columbia, although discoveries had been made in the Alberta part of the Peace river district. Their report indicated, however, that the prospects in British Columbia were excellent. Many thought at that time that their report was overoptimistic but subsequent developments have proven that it was very modest indeed.
In November, 1953, the conservation board of the province of Alberta stated that reserves in Alberta as of June 30, 1953, were 11 i trillion cubic feet. I believe that the hon. member for Peace River said this evening that they are now 16 trillion cubic feet. The Alberta government then stated that there was an excess for export over Alberta's needs. The Alberta conservation board placed Albbrta's needs for the next 30 years at 4-45 trillion cubic feet. Up until November, 1953, the dominion government had no gas with which to deal. There has been a great deal of loose talk about the five-year delay by this government. The hon. member for Bow River this afternoon charged that this government was guilty of delaying this project. I repeat again that this government had no gas with which to deal until Alberta declared a surplus late in the year 1953. That was less than two and a half years ago. In anticipation of surplus gas from Alberta the policy of this government was clearly stated on March 13, 1953 as recorded at page 2929 of Hansard of that year by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I quote in part his words:
Therefore the policy of the government of Canada is to refuse permits for moving natural gas by pipe line across an international boundary until such time as we are convinced that there can be no economic use, present or future, for that natural gas within Canada.

This government has never deviated from that policy. In 1951, shortly after I became Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, an American company known as the Murchison group came to Ottawa to consult with the geologists of our department about the gas reserves in the western provinces and indicated their interest in building an allCanadian gas pipe line. The information of our department was made available to them and it was suggested that, in order to speed up the establishment of reserves, they should enter into the exploration field in Alberta. They subsequently incorporated a company known as Canadian Delhi Oils Limited, which company became actively engaged in the exploration for gas in Alberta and with considerable success. I am somewhat at a loss to know why the hon. member for Calgary South this afternoon ridiculed that company. I know that in any approach they made to our department they never suggested anything but building an all-Canadian pipe line and they said it was entirely feasible.
On February 26, 1951, that particular group applied to the House of Commons for a charter. The bill was a private bill No. 75 introduced by the hon. member for Vegre-ville. It was a bill to incorporate Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. During that debate and subsequent ones an all-Canadian route won general support from members of all parties in this house. About that time another company was incorporated known as Western Pipe Lines Limited, whose stated objective was to export gas to the United States. This company was not interested in the central Canadian market.
On January 12, 1954, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a statement which I shall quote in part. It is recorded at pages 1017 and 1018 of Hansard: ... it has been anticipated for some time that Alberta would have a surplus of natural gas which could be made available to the eastern part of Canada. Three or four weeks ago Mr. Manning, accompanied by two members of his conservation board, called on the Prime Minister to say that the board had found that there is in fact an exportable surplus at present of three and a half trillion cubic feet of gas. It is anticipated by Mr. Manning that the surplus will grow at the rate of -75 trillion cubic feet per annum for the next five or ten years . . . Mr. Manning stated he had received two applications for export of the gas from the province and that the board feels that at the present time neither application satisfies its requirements. Mr. Manning suggested to this government that if the two applications could be combined into a single project the government of Alberta would be prepared to grant an export licence to the single applicant.


Mr. Regier:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is it within the rules of the house
3937
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation for a minister who is not responsible for the resolution to be reading his speech?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think perhaps 1 might just answer that question by pointing out that even a minister is a member of the House of Commons and is treated in the same way as is any other member. The same point was raised earlier.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I have been quoting from Hansard. To repeat the last sentence of that quotation from Hansard:
Mr. Manning suggested to this government that if the two applications could be combined into a single project the government of Alberta would be prepared to grant an export licence to the single applicant.
This initiated the merger of the two companies I have mentioned.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of talk about a so-called "chosen instrument", and to the effect that the Trans-Canada company is the chosen instrument of this government. I should just like to say that the record proves that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, as it has existed since that amalgamation, is the chosen instrument of the Alberta government. It holds the only permit from the province to export gas from southern Alberta and that right to export surplus gas from southern Alberta is exclusive.
The reserves in western Canada have been increasing at the rate of two to three trillion cubic feet of gas per year. The hon. member for Calgary South places the figure at four trillion cubic feet. Hon. members might be interested to know that the total production of gas in Alberta, including wastage, since 1901 amounts to 2-J trillion cubic feet. Of this amount about half has been wasted. Only about half of that gas, since it was first discovered, has been used. Since the discovery of oil and gas in the Leduc field in 1947, the amount of gas burned to waste in the production of oil has amounted to 158: billion cubic feet. In order to indicate at what an alarming rate this wastage is increasing, may I point out that in 1953 this wastage was over 17 billion cubic feet and that in 1955, just two years later, it was over 37 billion cubic feet. That is an increase of 20 billion cubic feet in two years. These figures indicate how important it is to find a market for this gas in order to prevent this wastage.
An immediate market for surplus Alberta gas is extremely urgent, first, to prevent wastage; secondly, to release the large amounts of capital which are at present tied up in unproductive wells; and thirdly, as an incentive to exploration.
3938	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
The government of the province of Ontario says that new sources of energy are urgently needed to supplement hydro power. With the development that is taking place in this country, partly at least due to the good government we have here in Ottawa,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: No comedy, please.


George Prudham: [DOT]-it is my opinion that this gas will be needed to supplement existing sources of energy rather than to replace them. It is expected that when western natural gas is first introduced into Ontario and Quebec, there will be some slight dislocation of the coal industry by the replacement of coal with natural gas. However, in Ontario the coal that is used is largely imported from the United States. The growth of requirements for energy in Ontario is such that, after the initial adjustment, the gas that the Trans-Canada line will provide will be needed to supplement rather than to replace existing sources of energy.
During the last few days I had the honour of travelling through northern Ontario with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I had a chance at first hand to see the great storehouse of resources in that part of the country. No member from northern Ontario need apologize for the extra cost of building the line through that area. In that part of the country we have one of the greatest storehouses of mineral resources in the world. Natural gas will provide the key for unlocking those great resources.
Incidentally, the amount of gas that Alberta has dedicated to the project is 4-3 trillion cubic feet, which is equivalent to 174 million tons of coal. The delivery rate in the early years of the line is estimated at 300 million cubic feet of gas per day. And that is the equivalent of about 4 million tons of coal per year.
Mr. Chairman, the points with which I have dealt emphasize the need for an early start on the construction of the trans-Canada line. The proposal now before the committee provides the only possibility of getting the line under way this year. This project must be under way during the month of June in order to complete the construction of the first section this year. The company, by accepting the proposal, agreed to make an immediate start and to finance the balance of the line by March 31 of next year or failing that to forfeit its right to build the line as well as a substantial equity. If it does not perform within the time specified, this government is committed to seeing that the line is completed
IMr. Prudham.]

by other means. In the interests of conservation, in the interests of the orderly development of our resources and as the minister representing Alberta in this cabinet, I say let us get on with the job.


Mr. Churchill:: We have witnessed in the House of Commons one of the strangest acts ever performed by a government of Canada, the imposition of closure at the virtual commencement of a debate. Yesterday in his introductory speech, the Minister of Trade and Commerce set out the arguments for the resolution now before us and gave notice of his intention to move closure. Today, he imposed it. In effect, closure was threatened and imposed before the subject matter before the house had been considered.
Now, closure was never intended to be used in this way and has never been used in this way before. In its origin in the 1880's, in Gladstone's time, it was introduced into the British House of Commons to prevent the wilful obstruction of the business of parliament by a small, irresponsible minority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was not designed in the British House of Commons to restrict the official opposition. When closure became part of the rules of the Canadian House of Commons in 1912, Sir Wilfrid Laurier raised the most strenuous objection. He gave four examples of the obstruction of the business of government in the period from confederation to his day. He suggested that in the interests of free speech and the liberties of parliament it was better to endure periods of obstruction than to impose a rule as severe as closure. He said that a government, faced with obstruction, would do better to dissolve and settle the problem by an appeal to the people.
On the other hand, the Queen's government must be carried on and occasions have arisen infrequently in the history of our parliament when the government of the day has imposed closure in order to force through the house some business which it considered of vital importance. But those instances of closure occurred only after extended debate and not, as on this occasion, before the debate had commenced. This is indeed a serious misuse of a very powerful weapon. Only a government drunk with power would stoop to the immediate use of closure in order to prevent discussion in this house. It is doubly serious to curtail debate on an issue such as the one before us which is so complex, so ill-devised and so improvident. If ever a measure before the House of Commons required complete and careful consideration and examination, it is

this one that provides millions of dollars as a handout to foreign capitalists.
The minister responsible for this is the very one who, during his career, has been ignorant of parliamentary history, impatient with parliamentary procedures and disdainful of the customs and usages of the House of Commons. He is the one who last year attempted to usurp full power and was checked by a vigilant opposition. This year he is determined to have his way and to use the forms of parliament in order to destroy the substance of our liberty. This is a black day in the history of the Canadian nation. All of this is being done on the plea of urgency, which is a specious plea.
We have been told that the pipe line must be started by July 1 if it is to be built this year, and that Trans-Canada company must have the handout of taxpayers' millions by June 7. After five years of bungling delays everything has to be decided by parliament in twice five days. This is coercion. The argument of urgency to pass this legislation is misleading. The pipe line could be started this week if the company had any initiative and was prepared to substitute deeds for words. There is no need for such an arrangement as an agreement that this legislation must be passed by June 7 before the company will undertake its part of the contract. It is misleading to suggest that if this legislation is not forced through the house by June 7 the company cannot proceed.
Apparently the company requires a loan of about $80 million. The work will take an estimated four months, and that is an average of about $20 million per month. In all likelihood the first month would be used in preliminary activities for which perhaps much less than $20 million would be required. The precious pipe, cornered by the Tennessee gas company, is worth $30 million. It cannot be put into the ground all at once. The option to purchase it runs until well into the fall and payment is required only on delivery. The company is reported to have $8 million in cash on hand. There is nothing to prevent the company from starting immediately. Certainly, it is right to press on with the construction of the gas pipe line this year, but to do that it is not necessary to mislead parliament or the people of Canada. It is not necessary to confuse the issue or to bypass normal parliamentary methods.
Why such a sudden concern on the part of this government for the people of Manitoba? Where was the concern last year or at any time within the last five years? They are now concerned that gas shall be provided for Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and they are anxious that Winnipeg shall have it this year.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation So are all of us who live in Manitoba, but Manitoba has been sold down the river by this government. In 1951 a charter was granted to a Canadian company to build a gas pipe line to Winnipeg. Had the Minister of Trade and Commerce not interfered, Alberta gas would have been delivered to Manitoba three years ago,


An hon. Member:: Have they an export permit?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Manitoba now has had to-wait and apparently it will have to continue-to wait. In addition to that it must pay a subsidy through taxation to get gas and to bail out the Minister of Trade and Commerce and assist his American friends. The urgency is not so much the desire of this government to get the Alberta gas to market nor is it a matter of getting gas to Manitoba this year. The real urgency has been summed up extremely well by Blair Fraser in an article published in a recent issue of Maclean's magazine, and I give you his words:
They are determined that they will not enter an election campaign next year still carrying an inactive American-owned pipe-line company on the back of their necks.
The American masters of the Minister of Trade and Commerce do not understand our parliamentary system and the minister cannot explain it to them because he does not understand it himself. They do not trust him-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We do.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -hence the agreement that the commencement of the work depends upon the passing of this legislation and hence this muzzling of parliament. Some of the minister's American masters perhaps may think Canada is still being ruled by Great Britain-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, on a question of personal privilege, I have no American masters and I suggest the hon. gentleman withdraw.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will withdraw that and substitute masterful American friends.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, once a louse
always a louse.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You ought to know.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is time they learned the facts of life. Perhaps they think that the House of Commons is like their House of Representatives or that our Senate is as powerful as theirs. Some of them may think the proposals of our government run the danger of being rejected by parliament. Perhaps they think that somewhere in the background is the power of veto.
3940	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
What they should be told is that once our government has made up its mind to lend money to the oil barons of Texas and has cracked the whip over the Liberal caucus all that remains is to debate the issue in the House of Commons, that that debate may run for several days or weeks but can be choked off by closure and therefore once government policy has been announced and legislation introduced into the house the green light has been given t'o the pipe line project and the money will be forthcoming in due course. The Trans-Canada pipe line company will get its handout of $80 million from this government, for this government is not only all powerful but is fully determined to pursue this wretched course of paying tribute to Texas oil barons, and nobody can keep them from their folly. All the opposition can do, to use the very apt phrase of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, is to expose them, and because of fear of exposure the government has clamped on closure.
The issue confronting us may be summed up in one sentence: Because the Tennessee Gas Company has cornered the market in 34-inch pipe, the Canadian people must now be taxed to pay tribute to Texas oil barons and the House of Commons is being muzzled by an arrogant oligarchy.
American influence on Canadian life has permeated right into our House of Commons. If it were not for this unwise, unnecessary and improvident arrangement to pass legislation by June 7 our parliamentary customs and usages would not now be in jeopardy.
Let us see what has happened to our customs and our usages. Not only has closure been applied at an unprecedentedly early stage in our proceedings, but yesterday the Minister of Finance, relying on the government majority, abrogated the customary procedure of questions before the orders of the day. The question period is one of the most valuable privileges of the House of Commons. Had it not been for the question period during the last several weeks we would have known even less about the pipe line problem than does the Prime Minister. We are witnessing here a continuation of the serious undermining of the power of parliament. The system is but imperfectly understood. People are under the impression that the opposition can prevent the government from carrying out its policy. The government, preying on those misunderstandings, uses its present methods to stifle debate and committee investigation and prevents full disclosure of the facts. The government pretends that closure is necessary this week. It is a thoroughly bad precedent that is being set and I hope it will not be forgotten. That is the seriousness


of the situation as I see it; this erosion of the institution which is the centre of our democracy.
In the book entitled "Parliament" by Professor W. Ivor Jennings which is a standard work on the British parliamentary system and which every hon. member of parliament should study-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Especially the government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -he sums up the function of the opposition in parliament. He points out very clearly that the power of the opposition itself rests only on sufferance. There is nothing whatever in the constitutional machinery that prevents the opposition from being suppressed. The government, being as powerful as it is, could wipe out the opposition if it so desired. The opposition cannot out-vote the majority; it can only defy it and appeal to the people.


An hon. Member:: And expose it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What are the checks' and balances in this system to offset an allpowerful government? There are three main checks; the freedom of election, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of organization. If you can have free elections and if you may assemble freely, and if you have the freedom to organize, you can effectively check a government which tends to be all powerful. The checks and balances are mutually interdependent; one alone cannot be overthrown. As long as they remain it is the function of the opposition not only to see that they operate but also to prevent gradual and insidious encroachments. We have witnessed here today a gradual and insidious encroachment, unprecedented and completely unnecessary.
We should have been permitted the right to conduct our examination of this resolution as we do all other resolutions in this house. We should be permitted on second reading to conduct a full debate when we reach that stage. When we reach the stage of committee of the whole house after second reading we should be permitted to fully examine the bill then before us, item by item, and receive answers to questions. We should have the chance at that stage to raise amendments and perhaps succeed in having the government agree to some of our proposals. Similarly we should have the chance on third reading to conduct a full debate. What faces us now? Closure; no debate; restricted debate.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing now?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are restricted to 20
minutes and the subject matter is worth a two-hour discourse.


Walter Edward Harris: You are doing very well.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are restricted to 20
minutes on an issue like this that touches upon our rights and privileges in a free country. We are restricted to 20 minutes and even those 20 minutes are restricted by unnecessary interruptions-


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Irrelevancies.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -such as the one by the hon. member for Ottawa West. Let him get up and talk on this subject. Why is he not a defender of the liberties of the people?
Our parliamentary system has grown up over the centuries. The British people have gone through all forms and known types of government and have decided upon the parliamentary system as being best suited to their needs. We settle matters by debate, by majority rule; we settle matters by using the ballot, not the bullet. In the development of our parliamentary system the majority has learned not to ride roughshod over the minority.
Some hon. member said tonight that he was glad that the government had now determined to rule the opposition, or rule parliament, or something like that. Parliament is the union of forces; the government on the one side and the opposition on the other. There is give and take in the procedure. Under normal conditions the government would change and those on this side would change places with those on the other side. We have had 20 years of what has become almost one-party government and the people are forgetting the basis upon which our parliamentary system was founded.
It is unfortunate that we have reached the stage where parliament cannot be conducted as it was in the days of Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mackenzie King, Sir Robert Borden and Mr. Bennett.


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


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, it is almost presumption on my part to take part in this debate after the big guns we have heard have spoken. I should like to hear some member of the opposition, and I expect it would be the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, stand up and speak without calling the government or cabinet ministers by certain names which are undignified.
I had been on the committee of railways, canals and telegraph lines since the beginning and I cannot forget those first meetings. I see again the right hon. minister standing up and making his statement and saying, "We want an all-Canadian pipe line." He
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation wants to get it. He told us then that that was a government policy. It is government policy yet.
As I listen to the opposition I see that the official opposition and the C.C.F. are agreed on two things. They are agreed that we should have an all-Canadian pipe line. They are agreed also that the government is not doing it the right way. If the government did it according to the official opposition the C.C.F. would be up two, three or four at a time. If the government did it the way the C.C.F. want it the opposition would be telling them off. Perhaps they would be right in doing so.
I agree with the hon. member for Peace River when he says that the opposition have brought this closure on themselves because of their attitude. In the last two days we have had seven obstruction votes. An hon. member sitting on this side of the house cannot help but wonder why an hon. member would call another vote when he knew perfectly well how it would turn out.
Some years ago the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce was called a dictator, but I think that name would be more honourable to him than would LL.D. He was blamed for selling out to the United States when it was announced in some papers that Canadair had been sold. He was accused of selling out to the United States. But he said that a United States company had only got an option and that if there was anyone in Canada who wanted to buy Canadair they could do it. Those who called him a dictator then were no more right than are those who call him that today.
The reason we have this pipe line is because the people want it. I can remember when the right hon. minister was called home from Ottawa to Port Arthur and Fort William. The two city councils and a delegation including the mayors and representatives of nearly every municipality around met with him. It was just after the minister had got the two companies to co-operate. I asked the delegation why they were asking the minister for this thing and the whole chorus was, "We want it." They did not have anything to offer in the way of cash, but they wanted it and they still want it.
Then I asked the minister if when these two companies had come together the last hurdle had been cleared but the minister just shook his head. He knew far better than I did. I remember in the early debates in committee there was one hon. member who impressed me very much. He knew far more about oil and gas than I did. I refer to the hon. member for Calgary South. I congratulate him upon his courage. No doubt he
3942	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation told his caucus what he was going to do. That seemed to be quite evident today. He had the courage to stand up and support the dictator.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Well named.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I congratulate the right hon. minister upon his outline of the plan when he stood up. I do not need to repeat anything because I think it would be difficult for anyone to stand up now and say anything new. I congratulate the minister upon being clear and clean of Mr. McMahon. If I were forced to do so I could give my personal reasons for saying that, but they are not money reasons.
Another thing that I got up to say tonight is that a while ago we heard the opposition criticizing the government for not having work for the unemployed. Now this plan will give employment for 600. There is a good deal of unemployment in Vancouver and in Toronto and other places. Surely that is a good argument for going ahead with this plan.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think the Minister of Labour would be able to contradict that.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I think the Minister of Labour, when he speaks, will speak honestly and tell me very decidedly what he knows. But it will take about 600 men who will be employed in the work of this pipe laying. I shall repeat the report that I have that there are a good many unemployed in Vancouver and in Toronto. Why not get those men employed, instead of keeping them on relief? The minister who spoke said that northern Ontario will need gas. He knows and I know that northern Ontario is going ahead, and it will certainly need gas. I congratulate the minister on having the backbone to stand by his policy of putting this national gas line all across Canada. I just wish him good success and sweet sleep at night.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss some aspects of this Colombo plan for Texas tycoons. The first thing I should like to know is, what is the government afraid of? Why does it have to shut off the debate? What is it trying to hide?


An hon. Member:: Nothing.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: If you are
not hiding anything, why are you afraid to send this to a committee of the house where the whole matter could be investigated? What sort of skullduggery is there that you are afraid to discuss? That is an interesting question, and I should like to ask the Prime Minister, "Why not, if there is nothing to hide,


present this legislation to a committee of the house for investigation?" There is no answer, naturally. I challenge him to do it. There is still no answer, because the real Prime Minister, as a matter of fact, has left the house.


John Horace Dickey: You do not like action.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I have heard the ministerial assistant pop up like a gopher time after time. It is possible that his interruptions may have been intelligent, but it is doubtful. If he is under the illusion that he is a wit, I can assure him he is only 50 per cent correct. As I was saying before I was interrupted, I do not like venality but I can understand it. I might even have some appreciation for venality on a massive scale but what I cannot appreciate is stupidity, and this legislation which is going to come before us and which is forecast in this resolution is unmitigated, undiluted and unadulterated stupidity.
Of course, this legislation is also the love child of the minister, spawned in the most dubious areas, spawned in an area of fiction and fantasy, in a dream world or, to put it in Anglo Saxon, an area of lies. I rather think that, if Baron Munchausen were to come to earth, (a) the minister would clasp him to his bosom and (b) he would make him deputy minister in charge of pipe lines, because this whole story has been marked clearly by lie after lie. I intend to put some of them on the record right now. This is from the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines which sat in 1951. As recorded on page 8 of the proceedings, Mr. Tolmie, counsel for these pipe lines, said:
The project, Mr. Chairman, as all members probably know by now, is to build a gas pipe line from Alberta east as far as Montreal, and with the possibility and the hope that it can be extended further east from Montreal at a later stage when the capacity is fully utilized.
You will note that it is an all-Canadian pipe line, with no suggestion of exports to the United States. Then let us take the evidence of Mr. Frank Schultz, the vice-president of Canadian Delhi Oil Limited, on page 11:
You may be interested to know about the marketing situation. We are satisfied at this stage that adequate markets exist in the eastern part of Canada to consume all the gas that we can produce and move through this line.
There is no question of a line to the south. It is an all-Canadian project. On page 15 the same man again said:
Our only interest is bringing Alberta gas to the eastern part of Canada.
They were not interested in making money; they were not interested in having a pipe line to the United States. They just wanted to

serve eastern Canada. Mr. Shattuck, who represents a firm of marketing engineers, had the temerity to present certain financial statements to the board of transport commissioners and, I suspect, to the government. When I see an engineer getting mixed up with financial statements, then God help us all. As recorded on page 23 of the same minutes of evidence, Mr. Shattuck had this to say:
Our work has gone tar enough so that we are assured that, at any rate, the market would absorb one hundred billion cubic feet of gas a year at prices that will service the pipe" line, pay the operating costs, and service the debts necessary to finance construction.
On the basis of these lies, the committee gave approval to that legislation. But then there was the time when the company had to appear before the board of transport commissioners. In June 1954 we had the chief commissioner asking a witness certain questions. The witness was a man named Mr. Tanner, who was at one time a cabinet minister in the social credit government of Alberta and then went to his reward with the oil companies. Mr. Tanner is so convinced of the financial strength of this company and the future of this company that, of the millions of shares, he has subscribed for two of them. Mr. Tanner was asked by the chief commissioner of the board of transport commissioners if construction would begin by June 1, 1955. Mr. Tanner said:
Yes, we feel rather confident of that.
He had no doubt. He was quite confident. Then, on page 3525 of the evidence, Mr. Tanner said:
We will start construction early in 1955. We shall be in a position to deliver gas to Winnipeg by November 1955. Pipe laying east from Winnipeg will be taken care of in 1956.
There were no ifs, ands and buts. It was a certainty. This was going to be done. The company deceived the board of transport commissioners and they kept on deceiving them with other statements. For instance, Mr. Tanner said:
We Can undertake the building of the line in the spring of 1956, completing it during that same year.
Again there was no doubt. But what was perhaps the deciding factor with the board of transport commissioners was one of the minister's boys who was sent there to make a statement before the board of transport commissioners, and I hold the minister responsible for he cannot pass the buck to him for it. This civil servant said:
An export outlet such as Minneapolis may mean reduction in laid down price in eastern Canada.
When this emissary of the minister was making that statement, by then the company
15, 1956	3943
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation had already filed certain statements of its own. The company said that the price in Manitoba in 1955-56 would be 36-7 cents to the company which was going to deliver the gas to the consumer and that at the Manitoba border the price would be 34 cents. They never envisaged that by 1955-56 the line would be in the east. But we get another projection with respect to 1958-59. By this time the price of gas in Manitoba, instead of being down as the minister forecast, would be up to 40-7 cents, a 4-cent increase, while the price to the Americans at the portal at Emerson would be down to 32-9 cents. The hon. member for Saskatoon says that Canadians are subsidizing the Americans, and that is precisely what is happening.
But these were not the final figures. I have figures here which are perhaps more definite but I doubt if they are definitive. Now the Winnipeg price is going to be 33 cents to the distributor but the price at Emerson is going to be 25 cents per thousand cubic feet to the United States importing companies. In other words, there is going to be an 8-cent spread between us in Winnipeg and Emerson, 60 miles away, and this is being done, in the words of the Free Press, to confer great industrial benefit upon the people of Canada. Here is an 8-cent differential and yet Winnipeg is 60 miles nearer the source of gas. And so this company is determined to subsidize United States industry at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers with the help of the Liberal government made up of members of the Liberal party who insist on selling Canada down the river.
There is another aspect to this feature of cost. The minister is going to get this through. We know it. And he is going to get it through in a hurry. It is going to be done as rapidly as possible and it is going to be done in a mood of damn the cost. But the Canadian taxpayer is going to have to pay these costs, sooner or later. The government has had months to make up its mind what it was going to do, if indeed it was ever possessed of a mind at all, but it deferred it, it put it off until finally, almost at the last stage in the game, it brings forward this legislation and then the minister gets up and moves closure. I have a very high personal regard for the Minister of Trade and Commerce but there are times when 'he should not be allowed within a thousand miles of any democratic legislature.
Let me go on with some of the representations made by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. Mr.. Tanner said to the board of transport, commissioners:
In five years we would be able to build up a market in the east of approximately 500 million, cubic feet a day.
3944	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
The board of transport commissioners believed him and I do not blame them but I do blame the board when time after time this company went back to get its application renewed, although the board knew it had been lied to, although the board knew it had been deceived, the board still assented because a minion from the minister said, "It has got to go through; the boss has spoken." And so the company was given permission to extend the permit still further, and we see the result of the board's credulity in the judgment of the chairman of the board. He mentions Trans-Canada's hopes and says:
Trans-Canada hopes to commence construction early in 1955, deliver gas to Winnipeg and Emerson by November, 1955, complete the line to Toronto in 1956 and to Montreal in 1956 or 1957 at the latest.
The board believed that because they made the mistake of believing the witnesses who were heard. Dealing with the capital cost again the chairman of the board had this to say:
The estimated cost of construction of the line and facilities is $299,139,000. .	. . The board is
convinced that such estimates have made reasonable allowance for foreseeable contingencies and have been prepared by skills and reliable estimators.
This was in 1954. Two years have passed. The cost of living may have advanced in those two years but not by the 30 per cent increase with which we are now confronted by these skilled and reliable estimators. How skilled can they be when, having taken into consideration all contingencies, we find now that the cost of the line will probably be $100 million more? How reliable are these people upon whom the board relied? Their unreliability is more than obvious. Then, again, we were told in the judgment of the chief commissioner that there would be no question about financing. The financing was to be done on the American basis of 75 per cent in first mortgage bonds, 12J per cent in debentures and 12J per cent in common stock.
The committee will note the 12J per cent in common stock. Why is it so small? Because history shows that these gas pipe lines in the United States have been gold mines and after paying off a nominal sum in interest to the debenture holders those who have had common stock have had their -snouts thoroughly stuck into the gravy trough. In addition, as I will show later, this company Is going to be in a position where i,t can pay a dividend of at least 20 per cent on the common stock, whether one takes the first fanciful figures submitted or the less fanciful ones which the minister got a month or two ago.


Then we are told about the economic feasibility of the project. The board of transport commissioners had no doubt whatsoever about the economic feasibility of this line. Of course, doubt has recently arisen that it is not economically feasible, but the whole argument of the government now is based in no small measure upon the necessity of the lateral from Winnipeg to Emerson so that gas can be sold to the United States in order that the financing can be more readily arranged.
But what was the position of the counsel for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines in 1954 when he appeared before the board of transport commissioners? This is what Mr. Tolmie said:
The Emerson lateral is not a separate line and it, of course, cannot be proceeded with or even contemplated by itself. It may be that it can come in at the beginning as an added feature . . .
In other words, this so essential feature today was at one stage in the game merely an added feature, something of no consequence, something of no importance, something which could be sloughed off. But now this added feature apparently is all-important because American industrialists have got to be supplied with cheap gas and Canadian citizens have got to pay for that subsidization. Mr. Tolmie said:
It may be that it can come in at the beginning as an added feature and assist greatly in the financing towards the initial return.
Of course it would assist but I would call the committee to witness again that this lateral to the south was not an essential feature of the first plan. It has only become an essential feature in later days. Why? Because this company has no intention of having its sales to the United States restricted to 200 million cubic feet a day. The minister may not have liked McMahon's idea of 400 million cubic feet but this company is going to try to get it because it wants the gravy. This company is not going to sell in Canada to industry because its price will not be competitive so far as industry is concerned but is going to sell to the luxury trade. It is not even going to be competitive down here with oil. It is going to sell to the Cadillac group, to the ministerial class who can afford to pay that price.
I have already mentioned the Winnipeg price. Again the board of transport commissioners was fooled, and apparently they love being deceived for time after time they renewed the permit. The chairman said:
We noted that the price to be paid Trans-Canada at Emerson by Northern Natural is 34 cents per 1,000 cubic feet and is 2 cents per 1,000 cubic feet less than the anticipated price to gas distributors in Winnipeg . . .

Two cents at that time, now 8 cents. Does the government pretend for a moment that this is a provident suggestion to the people of western Canada? Does the government think for a moment that we like to pay 8 cents more in Winnipeg than American industries are going to pay south of the border? Yet that is what we are being asked to do by this legislation.
Let me deal with another matter if I have time, and if not I will deal with it at another stage. I want to discuss the balance sheet which was presented to the board of transport commissioners to show the financial solidity of the company. Assets are shown as $361,215,000 and liabilities are of course the same amount. But what is interesting is that the common stock at that time was $37 million. Here is the projection made by a firm of engineers to October 31, 1961, showing common stock of $37 million and earned surplus at that date of $32,765,000. That is not a bad showing for five or six years. There is also submitted a profit and loss account of this company projected to 1961. This profit and loss amount shows $13 million available for dividends after all bond interest has been paid and after all income tax has been paid. Of that $13 million, $2,190,000 goes to the preferred shareholders or the debenture holders, call them what you like, and the balance is left available for the ordinary stockholders. Mr. Chairman, this thing is a veritable gold mine. Why then have the Americans to come to the Canadian government to get it financed? What is the catch in the whole thing? Obviously either those who submitted this proposal and this balance sheet and profit and loss account to the board of transport commissioners knew what they were talking about or they were liars. I suggest that they had no idea at all as to what they were talking about, that they were trying deliberately to deceive the board of transport commissioners, and that they succeeded. The pity is that they succeeded not only the first time but on every other occasion.


William Alfred Robinson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am sorry too, Mr. Chairman.


William Alfred Robinson: -but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Chairman, I propose to deal mainly with the only issue which is before this house in this whole debate-


Alfred Claude Ellis: Closure.


Elmore Philpott: McMahon. Let me point out that in this particular case the whole project would have been completely impractical had they not sold the major block of gas to the United States. So, when I talk to my academic friends opposite whose slogan seems to be socialism or bust, public enterprise at any cost, at any time, wise or unwise, common sense or no common sense, let me tell them that in my opinion the whole public ownership proposition of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines would be an extremely difficult proposition to make on an economic basis. How is the government of Canada,-


Edmund Davie Fulton: How is the government of
Canada?


Elmore Philpott: -let us ask ourselves the practical question, if they are going to have to sell a big block of gas-the hon. member for Kamloops is good at obstruction, but his obstruction days are over now.
How is the government of Canada, which would require to sell big blocks of our natural gas to the United States in order to be able to serve eastern Canada at reasonable prices, going to go about selling gas in the United States? Do the hon. gentlemen opposite for-see the government of Canada going hat in hand and saying, "Please, Mr. Uncle Sam, will you buy our Canadian gas?" How ridiculous can you get?
So I say that, first we should not proceed now with the nebulous public ownership plan until we have tried every other avenue. A public ownership corporation would not be in the best position to try to sell gas and unless we do sell that gas it would result in higher bills for the actual consumers in Canada.
Now, what shall I say about that strange partnership, the other wing of that strange partnership? When I saw that strange alliance beginning last week, an alliance first of obstruction, I thought back to the year of 1932. We have heard today about 1932 when there was closure in this house and great protest about it. I remember another country in which there was a tie-up between the extreme right and the extreme left, namely Prussia. In that country the extreme right and extreme left, by tactics much the same as were attempted here last week by two gentlemen whom I shall not name, the extreme left and extreme right tied up and parliamentary government went down in that country. It was because the government of the day did not have the gumption or perhaps I would be forgiven the plain word "guts" to deal with that kind of obstruction as it should have been dealt with by parliamentary processes. Just for the benefit of the opposition may I say that the filibuster which they have been

attempting so often in recent weeks is a United States institution and that closure is a British institution.
As the hon. member for Timiskaming pointed out, in the last seven years the British House of Commons, that old mother of parliaments, has applied closure on an average of 21 times every session.


An hon. Member:: By agreement.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Tell the whole story. They do it by agreement.


Elmore Philpott: What shall I say about the old wing of that strange alliance? I think that the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth which has been most characteristic of the federal Conservative speeches and the federal Conservative attitude in the past week-they have obstructed and they have filibustered and used every expedient to prevent intelligent debate, for the obvious reason that they had nothing to say. Why have they nothing to say?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Why did you put on closure then?


Elmore Philpott: Because the federal Conservatives have been defrosted; because every argument made by any hon. member of the federal opposition has been answered in advance by the premier of Ontario. For instance, at page 390 of Ontario Hansard he said:
We have taken a generous view with the federal government and recognize their position in this matter has not been simple or easy. I have no intention here of making it more difficult for the federal government to carry its arrangements through. If I did that I would be doing a disservice to this country . . .
We must recognize that in working out an agreement with the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited the federal government has obviously been faced with many difficulties. It was not an easy matter to negotiate the agreement at all . . .
Then on page 391 he said;
Apparently the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines agreement provides for the quickest and most effective way of bringing gas to Ontario.
When I hear my old Tory friends over there trotting out this old, shabby, broken-down, moth-eaten horse on which they rode to victory in 1911, no truck or trade with the Yankees, I say let us see what Mr. Frost said about that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are the last people who should be talking about horses.


Elmore Philpott: On page 392 of Ontario Hansard, Mr. Frost said:
Since the very beginning of this country we have recognized there is a price to pay for Canadian independence. If we had not recognized that, certainly there would be no Canada today. In addition to what has been said about the control
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
of this company, whether the Canadian shareholders had the opportunity to take 51 per cent of the stock, or anything of that sort, the fact of the matter is that the construction is in Canada, wholly within the jurisdiction of our country, and is subject to the legislative enactment not only of the government of Canada but of the provinces through which it passes. That in itself is the real essential of control.
Then he goes on to speak about the benefits of foreign capital in Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The opposition is frostbitten.


Elmore Philpott: The reason why the Prime Minister of Canada, great statesman that he is, the greatest-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Elmore Philpott: -the greatest statesman that this country has yet had, will not agree to the request of federal opposition for an election now is that he knows if he did there would not be six federal Conservatives elected between the Ottawa river and the Pacific coast.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, this is a unique occasion in the life of this parliament. This is an issue that deeply concerns the people of Canada. As evidence of that it seems very few have noticed before that the galleries are so full some ladies have been standing and hundreds have been turned away from the door as is the case on budget night. Why all this excitement? Because, Mr. Chairman, there is no one who has been long enough in this parliament to witness a spectacle such as we have seen yesterday and today. No one has sat here long enough. These little junior squeakers at the back have no idea of the importance of parliamentary freedom and responsible government. Never in the history of this government, and I will venture to say never in the history of any democratic government, have we seen a resolution moved-


An hon. Member:: A revolution?


William Earl Rowe: -and closure put on at the same time. You could not even start a revolution. You never even drew up a resolution, let alone talk about a revolution.
After having mentioned this proposed resolution in the speech from the throne, it has lain hidden in the dusty alcoves of this old smug, complacent government all this time. Then, Mr. Chairman, it is brought out and presented in a hasty climax by that old man in a hurry to wind up what has been going on for five slow years in records filled with secrecy, mystery, changes, misrepresentation and uncertainty. Talk about private enterprise-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Talk about an anti-climax.


William Earl Rowe: You have been an anti-climax to more of your own climaxes than anybody else.
3948	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Mr. Chairman, this is neither private enterprise nor public ownership. It is a nondescript, mongrel amalgamation of the two. It is private enterprise for United States interests with nothing left for private enterprise in Canada except public ownership as everyone knows, because the minister told us that yesterday. It is private ownership controlled by United States interests and the only alternative left in the resolution is that when it now looks almost impossible for trans-Canada to complete it you propose to have public ownership next year. You have already stifled every private enterprise in Canada concerning this project and you have offered bonuses to United States enterprise.
You ridiculed the group to my left as being champions of public ownership when we in the Conservative party have been the real champions of private enterprise since confederation. The Minister of Trade and Commerce laughs and the Prime Minister says nothing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why are you
linked with the C.C.F. tonight?


William Earl Rowe: We are not linked because we are both opposing you. There are many people in Canada who are opposing you tonight who are interested in Canada. We are interested in the people of Canada. That is why you and your silent, acquiescing Prime Minister are afraid to go to the country. That is why the Prime Minister is afraid to rise and speak in this issue because he has already said that this is the worst proposal of the three.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would rather be silent than speak like you are doing now.


William Earl Rowe: The Prime Minister has already said that this proposal is the worst of the three. No wonder he does not speak.


An hon. Member:: He does not dare.


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of Agriculture can talk about the Saskatchewan river dam out in Saskatchewan at the next election. These great Liberal champions of private enterprise have stifled Canadian private enterprise and squelched the offers of every Canadian company which has ventured an offer. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration says that we are the Canadian babies. He is the last one who should speak about that. He looks more like a baby than anyone else I see in the house. The Canadian baby who did propose this was the only Canadian who built a line in Canada for $153 million.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, someone said we have had 20 years of one-party government. How long, oh Lord, how long are we going to be


confronted with a one-man party government in the future?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It did not take you long to put one government out of business.


William Earl Rowe: What was that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It did not take you long to put a government out of office, the one of which you were a member. How long were you a member there?


An hon. Member:: Six weeks.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Six weeks?


William Earl Rowe: I do not mind telling you that I do not have to apologize for that government. We had a leader at that time who has been chided for introducing closure. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration asked me to mention that tonight. When I sat here in 1932 from February 26 to March 23, your cohorts, the men who are not now associated with you because you were leaning toward being Conservative at that time-all the men you were not associated with at that time made the rafters ring in this house. I remember the Right Hon. Mackenzie King as prime minister walking out in front of the house and saying that the parliament of Canada had lost its supremacy and he almost shed crocodile tears. He talked about his dear old grandfather and how he had fought for Canada.
He said all this because the matter had been debated from February 26 to March 23. You great champions of the unemployed and the poor were voting against giving relief to the unemployed and the farm relief which was necessary because you lost every market during the time you were in power.
The only other time closure was put on was in an important session back in 1912 when Sir Robert Borden was trying to give Great Britain three dreadnoughts in her dire time of need as she was preparing for the first world war. Every Liberal henchman in this country for four solid months from December until April 5 sought to defeat doing this. They sat up at night, Mr. Chairman, and the Clerk told me at that time he thought he was going to collapse because he had to sit here day and night while discussion on that naval bill went on. In other words, the Liberals at that time said they were not going to send any dreadnoughts to old England and Sir Robert Borden finally put closure on. Compare these instances, Mr. Chairman. Why have you put closure on? You have put it on to force the Canadian taxpayers behind the dirty shrouds of closure to pay a bonus to United States interests which will help them control one of our most vital natural resources. How can the

government compare those two examples of closure?
You talk about haste. In 1951 you told us there was an incorporated company going to build the pipe line in three years in Canada. For three years all that took place was a courtship between the two and finally you made it a shotgun marriage. Then they came back to you and said, "Mr. Howe, we are married now but we cannot get along without a little bit of help and a line is difficult to put through your country around Fort William in that rocky part of the nation. That is the hardest section of the line. Will you give us some help?" And the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, "Yes, we will give you some help," and so he arranged for $130 million. After he arranged for that they came back and said, "Now that you have given us $130 million, will you let us use $80 million of it to build the softest part of the line?" So you bonused them to build the hardest part and let them use the same money for the softest part, and if they build the softest part, you will have to introduce closure again to get some more money for them to build the hardest part. What an unholy mess this has become. As has been mentioned, the taxpayers of Canada are being victimized and the crown company which has been organized will be disabled by this very move.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce says this company had great foresight. Yes, it had great foresight. It ordered 180 miles of 34-inch pipe. I believe he said it was ordered from the National Tube Company of McKeesport, Pennsylvania. They ordered it, however, on the condition that the federal power commission in Washington would accept delivery of the gas. As the minister said yesterday they had to know what they were going to get before they were going to deliver it. Now he says there is a change and they have ordered 600 miles of pipe. How did that come about? That is not what I call foresight.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the greatest piece of fiction we have heard tonight.


William Earl Rowe: This so-called foresight-


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is not a word of truth in what you are saying.


William Earl Rowe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to listen to any lectures on truth from a man whom we have heard misrepresent the facts more frequently than any hon. member during the session. Mr. Chairman, they ordered the pipe because the Canadian taxpayers were going to have to pay for it, and the government is hiding behind closure in order to force the issue. I can well understand why the Prime Minister gives his
15, 1956	3949
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation silent acquiescence. He has already told them what he thought about it. He said that of the three propositions it was the worst one. Eighty-three per cent of the control is in the hands of United States interests. Ninety per cent of the cost is to be paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. The taxpayers of Canada are paying for 83 per cent of the dividends and profits which go to United States interests.
We were told that a government agency might interfere with the federal power commission accepting gas. Now we have a government agency established to build the hardest part of the line and there is a 90 per cent mortgage on the whole thing.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you tell the truth?


William Earl Rowe: If this was not such a tragedy it would be ridiculous enough to be amusing. We were told tonight by one of the ministers that this is the greatest national project which has ever been put before this House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: It is.


William Earl Rowe: It is so important that the government does not want anyone to speak about it. The government is afraid to send it to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, as was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister seems to be afraid to speak about it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is afraid to let the rest of us speak about it and the Liberal party is afraid to go to the country. I challenge you. You are afraid to let the people answer. You cannot put closure on the people because they will defeat you.


George Harris Hees: That a boy!


William Earl Rowe: The Prime Minister is ashamed to speak about it. Closure was brought in, Mr. Chairman, because the date was fixed at Washington. The date was fixed by United States interests and we in parliament were told not to talk in order to please our friends. I am reminded of the old days when we were told that we must not provoke the United States. Our party has stuck solidly to its traditional policies. I am not concerned about those little henchmen or the ridiculous gibes from the front benches or the backbenchers. Down in the province of Quebec we have seen how you and the Social Credit are married in that province and are running a honeymoon up here. I am not a bit concerned about this.
If there ever has been a time in the history of this country when a man was more
3950	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation maligned and more misrepresented than the Leader of the Opposition it is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You cheap propagandists have gone out and misrepresented him and said he was not in favour of developing our resources when our party brought more United States capital into Canada than your party has ever done. It was the Canada first policy of R. B. Bennett in 1930 that brought plants from England and the United States to this *country. My little friend from Manitoba does not understand, as he has not been here long enough. That is what has happened down through the days of Macdonald, Borden, Bennett, and now-


An hon. Member:: Drew.


William Earl Rowe: Drew in the province of Ontario. You gentlemen laugh but you do not understand it. I know the young hon. member has not been in the house long enough but he applauds when he does not know what he is applauding about. That capital was brought to the province of Ontario, some of it to his own district. The Leader of the Opposition encouraged $200 million of United States capital to come in here by his policy of development, not for Americans but for Canadians.
I am not disturbed by the empty laughs of those who know no better; I am not disturbed by the gibes of the backbenchers who have made a custom of it. Those are the facts that history has recorded.


William Moore Benidickson: Where did the dividends go?


William Earl Rowe: They did not go to the United States of America as they are going to do in this instance.


An hon. Member:: That is strike two for you, Benidickson.


William Earl Rowe: We are told that this is another declaration of Canadian independence. Oh, dear, surely that should have been corrected in Hansard. Why did not the Minister of Agriculture correct that and call it Canadian interdependence?


James Garfield Gardiner: I was not the Leader of the Opposition.


William Earl Rowe: The government has now presented in a hasty, reckless, haphazard form a resolution which has been hidden for four months by a government which has refused to answer questions. Yesterday we were prohibited from asking questions. Now they bring out a resolution which is dusty and moth-eaten. The hon. member for Vancouver South said it was a moth-eaten horse. I know enough about horses that he has ridden more political horses than anybody in this country.
(.Mr. Rowe.]

Now we are told we are to have closure, the guillotine is going to be applied, the axe is to be swung by the Liberal government. Are these the people who bow at the shrine of Laurier? Is that the attitude taken by the Right Hon. Mackenzie King? Where are you now? Those are the men who fought for the supremacy of parliament. They would turn in their graves if they knew what was happening. What would the great Laurier say? What would the great Mackenzie King say? They were great men.
They are no more silent tonight, as they sleep in peace I hope, than the Prime Minister has been since the session started. This is an issue that concerns the rights and hopes of our people, in this country. This country is filled with resources of oil, iron and everything that makes a country great and rich. I urge the Prime Minister to rise and shuffle out from that smug complacency that prompts this government to do nothing about anything. I urge the Prime Minister to speak before one o'clock because he knows the country is interested. These things belong to the people of Canada. If you do not think that we are presenting this in sincerity I ask you to rise and tell us why you are silent. I know you are not afraid to speak; I know you can speak; I know you are not too old to grasp the problem. You may be afraid to go to the country but I know you are not afraid to rise in parliament.
If the Minister of Trade and Commerce is afraid to have an open debate on this and let us talk more than 20 minutes, and if you are afraid to speak, then get the cabinet together and call an election tomorrow and let the people speak. You can gag, as you have done tonight, and guillotine your opposition-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think I must remind the hon. member that he should address his remarks to the chair.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope that I have not reflected upon your able chairmanship. The government has gagged the people's representatives in the opposition but they cannot gag the voter at the ballot box. I urge them to trust them. I remember the words of the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King who said that we should trust the people. He said, "We trust the people, we are the champions of the supremacy of parliament." You are afraid to do either. So I urge you now, if you are afraid to debate it in parliament, go to the country. It is a nice time of year. If you are as powerful as you think you are, as you boast here that you are, and as you have been boasting for the last four

years, go out and face the people. You will be defeated just as surely as any other government was defeated that imposed closure so clumsily without giving parliament a chance to express itself.
I believe that my time has expired and rather than have you call me to time I will conclude my remarks.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to match my lungs against those of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, nor do I intend to match my lungs against the noise in the chamber. I shall hesitate when that is required. Hon. members of the Conservative party have said that this filibuster began only an hour before this motion was moved. Filibuster on pipe lines began in this house in 1949 and it was begun by members of the Conservative opposition. Never since that time has actual common sense been spoken when gas transmission has been discussed except on occasions when hon. members such as the hon. member for Calgary South or hon. members on this side of the house have spoken, particularly the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce.
When the filibuster began as it did in 1949 the chosen instrument for gas transmission at that time-it was the chosen instrument of the Conservative opposition

was Westcoast Transmission. What has been the result? An hon. member says "rubbish". I can quote speaker after speaker from Hansard saying that the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited has been the only company prepared to build the pipe line entirely in Canada. It was an uneconomic route, but, nothwithstanding that, it was a company that at all times was prepared to build an all-Canadian line.
That was the story of the official opposition. Nevertheless the actual facts were that two or three of the companies applied for charters, and at least two received charters, who were prepared to do basically the same thing, but they were prepared to build a pipe line to British Columbia where it would serve the people of British Columbia. The present pipe line has been brought to fruition because of this silly outlook with respect to the transmission of natural gas. Half of the consumption of gas in British Columbia will be lost. The east and west Kootenays in British Columbia would have consumed as much natural gas as the greater Vancouver area. Those were facts brought out in committee.
Nevertheless, a gas line is going to the west coast and, as the hon. member for Vancouver South has shown here tonight, the gas bills for those people will be cut in half. The gas bills for those people would have been cut another 20 per cent if the gas line
15, 1956	3951
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation had followed an economic route. Certainly the gas bills and the fuel bills of the people of Trail, Kimberley and the Crowsnest area would have been equally well served. However, that became the basic policy for all parties, and the Westcoast Transmission Company received its charter on the basis that it was going to serve all-Canadian consumers first. But the result is that natural gas will go to the west coast and serve a small number of consumers, and about 90 per cent of the gas will be exported to the United States. This is against the policy of the allCanadian consumers being served first.
As I have said, that was the chosen instrument of the Conservative party, and that was the policy which was to be undertaken by the president of Westcoast Transmission. Now what do we find? This great exponent of the policy of serving Canadian consumers first, last and foremost comes out with a proposal to transport natural gas to eastern Canada when it has already been shown that another company has the plans ready, the supplies at hand and the sale spoken for. But, as has been shown, unless a large proportion of that natural gas is sold in the United States, they are not able to finance it at the moment.
Mr. McMahon, president of Westcoast Transmission and the new proponent of a gas line to eastern Canada, makes a proposal and promises us in a confidential letter that he will personally post with the government $500,000 cash to complete the project by 1958, subject only to being able to obtain the necessary materials. You might note that he was not too sure of being able to obtain the materials, although he had said in other letters that he would obtain them. Half a million dollars is not a very great deal of money to this gentleman, as many of you may know. But what is the crux of the plan that this great exponent of the policy of serving Canadian users first proposes? A volume of 400 million cubic feet is to be exported into the United States, four-fifths of the total amount of natural gas that the provincial government of Alberta has authorized for export. If that is the understanding on which Mr. McMahon was prepared to go ahead, is is any wonder that he has been asked to pay up or shut up? It seems to me that that is what should have been done with a person who has made such a spurious offer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the hon. member ever heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce say that was a spurious offer?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I certainly heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce say that it was not, in his opinion, a firm offer.
3952	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Donald Methuen Fleming: But has the hon. member ever heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce say the offer was a spurious offer?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I have said that this project proposed by Mr. McMahon would export four-fifths of the entire amount of gas that has been permitted for export from the province of Alberta. Now what has become of the policy of Canadians being served first and foremost?
There has been a great deal of discussion regarding the control of the companies, and comparisons have been made between the McMahon offer and that of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. At least Trans-Canada Pipe Lines are proposing to move natural gas to eastern Canada. The McMahon proposal is to move gas to the United States. It may be true that with Trans-Canada more of the incidental profits will be paid to the bondholders in the United States, but in the other case much of the profit again will accrue to bondholders in the United States but there will be no gas in eastern Canada. We certainly may have control in Canada, but no gas. I should estimate that the great International Nickel Company in its smelters would use almost half of the amount of natural gas that would be left for consumption in eastern Canada should this proposal have been accepted.
That is not all. The proponents of Canada first at all costs, that is, mainly the official opposition, have said at all times that the main line must be built entirely within Canada. We have had bills passed here day after day, week after week, with the same silly argument being put forward. When a gathering company was being incorporated and gas or oil were being brought to one central location for transportation to a given area the official opposition have always insisted that the main line of the gathering system be built entirely within Canada to connect with the main transmission line regardless of whether it meant that the gathering line would be 100 or 200 miles longer. The principle is there.
What does Mr. McMahon propose in this case? Mr. McMahon finds that there are some basic faults in Trans-Canada's plan, and the third one is the following:
The Trans-Canada plan contemplates the sale of gas to Tennessee Gas Transmission Company and a subsidiary at Emerson, Manitoba, and Niagara Falls, Ontario. Gas sold at Emerson would be used by the Tennessee Company in the great plains-midwest area of the United States to invade the duly franchised market areas of the present pipe line companies . . .
Isn't that just too bad? It is going to interfere with some of his friends. But' that is not all. I want to point out that the official oppos-
TMr. Byrne.]

ition are supporting this proposal as the only alternative to the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company. Mr. McMahon proposes to build a 34-inch pipe line to Winnipeg and a 30-inch pipe line from Winnipeg to eastern Canada. Where is the main line being built? Four-fifths of the natural gas is, according to his plan, to be sold in the United States and 100 million cubic feet per day is to go to eastern Canada in a smaller pipe. It would be very interesting to hear from the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra who has always felt that this principle must be maintained at all costs. I am waiting anxiously to hear what he has to say about this matter.
I should like to say one word about the question of closure. I have said earlier that this pipe line filibuster began in 1949. We went' through it in the session of 1949 and the session of 1950. Two gas company charters were refused because of filibusters and the whole gas line policy of Canada was confused. The newspapers carried articles as long as four months ago indicating that the official opposition had stated they were going to filibuster this pipe line measure. One of their members even said that it would be an example of eternity, and certainly the members of the C.C.F. party have made similar statements. We are facing a position in which the minority are attempting to obstruct parliamentary procedure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is what you said last year.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: This is a very important matter and it has been shown that unless the financing can be assured by the end of this month the pipe line policy will be further confused and will be for another two years. It is my opinion that we should pass the legislation and get on with the job that we were sent here to do.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, on one thing I am sure we can all agree this evening and that is that we have had a very interesting and exciting day. Perhaps if the House of Commons had days like this more frequently we would be far more popular with the general public in the galleries than we have been in the past. However, I should like to speak very seriously tonight on some features of the debate on the question before the house.
The first is that within a little over an hour the axe will fall and debate will be stopped on this stage of the measure. That action is unprecedented in the parliamentary history of Canada, and I am sure that when members on the other side of the house have the opportunity to think over what has been done in the last two days they will realize that a very

grievous blow has been struck at our institution of parliamentary government in this nation. The Prime Minister has not been in public life for many years. He has never been, and I say this in all kindness, a House of Commons man, and I do not believe he realizes tonight the serious implications of the step he has allowed his senior minister to force on him in moving closure, not after there had been an extensive debate, but at the end of the very first speech when the minister introduced this particular measure.
The Prime Minister obviously has condoned that step and he must accept the primary responsibility before the Canadian people and in the history of Canada for what he has allowed to be done in this debate. Closure is particularly atrocious under these circumstances when we remember that in the speech from the throne on January 10 this pipe line measure was announced and it was understood then that it would be the main question before the house during this session. The resolution preceding the legislation appeared first on February 3, but debate was not brought on until March 15 and then it was cut off after one day. An amended resolution was brought in, came up for debate yesterday for the first time and the Minister of Trade and Commerce moved closure. I think that action can be fairly summed up in these words, that Liberalism as exemplified in the House of Commons in May of 1956 is synonymous with contempt of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: Let me analyse the resolution which is under debate. It precedes a measure to set up a crown corporation to be known as Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation which will have the power to construct a gas pipe line from the Ontario-Manitoba border 675 miles east to Kapuskasing. The corporation is to have the power to lease that pipe line, with an option to purchase, to this chosen instrument of the government, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. In addition, the corporation is now to be given the power to lend to this same company for a line from the Alberta-Saskatchewan border 575 miles east to the vicinity of Winnipeg a sum not exceeding $80 million or 90 per cent of the cost. The aggregate for all this work is to be not over $130 million.
I point out that the original resolution referred only to the northern Ontario line and it contained the same figure, $130 million. The cost was estimated to be $118 million, of which Ontario was to put up $35 million leaving $83 million for the dominion. If $80 million of that $130 million is now to go into the western line it is obvious that unless and until that sum is repaid there will not be
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation enough money to build the northern Ontario line. That line will just have to wait in the meantime. The resolution is very misleading because it should contain a figure of $210 million rather than a figure of $130 million. Remember this, Mr. Chairman. Under the government's proposal no share whatever of the profits, either of the western line or the northern line, is to go to Canada.
Then we must consider too the agreement made a week ago, on May 8. It gives further details of this proposal. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited is to repay on or before April 2, 1957. That means the company will have a further extension until April 2, 1957 to prove financial ability. Already within the last few weeks the government has extended the time for that to November 1, 1956. It means, of course, delay in the northern Ontario line, delay in the line from Winnipeg to the Ontario border and delay in the line in southern Ontario and into the province of Quebec.
Now I point out four important features which I suggest should be considered by hon. members and by the Canadian people. The first is that the government went to this chosen instrument hat in hand, an amazing thing for the government to do. On May 8, as reported at page 3664 of Hansard, the minister said this:
I emphasize that the approach came from the government, not Trans-Canada. Trans-Canada was not in default.
Actually Trans-Canada was in default and badly so. I need only remind you, Mr. Chairman, that on September 15 of last year the minister's representative, Mr. Sharp, appeared before the board of transport commissioners in support of an application the company was then making for an extension of time. The newspaper dispatch reads as follows:
Sharp said Trans-Canada and its bankers have given the federal government assurance that it will be able to build the balance of the pipe line.
That is with the government completing the northern Ontario section.
"The government of Canada is proceeding on the assumption that Trans-Canada now will be able to accomplish this objective and that construction will commence in 1956 and be completed in 1957," Sharp said.
In the agreement itself between the government and Trans-Canada dated November 21 of last year, we find this clause:
And whereas Trans-Canada proposes to arrange for financing of all its costs and commitments in connection with the said program of construction prior to May 1, 1956; . . .
What is happening is this. The government keeps bailing them out. If there is default on April 2, 1957, I believe the government

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation will again step in and bail out this company. When the minister spoke yesterday he was very careful to point out that the government is not obliged to take over the Western pipe line next year if there is default. He made it clear that while that power is taken, it does not have to be exercised. So I repeat this first feature is that the government has gone to this company hat in hand. What possible chance is there of Canada getting a good deal under those circumstances?
Then the second feature is this. These American companies are in the saddle, particularly the Tennessee Gas Transmission Company. Make no mistake about it, this plan that is being forced on the House of Commons is a Tennessee Gas plan. The minister has never denied that fact. What have they done? They have just refused to put up the money for the western section. On March 28 of this year they were told by the board of transport commissioners to go out and raise the money to build that section. I have here the judgment. It contains this paragraph:
The board has suggested to the applicant that the latter might further pursue the possibility of raising the necessary capital through private sources to permit of the immediate construction of this part of the line, the cost of which it is estimated would amount to between $70 million and $75 million.
On April 12 a newspaper dispatch indicated that it was expected that this company would be advancing the money to build the western section of the line. Remember this, Mr. Chairman. These are wealthy companies. When the Tennessee Gas company came into the picture last fall, we were told that it was a pipe line giant. A dispatch then said this:
The $826 million Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, which operates the world's largest natural gas transmission network in the United States, is to be a full partner in the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited line . . .
But they are not doing any gambling. They can get out of this deal next spring with very little loss. Tennessee Gas is not on any covenant to repay the government loan. The covenant is with the government's own chosen instrument, namely Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. The government is going to pay $80 million and these promoters only have to pay between $8 million and $9 million.
Just three or four days ago the counsel for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited went before the board of transport commissioners. What did he say? According to this newspaper clipping this is what he said:
Trans-Canada's counsel, Ross Tolmie, said the government's agreement to provide the $80 million will be used as evidence of financial ability to build the link.

Then in the third place, Trans-Canada will not be moving to complete the line-that is into eastern Canada and to Montreal-unless and until the federal power commission gives a permit to export gas to the United States. Throughout, from the beginning and right to the bitter end, so long as this Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited is the company-involved, the government's plan for a completed pipe line from Alberta to Montreal has depended and will depend on this permission from the federal power commission of the United States, a body set up in a foreign country to protect the interests of that country. The Minister of Trade and Commerce made the position clear when he spoke on May 8. As reported at page 3663 of Hansard he said this:
In spite of their best endeavours, however*-
He was referring to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.
-they have not been able to obtain guarantees-that the money necessary to finance either the whole of the line, apart from the northern Ontario section, or the western section, would be forthcoming in advance of approval by the federal power commission of their contract for the sale of gas into the United States.
Then, when speaking yesterday, he again made the position clear when he said this, as reported at page 3861 of Hansard:
However, there has been and there is no end clearly in sight.
He was referring to the granting of a permit by the federal power commission.
The company has made no agreement to complete the whole line without a permit from the federal power commission. There is no explanation by the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the effect on the over-all plan if the federal power commission fails to give approval. He is delightfully vague when it comes to telling the house and the people just what is to be done if the federal power commission fails to grant a permit for import into the United States.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, control of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines remains in the head offices of these American companies, and primarily, of course, in the head office of Tennessee Gas. No real attempt has been made by the government to ensure Canadian control. When they were renegotiating or when they were making this contract which was signed a week ago today, one would have thought that they would have included some provision which would have made it certain that there would be absolute Canadian control of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. But there is nothing of that kind in the agreement. The minister himself has intimated he considered it hopeless; that there was no use trying to get terms of that kind

included. No matter how the minister twists and turns he cannot get away from the fact, and none of his supporters can get away from the fact, that this Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited is and will be dominated by United States oil and pipe line companies, and that the Canadian government is subsidizing them in the construction of a major national project at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer.
I conclude my remarks by this statement, and I make it after careful consideration. I believe that this measure now proposed by the government is the greatest betrayal of the Canadian people since confederation.


John Decore: Mr. Chairman, I rise to take part in this debate and being a member from Alberta I am vitally concerned with the issue which is before us now. We have had [DOT]occasion tonight to listen to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys as well as the hon. member for Peace River, the Leader of the Social Credit party, and both of these gentlemen are Albertans. So far as Alberta is concerned, they have placed before you the hard facts of the urgent need for the [DOT]export of gas from that province as soon as possible. Figures have been quoted, and I do not intend to repeat them now, but the fact is that Alberta sustains a loss every day because of the wastage of gas resulting from the lack of export. At the same time this lack hampers our industrial development.
There are many producers in the province of Alberta. We have individuals; we have small companies and larger companies; we have syndicates. We have Canadian companies and we have United States companies. But by far the greatest producers in Alberta are the people of that province. They are the ones who have the greatest stake in this issue. This debate so far has been very interesting and very hot at times. I feel it is the duty of the opposition not only to criticize, but if necessary to oppose government policy. But that is not enough. It is also their duty to offer not only an alternative but a better alternative.
What has happened on this issue? The hon. member for Eglinton has suggested that the Liberals and Social Crediters have formed an alliance. What about this strange alliance that has taken place in this house? We note that the free enterprising Tories and the socialist C.C.F.'ers have got together. We have heard of the grand alliance. We have heard of the holy alliance, but it seems to me that this is the most unholy alliance we have yet witnessed in this house. At least the C.C.F., though I disagree with what they have to offer, have come out with a policy which is consistent, that is of public ownership. I still would like to know what
15, 1956	3955
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation alternative the Tories have to ensure that, in the face of the facts before us, at least the prairie section of this pipe line will be commenced and completed this year.	It
appears clear to all of us that the only alternative they have to offer is delay, not only to embarrass the government but in my opinion to embarrass the people of Alberta.
Furthermore from the consumer point of view, Premier Frost has indicated the importance of getting gas into Ontario as soon as possible. Yesterday we had occasion to listen to the Leader of the Opposition who spoke for about two and a half hours but who has not given this house any alternative, nor has he mentioned one word regarding the stand taken by Premier Frost on this matter. After all the leader of the official opposition was at one time the premier of Ontario and certainly he must have the welfare of the people of Ontario at heart. But as one who aspires to become the Prime Minister of Canada, I think he should also have the welfare of the people of Alberta at heart. It is essential to Albertans that we have the export of gas as soon as possible.
Much has been said in this house, especially by the C.C.F. group, in favour of public ownership. The Leader of the C.C.F. party has challenged this government to call an election. I doubt if the Canadian people, in a matter of a few weeks, would change their views and come out in favour of public ownership. They have rejected it before, and certainly they would reject it now. I should like to quote the views of one authority on this matter of public ownership. He says:
If the governments attempted to operate the line themselves they would face considerable difficulties. In the first place governments have no experience in gas pipe line operation and they would have to employ experienced operators, without being able to give them the incentive of ownership or part ownership of the line. Secondly, the governments would be in the position of having to balance the consumer and producer interests and there might be a division of opinion between the governments of gas-producing and gas-consuming provinces.
We have heard the hon. member for Peace River express his view and he has pointed out the difficulties in this respect.
There are few objective standards by which it could be determined whether the producers were getting too much or too little for their gas on the one hand, or whether the consumers were paying too much or too little on the other.
Even if the governments rented the line or turned over its management to some private organization, so long as they owned the line they could hardly escape some responsibility for the policies of the private organization. Therefore, any such arrangement with a private organization would probably only be satisfactory in the short run.
3956	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
This quotation is taken from a report to the treasurer of Ontario by Clarkson, Gordon and Company and known as the Glassco report. It seems to me that the essentials of a sound natural gas policy are, first of all, that the main pipe line run all the way through Canadian territory. To this policy, this government is dedicated. Secondly, in allocating gas, priority must be given to the needs of the Canadian consumer, whether it be for industrial or domestic use. The export of the gas must take second place, and again in this respect the government is dedicated to this policy.
The third essential is that it must be under effective Canadian control, and again in this respect the government is dedicated to this policy.
Some reference has been made to the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway company and to some of the statements made by Sir John A. Macdonald. Of course, all Canadians have great admiration for Sir John A. Macdonald, but was it not necessary to give land grants to encourage the Canadian Pacific Railway to build?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, and they kept it Canadian.


John Decore: With regard to effective Canadian control I would like to draw to the attention of the house a statement which appeared in the Financial Post Corporation Service, page 10, card dated September 23, 1955. It reveals that as of December, 1954, the combined stocks or the voting strength of shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway by countries was as follows:	At that
time Canada had 12-20 per cent; the United Kingdom and other British countries, 46-31 per cent; the United States-and note this- had 33-38 per cent or nearly three times as much as that of Canada; and other countries, 8-11 per cent.
I think these are very interesting figures. They show that the voting strength of the combined stocks held by Canadians was only 12-20 per cent; yet did this mean that the Canadian Pacific Railway company is not being effectively controlled by the people of Canada? Does it make the Canadian Pacific Railway company less Canadian than it should be? We Canadians feel that we can make sacrifices and I think we should be prepared to make them, to assure that this is an all-Canadian pipe line. Surely we could have taken the easy way out and allowed this pipe line to go south of the great lakes rather than north of them. In that event we would not have been called upon either to build the line ourselves through public ownership or to adopt the stand we now adopt. I say, let us be realistic.


I do not think there is an hon. member in this house, including the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who feels the trans-Canada pipe line project is completely ideal; but as the Edmonton Journal of May 10, 1956, put it:
Of all the schemes proposed for distributing Alberta natural gas, the trans-Canada pipe line project seems, in balance, the best. It is to be hoped that parliament will ratify it without undue delay, so that construction may commence this year.
I have read just the last paragraph of that editorial.
Much has been said during the course of this debate with reference to closure. The fact remains that before the Minister of Trade and Commerce even had a chance to speak to this resolution we had to undergo seven votes in this house. I think the opposition gave their notice of intention concerning what course they wished to follow; in other words, they asked for it.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke tonight about the freedom of debate I think we witnessed a bad example in his attempt to prevent the hon. member for Bow River having his 20 minutes which is allotted by the house. I think, Mr. Chairman, this is a fine example of a closure within a closure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I did not try to detract from the 20 minutes of the hon. member for Bow River. I just did not want the time he caused the house to spend on the point of order to be taken from the rest of us, including my hon. friend from Vegreville.


John Decore: Mr. Chairman, the fact remains that nearly 20 minutes was taken by that argument, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did get up and say that time should be counted within the 20 minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who was responsible for it?


John Decore: In other words, you tried to prevent the hon. member from expressing his views within the 20 minutes allotted to him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense. The rules of the house have to be upheld.


John Decore: Of course the same thing can be said with regard to what happened this afternoon when the Conservatives made an attempt to prevent the hon. member for Calgary South from speaking.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has made a statement which he must know is entirely untrue. There was no attempt made to stop any hon. member from speaking this afternoon. The time taken by the member for Calgary South was provided

by the Liberal party out of the time allotted to it in debate and was not taken out of the Conservative opposition's time. It was all done by the Liberal whip.


Mr. Castleden:: Mr. Chairman, I think May 15 will be remembered as the date on which we witnessed democracy reach its lowest ebb in Canada since confederation.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: It is the 16th.


George Hugh Castleden: It will be a sad day only
if it is forgotten. Today we witnessed the denial of the rights of the representatives of between one-third and one-half of the Canadian people to speak in parliament. Seldom in Canadian history has there been such a betrayal of Canadian rights and Canadian interests and never has democracy in this Canada of ours been so brutally set aside to perpetrate that betrayal.
Forty-five years ago the Canadian government, dealing with a matter of reciprocity between this country and the United States, after debate in this house took that question to the highest court of the Canadian people in the land, and therefore they voted as to whether or not Canada should carry on trade with the United States, whether there should be restrictions and a cutting down of tariffs for both countries to permit the free trade of goods. At that time the government believed the proper thing to do was to let the Canadian people decide the issue on those grounds.
Some 30 years ago the Liberal party applied closure in this house but it was only after there had been weeks of debate.
Yesterday we had notice given that closure was being applied in this house even before the resolution had been introduced by the minister who introduced it. What is this resolution? The Canadian people should know what this resolution contains. It calls for about five things. Under this resolution the Canadian government in co-operation with the Ontario government is building through a government corporation a pipe line from the Manitoba border to Kapus-kasing which will cost the taxpayers about $113 million. After it is built it is to be handed over to the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company with an option to buy it after a number of years. If it is a paying proposition, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines picks it up; if it is not, then the Canadian people can have it and pay for it.
On top of that, this resolution makes arrangements for the Canadian government to loan to Trans-Canada 90 per cent of the cost of constructing the pipe line from Alberta to a point near Winnipeg, a sum totalling between $70 and $80 million. There is a specific provision under the arrangement
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation to be set up following the adoption of this resolution for a lead-off of 200 million cubic feet of natural gas per day from Manitoba at a point near Emerson. The corporation to be set up is to have the power to do such things.
In case the company defaults, the government is to take over the assets of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and operate the whole thing as a government enterprise. The government thus admits that there is a possibility that they may have to operate this as a crown corporation. In heaven's name, if they are building the eastern portion of the line and lending the company 90 per cent of the cost of building the western portion, they should take it over for the benefit of the Canadian people.
That is the indisputable argument which this government cannot escape. If Trans-Canada Pipe Lines wishes to build this line, then it should be allowed to operate it. If the government intends to build it and to provide the money for building it, then the government should operate it. This infamous resolution calls upon the Canadian people to lend the money to build it and then it is to be handed over lock, stock and barrel to United States interest.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce built the Polymer Corporation with Canadian money for the purpose of making artificial rubber during wartime. The government did not build the Polymer Corporation and then hand it over to the Canadian rubber companies. If they had done so the Canadian people would have objected. The Minister of Trade and Commerce did not build up a fine Trans-Canada Air Lines and then hand it over to Canadian Pacific Air Lines. The Canadian people would have objected strenuously if he had done so.
What do the Canadian people think of this proposition? We are going to practically build this line and then hand it over to United States interests, the big world oil combine boys from Texas who own and control such vast quantities of the world's supplies of oil. Canada is to help them out.
Who is this fine favoured friend called Trans-Canada Pipe Lines? I had hoped that the hon. member for Vegreville would have told us something about them in his introduction of the bill to establish Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in 1951. At that time he told the house that this was to be an all-Canadian company, it was to build an all-Canadian pipe line and there would be 100 per cent consumption of gas by Canadian consumers. That was the commitment made to the house, that was the commitment made
3958	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation to the committee which listened to the representatives who came here to tell us what a great company it was.
They brought in their men of money from New York who said that money would offer no difficulty at all. They had the engineers who had engineering know-how. They told us that there were difficulties and they told us how they could overcome them with their know-how. They had the money and all they wanted was the opportunity to provide this great service to Canadians. They assured the committee and they assured this parliament that they did not want to have anything to do with it unless it was to be an all-Canadian pipe line with all-Canadian consumption. That is a very vital point.
Something happened after they were granted their charter in 1951. This company fell under the control of a number of large United States oil and gas companies. A return tabled in the house a short time ago gave the details of the ownership of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. Some very revealing facts were given. Hudson Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited, part of a large United States company, holds 327,000 shares of stock. Canadian Gulf Oil Company of Calgary, Alberta, part of a parent company in the United States, owns 327,000 shares. Tennessee Gas Transmission Company of Houston, Texas, owns 327,000 shares of stock. Canadian Delhi Oil Company Limited of Calgary, part of a parent organization in the United States, owns 497,000 shares of stock. International Utilities Corporation, 44 Wall Street, New York, New York, owns 127,000 shares. Those are the blocks over 100,000 shares. N. E. Tanner, who I believe was formerly minister of natural resources in the Social Credit government of Alberta, holds two shares, and Sarah I. Tanner, Calgary, Alberta, owns 9,999 shares.
The thing I want to point out to this house and to the people of Canada is that when this company came under the control of United States oil companies every promise they made to the parliament of Canada was violated. They no longer said that this was to be an all-Canadian proposition. They said, "You get no gas in eastern Canada unless you arrange to have a lead-off in Manitoba to supply 200 million cubic feet of gas per day to the United States of America."
When they did that they violated their contract and their word to this parliament. They should have been repudiated at that point. But no, this company which had gold-bricked this parliament, which had deceived the Canadian people and their representatives in this house, instead of being repudiated were met with open hands and offered even more. What noble achievements has this com-
[Mr. Castleden.l

pany performed that it should be selected as the favourite son of the Canadian government to be granted these special privileges? What noble record of integrity and of honour has this company that it deserves such gifts? What foreign prince has come to our midst that we should take a natural resource of this country and hand it over? Why should a private corporation receive these gifts and have control over a great natural resource of this country?
I ask you to think carefully over what is going to be the ultimate result of the handing over of the control of our gas to this company. What is it going to mean? It will mean ultimately that the Canadian consumer of gas in eastern Canada will pay the price dictated by these people, while the United States consumer will get it at their price. Canadian gas will be sold to the Canadian people at a price which the United States people dictate. They will be able to give their own industry a favoured price. How can Canadian industry compete when the whole thing is stacked against them in that way?
We in Canada are asked to submit to this. This is being forced upon us. Excuses have been made. The stand of this party is quite clear. There is only one honourable thing to do and that is to operate this natural resource as a crown corporation so that any profits accruing shall not go down to the large gas and oil companies but will be paid back to the Canadian people. In heaven's name, by what right should a great natural resource of this country be handed over to .foreign industrial, gas and oil magnates? Is there any excuse for it? How can this government excuse its actions in handing this over to United States private enterprise?
That is what we are being asked to do. Opposition members who dare to raise their voices in opposition are told that at one o'clock closure will be applied and whether or not we want to speak the resolution stage will be passed. No wonder we rise in protest. This company, which violated its promises to this parliament, which broke its word, is now handed some more privileges. It did not get its pipe line built in 1951 or 1952, and it did not get it started in 1953. It violated its contract. The Canadian government, through the board of transport commissioners, granted it an extension of time. When it lost its nationality and became a United States concern, further extensions were granted. It has not built one foot of pipe line in five years. The government says it has to apply closure to get this through because it has made a contract to get the money out to these American people by June 7. If we endorsed this, we would be betraying the trust of the Cana-

dian people. This is not only a betrayal; this is an insult to the Canadian people, and it is our duty to protest against it with everything we have.
On March 15, the ides of March, the Minister of Trade and Commerce brought in a resolution to this house proposing only the setting up of the crown corporation to build the eastern portion of this line. It created such a storm of protest that the government dared not bring the matter back into the house. From March 15 until the other day, nothing was heard about the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. Now they have bunched together a proposition under which we shall build the eastern portion of the line together with the western portion of the line and they say, "Boys, get it through by June 7", when the caucus was called last Tuesday, and the committees of this house were called off in order that it could meet. Then they came back into this house. Apparently the Minister of Trade and Commerce had sold the cabinet a bill of goods and the cabinet told the members what could be done and that they had to toe the line to a man. I appeal to those members to think over their responsibility to the Canadian people.
They have sat here for 20 years with some of the largest majorities that the Canadian people ever gave to a government of Canada. Did the people who elected them say, "You can govern as you wish and give away the natural resources of Canada to a United States pipe line company. If you cannot get the bill through, apply closure." Is this the way you are to treat a democracy? It is colossal nerve. That is the only way in which we can describe the attitude of a government that would ask parliament to pass such a bill in the face of all the facts, a bill to pay for 96 per cent of the Canadian pipe line. To hand over control of a great asset, when you know you can operate it as a crown corporation, is nothing but an affront to the parliament of Canada. We would be traitors to Canada if we were silent. We would be traitors to the cause of democracy if we did not raise our voices in protest. We shall continue to raise them in protest throughout this whole debate.
Canadians for generations are being sold out today. What about the people of tomorrow? What about these great resources of western Canada and their value to the whole Canadian economy? What about the industries along this line that will be called upon from this day on to compete with United States industries? How can Canadian industry compete? This is a sell-out of Canadian interests such as Canada has never seen before.
15, 1956	3959
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
That would be bad enough but, when the Prime Minister and his cabinet lay their oil-soaked hands on the altar of democracy and defile it by closing off the opposition, the people of Canada will remember. For the second time in 89 years of confederation, the banner of liberalism has been dirtied with the stain of dictatorship. Today we are witnessing a portion of democracy dying. Today this government is betraying those who sent them here in trust with our resources and in trust with the sacred Canadian democracy.


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


Ray Thomas: If the gas that has been spread around here by the Tories and the C.C.F. were volatile, we would not need any importation into Ontario for the next ten years. Unfortunately, it is empty, it has no effect and no power.
A short time ago, when speaking, the hon. member for Vegreville said that he could not understand why the official opposition should join with the C.C.F. in this union. I think I can tell him why. The Tories have been looking around for a good long time, because of their lack of any basic policy, for something with which to jump on the government, and they thought this was it. In their blind groping, they found themselves attached to the dusty pink shirt-tails of the C.C.F. party, and they are stuck with it.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe was talking about marriages a few moments ago. I want to tell him that the results of this union at least are that it is going to bear fruit that will be for the benefit of all the people of Canada. I am glad that he admits we are young enough to have a honeymoon. At least we are not in the decrepit position of the official opposition. Whether they know it or not, they are in a rut, and the only difference between a rut and the grave is the dimensions.
The main reason why I am rising tonight arises out of a television broadcast seen on Monday night that was made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, in which he discussed this question. I have never seen a program more shot through with halftruths, misrepresentations and falsehoods. It is the type of thing that could produce disastrous results if the people of Canada were to pay any attention, and thank goodness they will not. In this broadcast, as well as on the floor of the house, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said that this $80 million was a payment for the building of the trans-Canada pipe line section between
3960	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Edmonton and Winnipeg. He did not tell the people it was a loan at 5 per cent and that it would be repayable in nine months. He did not say either that 5 per cent interest on a $80 million loan was a very high return indeed; and it is a very good investment.


Mr. Wylie:: I doubt if he could even figure that.


Ray Thomas: He spoke too, as did the Leader of the Opposition, about 83 [DOT] 4 per cent of the capitalization belonging to United States concerns. That may be true at the moment but that has absolutely nothing to do with the final figures when the final capitalization has been put through.


An hon. Member:: Then it may be 100 per cent.


Ray Thomas: We have the assurance that 51 per cent of the stock will be made available to the Canadian people, and if the government is willing to accept the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Bow River this morning we will have absolute control of the stock in Canada.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Wishful thinking.


Ray Thomas: As far as controls are
concerned-
Mr. Pallet!: More of that funny money, I guess.


Ray Thomas: -many times during this debate the controls have been indicated to the house, federal export permits, export permits from Alberta and permits from the board of transport commissioners. The arguments that are being put forward in the house gjjout selling out to United States capital, the same arguments as were used the other night by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar on a television program, are absolutely at variance with the facts. I remember very well that earlier this session the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar set himself up as the champion of free speech in this country. I want to remind the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that when you have freedom you have certain responsibilities as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ray Thomas: One of the most important responsibilities that anyone has is that of truth, and the minute that anyone, a member of the House of Commons or anyone else, steps over that line he has gone beyond freedom and into licence. I have absolutely no use for that type of thing at all.


An hon. Member:: He always tells the truth.


Alfred Claude Ellis: His reputation is far better than yours.


Ray Thomas: No man, Mr. Chairman, has a right to hand the Canadian people the type of tripe that was handed to them on that television program the other night.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It is true, nevertheless.


John Horne Blackmore: It is not true, not a word.


Ray Thomas: I can understand why the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the other members of the C.C.F. party are so absolutely opposed to this measure. It is because they are absolutely opposed to private ownership of any kind.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Ray Thomas: All you have to do is to read the last paragraph of the Regina manifesto.


An hon. Member:: You read it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Have you ever read it yourself?


Ray Thomas: You will get that later, too. This idea of public ownership of a line such as this is absolutely impractical. As pointed out by the hon. member for Peace River tonight -


Alfred Claude Ellis: And by the Liberals.


Ray Thomas: -under such a condition the government would be caught in a price squeeze between the producer and the consumer and it would become the greatest political plaything this country has ever had. Every political party in the country would be out campaigning for higher prices at the wellhead in Alberta and cheaper gas in the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. No self-respecting government would ever allow itself to be put in a position where it would be forced into that kind of situation.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You are defending the American gas companies.


Ray Thomas: The C.C.F. have mentioned several times during this debate, as have the Tories, that if the government cancels the franchise of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines all the government has to do is to form a crown company and pick up the option on the pipe. That is not correct.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Ray Thomas: Because if Trans-Canada
Pipe Lines forfeit their option the manufacturing company can go to any part of the world and sell the pipe to any company, and we have no guarantee that it will come to Canada.


An hon. Member:: They do not understand that.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: We will put it down in writing for them.


John Horne Blackmore: And hire a teacher for them.


Ray Thomas: Having said that, apparently I have made some enemies on this side of the house but I am not finished because the government itself is not without blame.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ray Thomas: It is as a result of their fumbling, bumbling and lack of decision that the present step was made necessary.


Alfred Claude Ellis: No applause now.


An hon. Member:: We can take it as well as hand it out.


Ray Thomas: If we had allowed Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to go ahead without any interference during the last four years we would have had the pipe line built now, built by private capital all the way through and without any trouble at all for the government. We have to realize that because of this fumbling and indecision the government have taken the only action they could have taken under the circumstances. I would not be surprised but what one of the greatest causes of indecision within the government was the attitude of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I say that because he has attempted all through the years to squash anything that would bring any credit to the Social Credit government of Alberta. It is quite possible that by his arguments he led some of the junior members of the cabinet to go along with him.
We also know that over the years it has been the expressed policy of the Liberal party in the province of Alberta that there will be no export of natural resources. They have opposed the export of coal, the export of oil, the export of gas. Now the whole thing has come down to the present situation. The government has made a mess of things. They have made it impossible for the company to get private financing. Now the government is in a hurry and it is imperative that this project should be commenced immediately. I want to point out to hon. members that for every week the line is being held up 1 billion cubic feet of gas are going to waste in the province of Alberta.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Why do you not build it with rubber money?


Ray Thomas: This is gas that should be used for the welfare of the Canadian people.
I can assure hon. members of the Tory and C.C.F. parties that the holding up of the legislation will result in the loss of millions
67509-251J
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of dollars to the province of Alberta and the people of Alberta, is going to result in the loss of the availability of millions of cubic feet of gas to the people of Ontario and Quebec and is going to mean irreparable damage to the entire economy of this country.


An hon. Member:: Who held it up for the
last five years?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Greenwood.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Be calm now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do not lose your temper.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I think this must be one of the strangest enterprises on which this parliament has ever been asked to embark. We are asked to bail out an American controlled company which has among its shareholders some of the richest oil companies in the country. We are asked to bail them out because they have failed repeatedly in carrying out what they proposed to be able to carry out and we are asked to allow them to use the money of the Canadian people with which to speculate. It. is a question of heads I win, tails you lose. They can use this money and if things turn out well for them, then they can go ahead and make further money with it. But if things do not turn out well for them, they hand it back to us. That is one feature of this strange proceeding.
The second one is this. In order to carry it out, this democratic assembly is faced with a situation with which it has never been faced before, that is to say closure applied in the way which has been discussed. It is'-another instance-with which we are becoming all too familiar-of the disregard of parliament. As I watched yesterday, I noted some of the people who were applauding, closure. I think some of them were people whom, not so long ago, I would have regarded; as real liberals. I do not mean Liberals wLfflu a capital "L". I mean real liberals. Yet yesterday they were vigorously applauding closure. It made me realize what I have often realized before, but perhaps never more than tonight, namely what happens when we go on as we have been going on, year after year and when the rights of parliament are disregarded.
The situation is similar to that which confronted us a year ago. A year ago we had a situation where the Minister of Defence Production at that time was determined to have his way, his whole way and nothing but his way. That is what kept us here for nearly a month last summer. We now have
3962	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation a situation different in some ways but in other ways very much similar indeed. A year ago the difficulty was overcome. The government apparently got itself out of the impasse by getting the minister to go on a fishing trip. Now the fishing season has again arrived and it may be that the government could get itself out of this jam because I think it is quite possible that members of the government do not like what they have been forced into doing. At any rate, it is possible that the fishing season again might help us out of our trouble.
A year ago we thought we really had learned the ultimate on the question of the disregard of parliament. But a year ago we did not have this situation. A year ago we were allowed to debate at considerable length in what Liberals like to regard as liberal tradition. Reference has been made to the former prime minister. Let me give him full credit because in all his years here he never applied closure. He was a House of Commons man. However much we may have differed with him in many ways, we knew that he had a regard for parliament. He might almost have said, like Churchill, that he was a child of parliament.
As I said, the question now is in one way astonishingly similar to what it was a year ago. It is a question of power for this minister whose work is respected in many ways but who, as somebody said tonight, should never be allowed within a thousand miles of a democratic assembly on certain occasions, and I think that is probably right. There is this difference between last year and this year. Last year the minister at least allowed us to know what was going on. There was no mystery about it. There was no mumbo-jumbo. There was nothing behind the curtain. But of course this year we have had a most extraordinary situation-a situation which one would not have believed could have happened-where the minister has carried on the business of the country in his inside pocket, where he has had certain documents. I should not call them documents. They were :said not to be documents. They were just letters. It is a very interesting distinction that is made. When the minister was asked if he had documents, he said no. But when he was asked if he had letters-That was a little bit too hard for him, and he said "yes, but not such as you can see". So we learned there, as I say, that documents are not letters. I have asked my lawyer friends and I doubt very much whether the minister could get an opinion on that point.
At any rate, after many months of indecision-and let us remember that-and of considering various proposals-the government a week ago brought down this measure.
[Mr. Macdonnell.l

They had, we understand, spent months in considering it. There was plenty of gossip -and I think it was probably well informed -that there had been grave difference in the cabinet. At any rate the thing went on for months and there was delay and delay as I have said. But there was one place where there was no delay. Once it got beyond the cabinet and into the caucus, there was no delay there. It took them only an hour or two to swallow the whole thing. Theirs not to reason why. It would be interesting if we could get an account of what took place in that caucus just as it would be interesting if we could get an account of the conversation between the minister and Mr. Frank McMahon, but we probably never will.


Mr. Sinclair:: Or between Premier Frost. That would be very interesting.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is always very helpful and I am very grateful to him now.


James Sinclair: Have you consulted Premier Frost as well, and Premier Manning, your Tory colleague in Alberta? That is much more interesting.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the minister still
speaking?


James Sinclair: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is still
standing?


James Sinclair: Yes. I am asking a question.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member is asking a question. I should like to ask-


William Earl Rowe: He has only 10 minutes to go. Let him continue.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. The hon. member for Greenwood, who has the floor, cannot be interrupted without his consent.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member for Greenwood has only 10 minutes to go.


James Sinclair: I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask you to ask the hon. member for Greenwood-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. If the
Minister of Fisheries is not rising on a question of order or privilege, the hon. member for Greenwood may continue.


James Sinclair: On a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not know what happened in this caucus-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. Is the Minister of Fisheries rising on a point of order?


James Sinclair: Yes.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Then he will state the point of order.


James Sinclair: I want to ask the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


James Sinclair: I have a good point of order.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


James Sinclair: I want to know whether the hon. gentleman is asking rhetorical questions or real questions. If they are real questions I will answer them.


William Earl Rowe: That is not a point of order. It is just an interruption.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. If the committee of the whole will kindly keep order for 30 seconds, I will dispose of this matter. The minister has not raised a point of order. The hon. member for Greenwood will continue.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You must not pay any attention to the Minister of Fisheries. He is just one of those Rhodes scholars.


James Sinclair: I know that. I am asking whether these are real questions or rhetorical questions. If they are real questions, they will be answered. If they are rhetorical questions-


William Earl Rowe: It is too late now.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Sinclair: Is this a real turtle or a mock turtle. If you are a Rhodes scholar, act like a Rhodes scholar.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was just making reference to the caucus which we all would have liked to be at.


James Sinclair: You were asking questions which you do not want answered. You do not want any answers. You asked questions and you wanted some answered. If you want answers, ask me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do you know anything about the rules over there?


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


James Sinclair: He is asking questions but he does not want answers.
15. 1956	3963
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Sinclair: He would not know an answer even when he asked a question.


An hon. Member:: Better apply closure on the Minister of Fisheries.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Before the Minister of
Fisheries began his speech I was trying to say something about the caucus.


James Sinclair: You were asking questions and you did not want answers.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: ' I think we can all imagine what did happen there. After all, one can well believe that those gentlemen I see opposite and to my right did not need a long period of study to understand this question. They were able, in an hour, to grasp the whole thing. The argument was, "Good old C.D."; that was the argument. After all, the minister is the hero of 1,000 contracts and 100 caucuses. He carries great weight and even his private and confidential correspondence we hear about, even that no doubt had its place.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As I said a few minutes ago we had difficulty last year, but the government did pluck up its courage when the minister went fishing, and perhaps he may go fishing again.
I want to say a word about closure. There is evidently quite a misunderstanding about closure in England. It has been stated it occurred 21 times in a session, and that may be true, but that is not this kind of thing. It is done by agreement. It is not done against the will of the opposition for the purpose of closing them off. This closure is used in that way. No one who saw the way closure was applied could doubt for one moment that it was applied as the absolute antithesis of the whole principle of free discussion. It was applied in, what shall I say, irritation, almost in anger and with the feeling, "We will show you; if you want to have discussion, we will show you it is not so easy to have discussion."
I can understand quite well why the government wanted closure. It does not need the minister's crystal ball to know that. The reason they want closure is that they do not want disclosure. The last thing in the world they want is time to be given so the people can understand what this is about. They remember what happened a year ago. They remember that when the press got hold of what was happening, which they did not do quite as quickly as they have done this year, the government had to slow up and we got a measure of concession. That is the last
3964	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation thing in the world they want. Mr. Chairman, I believe they can read and when they do read they will know what the press is saying.


James Sinclair: That is what my learned
friend is doing, he is reading.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The whole idea-


James Sinclair: He wanted parliamentarians, not readers.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. It is impossible for me, even at this short distance, to hear the hon. member and I am sure it must be more difficult in other parts of the chamber. I wonder if we could have less noise.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


James Sinclair: It must be very obvious,
Mr. Chairman, with his manuscript in his hand, that he is reading.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No wonder you fell off the ladder.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. In parliamentary debate, the hon. member must not be interrupted without his consent.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I hope these interruptions will be taken off my time.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I also have a complaint because I was really getting on quite well until this began.


James Sinclair: Put your manuscript down and speak from your heart. You have had an expensive education and you should be able to speak from your heart.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I want to say-


Some hon. Members:: It is one o'clock.


William Alfred Robinson: I hear some hon. members saying, "One o'clock". May I draw their attention to citation 227 in Beauchesne's third edition, and to the new time in standing order 33 which is advanced from two o'clock to one o'clock. The citation reads:
If a member has taken the floor at 1.55 o'clock, he is entitled to speak for 20 minutes, but no member "shall rise to speak" after two o'clock.
The hon. member for Greenwood took the floor at 12.43 and his 20 minutes would accordingly have expired at 1.03. Thereafter, in accordance with standing order 33, the question shall be put and no other member shall rise. I am taking it for granted that I have taken a minute or a minute and a half of the hon. member's time, and I propose to remind him that his time will expire at 1.05.
fMr. Macdonnell.]


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Now, Mr. Chairman, after all this I have just one other point I should like to make. I have tried to make clear the curious manner in which this business was done and I should like to read here a question and answer addressed to the Prime Minister which gives me a picture of the action of the cabinet. It is very delightful but rather confusing. On page 3482 of Hansard for May 2, 1956, the hon. member for Prince Albert asked this question:
Will the Prime Minister table the offer of Frank McMahon and his associates. If the offer is confidential, will he ask McMahon to release the confidentiality so the terms of the offer may be brought before the house?
The Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, I have seen no offer from Mr. Frank McMahon. I will have to inquire from my colleagues if they individually have received a confidential offer. No offer has been brought to the attention of the cabinet.
I mention that because it gives me a curious picture of the Prime Minister going to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and saying, "Have you got a confidential letter?" No. The Minister of External Affairs? No. The Minister of Finance? No. And so he proceeds right across the cabinet. It is a picture that I like to think about but the point I want to make is this. The Leader of the Opposition has been asking for months to have a committee. Why did he want that? So that we might have some knowledge about this, independent knowledge, knowledge from experts. At the present time, we are asked to take a whole lot of unsupported statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now, I have a great respect for the Minister of Trade and Commerce apart from his views on democracy, but I do not think we should be asked to take his or anybody else's unsupported views on these important matters. First of all, we are asked to take his view that Trans-Canada are the only people who can do this. That is not an open and shut proposition. I have heard arguments which would drive a coach and six through that. The facts are not as clear as the minister would indicate. After all, Trans-Canada has gone from one position to another. First of all they were going to build the whole thing. Then the question of the northern Ontario bridge came up; they wanted that and finally they wanted to have the western line built for them too.
As far as the committee is concerned, I suggest there is a whole series of what are now questions which should be turned into matters of fact. For instance, what will be the cost to the eastern consumer? I notice in one of the papers a positive statement

that the cost to the eastern consumer will be higher. The next is the statements with regard to McMahon. After all, the minister has made him sound like a fly-by-night, a thing which he is not. He has been represented as if he were a kind of trivial creature that one should not consider seriously. His letters certainly do not suggest that. There are other things, too, which in my opinion should not be dealt with by this house until they become proved matters of fact. I think it is perfectly clear that the Liberal caucus dealt with this whole matter in the most casual manner because they only had it before them for about an hour.


Some hon. Members:: We want Sinclair. We want Sinclair.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My very last point is this. I should like to draw to the attention of the committee one or two opinions expressed in the press. We are not alone in this; indeed, it is heartening to us to realize the extent to which public opinion seems to be with us.


James Sinclair: It only seems to be, for the first time in 40 years.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In fact, it is rather
astonishing.


Some hon. Members:: We want Sinclair.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall read some brief expressions of opinion that were quoted in the Toronto Globe and Mail today.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.
According to the latter part of standing order 33, which I shall read:
.. .and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before one o'clock in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
The question to be decided is the following one:
Resolved, That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the constitution of a corporation to be known as the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation for the purposes-[DOT]
Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it unanimously agreed that I dispense with the reading of the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
15, 1956	3965
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


George Harris Hees: Never.


William Alfred Robinson: Those in favour of the resolution will kindly rise.
Resolution agreed to: Yeas, 156; nays, 58.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the resolution
carried.
Shall I rise and report the resolution?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, before the resolution is carried, there are a few observations I should like to make.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


William Earl Rowe: He is rising on a point of order.


William Alfred Robinson: Under standing order 33 may I point out that all questions must be decided at the expiration of the time of the last speaker at one o'clock and the only thing I can do is to put all questions to decide this matter. If the hon. member wishes me to, I will put the next question which is moved by Mr. Harris that I do now leave the chair and report the resolution with respect to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, now on a point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman,-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, does
Your Honour-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to explain my vote-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak to my pair-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Gauthier (Nickel Belt):: Take your point of order home.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Mr. Marlin:: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-


Edmund Davie Fulton: No question of privilege is allowed at this stage.


William Alfred Robinson: I am entirely governed by the provisions of standing order 33, the last part of which I will read once more:
...and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before one o'clock in the morning, no mem-
3966	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation ber shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
I have already put one question. I now propose to put the second question which is-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have been paired.


Some hon. Members:: He was paired in his vote.


Some hon. Members:: A pair.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South and I inadvertently rose and voted. I would ask you to withdraw that vote because I have a pair with the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


William Alfred Robinson: I regret very much that it is impossible for me to order that the vote be withdrawn but your remarks will appear in Hansard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, do I understand Your Honour to rule that no hon. member can take the floor after one o'clock?


William Alfred Robinson: That is the ruling I have made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I submit that it is not-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I have already ruled that I am bound by standing order 33. I must put this question immediately.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, I submit-


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


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I submit that Your Honour has no right-


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member must resume his seat while I am standing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


William Alfred Robinson: The terms of the standing order are perfectly clear, that no member shall rise to speak after that hour but that all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall be decided forthwith. I have put a question and I now propose to put a second question:
Mr. Harris moves that I do now leave the chair and report the resolution with respect to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation.
[The Chairman.]


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister cannot make that motion because you have already ruled that no one can speak after one o'clock. I now desire to speak to a point of order and I insist upon my right to speak.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon member will kindly resume his seat while-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I insist upon my right to speak to the point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Another gag.


George Alexander Drew: Another form of closure.


William Earl Rowe: Can a member not speak to a point of order?


William Alfred Robinson: I have already expressed myself on three occasions. I think the standing order is perfectly clear, and I read again from the standing order:
...but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
It is not a question of one member or another speaking after one o'clock, it is a question of deciding those matters which must be concluded in accordance with the standing order. I propose to put the question immediately.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I protest; I demand the right to speak on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not to be bulldozed by the Chairman as this house is being bulldozed by the government. If Your Honour will look at the record of past years he will see that many points of order have been raised at the stage at which I am raising this one. I demand the right to be heard.


William Alfred Robinson: If necessary I shall direct the hon. member to resume his seat.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You may do so, but I refuse to be bulldozed.


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


Edmund Davie Fulton: I submit-


William Alfred Robinson: If the hon. member will not resume his seat I must report the matter to Mr. Speaker.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will make one more endeavour-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will make one more endeavour to reason with Your Honour. I wish to be heard on the point of order. You may say that the minister has moved a question but I wish to be heard on a point of order before the question is put. Your Honour should permit me to put the point of order before the question is put. The point of order is this-


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I indicated that I was bound by the terms of the standing order and that I proposed to put the second question. I can do nothing else if the hon. member-


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out to Your Honour-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out to Your Honour-


An hon. Member:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has been permitted on previous occasions-


William Alfred Robinson: I ask the hon. member to resume his seat. If the hon. member does not do so I must report to Mr. Speaker.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out-


An hon. Member:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that points of order have been permitted at this stage.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am reducing the question to writing in order to report to Mr. Speaker.


William Earl Rowe: Another closure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Alfred Robinson: I am in the course of reporting this matter to Mr. Speaker and until that is done I have no further-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon when you were-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.
3967
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Major James William Coldwell: This is more disgraceful
than closure.


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


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member will
kindly resume his seat while-


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


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


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


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon when you were at this same stage you accepted advice from the Minister of Finance. Why is it you accept advice from the Minister of Finance and you will not accept advice from this side?


An hon. Member:: The majority are on this side.


An hon. Member:: The majority rules.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.
And Mr. Speaker having resumed the chair:


William Alfred Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in committee of the whole when considering the resolution with respect to Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation Mr. Fulton attempted to raise a point of order and I ruled that in accordance with the provisions of standing order 33 no member shall rise after one o'clock a.m. I directed the hon. member to resume his seat; I did so after putting the question with regard to concurrence in the resolution and immediately prior to attempting to put the question that I do leave the chair, and the hon. member declined to do so.


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


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think it should be pointed
out that I rose on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops realizes of course that I must take the report from the chairman as I received it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I object to the report; the report does not accurately state the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to place before you the fact that the report is not an accurate report-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
3968	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


George Alexander Drew: And that Your Honour on a point of order should hear the hon. member for Kamloops state exactly what did happen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order. My point of order is based on standing order 6(3) which deals with the time of adjournment. It is now well after ten o'clock, and this house under your speakership cannot continue to sit without unanimous consent. You have no option but to adjourn the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I can see that hon. members have had a very good day, and so did I. Now the hon. member claims that I cannot even resume the chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Having resumed the chair you must adjourn the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has cited a standing order but I would have preferred to have him cite standing order 6(4) which reads:
(4) When it is provided in any standing order that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment be forthwith disposed of or concluded, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the house until the specified proceedings be completed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there any standing order that specifies that the matter raised by the report from the chairman-


Mr. Speaker:: At this moment I am not going to be called upon to decide a matter which must be dealt with in committee of the whole. Standing order 59(4) says:
The chairman shall maintain order in the committees of the whole house, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the house; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the house, on receiving a report thereof.
Now this is the situation in which I appear in the chair at the moment. I have received a report from the chairman of the committee of the whole in which he said:
In committee of the whole, when considering the resolution with respect to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Fulton attempted to raise a point of order.
The chairman ruled that in accordance with the provisions of standing order 33 no member shall rise after one o'clock a.m. and directed the hon. member to resume his seat. Mr. Fulton declined to do so.
That is the end of the statement that I received from the chairman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Now, Mr. Speaker


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the hon. member does not accept the report as being an accurate one, but I have no knowledge of what goes on in committee. I have no control over the committee of the whole. The house in committee of the whole controls its own affairs. The chairman directs order according to standing order 59. By virtue of standing order 59 (4) he reports that this disorder
[Mr. Drew.)

has happened in committee, and that can only be dealt with by the house. I am only the pipe line through which this report is presented to the house. It is up to the house to deal with it.


An hon. Member:: What are you going to do about it?


Mr. Speaker:: What am I going to do about it? If the hon. member looked at the authorities he would see that once a report has been submitted to the house it is up to the house itself to do whatever it pleases with the report. In these instances may I suggest that the leader of the house has a part to play?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise on a point of order. I know that although this matter has been raised before, it has not been dealt with before and it has not been disposed of. I have read the debates on closure and the proceedings thereunder since 1913, and though the point has been raised before-


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I know. The hon. member now is trying to debate before me the matter which he attempted to debate before the chairman of the committee of the whole.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I am dealing with the
question of an inaccurate report, and what I am saying here is that so far as I am aware at this stage of the proceedings there has been no decision on the question of what happens when a report alleged to have been inaccurate is presented from the chair under circumstances such as this. My point of order now is that Your Honour, before you say, "The house has received the report", should give the member who is the subject of the report, an opportunity to state the facts as they actually occurred when an allegation is made, as has been made in this case, that a report is inaccurate, and I request the right to state to the house what the facts were-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member says there were instances of a report having been corrected. Would he be good enough to give me the citation of whatever authority he has for that statement?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not say that, but I refer to the debates of 1913-I think it is. It was one of the occasions when closure was moved in committee, and a point of order having been raised, members of the committee objected and said to the Speaker, "You are receiving an inaccurate report", and the Speaker did not deal with the question.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the instance? I am quite prepared to do the very best that can be done in the circumstances.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I refer to page 9590 of Hansard for 1912-13, in which it was stated by a number of members then sitting on this side of the house that the report was a false report, and that question was simply not dealt with by the Speaker. I claim the point should be dealt with and the member who is the object or subject of the report should be given an opportunity to state what the facts were.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, you were kind enough to suggest that I might have some responsibility in this matter, and I accept that, having in mind the fact that it is now 1.30.


An hon. Member:: Do you want to go?


Walter Edward Harris: I am quite prepared to stay as long as the hon. member. It seems to me that the chairman of the committee of the whole was called upon by the hon. member for Kamloops to consider a point of order which the chairman did not feel he could entertain, having in mind the wording of the rule.
Once again, I do not question at all the decision or the judgment of the chairman of the committee of the whole, but I am sure that we would save time if we heard the point of order in the committee rather than before Mr. Speaker in the house and that then, if the point of order is well taken, there might or might not be an appeal to you, sir. If there is no appeal we could dispose of the question in the committee of the whole and sooner or later we could come to the conclusion of whatever we are doing.
On the other hand, if there is a report made to Your Honour, as there has been, and Your Honour feels that' the matter rests with the house, we might take a considerable time discussing the report. If my hon. friend's point would be met by reverting to the position as it was in the committee of the whole, so that the point of order might be made and a ruling made on it, then I presume he would be content. Whether or not this point was accepted would really make no difference in the long run, because he would have the right to appeal to Your Honour in the circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that satisfactory to the hon. member?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was desirous of making a point of order in the committee-in my submission, a valid point of order. Naturally I am prepared to make that point of order in the committee. All I can suggest is that, if the leader of the house would restrain his colleagues in the cabinet as well as in the house, these difficulties would not arise-and I am perfectly prepared to go on in committee.
67509-252J
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. Speaker:: If the house is so disposed as to deal with the report that has been made to it through me in the fashion that has been indicated by the Minister of Finance and agreed to by the hon. member for Kamloops, all that the house can do now is to resume forthwith the sitting in committee of the whole.
And the house having resumed in committee:


William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members will realize that this procedure is somewhat new. I have drawn hon. members' attention to the latter part of standing order 33, which I shall read once more:
...and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before one o'clock in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
I had put one of the questions which must be decided, being the resolution itself. Then I put the other question. I asked if it were agreed that I should leave the chair to report the resolution, and some hon. members said no, as I understood it. I therefore proceeded to put the other question which must be decided in accordance with standing order 33. That question is the following one, that I do now leave the chair and report the resolution with respect to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation.
I considered and I still consider that I am bound by the strict terms of the standing order in putting the two questions at this time. On the other hand, as I said, it is a new question and I have in effect received instructions from the house. Therefore, I will be glad to hear the hon. member for Kamloops on the point of order, but since, after all, I must actually decide these points without debate, I hope he will confine his remarks to the problem as I have outlined it and what I think is the crux of the problem.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I accept your terms of reference subject to one amendment, and that is that you will decide it without debate, but I hope you will listen to debate before you decide it. My point of order relates directly to the last words of standing order 33 under which you have said that you and the committee are now operating. These words are:
...and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before one o'clock in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall be decided forthwith.
3970	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
In my submission the postponed consideration which was before us was the question which Your Honour said was the question before the committee, and I took down your words. You said, "The question to be decided is the following one" and you then put the question on the resolution.


William Alfred Robinson: May I interject at that
point? Some months ago we had a discussion here one day when hon. members entered the committee while voting was taking place. I indicated at that time that with respect to future votes in committee I would preface the question by saying, "The question is the following one", and if you will read Hansard you will find that I said that at that point hon. members would then no longer have the right to enter the chamber and vote. It was not that I indicated that there was only one question or that I wished to indicate that there was only one question to be decided. It was following a precedent which I thought I had established some months ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In my submission there is,
of course, only one question before this committee at the time when closure was moved and that question was: Does the committee approve or disapprove the proposed resolution? The motion to report is a separate motion and it was not before the committee when closure was moved. You cannot have two questions before the committee at the same time. There was no amendment moved and in the absence of an amendment how could it possibly be argued that there were two questions before this committee?
There was one question for decision. Upon the result of that decision depended another question. If the resolution had been defeated the question you now propose to put would not have arisen. If the resolution had been defeated you would not be suggesting or inviting a motion to report because there would be nothing to report. Therefore, the whole question with regard to the report of the committee is an entirely separate question from the question on the resolution itself, and that question was not before the committee. The matter or reporting was not and could not have been before the committee when closure was moved.
It is well established and well understood that the terms of the closure motion apply only to the question for consideration, debate on which is to be resumed at the time when the closure motion itself is moved. I point out to you that the notice given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday afternoon at the beginning of the debate


certainly did not include the question of the report of the committee. It included only the resolution then before the committee.
May I point out to Your Honour, who, I see, is receiving considerable advice, that my second point follows from the first and is to this effect, that it is not open, as you yourself have ruled, to any hon. member to rise and speak after one o'clock unless that member happens to have taken the floor a few minutes before one and carries over after one. But after that member has spoken it is not open to any hon. member to take the floor.
A little earlier, before we had what I may call the misunderstanding which resulted in the Speaker resuming the chair, you put the question which you proposed to move in these terms: "Mr. Harris moves that I report the resolution". Of course, it takes a motion by an hon. member that you report the resolution. My second point therefore is that it not being in order for any member to take the floor, as you made very clear to me, it is not possible for the Minister of Finance to take the floor to speak in order to say: "I move that you report the resolution".
You may argue, sir, anybody over there may argue, and I am quite prepared to meet the argument, that in that case there is a flaw in the drafting of the closure rule. I am quite prepared to accept that. This point that I am raising has never been raised before and therefore it has never been dealt with before. It has never been disposed of before.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no other way of getting out of committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am putting it to you as a
proposition which requires a decision at the present time. It is made clear in Beauchesne that the report of the chairman to the house cannot be based otherwise than on a motion to report. Therefore, I say that the motion to report cannot be made at this stage and the motion to report is not the question which was before the committee when closure was moved because it is a motion which depends entirely on the decision of the other question, that is, do we favour or do we oppose the resolution? Therefore, the motion to report is not one of those motions which must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration. The only postponed consideration was the resolution itself.
Therefore, I state that you are not in a position to make any report at this time to the house even if the house were in a position to sit and receive it, which I question, but your report must be made at some later stage, probably at tomorrow's sitting.


William Alfred Robinson: I have listened with care to the hon. member for Kamloops and I must draw his attention once more to the provisions of standing order 33 which govern us at the present time. This time I will read the entire standing order.
Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the house be in committee of the whole, or of supply, or of ways and means, any minister of the crown who standing in his place, shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his intention so to do, may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned, or that the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause, or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or tiles, shall be the first business of the committee, and shall not further be postponed; and in either case such question shall be decided without debate or amendment; and if the same shall be -resolved in the affirmative, no member shall thereafter speak more than once, or longer than 20 minutes in any such adjourned debate; or, if in committee, on any such resolution, clause, section, preamble or title; and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before one o'clock in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
May I point out the words "and shall not further be postponed". May I also point out to hon. members the words in the latter part of the clause:
...all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
As to the question of hon. members rising in their places, the words of the standing order to the effect that no member shall rise to speak after that hour must be considered in the light of the words:
... all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
May I also draw to the attention of hon. members Beauchesne's third edition, citation 227, which 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,...
Under the new rules, of course, it is one o'clock.
...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 twenty 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,...
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
And here are the words which I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members:
... when all questions connected with the main motion have to be decided forthwith.
In my opinion,-as I attempted previously to rule-the question of leaving the chair
and reporting the resolution is so intimately connected with the main motion that it is part of the proceedings which must take place tonight. I consider myself bound by what I must say are the clear terms of the standing order, and I so rule. If the hon. member wishes to appeal that ruling, I should be glad to report the matter to the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I wish to appeal your ruling to the house.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Chairman, may I make a
point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. While I am having the question reduced to writing I hope I shall not have any further questions of order raised.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the
chairman of the committee made the following report:
In committee of the whole when considering a resolution with respect to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Fulton raised a point of order to the effect that when closure was adopted, there was only one question before the committee and that the question that Mr. Chairman rise and report the resolution was not covered; and further that since it was not open to any member to take the floor after one p.m. the second motion was not in order.
Mr. Chairman ruled that, according to standing order 33, all questions which must be decided in order to conclude such postponed consideration must be decided forthwith and that since the motion that the chairman report the resolution is essential for disposing of the resolution, it must be disposed of in accordance with the standing order.
Whereupon Mr. Fulton appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows!
The question is the following one. In committee of the who. , when considering a resolution with respect to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Fulton raised a point of order to the effect that when closure was adopted, there was only one question before the committee and that the question that Mr. Chairman rise and report the resolution was not covered; and further that since it was not open to any member to take the floor after 1.00 a n. the second motion was not in order.
Mr. Chairman ruled, that according to standing order 33 all questions which must be decided in order to conclude such postponed consideration must be decided forthwith and that since the motion that the chairman report the resolution is essential for disposing of the resolution, it must be disposed of in accordance with the standing order.
Whereupon Mr. Fulton appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.
3972	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


William Alfred Robinson: Mr. Harris moves that I do now leave the chair and report the resolution. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Alfred Robinson: 
William Alfred Robinson: I declare the motion carried.
Resolution reported.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order. Standing order 6 (3) reads:
At 6.00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays and Fridays and at 10.00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, unless hereunder otherwise provided, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the house without question put until the - next sitting day.
This is, or it was when it started, a session of Tuesday, therefore it should be adjourned by the Speaker at ten o'clock. I point out
Gauthier (Nickel Belt) Gauthier (Portneuf) Gingras Gour (Russell)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Gregg
Habel
Hahn
Hanna
Hansell
Hardie
Harris
Harrison
Healy
Hellyer
Henderson
Henry
Kollingworth
Holowach
Hosking
Houck
Howe (Port Arthur) [Mr. Speaker.)

that it is now well after ten o'clock and therefore the house should be adjourned. It is my contention that unless there is unanimous consent no further business can be done by the house at this sitting which started yesterday and is still going now at 2.15 a.m. Your Honour may wish to call my attention to standing order 6 (4), which reads:
When it is provided in any standing order that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment be forthwith disposed of or concluded, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the house until the specified proceedings be completed.
May I point out that Your Honour has said on a number of occasions, in fact you said it within the last hour, that the house does not know what goes on in the committee of the whole. Earlier in these proceedings when another matter was reported to Your Honour you, sir, used these words: "I have no knowledge of what goes on in committee of the whole." Therefore Your Honour cannot know, although I am pleased to inform you-I should say that will inform you; I am not pleased to do it-that in committee of the whole today there was moved by the government a motion of closure under standing order 33. I not only give Your Honour that bit of distasteful information, but I point out that the motion for closure, which was moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, was *"that further consideration of this resolution shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed". The only decision taken in our committee of the whole, of which Your Honour has no knowledge, was that there be closure in the committee on the resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member to notify him that I have no knowledge of what goes on in the committee of the whole until it reports. The committee has just reported and I know what has gone on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your Honour knows that the committee has reported but you do not know the trouble the government went through to get that resolution before the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Let us have a discussion on the point of order that the hon. member started to state; let us not go into what happened in the committee of the whole on previous proceedings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I made that other reference to the committee was so that no one else would introduce the question of closure and claim that it applied at this stage. As Your Honour says, what you now know-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not intend to apply standing order 33.
15, 1956	3973
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is fine; you have saved quite a lengthy part of my speech. We are now at the point where the committee of the whole has reported. That report has not yet been received by the house, neither has there been a motion for concurrence in the report nor have there been any other proceedings that might follow thereafter. It is my contention that none of those proceedings should be taken by the house tonight for the reason that we are four hours and seventeen minutes past the time when the house should be adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has brought to my attention the standing order which has to do with the ordinary time of adjournment. Standing order 6 (3) reads:
At 6.00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays and Fridays and at 10.00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays,...
I emphasize the following words:
-unless hereunder otherwise provided, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the house without question put until the next sitting day.
Then standing order 6 (4) reads:
When it is provided in any standing order-
I stress the words "any standing order".
-that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment be forthwith disposed of or concluded, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the house until the specified proceedings be completed.
I would direct the hon. member's attention to standing order 62 which was approved last year and which reads:
Whenever a resolution is reported from an y committee of the whole, a motion to concur in the same shall be forthwith put and decided without debate or amendment.
I should like also to point out to the hon. member who has raised the matter of the sitting day-he said that we are four hours beyond the sitting day that we started on- that the sitting day starts at the moment that we parade in with the mace and stops at the moment we parade out with the mace. I would refer the hon. member to Bourinot at pages 212 and 213 in which he states that a full parliamentary day is one that is a sitting of the house. A sitting of the house is from the moment the house starts at 2.30 until it is adjourned. I quote:
If it is intended to meet earlier next day, a formal motion should be made previous to the adjournment of the house, as in the case of holidays or church festivals. Sometimes the house has two or three distinct sittings on the same day. In such cases each sitting is considered a full parliamentary day, and bills of supply can be advanced stages without objection.
In this case we have not done that. We have not divided our sitting to make two or three sittings in one sitting day. We only
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation have one sitting day which started at 2.30 and which will not conclude until the mace is paraded out.
Under the circumstances and basing my ruling on which I have said, specifically on standing order 62, I am left with no alternative but to forthwith put the motion for concurrence. I am bound at this moment to ask the house if it agrees that this resolution be now concurred in.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour
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:: I declare the motion carried.

Lafontaine Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere) Langlois (Gaspe) Lapointe Lavigne Leboe
Leduc (Jacques Lasalle)
Leduc (Verdun) Lefrancois Legare Lesage Lusby MacDougall MacEachen MacKenzie Macnaughton McCann McCubbin McCulloch (Pictou) McDonald Mcllraith Mclvor McMillan McWilliam Maltais Mang Marler Masse
Mitchell (Sudbury)
Nixon
Patterson
Pearson
Philpott
Pickersgill
Pinard
Pommer
Poulin


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


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman leave to introduce a bill based on this resolution?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the motion you now propose to put would be an entirely new proceeding. I appreciate that Your Honour has ruled that, under the provisions of standing order 62, whenever a resolution is reported from any committee of the whole, a motion to concur shall be forthwith put and decided without debate or amendment. That has been done. In my submission that ends the proceedings with respect to the making of the report, the receiving of the report and the motion for concurrence. Now we are starting a new proceeding related to the introduction of a bill. I go back to standing order 6(3) which provides that at 10 o'clock on a day like today, unless hereunder otherwise provided, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the house without question put. If Your Honour should then suggest that the provisions of standing order 6 (4) govern, I would point out that it reads as follows:
6. (4) When it is provided in any standing order that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment be forthwith disposed of or concluded, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the house until the specified proceedings be completed.
It was under that provision, as I understand it, that you acted to receive the report and the motion for concurrence in the report because standing order 62 says that the motion to concur shall be put forthwith. Our point now is that these proceedings are concluded. The committee's report has been received and concurred in. Now the minister seeks to make a separate motion related to the introduction of a bill, which is a new proceeding which was not before the committee or the house arising out of the previous stages. Therefore the provisions of standing order 6 (3) apply and the house is not at liberty to embark on these new proceedings because the government has moved and the house has accepted no motion altering the ordinary time of adjournment. The ordinary time of adjournment having passed, it is not within the competence of the house, except with unanimous consent, to take up any new business. In case Your Honour or the government should be under any misapprehension, I can assure you that such unanimous consent would not be given.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at length on this particular point of order. It seems to me that the
15, 1956	3975
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation arguments made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) are quite clear. In line with the argument which I made at the previous stage I might say that in addition to the fact that standing order 62, which Your Honour quoted on the last point of order, relates only to the presentation or the receiving of and concurrence in of a report, the introduction of a bill is provided for in a separate standing order, namely standing order 71, paragraphs 1 and 2, and also in two or three other standing orders after that. I mention the fact that the introduction of a bill is completely separate from the resolution in support of the contention that has already been made that we are now at a new proceeding. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not think all of this discussion is necessary at all. I think all I need to say is "Ten o'clock".


James Joseph McCann: Who are you?


Mr. Speaker:: When the hon. member says that all he needs to say is "Ten o'clock", he is repeating a point which he attempted to make earlier.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What time is it, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The time is a quarter to three. If the hon. member to whom I have listened- as I always do-with great reverence will be kind enough to listen to me, I will make my point, following which he will know exactly what his recourse may be.
I am not going to go back at great length to his point that because it is now twelve minutes to three he can call it ten o'clock and I should leave the chair. The hon. member knows very well that when a resolution has been reported and concurred in by the house it is customary-and I repeat "it is customary" -to take-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Provided the house is still in session.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, if the hon. member wishes to go back to a point that I thought I had already settled, we shall have repetition. Rules of procedure are the discipline which hon. members are prepared to accept for themselves and the authority which they are prepared to give their Speaker to enforce them. That is the situation. The citation No. 1 which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to me the other day in Beauchesne's third edition is one that would apply in the circumstances because it states very well what the position is. The point is that the minute the resolution is concurred in, an order issues for leave to introduce the bill. I am going to make the point again. The authority will be found at page 165 of Beauchesne's third edition in.
3976	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation which is outlined the procedure on bills day by day. On the second day the bill goes through the stage of a motion under government orders on the order paper and so on and finally the Speaker says "When shall this bill be read a second time?" "Next sitting of the house". That is what Beauchesne explains to be the procedure on the second day for the consideration of a bill. I say that when the house has concurred in the resolution on which a bill is to be founded, an order issues for the introduction of the bill. I am not going to say that without indicating what the authorities say on the point. There are bills that are introduced upon an order of the house and those bills are either preceded by certain preliminary proceedings or they are ordered in without any preliminary proceedings. At page 490 of May's fifteenth edition he deals with bills that are ordered in without any preliminary proceedings and he says this:
In the absence of any preliminary proceedings, a motion may be made that leave be given to bring in a bill.
And then at page 487 he deals with bills preceded by certain preliminaries-he says this:
A certain class of bills, the main object of which is the expenditure of money or the imposition of taxation, must, in accordance with the requirements of the standing orders regarding charges on the people, originate in committee of the whole house.
When the resolutions have been reported and agreed to by the house, a bill is ordered thereon, or upon some only of the resolutions.
On that same point Campion at page 177 has this to say under bills introduced with preliminaries:
A certain class of bills, whose main object is the expenditure of money or the imposition of taxation, generally called "money" bills, are still required to be preceded by resolutions passed in committee of the whole house and agreed to by the house on report. In this case the bill is ordered to be brought in immediately after the resolutions are agreed to.
Therefore the resolution having been agreed to, an order of the house does issue for leave to introduce the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would Your Honour permit just two observations?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: At the beginning of your remarks, Your Honour stated that it is customary to introduce immediately a bill based upon a resolution. In reply, may I point out that it is customary for the house, for instance, to permit the government whip to revert to motions if he wishes to announce changes in committees the next day or for cabinet ministers to revert to motions. It is the custom for the house to permit that, but it is not mandatory upon the house to do so


and if the house objects then leave to revert to motions is refused and that is not permitted.
Now, my point based upon that is that although it is customary to follow the passage of a resolution by the introduction of a bill, it is customary only because that almost invariably takes place before ten o'clock. It is now after ten o'clock and we have cited standing order 6(3), which must have some application. We submit it has application now and therefore we are entitled to say we are now in a position where we do not have to follow the usual custom and where, in fact, it would be improper to follow the usual custom. We refuse unanimous consent to do so.
If standing order 6 has any application, and unless Your Honour rules that the introduction of a bill is the same thing exactly as the receipt of a report, a proposition which I find it difficult to believe Your Honour would advance, then we are at another proceeding and we are entitled to refuse consent and do so refuse and the custom may thus be suspended for this occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot invoke standing order No. 6 because at ten o'clock he could not call it ten o'clock. He was at that moment under standing order 33.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your Honour does not know that.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I do, because the committee has reported. If the hon. member wants to play with words-


Edmund Davie Fulton: We might have given unanimous consent to sit after ten o'clock in the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think this evening I will convince very many hon. members, who apparently are not apt to be convinced and it is their privilege, but I must rule on the points that have been advanced. I have allowed hon. members to make their points, and I would be very happy if they would now allow me to make mine.
I say that the minute a resolution is reported a chain of events must take place, and they usually take place when a better climate prevails, let us say. I use that expression just so hon. members will understand. It is not unusual for leave to be granted, bills to be read the first time and the day appointed for second reading at 10.05 p.m.; 10.10 or 10.15. It is customary and unanimous consent is not necessary because as soon as the resolution is reported standing order 62 takes care of the motion for concurrence. Then, if it is true, as Campion and May say, that as a result of the motion being concurred in, an order for leave does issue, I will even make the point that the motion for leave is

not necessary. This is so true that when some bills are founded on resolutions which have been agreed to in committee of ways and means and the bills are not ready, they are therefore prevented from being introduced immediately after the resolutions are reported because of another standing order which says that a bill cannot be introduced in a blank or imperfect form-those bills are introduced later without notice. They do not even appear on the order paper. I have four instances right there on the desk that I can quote to the hon. member.
I will quote them immediately because I have the references here. He can look at the Journals for Saturday, December 8, 1945, page 455; Friday, August 9, 1946, page 669; Friday, June 6, 1947, page 496; May 12, 1950, page 372. All of those bills, founded upon ways and means resolutions, were introduced days and sometimes weeks after the resolutions were concurred in by the house and they were introduced without notice. Their introduction could not follow concurrence of the resolution because of standing order 72, which is to the effect that no bills may be introduced in a blank or imperfect shape. I will quote it at length:
No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.
When the Clerk gave me the result of the division a moment ago I asked him, "Do you have the bill?" He said, "Yes". It is only because I received the bill that I hold in my hand, and I can see it is not in blank or in an imperfect shape, that the order which does issue must be taken advantage of, and that is the ruling that I make at the moment.
Those who are in favour of the motion that leave-


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect, Mr. Speaker,
because I appreciate your patience at this late hour and because I regret that I am in fundamental disagreement with your ruling, I respectfully appeal your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I forgot, and if the hon.
member allows me I should like to quote one more precedent which I think might be interesting in connection with what I said, following which if he still wants to appeal I will be delighted to grant him that right. In 1921 a motion for closure was moved by Mr. Doherty on a motion for interim supply. You will find the motion at page 2076 of volume III of Hansard for 1921. At page 2094 you will see that the motion was agreed to, that the resolutions were reported and concurred in and that at that moment it was past two o'clock because closure was applied at two o'clock in those days. We were kind to ourselves when we amended the rules last
15, 1956	3977
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation year and inserted one o'clock instead of two o'clock. Once the supply resolutions were reported from the committee and concurred in, the house went back into committee of ways and means, reported the resolution and concurred in the ways and means resolution. Then a bill was introduced, the motion was agreed to, and the bill was read the first time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But Your Honour will agree that the point of order was not raised.


Mr. Speaker:: No point of order was raised, but it just indicates that notwithstanding the fact the point of order was not raised, at 2.25 a.m. they were dealing with these motions which at the time were much more numerous than those we have before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I make one brief comment? The brief comment I wish to make is that some of the references that you read the time before last when you were on your feet indicated that there have been bills, I believe they were budget bills, introduced on a day later than the day on which the resolutions were passed and reported to the house. In other words, although Your Honour's statement is correct that it is customary for a bill to be introduced and given first reading immediately after the resolution is reported, it does not always happen that way and therefore it is not mandatory. It is on that basis that we feel that this is a separate proceeding.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member says it does not always happen that way. It does always happen that way whenever the bill is ready. When there were so many amendments in the ways and means resolution that the bill could not be ready for introduction as soon as the resolution was concurred in, the bill was introduced later, and as I say they were introduced without notice.
There is one case this session in which a resolution of the Minister of Finance was reported and concurred in and the bill has not been introduced yet. It is not ready. Whenever it is, there will not be 48 hours' notice for that bill to be introduced because an order of the house did issue. There was never any notice given in the cases I have cited in the Journals. Let us not discuss this forever. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has appealed my ruling. Those who are in favour of sustaining my ruling will say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
3978	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
May I ask hon. members-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no,no.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members are now saying "order", but because of the previous noise I was not allowed to start putting the question. May I ask hon. members to realize that if noise prevails in the chamber it will be most difficult for the Clerk and the Clerk Assistant to proceed with the taking of the division. I would ask them to co-operate in this regard.
Mr. Fulton raised a point of order to the effect that when the resolution under closure had been adopted, reported and concurred in it was not in order to proceed with any further business unless unanimous consent was obtained. I ruled that with the concurrence in committee of the whole an order of the house should then issue for leave to introduce a bill and that it was customary to introduce such a bill forthwith. Whereupon Mr. Fulton appealed to the house from my ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The question now is on the
motion for leave-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia: That the house do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows that the motion for leave to introduce a bill is a non-debatable motion. If it is non-debatable, how can he speak even to move this superseding motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Standing order 25 says:
A motion to adjourn (except when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance), shall always be in order, but no second motion to the same effect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I ask hon. members to allow the member who has the floor at the moment to be heard not only by those who are sitting around him but also by the Chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was simply reading standing order 25. Perhaps I had better read it again:
A motion to adjourn (except when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance), shall always be in order, but no second motion to the same effect shall be made until after some intermediate proceeding has been had.
Obviously the part in parentheses does not apply, and obviously the last few lines do not apply. What does apply is the very direct statement that a motion to adjourn shall always be in order. I submit that "always" means always.


Mr. Speaker:: But I submit to the hon.
member that standing order 25 must be read in conjunction with standing order 44. I must confess to the hon. member that following certain superseding motions that were moved recently I have gone into this question very carefully, namely the relationship between standing orders 24, 25 and 44, concerning these superseding motions. They are always in order providing something is under consideration, something is under debate. Standing order 44 says:
When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; or for the adjournment of the house.
At this moment what is before the house is an undebatable motion, a motion that cannot be debated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in standing order 25 that says that it depends upon standing order 44. In the previous discussion we had, Your Honour was able to cite the words "unless otherwise provided hereunder, with respect to another standing
15, 1956	3979
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation order. There is nothing to that effect in standing order 25, and there is nothing to that effect in standing order 44. Therefore I contend that the motions referred to in standing orders 24 and 25, namely a motion for reading the orders of the day or a motion to adjourn, are in a different category from the other motions that are referred to along with those two in standing order 44.
Standing order 44 does not say that motions to postpone to a day certain, to read the orders of the day, to adjourn the debate or to adjourn the house can be moved only when a question is under debate. Standing order 44 puts it in the very reverse. It says rather that when a question is under debate that debate cannot be superseded or interfered with, except by these various motions. I submit that it is quite clear that standing order 44 does not say that a question has to be under debate before these other motions can be put. Along with that is the very clear language of standing order 24 and also of standing order 25, which is the one we are under at the moment, which says that a motion to adjourn shall always be in order.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member a question? He will have time to look up another reference that he is trying to put his finger on at the moment. In his view, is the motion for leave to introduce a bill a debatable motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member, who
has been kind enough to answer my first question, be kind enough now to answer my second? If the motion for leave to introduce a bill is not debatable, even if what he says about the motion under standing order 25 is right, how can he utter a single word in order to move that motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the same way-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Kootenay East will have an opportunity after the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has stated his point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The question is a good one.
The answer is that one gets the floor to move the adjournment that is always in order, even though we are on an undebatable motion, in just the same way as one gets the floor to raise a point of order. It is always in order to do that, even on an undebatable motion, as has been done several times tonight. I submit very strongly that there are certain things, such as raising a point of order, raising a point of privilege and moving to adjourn the

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation house, which are clearly spelled out in our standing orders as always in order, and there are no strings attached to that fact.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, you made your
ruling on Thursday last, at which point you said that a motion to adjourn is a dilatory motion, that is, that when a motion to adjourn is made a question must be under consideration. For a matter to be under consideration, the members must be prepared to fix their minds on it with a view to careful examination, that is, they should be prepared to think on it with care.
The question at the moment is not debatable, that is, the motion that is before the house is not debatable. A division simply is being taken. Therefore members are not to rise. They must hear the Speaker in silence. The other day the hon. member referred-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Filibuster.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -to citation 104 of Beauchesne, third edition, which reads in part as follows:
The Speaker is responsible for the due enforcement of the rules, rights and privileges of the house, and when he rises he is to be heard in silence.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Liberal filibuster.


James Sinclair: Envy will get you nowhere.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: This matter has been gone into quite thoroughly and it is quite clear who may move a motion for adjournment. A member who has moved adjournment of the house is not entitled to move the adjournment of the debate as he has already spoken to the main motion which in effect means that he can only rise and move the adjournment if a matter is under consideration and if he has spoken on the question he cannot move the adjournment of the debate. It simply means that there is no matter before the house for consideration so the member is completely out of order when he moves the adjournment of the house at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member for Kamloops rises, he is probably looking at page 332 of Bourinot where he will find precisely what I wanted to quote to him and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It is not very pleasant for me to make this ruling because I find that I am correcting a ruling that I made not very long ago which I consider wrong. If Bourinot is right, then I would say that whenever there is a controversy between Bourinot and Beaudoin I will take Bourinot any day.
But I would like hon. members to consider this. Bourinot is dealing with dilatory motions and under "motions of adjournment" he says:
When any question is under the consideration of either house, a motion to adjourn will always be In order. The 39th rule provides . . .
Then he reads the 39th rule which is our present standing order 25. Its purpose is the same as what is provided in standing order 24, which has to do with a motion to proceed with the orders of the day. It is a superseding motion. Mr. Speaker	Sevigny-or
Rhodes-in 1917 said that standing order 24 had to be read in conjunction with standing order 44. Of course, the rules did not bear the same numbers then. He said:
That rule must be read in connection with rule 36, which I will read, as applying to this case.
* "When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it" . . .
And so on. That is standing order 44. Perhaps the climate is not as good as it might, be in order to make a point that appears new in view of the fact that I have so recently given a ruling which is at variance with the one I should like to make at the moment. I am not going to press the point now. I would imagine that another occasion will present itself and we will have more time in the meantime in order to examine the point further. It seems to me to be unreasonable for the one rule to defeat the other. According to our rules we have a stated definition that a motion for leave to introduce a bill has to be decided without debate or amendment. All that is permitted is a succinct explanation when a bill is introduced after 48 hours' notice and that is not the type of bill that is preceded by a resolution concurred in by the house.
If a motion of that type is not debatable, how can anyone stand up and even utter one word to say: I move such and such a motion. As I say, I will not make a ruling. I will accept the hon. member's motion and I will put it to the house. I hope that after this one is dealt with we will either go home to have a good rest or we will proceed with the next step.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The question now is' on, the motion moved	
by Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) and seconded by Mr. Harris for leave to introduce a bill based	
on this resolution.	
The house divided	on the motion (Mr. Howe, Port Arthur) which was agreed to on the following division: *	
YEAS	
Messrs:	
Anderson	Garland
Applewhaite	Garson
Arsenault	Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Ashbourne	Gauthier (Nickel Belt)
Batten	Gauthier (Portneuf)
Benidickson	Gingras
Bennett	Gour (Russell)
Blackmore	Gourd (Chapleau)
Blanchette	Gregg
Boisvert	Habel
Boivin	Hahn
Bonnier	Hanna
Bourget	Hansell
Bourque	Hardie
Breton	Harris
Brisson	Harrison
Brown (Brantford)	Healy
Brown (Essex West)	Hellyer
Bruneau	Henderson
Buchanan	Henry
Byrne	Hollingworth
Cameron (High Park)	Holowach
Campney	Hosking
Cannon	Houck
Caron	Howe (Port Arthur)
Carrick	Huffman
Carter	Hunter
Cauchon	James
Cavers	Johnston (Bow River)
Clark	Jutras
Crestohl	Kirk (Antigonish-
Dechene	Guysborough)
Decore	Kirk (Shelburne-
Deschatelets	Yarmouth-Clare)
Deslieres	Laflamme
Dickey	Lafontaine
Dumas	Langlois (Berthier-
Enfield	Maskinonge-
Eudes	Delanaudiere)
Eyre	Langlois (Gaspe)
Fairey	Lapointe
Follwell	Lavigne
Fontaine	Leboe
Forgie	Leduc (Gatineau)
Fraser (St. John's East)	Leduc (Jacques Cartier-
Gagnon	Lasalle)
Gardiner	Leduc (Verdun)

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Lefrangois
Legare
Lesage
Lusby
MacDougall
MacEachen
Macnaughton
McCann
McCubbin
McCulloch (Pictou)
McDonald
Mcllraith
Mclvor
McMillan
McWilliam
Mang
Marler
Masse
Mitchell (Sudbury)
Nixon
Patterson
Pearson
Philpott
Pickersgill
Pinard
Pommer
Poulin
Power (Quebec South)
Power (St. John's West)
Proudfoot
Prudham
Purdy
Quelch
Ratelle
Reinke
Richard (Ottawa East)
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Richardson
Robertson
Robichaud
Robinson (Simcoe East)
Rochefort
Ross
Rouleau
Roy
St. Laurent (Quebec East) St. Laurent (Temis-couata)
Schneider Shipley, Mrs.
Simmons
Sinclair
Smith (Battle River-Camrose)
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Studer
Thibault
Thomas
Tucker
Viau
Villeneuve
Vincent
Weaver
Weir
Weselak
White (Waterloo South)
Winters
Wylie-156.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Aitken, Miss
Argue
Balcer
Barnett
Bell
Blair
Bryce
Bryson
Cameron (Nanaimo)
Campbell
Castleden
Charlton
Churchill
Cold well
Dinsdale
Drew
Ellis
Fairclough, Mrs. Fleming
Fraser (Peterborough)
Fulton
Green
Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace)
Hamilton (York West) Harkness Hees Hodgson Howe
Johnson (Kindersley)
Jones
Knight
Knowles
Lennard
Macdonnell
MacLean
McBain
McCullough (Moose Mountain)
McGregor
Michener
Mitchell (London) Monteith
Murphy (Lambton West)
Nesbitt
Pallett
Pearkes
Perron
Rea
Regier
Robinson (Bruce)
Rowe
Stanton
Starr
Tustin
White (Hastings-Frontenac)
(Wellington-Huron) Zaplitny-55.


Clarence Decatur Howe: the first reading of Bill No. 298, to provide for the constitution of a crown company to construct a pipe line, make short-term loans, etc.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour will please
say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it. Call in the members. Do hon. members consider that they have been called in for the purpose of this division? I notice that the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir), the whip of the party to my right, has so indicated, and so has the whip of the Conservative party. Is that generally agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) take notice?


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Never.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow we shall take the resolution in committee of the whole on the National Housing Act, then second reading of the bill to amend the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act, second reading of the bill to amend the Canada Land Surveys Act and second reading of the bill to amend the Tariff Board Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Have you been scared off?


Walter Edward Harris: On Thursday we shall take
second reading of the pipe line bill.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 4.42 a.m.

Question ANSWER TO QUESTION
The following answer', deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:



PUBLIC WORKS-BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, N.S.

Mr. McCulloch (Pictou): 1.	How many buildings are under construction or have been completed by the Department of Public Works in Nova Scotia to date in 1956?
2.	Where are they located and for what purpose are they intended?
Answer by:	Mr. Bourgel, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	Buildings under construction, 10. Buildings completed, 3.
2.	Buildings under construction:
Baddeck, N.S.-Federal building
Accommodation	for:	Post	Office	Department; Department of National Revenue, customs division; Department of Fisheries.
Halifax, N.S.-Ralston office building
Accommodation for:	Department of National Revenue, customs division, income tax division; Department of Labour; Department of Trade and Commerce; Department of Agriculture; bureau of statistics.
Liverpool, N.S.-Federal building Accommodation	for:	Post	Office	Department; Department of National Revenue, customs division; Department of Fisheries; unemployment insurance commission,
Middleton, N.S.-Additions and alterations to federal building	*
Accommodation	for:	Post	Office	Department.Sydney, N.S.-Federal building Accommodation	for:	Post	Office	Department; Department of National Revenue, customs division; Department of National Revenue, income tax division; unemployment
insurance commission; Department of Transport; Department of National Health and Welfare; civil service commission; Department of Veterans Affairs; Department of Citizenship and Immigration; Department of Fisheries; federal government telegraph services.
Tatamagouche, N.S.-Federal building Accommodation for: Post Office Department.
Yarmouth, N.S.-Ferry terminal building Accommodation for customs and other administrative services in connection with ferry service between Yarmouth, N.S., and Bar Harbor, Maine, U.S.A.
Yarmouth, N.S.-Federal building Accommodation for; Post Office Department; Department of National Revenue, customs division; Department of Fisheries; unemployment insurance commission.
Halifax, N.S.-Dalhousie University Alterations to pilot plant for national research council laboratory.
Halifax, N.S.-Camp Hill hospital New prosthetic building for Department of Veterans Affairs.
Buildings completed during 1956:
Lunenburg, N.S.-Federal building
Accommodation for: Post Office Department; Department of Fisheries; unemployment insurance commission.
Pictou, N.S.-Federal building Accommodation for; Post Office Department; Department of National Revenue, customs division; Department of Fisheries; Department of Transport; Department of Trade and Commerce.
Sydney, N.S.-Royal Canadian Mounted Police Officers' living quarters.

Wednesday, May 16, 1956 NATIONAL DEFENCE



R.C.A.F.-CRASH OF JET PLANE AT ORLEANS, ONTARIO

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, may I crave your indulgence to say how deeply shocked we were to hear of the tragedy which occurred last night at Orleans, near Ottawa, in which .several persons were killed and others were seriously injured. On behalf I think of all hon. members, as well as on my own behalf, I should like to express the most sincere sympathy to this distinguished community of Grey Nuns of the Cross and to the relatives and friends of the unfortunate victims of the disaster, including of course the two gallant airmen who were aboard the ill-fated jet craft. I am sure we all trust that the number of victims will not increase beyond that actually known at the present time, and I know we will all wish the injured a very complete and prompt recovery.
Perhaps the Minister of National Defence will have some information which he can give the house, because I know this has shocked all hon. members and that we are all deeply sympathetic with those who have suffered from this terrible tragedy.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members of the house will wish to learn such facts as have so far been ascertained in connection with the appalling accident about which the Prime Minister has just spoken. Before giving those facts I should like to express the heartfelt sympathy of all the members of the Canadian armed forces, as well as my own, to the relatives and friends of those who died last night when a Royal Canadian Air Force aircraft crashed into the Villa St. Louis convalescent home operated by the Roman Catholic religious order of the Grey Nuns of the Cross near Orleans.
The exact number of persons in the building at the time is not yet known with certainty, but it is believed that between 15 and 20 persons, including the crew of the aircraft, have lost their lives in the explosion and fire which resulted from the impact of the aircraft. In addition several members of the religious order were injured. I have just returned from the scene of the accident, and
from the facts which so far can be ascertained, pending the findings of the official court of inquiry which is now undertaking a full investigation, the details briefly are as follows.
An R.C.A.F. CF-100 jet interceptor aircraft, flown by a pilot and navigator, took off from Uplands airport at 9.30 last night as one of two aircraft ordered to intercept an aircraft detected by the radar warning system but not immediately identifiable. The mission is one which airmen of our nine CF-100 squadrons across Canada perform constantly in their task of protecting this country from possible hostile aircraft attack.
Before the interception was carried through to finality the identity of the unknown aircraft was definitely established by the ground control system, through the aircraft's flight plan, to be an R.C.A.F. transport aircraft returning from the Arctic.
Following identification of the unknown aircraft, at about 7,000 feet, as friendly, the two interceptor fighters climbed to about
33,000	feet to carry out practice interception manoeuvres with one another, which is a normal air defence procedure to build up training experience while using up excess fuel load, which is a necessary practice for safe landing.
Continuing under radar control from the ground, one of the two interceptor aircraft returned normally to its base and the other reported by radio from 33,000 feet altitude that he still had some excess fuel on board and would remain airborne longer. This was the last transmission received from this aircraft, following which it rapidly disappeared from the radar screen and within a couple of minutes crashed near the town of Orleans, at about 10.17 p.m. All evidence so far available points to the likelihood that the aircraft descended in a steep dive out of control from a high altitude, crashing directly into the convalescent home. The violent impact resulted in an explosion and fierce fire which completely demolished the building and the aircraft.
Up until the time of the aircraft's last radio transmission no indication of trouble was given by the pilot. The cause of the accident at present remains unknown. There is no trace of the two aircrew members having abandoned the aircraft by parachute prior

National Defence-Plane Crash to its crash; therefore it must be presumed that their remains are buried in the debris of the demolished building which is at present oeing searched.
R.C.A.F. equipment and crews have been on duty at the scene of the crash all night and are continuing to co-operate with provincial and local authorities, and officers of this department are doing whatever is within their power to assist the bereaved.
At this time, I am sure the hearts of all members of this house and, indeed, of all Canadians go out to those bereaved by this terrible accident. Despite his best endeavours and the ingenuity of modern science, man's mastery of machines can never be complete. It is a cause for profound sorrow that this accident has taken the lives of so many selfless members of a religious vocation and two members of a service whose mission it is to do everything within its power, by day and night, to provide security for the Canadian way of life.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to join in the expressions of sympathy to the members of the religious order who have been bereaved, the friends and relatives of those resident in the convent who died and those who are injured, and to the relatives and friends of the gallant members of the air force who died on this occasion.
As has been said by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, the extent of this tragedy does emphasize the terrible nature of what has occurred. It also emphasizes the continuing magnitude of the task that is assumed in preparing for the defence of this country.
As our sympathy goes out to all those who suffered personally or through the loss of loved ones there is also, I am sure, recognition of the fact that the members of our air force are carrying out their services magnificently in every way and that these terrible and unavoidable accidents are simply a reminder of the extent of the effort that is being made to defend the freedom of every Canadian.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have spoken for all of us. Nothing remains for me to say except that we join in extending our sympathy to those who are bereaved, the members of the religious order and the relatives of the airmen, and I am sure this will be generally shared by all the people of Canada.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the Prime Minister and others who have spoken in expressing

sympathy to the community of the Grey Nuns where this tragedy happened last night. We find no words to express the sorrow we feel, and we join with the Prime Minister in expressing the hope that those who were injured will experience a speedy and complete recovery.


Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Monsieur le president, je desire remercier le tres honorable premier ministre, as well as the leader of the Conservative party, the leader of the C.C.F. party and the leader of the Social Credit party for expressing their sympathy on this very tragic and sad occasion. I want to join with them in expressing my condolence in the name of all the citizens of my constituency to the mother general and all the members of the congregation of the Grey Nuns as well as to the families who have suffered as a result of this sad and tragic accident. I also wish to thank the Minister of National Defence and the members of the air force for doing everything possible. I was there at 11.15 last night, and every care and precaution were taken to help in every way. I also thank the Minister of National Defence for the sympathy he has expressed. All the Canadian people are very sad on this occasion, and I am very sad because most of the nuns who were there were the best friends of my wife and my family, and many of them come from my constituency of Russell.



DISPATCH FROM CANADA OF CF-100 SQUADRONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question supplementary to one asked yesterday by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) in connection with the replacement of R.C.A.F. fighter squadrons in Europe. Are the squadrons being returned to Canada to be reequipped and, if so, with what type of plane?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, I think the basic facts of the matter are well within the knowledge of the house. We have 12 squadrons in Europe equipped with Sabre jets. We propose to equip four of those squadrons with CF-lOO's instead. The first squadron will be sent over this year and we hope the other three will be sent next year. It is not a question of more or fewer squadrons; it is a question of change of equipment.


John Borden Hamilton: As a supplementary question, are not personnel of the present squadrons in Europe being withdrawn when the four CF-100 squadrons are sent to

Europe; and if so, what type of plane will they be equipped with in Canada on their return?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The personnel of the four CF-100 squadrons which will replace the four Sabre jet squadrons are being retrained. Headquarters have worked out a system of retraining and substitution in the air force. As the hon. member knows, air crew in the air division in France are constantly being replaced and changed. There will be no particular change in the system except that a greater number of air crew will have to be trained to operate CF-lOO's.


John Borden Hamilton: As a further supplementary question-after what I have listened to I am sure it is not asking too much-would the minister inform the house what disposition is being made of the Sabre aircraft which are still in Europe as a result of the re-equipment program?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There are several possible dispositions which can be made of these planes. I am not in position at the present moment to say which one of them will be followed.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, earlier in this session I gave undertakings to make some further statement by the middle of this month on the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The commission has continued to study and analyse the results of these operations under the new act, which has now been in force during the past seven months. This period has not yet been sufficient to form anything like final conclusions with respect to all of the factors involved.
As to the factors related to section 45 (2), as outlined in my statement of the 18th of April, Hansard, page 3038, a decision on any amendments affecting the claimants referred to in that statement must be deferred until later, pending the outcome of the analyses of the commission and of the actuary.
From these studies it is clear already, however, that to forestall unintended consequences under section 45 (2) that would otherwise affect insured workers next fall and early winter, I shall want to recommend, before the session ends, a corrective amendment to the act in that connection.
Such an amendment would apply only to a person who had a seasonal benefit claim
Inquiries of the Ministry and who, within 104 weeks after the beginning of that claim, again becomes unemployed and files a second claim, this time for regular benefit, and who may fail to qualify because he may not have made 30 contributions in the preceding 52 weeks. Of course any amendment I may find necessary to propose will be submitted to the unemployment insurance advisory committee .so that its relation to the stability of the fund may be considered.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, while I followed the minister's statement as carefully as possible, I wonder if he would advise the house whether or not steps have been taken to do anything for those people who are at present suffering because of the interpretation placed on section 45 (2)? As I take it, his statement referred to arrangements which are being made to take care of those unemployed next winter. What about those who are at present suffering?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Those to whom I referred on April 18, as I indicated at that time, or by far the largest number of them were under seasonal benefits then. I cannot give my hon. friend the exact details but I know that most of them are now back in employment again. Hence it is to the future we are looking at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may ask the minister if we may take it for granted that before he brings before parliament amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, in addition to discussing them with the unemployment insurance advisory committee, he will also discuss them with representatives or officers of the Canadian Labour Congress?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, that has been my practice in the past and will continue to be so in the future.


Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: May I ask a
supplementary question of the Minister of Labour? I understand that something like
70,000	people were affected by this section. Can the minister tell us how many are still left without employment or benefits out of that 70,000?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I cannot do so this afternoon but I will get the information for my hon. friend as soon as may be.



STATEMENT AS TO APPLICATION TO FISHERMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I promised also to make some further statement with regard to fishermen.
We have also been continuing diligently our

Questions
investigations to find out to what extent, if any, the Unemployment Insurance Act might apply to a reasonable number of those who are engaged at sea in the fishing industry, many of whom are self-employed.
I hope to have a further report to make on this topic before many weeks. Even though it should be found that a plan could be formulated to provide coverage for fishermen generally, it will take a good deal of time to work out anything like a practical detailed plan. If a practical plan can be devised, while its effect upon the fund must be considered by the unemployment insurance advisory committee, it may not require an amendment to the act but may be put into effect by regulation under the authority of the governor in council.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour in connection with a statement he made earlier on the Unemployment Insurance Act. Can the minister assure the house that the changes which are being made by regulation in connection with the inclusion of fishermen will be made during the current session of the house so that hon. members will have an opportunity of discussing the proposals that are brought forward?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I can make no promise regarding the time factor, but I can assure my hon. friend that since I have the unemployment insurance estimates still to be completed before the estimates committee and before the committee of supply of this house there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss his point.



RESEARCH


George James McIlraith: that the first report of the special committee on research, presented to the house on May 14, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Fulton: 1.	Were any payments made to McGill University or any agency or department thereof by or on behalf of the Department of National Defence, the defence research board or any other agency of the government of Canada for research in connection with "brain-washing", in each of the years 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955?
2.	If so, what amount was paid in each of these years?
(Mr. Gregg.]
3.	To what departments or agencies of the government have the findings, or any of them, been made available?
4.	To what outside individuals or agencies have the findings, or any of them, been made available?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The answer to parts 1 and 2 of this question by years is as follows: 1951, $4,178; 1952, $8,502; 1953, $4,320. No payments were made in this connection in 1954 or 1955.
The answer to part 3 is the Department of National Defence.
The answer to part 4 is in the United Kingdom, the admiralty, air ministry and the ministry of supply. In the United States, the navy, army, air force and the central intelligence agency.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


SASKATCHEWAN


Mr. Sluder: 1.	What was the total expenditure in the province of Saskatchewan for the fiscal year 1954-55, by the federal government, including the statutory subsidy and tax rental agreement payments?
2.	What was the total expenditure during the fiscal year 1954-55 in Saskatchewan by each federal government department and agency?
3.	What is the estimated amount that would be payable to Saskatchewan under the proposed national health plan?
4.	What was the total amount of expenditures in Saskatchewan by all federal government departments and agencies since April 1, 1944?



MILITARY AIRCRAFT REPAIRS AND INSPECTION

Mr. Pearkes: 1.	When the Royal Canadian Air Force, or the Royal Canadian Navy aircraft stationed at (a) Sea Island; (b) Comox; (c) Patricia Bay, require repairing or major inspection, where is this work carried out?
2.	What percentage of the work is carried out by Fairey Aviation Company of Canada at Patricia Bay?
3.	What buildings, if any, at Patricia Bay airport have been sold or leased to Fairey Aviation Company of Canada?
4.	What is the total area at Patricia Bay occupied by Fairey Aviation Company of Canada?



COLOUR ADDED ORANGE IMPORTS

Mr. Hahn: 1.	Are any oranges, labelled "colour added", permitted entry into Canada?
2.	If so, what is the source of these oranges?
3.	What quantity entered Canada last year?
4.	What is the composition of the substance used to colour such oranges?
5.	Can orange peels so treated be safely used in making marmalade?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 77-Mr. Mallais:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, maps, agreements and other documents

exchanged, during the past six months, between the government of the province of Quebec and the federal Department of Public Works, regarding the construction of a new wharf at Baie Ste. Catherine, to improve the ferry-boat service between Tadoussac and Baie Ste. Catherine, Quebec.
Robert Henry Winters: Subject to the usual reservation,
Mr. Speaker, about first communicating with the government of Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 79-Mr. Dufresne:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents in the possession of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, dealing with the dismissals or suspensions of all temporary or permanent employees of the department, in the city of Quebec, since the 1st of January 1954, including those referring to William Georges Rodrigue, 625 Bonaventure street, Quebec 8, Quebec.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, this motion would not be objectionable in so far as it might refer to any correspondence from persons outside the public service. In so far as any correspondence between members of the department or between members of my department and any other department is concerned, those documents would be privileged. I suggest, however, that perhaps the hon. gentleman, on consideration, would consider dropping the motion because in fact if it were passed it would have no practical effect at all because no person was dismissed at Quebec from January 1, 1954, to the present date, and only one person was suspended and that for only one day.
I know the hon. gentleman has in mind the fact that we did not re-engage the services of a temporary seasonal employee and that particular person, whose name is cited in the motion, did write 13 letters to me which he marked "Personal and confidential". Before the hon. gentleman laughs, I should like to say that so far as I am concerned I could not care less whether these letters were published or not, but they do refer to this unfortunate man's private affairs and I would be very hesitant about making them public. If, however, he wants to give them to the hon. gentleman who represents Quebec West, I have no objection whatever. So far as I am concerned there is nothing personal or confidential about them, but they are about his affairs and I do not like to treat his personal and confidential affairs as public affairs.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Dufresne:: Mr. Speaker, the minister claims there was only one man who has not been re-engaged.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say that.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The fact is that many in the city of Quebec-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -in this department have not been re-engaged. I should like to have the correspondence between the department and these unfortunate people who are still starving today on account of this injustice. I do insist on having this correspondence tabled.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, I am within my rights in making a correction in the hon. gentleman's statement. I did not say there was only one person who had not been reengaged. I said there was only one person who had been suspended and that for only one day. I made no statement whatever about the number of people who had been re-engaged, except about this one unfortunate man.


Mr. Brooks:: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: At this moment we have a motion that is not debatable. Because of the lengthy explanation of the minister I allowed the hon. member for Quebec West, who was the sponsor of this motion, to make a few comments but at this moment the house must make up its mind about this motion. Those who are in favour 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 the motion is lost.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can he give any indication to the house of the progress toward settlement of the dispute between the seamen and the shipping interests on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river, particularly as this seems to be becoming an extensive lockout by the shipping interests?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I had an indication before coming into the house that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) was going to ask a similar question, so I can reply to both hon. members at the same time.
The house will recall that I made a long statement on this last Tuesday, followed by a shorter statement on Wednesday. In that shorter statement I said that Mr. Carl Goldenberg had been appointed as a mediator in the dispute. Mr. Goldenberg met with the parties that same day, Wednesday, and they met for discussions on Thursday morning at 9.30. Since 9.30 on Thursday morning discussions have been going on almost continuously, with the exception of Sunday, of course, and some good solid progress, so it is reported to me, has been made. Those discussions are going on today.
I cannot report beyond that. But I should like to state to the house that it has appeared to me that the impression has gone abroad that most of the grain ships on the lakes are tied up. That is not true. Of those that were in operation, or coming out of winter tie-up for operation 10 days ago, the vast majority are still in operation.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister what was the tremendous and compelling urgency to bring the debate to a close yesterday by the application of the closure rule, in view of the fact the government is not prepared to go on with the debate today and the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not away fishing?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the very courteous way in which the hon. gentleman has put his question, I will tell him that the reason it was not suggested we should go on today with the second reading of the bill was so that hon. members would have an opportunity to consider it before second reading was called.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask a supplementary question. Since it is obvious that time is not pressing, why was closure applied to bring the debate to a conclusion yesterday?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I think we have had a full discussion and a full explanation of the reason closure was applied. The government felt that it was in the public interest that this legislation be
[Mr. Coldwell.l

passed so a start could be made on the construction of the pipe line this year. It had become quite evident from statements which had been made over many weeks that resort was going to be had to every procedure that could be provided by the rules to retard and prevent the adoption of such legislation. We had many examples of that and it became quite evident that if we wished it to be done the only practical way was to take the responsibility of asking for the application of another standing order of this house.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the desire of the government that hon. members have a chance to study the bill that we are to debate tomorrow, will he make available a sufficient number of copies of the agreement with Trans-Canada so that all members may have it. If I may state this as a question of privilege, I personally have obtained a copy of the agreement, so I speak not for myself. But I do know that only a few copies are available.
I did not raise the matter earlier because I thought the agreement would be included in the bill as a schedule. Actually I think it should have been, but that is a point to be argued later. Since it is not included in the bill as a schedule, and since only half a dozen copies are available in the office downstairs, would the minister arrange to have copies of the agreement made available to all hon. members before second reading of the bill is discussed tomorrow?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the usual number of copies were tabled. If any hon. member finds that he cannot get access to the tabled copies and will get in touch with my office we will try to help him out.


Major James William Coldwell: May
I ask the minister a supplementary question. I may say I got a copy of the agreement, but I did not have it in my possession for very long before the office downstairs asked me to return it because there were so many inquiries for it. I did return it without, I may say, having given it sufficient study. If the minister has copies in his office could he make them available to members of the house in the usual way? I think it would be well if we could get copies.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not sure what the situation is about copies. I know that I have complied with the rules of the house. I was asked to table the agreement and I tabled it. I imagine we have extra copies, and if we have I shall be glad to provide them.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question arising out of the motion for the production of papers by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) with reference to the dismissal of William Georges Rodrigue, Quebec city. The matter of the veterans' preference was' entirely ignored by the minister in making this appointment. This man had had considerable experience in this work when he was dismissed from the service, and should have been considered as a permanent appointee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it does seem to me that this is the kind of question that should be asked when the estimates are before the committee, but in view of the incorrect statements made by the hon. gentleman I think those incorrect statements should be answered. This man was employed by the department on a seasonal and temporary basis. He was not dismissed, he was simply not re-engaged for another season. The reason he was not re-engaged was that, unhappily and unfortunately, through no real fault of his own he was incapable of doing the work. I think it is rather a shame to try to make a victim of a poor unfortunate man like that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He was made a victim by your department.



HOUSING

[Stage Direction]
PROVISION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO _ MUNICIPALITIES, HOME LOANS,

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, April 26, consideration in committee of Bill No. 215, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954-Mr. Winters-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Home extension loan.
Howard Charles Green: A day or two ago I received a letter from the Vancouver housing association which I think the minister will agree is a reliable and worth-while organization. They point out that over eight months ago the city of Vancouver requested the senior levels of government, which presumably
National Housing Act would include the dominion government, to construct a 130-unit housing project for senior citizens at 47th avenue and Knight road under section 36 of the National Housing Act.
Then they go on to say that the plans for this project have been stalled in Ottawa since that time for the reason, it is understood, that the federal government is reluctant to participate in a project designed solely for a single age group meaning, of course, for the senior citizen group, while the city council does not wish to provide more family housing at the present time.
As I read the National Housing Act, there is no provision of that type in the act. If the complaint made in the letter is accurate, the difficulty seems to be in the policy that has been adopted by the government or by the crown corporation. I need not point out to the minister the great need there is for housing for the senior citizens. That has been dealt with quite fully in the earlier stages of this debate, and it is a particularly important matter in British Columbia, where we have a larger percentage of senior citizens than any other province of Canada. This question is vital in that province. There are different organizations, such as service clubs and churches and other organizations, which are doing very good work in helping with the construction of homes for senior citizens, but the need will never be met until the government steps into the picture more fully than it is doing at the present time.
I notice that the resolution preceding this bill did not include any amendment having to do with the question I am raising today, but it did refer in the last paragraph to providing for a number of administration and other changes deemed necessary for the more efficient administration of the act. There are some changes in the act which I think would help with regard to housing projects, but the difficulty here seems to be deeper than that, in that there has been a policy adopted somewhere in Ottawa against going ahead with projects where the people who would be benefiting are in one group, such as a group of senior citizens.
Once again I ask the minister to explain the situation. It seems to me that on this particular problem of getting decent housing for senior citizens there is not enough leadership being given here. There does not seem to be the energy behind any move sufficient to meet that problem in an adequate way. I hope I am wrong in that belief, but it does appear to be the situation at the present time. Perhaps the minister could explain why it is the government is against the policy of helping a housing project for a group such as senior citizens.

National Housing Act


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, might I ask what clause we are on now? Am I right in assuming we are on clause 1?


William Alfred Robinson: Clause 1.


Robert Henry Winters: That deals with home extension loans. I should think I would not be in order under the rules of the house in answering the hon. member, and I would like to be guided, Mr. Chairman.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the minister raises this particular point, I think, more frequently than any other minister in the cabinet. He must know that it has been the rule here that on the first clause of a bill the discussion has not been limited solely to that clause. That is a right which the opposition cherishes and which in the long run means that legislation gets through much more quickly, because if that were not the case it would mean more extended debate on the other clauses.
My question to the minister has to do with his policy; not the particular wording of any clause, but the policy with regard to projects for housing senior citizens. I suggest that I am in order in asking it.


William Alfred Robinson: This is a matter which raises a difficult problem in view of the fact that we are governed in committee by the strict rule of relevancy under standing order 59 (2). The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in his remarks, I believe, used the word "rule" and he also used the word "right". I cannot concede that there is any "rule" allowing a broad debate such as he apparently has in mind, in view of the very clear language of standing order 59 (2).
I might say that in my personal opinion we are governed by the relevancy rule. I have been able to make, up to date, only a partial study of the "custom" in that regard. I have some material in my office and would be very glad to make an enlarged statement on it at a later date. In the present instance, I think the hon. gentleman from Vancouver-Quadra will agree that he is in effect attempting to discuss an alternative. He shakes his head as if he does not agree with that statement; but an alternative, I presume, would be more appropriately discussed when we are discussing the principle of the bill.
I do not wish to say, and in fact I cannot say, anything more at this time except to indicate that I have been giving the question some consideration and would be glad to lay something before hon. members at a later date when I have had a chance to study it more fully.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it will be agreed that in the earlier stages of this discussion the

house has been fully co-operative, and I do not think anyone wants to see the discussions and progress today impeded by too technical considerations. The point raised by my colleague from Vancouver-Quadra does give rise to certain questions regarding policy that have a bearing on section 36 of the act. Instead of renewing the discussion we so often have as to whether the rule of strict relevancy is to be applied or whether the custom should prevail of permitting general discussion on the first clause, Jnight I suggest that we are going to lose time by standing on any rule in this matter and that we shall make much ttiore rapid progress if we follow custom and dispose of questions relating to policy on this first clause of the bill.
"The Chairman: Order. I might say that the result of the meagre inquiries I have made to date into this matter neither establishes nor denies a custom, but until I can make a lengthier and more comprehensive statement to hon. members I am inclined to agree with the position taken by the hon. member for Eglinton, and I believe if hon. members co-operate we can perhaps make progress in that way at the present time. I must say to hon. members that until that statement has been made I hope they will not consider that we are establishing a precedent for the future.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps I could now have the answer to my question.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not mind answering any questions, Mr. Chairman, when they are in order. I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is perhaps labouring under a misunderstanding. Normally when a bill is introduced there is a first clause which is rather general in nature. For example, in the housing act the first clause is:
This act may be cited as the National Housing Act, 1954.
I-understand that in such a case it has been customary to have general remarks and questions on the first clause. This bill seems rather different, in that the first clause is very specific in having to do with the deletion of the home extension loan provision under part 4 of the act. I therefore questioned whether I was in order in answering general questions under a specific clause. I do not think there has been any practice established in the committee which would indicate that that is the situation, but where a bill has been introduced with a first clause of a general nature I do acknowledge that a practice has developed. But if the committee wishes me, subject to

the reservations you have stated, to comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra I am quite willing to do so.
The situation is that several members of the housing authority in Vancouver and members of the city council saw me when I was in Vancouver last December and discussed this point with me. Subsequently there has been an exchange of correspondence with respect to it. Their request was that we make provision under section 36, which is the federal-provincial partnership section of the act, for the building of projects to be assigned exclusively to aged citizens. I told them I had some doubts about the policy of having any housing project assigned exclusively for any particular group of Canadian citizens.
We are constantly asked to build housing projects for this or that ethnic group or this or that economic group. I personally think, and I believe my view is shared by the corporation, that it makes for better housing arrangements and for better all round citizenship if there can be incorporated into housing projects a good cross-section of the Canadian way of life. For that reason we have always stated that we have no objection whatever to having any federal-provincial project incorporate a percentage of aged citizens or any other class of Canadians.
I did remind the citizens of Vancouver that under other provisions of the act such as the limited dividend section, where a limited dividend company, which is a private organization, takes the initiative and asks for a loan from the federal government and that loan is approved, they are then free to house any people they choose. That device has been used successfully in Vancouver and elsewhere to house senior citizens.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister not think there is a great difference between say a group of one racial origin being put in a housing project and a group of senior citizens? I do not see that there is any similarity there at all. There is a great need for help for our senior citizens. Why should the dominion government lay down a policy of that kind which certainly is not contemplated under section 36 of the act? There is nothing of that kind set out in that provision or in any other section of the housing act that I can find. I hope the minister will adopt a policy that deals specifically with senior citizens.
Certainly there is a demand in British Columbia for projects of this kind to help our senior citizens, and I think that demand should be considered quite apart from any other demand. Let them be treated on their merit. Here is a demand that has great merit 67509-253i
National Housing Act and has public support. People in all our cities are in favour of steps of this Kina being taken, and I believe the minister, in laying down the policy that he will not give assistance to a project for senior citizens, is running counter to the spirit of the act itself. I hope he will reconsider that stand.
It is quite evident that the statement made by the Vancouver housing association in its letter of May 14 is correct and that there has been and is delay now because of the policy adopted by the minister. I must protest it. I think it is very unreasonable and unfair to the people in Vancouver who are trying to work out a scheme of this kind, and particularly unfair to the senior citizens of this country. They deserve far better treatment than they are getting under a policy of this type. Goodness knows they have a hard enough time to get along on their meagre payments even in British Columbia, where they can get $60 a month. I do not know how people are able to live on that amount, and surely they should not be deprived of the benefit of this act by the policy which the minister has explained today is in existence and which is entirely contrary to the terms of the legislation itself.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Chairman, as I have had a good deal of correspondence with the minister on this very matter for a good many months past and for some months before this letter came to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and myself, may I say that to me the minister's answer makes it very clear that there is no conflict between the policy he is trying to pursue and the policy suggested in the letter from the Vancouver housing association, where they say in paragraph 3:
There are no doubt good grounds for objecting to the segregation of old people in large projects, but if the projects are broken down into smaller units and scattered over different neighbourhoods, as our association has suggested, this objection no longer holds good.
That is exactly what the minister told me many months ago with respect to his objection to the plan proposed by the Vancouver city council subcommittee under Alderman Anna C. Sprott. His objection was that he did not think it was wise to have too many of what he called islands of housing for old people alone, and it was partly in view of what the minister had written me that I tried to make the strongest plea I could, on the occasion of an earlier reading of this legislation, for action for old people's housing under the limited dividend section.
I personally think we are going up a blind alley by putting all the emphasis on

National Housing Act
section 36 of the act. It does not seem to me that section 36 is the best section under which to proceed with housing for old people, and that if everybody inside and outside the house really put their shoulders to the wheel and got interested service clubs, churches, branches of the Legion and so on to take the initiative under the limited dividend section we would have a lot of old people's housing that we have not now.
As I see it, under that act they cannot possibly lose. For the whole lifetime of the entire project their loans are under the government guarantee. In other words I think there is no conflict between the views held by the minister and the views held by the Vancouver housing association. They both favour these small units scattered over the whole neighbourhood, and not great big islands of old people's housing.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words in support of what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. As a matter of fact I think we are many years behind other countries in this question of looking after the housing for our old people. 3 have brought the matter up previously in connection with veterans across Canada. I think some effort should be made not only to provide homes for our old veterans but to provide homes for the old people in general. I know the sentiment or feeling among many people across Canada today is that our old people are not being fairly treated.
Today we have perhaps many more old people in isolation than formerly on account of our social legislation. They are put in what are called nursing homes; they are isolated; they are off by themselves; they have no community life of any kind. I believe this is one of the important problems confronting us here in Canada. It is not only a local problem in Vancouver; it is a problem all across Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
In the city of Saint John a short time ago a decision was made, I believe, to establish homes for old people. When I was overseas many years ago I recall that in certain sections of England homes for old people had been established. They were a sort of community homes. If an old man and his wife were living together a home was provided for those old people. There was a place for them to go. There was a place also for old bachelors and others. There was a definite community, and over this community there was certain supervision. For instance, there was a nursing organization that looked after the health of the old people. There was a recreation centre where the old people could have recreation.

I believe there is a great need for that sort of thing in Canada today. I think the minister's department could very well take this matter under consideration. In centres all across this country some provision should be made so the life of the older people of this country would be made happier and more contented instead of, as I say, putting them away in a nursing home, in a room away back in the country or in some city, somewhere by themselves where they are unhappy and where they are obliged to live out their last days in loneliness and almost in privation as far as social life is concerned.
I think this is a great question. As I said before, I have raised it in connection with veterans' housing. It also applies to other old people. I am in hearty accord with what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has brought out this afternoon. We are behind other nations. We are behind Sweden, Great Britain and most European countries as far as this problem is concerned.


Mr. Henderson:: I should like to say a few words on this bill and on the topic under consideration which has been discussed by those who have spoken previously. I might say that I am pleased that in the city of Kingston we have a group of public-spirited citizens of all races, religions, creeds and politics who have joined together to take advantage of the limited dividend provision of our legislation in order to provide good low-rental housing for senior citizens. At the same time, I think most of our senior citizens like to enjoy that feeling of independence which comes from feeling that they are paying for what they are getting.
With respect to this Bill No. 215, I might say that I am pleased to see that the limitation is removed from part III whereby that part would apply only to low or moderate cost rental housing or for municipal, provincial or federal public purposes. I am glad to see that part III can now be made use of, upon the approval of this bill, so that blighted substandard areas may be put to the best use.
That is most important in older cities like Kingston, for instance, which I represent. In many of these old cities, though they have many historical parts, possibly the early planning has been interfered with by the growth of our country. Many municipalities are looking for an equalized assessment whereby certain areas may be used for either commercial or industrial use in order to increase the assessment where other assessments for an increased number of homes at the beginning cost the city a great deal more money than the tax return. The removal of this limitation certainly will assist the municipalities looking for these features in

removing their blighted and substandard areas and putting them to better use.
I am also pleased that the bill provides that the administration of the National Housing Act will pay one-half the municipality's cost of acquisition and clearance as such costs are incurred, rather than waiting for a long period of time. This removes a considerable burden from the municipal authorities who enter into a scheme like this.
In conclusion I might just say that I should like to congratulate the minister and those charged with the administration of the National Housing Act. May I say that their far-reaching thoughts by this bill keep the National Housing Act not only in step with the growth of our country but in particular with the growth of our cities as our country grows. Once again I feel that I can endorse it as very good legislation.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like to say a word or two on this topic, Mr. Chairman. I think it is a good thing in our modern society that more and more we are beginning to assume our responsibilities toward our older citizens. It is, of course, the fortunate fact that people live longer nowadays, but for that reason a problem is created in that there is a longer spell of, shall we say, leisure life which must be provided for. As to these projects that have been mentioned in connection with old people's housing, may I say that we also have some of them in my city and my province, and that everybody is extremely happy about that fact.
I think an important thing is this. When something is being done in the nature of a project of this sort, somebody must start it. There must be local participation. I think that local participation should be encouraged. It is a fine project for service clubs and people of that sort. With regard to private homes, of course the private individual puts up the necessary money that Central Mortgage and Housing does not put up and the matter proceeds. But someone must take the lead in projects of the type mentioned here by two or three of the hon. members who have spoken previously. I want to stress the idea that encouragement should be given to local participation so that people will go out actively to start these projects which are, as I see it, one of the greatest needs of our modern society.
I am going to suggest to the minister that there is a way in which he could encourage such projects. I do not know his .own opinion about the matter. I do not know whether or not he considers that these are good things.
I know we did have a bit of a struggle to get some of them started, or to have some of them considered by Central Mortgage and
National Housing Act Housing, but my suggestion is this. Where people are prepared on a local basis to go out and put up their own money through public subscription-let us say the Kiwanis Club come to me and say they want to get another of these homes for senior citizens started, am I prepared to give them $100 toward this project-I think that money should be considered as a charitable donation and should be deductible for income tax purposes.
I know the minister may say, as many ministers have a habit of doing when you get tied up with two departments, that it is the responsibility of the other department. I am well aware that the Minister of Finance has to be persuaded about this. I think the minister to whom I am now addressing myself has a responsibility, being in charge of housing, for bringing some pressure to bear on his colleagues so they will endorse that particular proposition. I know that a definite attempt has been made, and I know that in my city we are lacking one of these homes for elderly people today as a result of the fact that the government has not seen fit to agree with that particular part of my argument. I think if the ordinary private individual, professional man or worker, is prepared to put up a couple of hundred dollars of his own earnings in order to benefit the community in general and in particular that section of the community which is unable to help itself, that man should have consideration and the donation should be considered as a charitable gift for the purposes of income tax deductibility.
I want to be a little careful about the word "charitable". I do not want it to be understood that anything we do for these senior citizens who, certainly in our western provinces, have contributed so greatly to the wealth of this country, should be considered as charity, if there is indeed any stigma attached to that word. I merely use that expression because it is the technical one in connection with deductibility for income tax purposes. I would plead with the minister to collaborate with the Minister of Finance to see if that could be brought about. I think perhaps it would solve to some extent a problem which has been in the minds of many municipalities, particularly the cities throughout the country.
I have heard Vancouver mentioned, and I am surprised if the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra has found that his municipality is unable to get this type of loan. I am sure my hon. friend's information must be correct. Was that my hon. friend's statement, that in Vancouver he has discovered it is difficult to get money for this particular type of home?
3996	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member has asked me a question. I pointed out that eight months ago the city of Vancouver submitted a plan to the two senior governments, the provincial and dominion governments, for the construction of a 130-unit housing project for senior citizens, and nothing has happened. Mind you, there are other projects in greater Vancouver, some of them financed by churches or service clubs, but here was a case where there was a specific proposal put up which has been stalled and I am trying to find out whether it has been killed and just why this is so. It looks as if the dominion government is responsible.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I think my city has been more fortunate in that regard. We have not, as my friends suggested, these big places where a great number of people are isolated. Our projects are smaller and are scattered here and there throughout the city. The elderly people themselves are so happy about it. I am quite sure if the minister would follow our suggestion he would find a happy solution to the problem. I know of one particular case where they are just waiting to go out and fill up the subscription list if they could get the amounts made deductible for income tax purposes.


Elmore Philpott: Make the contributions
through the churches and then take them off income tax.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister's comments on the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra lead me to say something about it. The city of Vancouver has asked that steps be taken under the provisions of section 36 of the housing act to provide housing accommodation for elderly persons. The minister in his statement has taken the position that the proper way to handle a situation of that kind is by resort to the limited dividend housing corporation sections of the act. While on the one hand it is suggested that the provisions of section 36 should be used for the purpose, I take it that the policy view indicated by the minister is that if anything is to be done by way of providing special housing accommodation for elderly citizens it should be done by the use of the limited dividend housing corporation provisions.
The minister raises the further point that the idea of the segregation of elderly persons is not in harmony with the policy of the government in relation to housing for elderly persons. It is quite true that the limited dividend housing corporation provisions of the act have been used in a number of cases to provide housing accommodation for elderly persons. No doubt where that is possible it
fMr. Knight.]

is a useful way of meeting the need, but it is quite evident that those provisions are not adequate to meet the entire need. There are many places where the local support, financial and otherwise, is not adequate to sustain the incorporation of a limited dividend corporation for such purposes. I would join my colleagues the hon. members for Vancouver-Quadra and Royal in urging that use should be made of the provisions of section 36 in such cases.
I cannot follow the minister's argument in relation to segregation of elderly persons. There certainly could be some forms of segregation that would be quite intolerable if applied to housing accommodation constructed under the provisions of section 36 or any other provisions of the act. "Segregation" is a baneful word and has many nasty connotations that I am sure are not in the minds of any of the hon. members in this house, but there surely is no reason in principle why housing accommodation should not be constructed specially for the use of elderly persons. I do urge that there should be an abandonment of any rigidity in the policy of the government in this regard. I do not think it is a case for a rigid policy at all. It is rather a case for the application of a policy designed to make the provisions of the act as effective as possible for meeting the needs that parliament recognized in enacting the provisions.
The needs of elderly persons are in many areas the most acute needs, and particularly those who have nothing to provide for their subsistence except the old age pension. I think the minister will agree that in the case of such deserving persons, if we are to wait until there are enough local resources and enough local initiative to make use of the limited dividend provisions of the act, then such persons are going to continue to suffer and will not have any opportunity of living in decency in their declining years.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues and urge that the department and its agent, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, should not allow rigidity to characterize their approach to needs of this kind. The need is there; the need is paramount in the consideration of parliament. Parliament is not going to be niggardly or carping in its approach to questions of this kind. Let there not be rigidity because, it seems to me, in the face of considered requests such as those which come from the city council of Vancouver, what is needed is an understanding and a flexible approach, not a rigid one.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, briefly I want to support the pleas of the previous speakers

for flexibility in the act to provide for the needs of our senior citizens; but I rise particularly to ask the minister a question. It has not to do with policy; it has more to do with purpose so far as this act generally is concerned.
In the city of Trail for a good number of years they have been plagued by the Canadian Pacific Railway track running through the centre of the city. Consideration has been given throughout the years to changing this situation, particularly in the Rossland avenue area. Plans have been considered for the redevelopment of this area, the relocation of the yards and the freight sheds required for the business people of the district in one particular place, and the removal of the necessary houses and their transfer to another location. At the present time this problem is being considered on the basis of financial co-operation between the city and Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, with the Canadian Pacific Railway more or less looking after its own track removal and things of that sort.
Would a redevelopment scheme of that nature come under the terms of the amendments to this act at the present time? I am speaking of the relocation of the yards, the relocation of those persons who have to be moved from certain areas because of the poor type of buildings and the necessity to move them, and so on.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, there is a specific clause in this bill, namely clause 23, under which I think this could appropriately be discussed. I would refer my hon. friend to it so that he can peruse it and have its provisions in mind when we reach it. I think that a reading of the clause will answer some of the questions he himself has raised. If it does not, then I shall be glad to deal with it when we come to the section. We are on a specific section now, namely section 1, having to do with home extension loans, and we were diverted into a discussion of housing for aged citizens in Canada. I have just been asked to ensure that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not become too rigid in its application of government policy. I can assure hon. members it will not.
I remind the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, who is mistaken in some of his statements-I am not too concerned about that because the general principles are the same- that when he says there is a proposal before us, there is not. This has been a matter of discussion, but no specific proposal has been put before us so far. The situation, as I said in reply to him, is that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as well as myself
National Housing Act
believe it is quite in order to house a percentage of senior citizens in any federal-provincial project. Generally speaking, and without being rigid about it, we think it is all right that about 20 per cent of the tenants of any such project should be senior citizens, and that has been a part of the policy of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I have statistics which show that, as at the present time, the total percentage of senior citizens in relation to the total population- and when I say "senior citizens" I mean those over 65 years of age-is 7-73 per cent. As against that we are agreeing that it is quite in order to house up to 20 per cent of senior citizens in a federal-provincial project.
At the same time we say that if anybody else wishes to show the initiative that so many already have shown to develop limited dividend companies and obtain a loan from Central Mortgage and Housing, then it is their responsibility to house anybody they wish within the appropriate income range. They are simply the borrower, and they have all the rights and privileges of administering the project as they see fit and of housing anybody they deem desirable.
Therefore rather than discriminate against the senior citizens, which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra might have implied without actually saying so, I think quite the reverse is the case. I am quite sure that my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare could make quite a convincing statement and assert to the satisfaction of all members of the committee that the senior citizens in Canada have not been discriminated against but, on the contrary, the government has gone a long way in meeting the needs of this very worthy group of Canadian citizens.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, that is all very well, but here we have one specific case. If the minister did not get a written application from the city of Vancouver, at least his officials have been discussing this particular project with the city for a matter of eight months. I am told by reliable people vitally interested in housing, and working on a community service basis on this problem, that this project has been submitted to the government; a 130-unit housing project for senior citizens at 47th avenue and Knight road in Vancouver under section 36 of the act.
Now, there is an actual application; and there is a possibility for 130 senior citizens to benefit if the project goes through. What I should like to know from the minister is whether or not that particular project can be approved by the dominion, or is he going

National Housing Act to follow the policy that not over 20 per cent of the people going into one of these projects can be senior citizens? If that is the case it is obvious that there is not the slightest chance of this plan which has been put up by the city of Vancouver becoming a fact.
I think that would be a great tragedy. The city is actually prepared to step into a plan of this type which will help 130 people, and I hope the minister is not taking the broad position, that he will rule against that plan because it is a plan exclusively for senior citizens. Apparently that plan has been worked out by the city of Vancouver in the belief that there is a need that should be met. Section 36 of the housing act obviously could be used for that purpose if it were not for this ruling by the minister which, with all due deference, is very rigid, since he said a few minutes ago that he will not allow more than 20 per cent of those living in one of those projects to be senior citizens. What is the minister going to do with regard to this particular project? It has been delayed now for a matter of months.


Robert Henry Winters: There is no official project before us.


Howard Charles Green: The minister himself said he had been discussing it with the council of the city of Vancouver.


Robert Henry Winters: We have been discussing general principles.


Howard Charles Green: What was the minister discussing if not this project?


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member should not make such assertions.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister say that he has never heard of this project?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I understand that officials of the city have discussed a suggested proposal with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They have brought it forward in the nature of a feeler to see what the reaction would be. There is no specific proposal. Nothing has come forward from the province, as is required under section 36 of the statute. I wish the hon. member would not mislead as much as he does.


Howard Charles Green: If a proposal to implement
the plan I have been discussing were submitted, would it be considered by the government and would there be any chance of it being accepted?


Robert Henry Winters: How could I say when I
have not seen it?


Howard Charles Green: The minister is just evading
the issue.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What cities and towns have
made specific provision for this 20 per cent?
I understood the minister to say that 7 per cent had been provided for already.


Robert Henry Winters: I am afraid the hon. member for Royal did not hear my statement.
I said that the percentage of old people in the total population was about 7-73 per cent, and that as a general rule, without any of the rigidity which my hon. friend tries to associate with us, we have been telling the local housing authorities that we see nothing wrong with allowing up to 20 per cent of the total in any of these joint projects to be senior citizens.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What cities have submitted
plans to the department?


Robert Henry Winters: I would say that there are
federal-provincial projects in about 50 cities across Canada.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is that to provide for older
people?


Robert Henry Winters: Older people and other classes of citizens; not exclusively older people.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Did the city of Saint John
recently make application for accommodation for older people? I saw in the press some time ago that they had.


Robert Henry Winters: I have no knowledge of any proposal from the city of Saint John to house older people exclusively.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment to make regarding homes for senior citizens arising out of the comment made by the hon. member for Vancouver South in which he referred to islands of housing for older citizens and suggested that this was not a good policy. I suggest that the need for housing for senior citizens is very great and that the main thing is to get some form of housing provided.
In our own province we have recognized the advantage of getting away from multiple units, the institutional type of housing, and have provided more of the cottage style self-contained units. In answer to the inference drawn by the hon. member for Vancouver South and I believe by the minister, may I say that in my belief the main thing is to do everything we can to increase housing for senior citizens. They are the ones in the community who are generally unable to take advantage of the provisions of the act. Those who are working and with years of life ahead of them are possibly in a position to build homes, but many of our

senior citizens have no savings and are unable to pay the 10 per cent required by the act.
I think the main thing is to provide housing for senior citizens. I gathered from the minister that there was some hesitancy or reluctance about going too far in the provision of housing for a particular group of citizens, and those to whom he was referring were our senior citizens.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two comments regarding the situation in Saskatchewan. There seem to be three points where there is a difference of opinion between the government and the people in Saskatchewan, but these points apparently are receiving further consideration by the department.
One point at which we were at variance was as to the number of hostel units and the occupancy of those units. As hon. members know, we in Saskatchewan have put a different interpretation upon the act and have been building hostel units on the basis of one hostel bedroom unit for every ten general units. That has been done under section 16 of the act and does not apply to other provinces. In spite of that we were restricted to a 50 per cent occupancy of hostel type units. We believe that should not be the case, and I understand the government is now giving serious consideration to the request of Saskatchewan. I hope the minister will look with favour upon that request.
The second point had to do with double occupancy of hostel units. Again I understand the government is giving serious consideration to this request.
We asked that June 1 as a cut-off date for applications for limited dividend type accommodation be extended until October 1. I understand that this request is being given serious consideration by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Mortgage insurance fund.
Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the remarks made today with respect to senior citizens, and this subject formed the main part of my remarks during the debates on April 23 and April 26. During the debate on April 26 I asked the minister if there had been large commitments under the insurance fund, and he indicated that there had not. There are some other questions I should like to pose and a suggestion I should like to make in respect to the fund.
What is the present amount in the insurance fund? Is the fund in liquid form, or has it 67509-254
National Housing Act been paid out to other insurance companies? I understand from the minister's previous answer that there are no commitments, so it would appear that the fund is bigger than it need be. If the fund is in liquid form, and as the rate of 2 per cent on mortgages running up to a total of $1 billion would return something like $20 million a year, I would suggest that the money be reinvested in homes for senior citizens at reduced interest rates.


Robert Henry Winters: The fund stands now at something over $12 million. There have been no charges against it so far. It is liquid and is invested in government securities, the interest from which accrues to the fund under the provisions of the statute.


Frederick George Hahn: Has consideration been given to reinvesting it in a scheme of homes for senior citizens wholly owned by the dominion?


Robert Henry Winters: No consideration has been given to that, and I think it would be difficult to carry out. This is an insurance fund to guarantee certain obligations, and I think we are under an obligation to keep it in liquid form so we can discharge quickly any commitments which might arise. The hon. member knows that a substantial change was necessary in the Bank Act before we could induce the banks to lend against the security of residential mortgages, and this is one of the provisions that made that possible.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact is that the government could not lawfully use the insurance fund for the proposed purpose.


Frederick George Hahn: I am satisfied with the statement of the minister that the fund must be kept solvent at all times and that my suggestion would require a change in the Bank Act, but I would draw to his attention that when making these particular changes-we know that we pay our senior citizens a regular income-that there could be an automatic charge on the old age pensioner in the way of rental and so continue keeping the fund itself solvent. Certainly, as it is indicated at this time that there is no demand on the fund we can only hope that conditions will remain such that the demand will not be too great and that the fund should not become too great in itself.
Therefore I contend that some consideration should be given to this other aspect of the reduction of the interest rate. I am not sure that the fund has been in operation long enough for the actuaries to determine whether a reduction could be contemplated at this time, but what consideration is being given to the reduction of this rate? Would the minister say that possibly the fund has not been in operation long enough to determine that at the present time?
4000	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act


Robert Henry Winters: I would say the latter is the case. We have obligations against the fund of over $600 million worth of residential mortgages, and I would be hesitant to do anything that would run the risk of making the corporation unable to meet any obligations that might possibly come against this fund. I do not foresee any. The Canadian economy is strong and the fact that we have had no charges against the fund now indicates that mortgages are in a healthy position, but I do not think $12 million to guarantee a total amount of over $600 million is too much at this stage of our experience.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Aggregate maximum of four billion dollars.
Donald Methuen Fleming: In clause 5 we have a provision that section 13 of the act is to be changed in order to raise from $2 billion to $4 billion the aggregate amount for which insurance is to be provided under the mortgage insurance fund scheme of the act. Would the minister give the committee a report as to how far the fund is committed, and how this figure of $4 billion has been chosen as the desired increased amount?


Robert Henry Winters: At the end of 1955 the figures I have indicate that commitments have been given of more than $1 billion, and that undertakings are being made at the rate of about $600 million a year. The present ceiling of $2 billion would be reached about the middle of next year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the present rate continues, then, the new $4 billion ceiling would be reached probably around 1960?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right, because I thought it was logical that the ceiling should be set at such a level that the minister would be required to come back to the house during the course of the next parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder if there should not be a little more control on the administration than that? After all, the doubling of this huge amount would mean, even if the present substantial rate of commitment continues, that the $4 billion fund would be ample to meet all current requirements at least until 1960. That means it would not be necessary in the ordinary course, so far as one can foresee, for the government to come back to the house for another four years.
I wonder if that is not too long, with a view to maintaining strict parliamentary control while at the same time affording every opportunity to make financial provision adequate for all foreseeable needs, and in that way to make the provisions of the act as efficacious as possible. I ask if it would not


suffice to increase this already substantial total ceiling to, say, $3 billion. In the ordinary course that would mean that the $3 billion limit would be reached, say, about the beginning of 1959. Surely that is quite long enough when we are dealing with substantial amounts of money like this. After all, $2 billion is still a large amount of money, in spite of the astronomy that we resort to in this house at times in regard to expenditures and commitments.
I raise that point quite seriously, as to whether all apparent needs would not be fully provided for and at the same time more effective guarantees of parliamentary supervision and control preserved by making the new ceiling $3 billion instead of $4 billion.


Robert Henry Winters: I am sure the hon. member is aware that these figures we are talking about are not government expenditures at all. They are just ceilings of commitments by the lenders.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But the principle of parliamentary control is involved. It is a question of commitment rather than expenditure.


Robert Henry Winters: I think parliament should have adequate opportunity to scrutinize the operations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and its administration of the terms of this statute. The hon. member will see, as we get through the various sections of the bill now before us, that we are making provision to give parliament more scrutiny than it has had before of the operations under the statute, and particularly those provisions that involve the expenditure of moneys provided by parliament.
This is simply our authority to guarantee mortgage lending up to that level, and I personally am of the opinion that $4 billion is a reasonable figure in relation to our present commitments and the rate at which mortgage loans are being guaranteed at the present time. I might say to the hon. member that at the outset there was a feeling that the figure should be somewhat higher, but after we gave a great deal of consideration to this particular point we decided that $4 billion was reasonable in relation to the present ceiling of $2 billion and the rate at which loans are being guaranteed now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think the point the minister is making is nearly as sound as he seems to think. What we are dealing with is the right to make commitments that are binding upon parliament, binding upon the public treasury. It is quite true that we are not dealing with expenditures. It is not as though we were voting money in the estimates for expenditures; nevertheless it is



IS. 1956

[Stage Direction]
clear that we are permitting the creation by this section of public liabilities.
Let me give you those figures briefly again. Already the commitments to December 31, 1955, amount to $1 billion. The present commitments are coming in at the rate of $600 million a year. The present ceiling of $2 billion will be reached in the ordinary course about the autumn of 1957. If an increase of another $1 billion is permitted, that at the present rate is going to provide for all foreseeable needs until the beginning of 1959, and I see no necessity for adding another $1 billion of possible commitment to that before the government must come back to parliament for review of this matter and to seek, if the conditions then warrant it, the right to increase these commitments.
We are dealing with vast sums of money here, and the right to make huge commitments binding upon the public treasury of this country. Surely we do not need to make a provision of this kind that far into the future. I press the point upon the minister that it is quite adequate and quite in keeping with the generous attitude the house has shown with regard to the provision of funds to assist housing under the various parts of the National Housing Act if we increase the ceiling from $2 billion to $3 billion instead of $4 billion. Will the minister not accept that suggestion?
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I can add to what I have said. In the light of the best judgment we could bring to bear upon the matter $4 billion seemed reasonable. I must say I thank the hon. member for his comments, but in our judgment we will stand on the $4 billion in the bill.


Mr. Vincent:: Was any consideration given to the possibility of insuring the borrower instead of the lender? At the present time I think the lending institutions are well protected, but on the other hand if the borrower does not make his mortgage payments he can be foreclosed. If the borrower were insured his monthly payments would be insured. Therefore I do not think the fund would require to be as large because the government would not be called upon to pay bulk sums of money. Instead, the government would only be called upon to pay in cases where the borrower could not meet his obligations. It is not to be assumed that the borrower could not meet his obligations indefinitely, because after all we do not assume that the country would be in such a crisis that we would have to pay the monthly instalments for years to come. In other words, if foreclosure should take place, instead of the 67509-254J
National Housing Act
government having to pay $8,000 or $9,000 on a guaranteed loan, if the insurance were paid by the borrower for the borrower instead of being paid by the borrower for the lending institution we would arrive at a proper solution whereby the borrower would benefit from the insurance premium he has paid and at the same time the lending institution would be protected.
I do not think there is any lending institution in Canada that wishes to take back any property on which it has made a mortgage loan. They are not in the lending field for the purpose of engaging in the administration of property. They do not wish to take back property on which they have lent money. Consequently if we insured the borrower his monthly payments would be insured and at the same time the lending institutions would benefit and would be protected. Therefore we would not arrive at the improper situation where the borrower would have paid his fee and at the same time would face foreclosure after five or six months of non-payment on his part. Should some crisis arise in Canada we would be faced with an unfortunate situation whereby many people would have to vacate their homes after having paid a 2J per cent insurance fee. The lending institution is protected but the borrower, the home owner, is not protected.
What consideration has been given by the government to this matter in order that the insurance will protect both the borrower and the lender? I think the limit of $4 billion would be sufficiently high, because we would not have to pay out bulk sums of money and put out on the street people who have already paid an insurance fee to protect their homes and mortgages.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member may recall that the former member for Spadina made a good speech in the house several years ago in which he advocated a program of equity insurance. That matter was explored very fully. The question is often asked why we insure the lender and do not insure the borrower. That is followed by a supplementary question as to what the borrower gets for the insurance premium he pays. The obvious answer is that he gets mortgage money which he would not otherwise get, so by paying the insurance premium there is assurance that he will get mortgage money.
That was the only basis on which the banks could come within the provisions of this statute, as my hon. friend is well aware. The other side of the argument has to do with just what is an insurance principle under the operations of this statute. There have been very few cases indeed of foreclosure, certainly not enough to make an equity insurance
4002	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act
principle one of general application, and since the 1954 statute was enacted there has been no call to charge against the insurance fund at all. Therefore it is a very difficult concept to think in terms of asking all borrowers under the statute to pay into an insurance fund to protect the relatively few cases out of all the thousands of borrowers who have had mortgage money under the National Housing Act.
I think the number who have been subjected to foreclosure would be much less than 100. In other words the percentage is negligible. Therefore that is also a consideration when one thinks in terms of an insurance principle and the charges that go with asking people to contribute to an insurance fund. In reply to the hon. member's specific question, the answer is that this matter has been given a great deal of consideration but that at the present time the government believes the insurance principle is warranted only to guarantee an adequate flow of mortgage money into residential housing.


Auguste Vincent: The life of such mortgages being 25 years, I think the principle should be studied still further and that some consideration should be given to the situation. Last year I spoke to the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, who is in the house today, and placed the problem before him. It may not be a very vital problem today or a measure that is essential at this moment, but I think we should look into the future and that the officials of C.M.H.C. should not just drop the question but should keep on studying the matter to see how the insurance principle could work in case it should be needed in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Contributions to municipalities for clearance of substandard areas.
Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to refer specifically to the situation in Saint John. May I say at the outset that we have a difficult slum clearance problem there because of the fact that Saint John, New Brunswick, is the oldest city in Canada. We also had a fire which completely destroyed the city. The entire city had to be rebuilt and naturally the houses are all of the same age and at the same stage of depreciation. What general plans are being negotiated at the present time with respect to slum clearance?
I should also like to ask this specific question. In the city of Saint John I understand that the municipality is planning to investigate slum clearance and planning generally, and that they have asked some experts from Toronto to come to the city this summer
iMr. Winters.]

and conduct a program in that respect. I was wondering whether the minister could say whether the costs of these experts, if there are costs, can be charged up to this section. I have just those two thoughts in mind, namely the general program and the specific cost of planning.


Robert Henry Winters: Under part V of the present statute we have made a grant to the city of Saint John to conduct a study of housing conditions there. The relationship is that the federal government pays 75 per cent of the cost of making the survey. I understand that it is either under way now or will be very shortly. Saint John has done quite a good job in public housing. They have an extremely active housing authority there. Several projects have been developed, all of which have turned out successfully, in my opinion, and have met a need. This is one of the places in Canada where I think good progress is being made in accommodating a class of citizens that perhaps otherwise could not have had the type of decent accommodation with which we have been able to provide them under the partnership arrangement provided by section 36 of the statute.


Alfred Claude Ellis: In the explanatory notes of the bill I note the statement that the main part of the bill has to do with part III. I was wondering whether the minister could tell me how many projects were undertaken under the old part III, the part III that this act will supersede.


Robert Henry Winters: There have been only two cities in Canada that have taken advantage of the slum clearance section of the statute, although a good many cities, as I said before, have taken advantage of section 36 which is related to this matter dealt with in this bill before us now. The two cities that have taken advantage of the slum clearance section of the statute are Toronto, which has developed that large Regent Park North project, and St. John's, Newfoundland where a good job has been done in removing some of the slums that existed in that city.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I was just trying to assess the result of the change suggested in this bill. I note that the main change seems to be in the formula under which the government will provide assistance to the municipality concerned. I note that under the present part III the government makes provision for a contribution based on the difference between the cost of the clearance and the eventual price realized from the project, and that under the proposed change the government will make the contribution on the basis of the over-all cost and will recover later.

My question is this. How will this affect the over-all contribution made to the municipalities? Will it have any effect-that is my point-or will it still mean that the government is making roughly a 50 per cent contribution under either formula?


Robert Henry Winters: I think the big contribution this section will make to the redevelopment of cities is in the end use of the redeveloped land. The present statute places a limitation on what the redeveloped land might be used for. This amendment opens that considerably. In many places where there is. substandard housing it often happens that the area does not lend itself to redevelopment for housing purposes, as I said before in the house. I think that has been one of the obstacles in the way of civic redevelopment. We are saying now that redeveloped land may be used for its best purposes. That is spelled out in the section. It envisages that an area which is now given over for residential purposes can be used for commercial, industrial or other purposes, whichever is the highest use for which the area is envisaged in the over-all civic plan.
On the monetary side of it, the general formula is the same but the change in application I think is important. The old formula provided for a grant which was half the net cost of acquiring and clearing the land, and a grant was made after the operation had been completed. That meant that the municipality was obliged to finance the undertaking from the outset until final completion and to carry all the charges that go with financing. Under the bill now before us it will be possible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to pay as the costs are incurred, and thereby relieve the municipality of quite a bit of the heavy onus of financing the project during the course of acquisition and clearance.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate that slight effect, in that a municipality will perhaps be spared the carrying charges on a certain sum of money which under the present section it would be obliged to provide. However, I am concerned about the 50 per cent formula, because in answer to my previous question the minister intimated that there had been only two cities in Canada which had been able to take advantage of this assistance or which have seen fit to do so.
I hardly believe that cities in Canada are not anxious to avail themselves of any assistance. I am quite certain that cities throughout Canada would be most anxious to undertake projects of this type. I can only conclude that their failure to do so is based on their inability to finance their share of
National Housing Act the cost. My suggestion therefore is that while the change will be of some slight benefit, I am not too certain that as a result of this new bill we shall get any substantial increase in slum clearance throughout the country. I hope I am wrong in that respect, but judging from the past record I think we have no real reason for believing that the municipalities are going to be in any better position now than they were a few years ago to undertake the tremendous burden of 50 per cent of the cost of slum clearance.
With reference to the statement made by the minister that under the new section, the removal of the limitation in the existing part III which requires that this land be used for low-cost or moderate-rental housing or for federal, provincial or municipal public purposes will perhaps provide a further incentive to municipalities to clear blighted areas, may I say that we are concerned about housing. While I say it is highly commendable that municipalities across the country should undertake the removal of blighted areas, nevertheless if they are simply going to reassign that area to commercial purposes, for example, we are still not getting to the heart of the matter, which is the provision of adequate low-cost housing.
I am just wondering now whether the minister really feels that the elimination of this previous restriction is going to assist- and I should like to know the manner in which it is going to assist, if he feels it is going to do so-the building of additional low-cost housing units in those cities.


Mr. Richardson:: Perhaps before the minister replies to the hon. member for Regina City I might make an observation and ask a question. First of all, there may be some difference of opinion between the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, representing Bonavista-Twillingate, as to which is the older city in Canada, but certainly one who comes from Montreal as I do would believe that Montreal is the most mature city in Canada.
The question I should like to ask is whether, in view of the agreement which has been entered into by the three authorities in respect of the rehabilitation program in Montreal, there is anything we on the federal side may do to expedite the matter? The very fact that it has been brought about recently, does not that partly answer the question raised by the hon. member for Regina City?


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I might answer this question and thank the hon. member for St. Law*ence-St. George for his contribution.

National Housing Act
I know he is interested in the so-called Dozois plan, which is one of the big projects for development under this section. The other large redevelopment now moving forward is Regent Park South in Toronto. I do think this section will overcome most of the barriers that have been in the way of civic redevelopment. I am sure my hon. friend from Regina City has cause to know that the problems are not always of a fiscal nature. In the city of Regina some time ago interests there favoured a federal-provincial housing project. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation thought it had merit, but the local taxpayers themselves turned that down.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Actually I campaigned for it.


Robert Henry Winters: Often it is the case that local problems dealing with civic administration or what might be called local politics are more severe than local financial problems. We found that to be true in many municipalities across the country, and it is quite understandable. I have no criticism to make of civic administrators who find great difficulty in uprooting citizens who have lived in a certain area for a long time, in demolishing their homes and having them go to live elsewhere. Sometimes these problems have been so severe locally they could not be overcome regardless of the financing arrangements we might have made.
I think this new approach to the financing problem will help in so far as financing is an obstacle in the way of redevelopment. The hon. member made an observation as to whether or not we were really coming to grips with housing rather than redevelopment for commercial and industrial purposes. The answer is that we have tried to keep squarely before us that this is a measure to assist housing. If the hon. member will read the various sections of the clause, for example paragraphs (c) and (d), he will see that great emphasis is placed on housing. In fact paragraph (d) says specifically:
A substantial part of the area at the time of acquisition was, or after redevelopment will be, used for residential purposes.
Paragraph (c) delineates even more specifically the government's intention that there shall be adequate housing for those people who are displaced through any redevelopment.
As to the Montreal plan, there has been a proposal made to us by the city and I understand that a statute of the provincial government of Quebec has authorized the city to act as its agent in entering into a slum clearance operation with us under section 36. I would imagine that under provincial statutes there will need be an order in

council. We have no knowledge that the order in council has been passed. There has been no direct communication from the Quebec government to the federal government to indicate that they have authorized the city to act as its agent. But as I said before, I do not see any barrier that will develop there. The proposal is with us now and we are giving it very careful study. I assume that whatever steps will need to be taken as between the government of Quebec and the city of Montreal will be taken so this project can go forward without any delay.


Auguste Vincent: I would not like the opportunity to pass without saying a few words on part III, because I happen to be representing a constituency which really needs housing redevelopment. I think the minister is aware that within the last month or so Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have opened an office in my constituency. I must comment very favourably on the outcome, and on the achievements of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, especially in the constituency of Longueuil which needs redevelopment. We have made great strides. During the four years before the new act came into force approximately $7 million worth of loans were made in all seven municipalities in my constituency. In the past two years' this amount has risen to $8,500,000, and municipalities which previously had not obtained loans have obtained loans under the new act. I think that in this respect Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the National Housing Act, 1954, have really played a big part in housing in my area.
Nevertheless I think the problem of housing redevelopment is still very acute. We have, for example, in the city of Jacques Cartier a population of approximately 38,000 people. Up to a year ago the city unfortunately did not have sewage or water facilities. Now the population has spent about $12 million and has a proper sewage and waterworks, so they are ready for a real redevelopment program. Consequently I hereby advise the minister we will be knocking at his door to have some plans approved for slum clearance and the replacement of substandard homes by new homes. Certainly the city will take advantage of this act in order to develop a plan whereby the present situation will be cured.
Before sitting down I should like to know from the minister how the estimates of the cost of acquisition of land and clearance of the area are arrived at. In other words, who does the estimating and how are those estimates made?


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. gentleman's question was who makes-


Auguste Vincent: Subsection 4, paragraph (a) says:
An estimate of the costs of the acquisition and clearance of the area;
On what basis is the estimate made and who makes it?


Robert Henry Winters: If the project develops along the pattern that has prevailed so far, a committee is set up composed of representatives from the levels of government concerned. In Toronto it was the civic, the provincial and the federal government levels. They constituted a committee and made estimates. In Montreal, where the provincial government indicated to the city that it would be empowered to act as its agent, there was a committee with membership from the city of Montreal and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The estimate was compiled under the general supervision of that committee. The initiative in the first place must come from the civic authority, as my hon. friend can well appreciate. The bill provides that it must be done with the knowledge and authority of the provincial government concerned. So I would imagine the city authorities would be communicating with the provincial government, and then it normally flows through that channel to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I asked a question on section 1 and the minister advised me to read section 23. Well, I have read it two or three times and I am not quite clear as to the interpretation; therefore I am going to repeat my question. I said the city of Trail has been concerned about removing the tracks of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which pass through the centre of the city, to a location at the north-' west end of Rossland avenue, removing certain houses, some of which are not quite good and others not so suitable, making a yard at the end of Rossland avenue for the unloading of freight and the building of warehouses, and so on.
This matter has been very carefully gone into and it is suggested that the relocation of the tracks, the building of the railway yard and the provision of warehouses, and so on, could be provided for by co-operation with the city and financial assistance from the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway.
My question is this. Would this section apply under those circumstances; that is, would any agreement be affected by the fact that the company was willing to bear a share of the cost and the Canadian Pacific Railway
National Housing Act
the cost of moving the tracks and doing certain things in connection with the yards? Will the minister explain to the committee what procedure the municipal council should adopt in making representations with respect to the use of this section?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, it is pretty hard for me to sit here in Ottawa and judge whether or not a project in Trail could qualify under this statute. I do not know enough about the local conditions. There are certain elements about it, however, as expressed by the hon. member, which would raise doubts in my mind as to whether it could qualify. On the other hand he said that part of the area is now given over to housing which needs to be redeveloped. Perhaps that part could qualify. We would have to make a study. I presume the city of Trail would be prepared to initiate some investigation as to whether the project they have in mind could qualify under the statute. I refer the hon. member for Kootenay West particularly to paragraph (d) of clause 23, which reads:
A substantial part of the area at the time of acquisition was, or after redevelopment will be, used for residential purposes.
We must keep in mind, as the hon. member for Regina City said, that this is housing legislation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to mention that the Minister of Fisheries visited Trail recently and I think raised their hopes considerably, which is quite normal procedure for cabinet ministers. What should I suggest to the council? Should I suggest that the council would be well advised to present the whole scheme to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, I would suggest that.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I referred a few moments ago to the removal of the limitation which exists in part III where slum clearance is a factor in the agreement between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the municipality. I was quite aware, as the minister pointed out to me, that 3(b) and 3(c) in particular of section 23 refer to the fact that where the buildings in an area have to be torn down and the area made available for perhaps industrial purposes, or whatever purpose the municipality sees fit to use it for, alternative accommodation must be provided to those who are dispossessed at reasonable rents.
I note that the section calls for provision of this housing through either sections 16, 19 or 36; but I suggest that if the municipality is going to pay 50 per cent of the cost of slum clearance of a blighted area, and then be called upon to make a contribution with respect to construction of low-rental housing,

National Housing Act presumably under section 36-because certainly it is difficult to believe that under the other sections housing could be built, which would provide for the needs of people who are in those blighted areas-I think the minister realizes that limited dividend corporations are not going to charge the type of rents that the people who are now living in blighted areas can afford to pay. I know rents in the limited dividend housing dwelling units-low-rent housing they call it-are often in excess of $60 a month. Certainly people living in slum areas in our large cities are not going to be able to pay that amount of rent. Therefore I suggest it will have to be brought about under section 36, in which case of course the municipality is again going to be making its contribution.
Now, in the event of slum clearance, if the houses on that land bring a sufficient return to exceed the cost of the purchase of the land, it means that the municipalities are going to be put to an extra expense. I am trying to make my point quite clear. If the municipality went ahead under section 36 I am suggesting that it might well be that under subsection 3 of section 23 of part III of the act the municipality would find itself in a position where it was paying more as a result of the diversion of this property to industrial or commercial purposes. Perhaps the minister can reassure me on this point. This is the doubt that exists in my mind at the moment.


Robert Henry Winters: I feel that the municipality has a great deal to gain from these projects. It almost invariably develops that the land redeveloped produces more revenue than it did previous to the redevelopment. I believe that when municipalities make detailed studies they will find that they are the level of gov-% ernment which really stand to benefit most directly from any of these redevelopment projects. And rather than having the weight of the financial burden bear on them I think they are in a very favourable position to benefit from those redevelopment projects.


Erhart Regier: Since I noticed that these
amendments would be before us today I looked up what the minister had to say at page 3332 of Hansard. I should like to read what he said:
. . . the Liberal aim, namely, to provide adequate housing for every Canadian.
Then I read on in his comments, and I am going to relate this to part III in a very few moments. He pointed out that the average down payment in 1955 was $2,821. He further indicated that in 1955 some 490 loans had been made to people whose income was under $3,000. When we consider that the

average down payment is $2,821, and that out of 100,000 housing units fewer than one-half of one per cent were purchased by those whose income was under $3,000; and when we consider that there are more people in Canada whose income is under $3,000 than those in excess of $3,000, I think the minister will agree that we are not providing as much housing for the people of Canada who really need the housing as both he and the rest of us, I am sure, would like to see us provide. I feel that the act is in effect being used to help build houses for people many of whom would be able to build their own houses without assistance. So far as that statement is correct the whole act is falling short of its original objectives.
We now have part III, which is headed "Urban Development". I do not intend to express any opposition to the proposed amendments, but I do feel they will take away our attention from what the real purposes should be. I realize that this new part will serve a useful purpose. We on the lower mainland can certainly use it if we can persuade our ratepayers to co-operate. However, I feel that an extensive use of this new part and the leeway which is to be granted will take away our attention from the real need, that is the providing of more housing for people in the low income brackets.
I do not know what all the answers are, but I do know the local government is expected to take the initiative under the new part. What does that involve? The minister referred to the citizens of one Canadian city who were faced with a plebiscite and who voted out a proposed redevelopment scheme. I can sympathize with the local taxpayer who resents the taxes on his home being increased in order to meet an obligation which he feels should be assumed by society as a whole and not be the direct responsibility of the real estate which he owns within that municipality.
I know the minister is anxious at all times to expand home construction, and I feel that perhaps the provincial governments are more to blame than the municipal and federal governments. I should like to ask the minister whether any efforts have been made by his department to persuade the provincial governments to assume more responsibility, to carry on a little more education and to make it easier for the municipal people to endorse redevelopment undertakings?
Has the department made any effort to induce the provincial governments to assume more of the initiative? I realize it is hard for a department in Ottawa to assume much

of the initiative in removing a blighted area in a city perhaps thousands of miles away, and which may not be of such immediate urgency in Ottawa as it is back home. Yet the taxpayer back home feels he is being overloaded; he does not want to take the initiative, and the provincial government places the blame on the municipal and federal governments. Have any efforts been made along these lines?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes. I am sure all hon. members are aware of the section of the British North America Act which makes property and civil rights a provincial responsibility. Housing and property associated with housing are clearly matters of property and civil rights; therefore the provincial governments have a definite responsibility where the housing of their citizens is concerned. I think generally speaking all provincial governments recognize and accept that responsibility.
When section 35, now section 36, of the housing act was being developed in 1949 I visited every provincial government accompanied by the then president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We had a number of discussions with the appropriate ministers about housing and about what could be done to house the class of people who could not normally contemplate their own houses under the home ownership provisions. I found there was quite a keen interest on the part of the provincial governments, which has manifested itself to a considerable degree in the utilization of section 36 of the present statute.
Apart from that we are in constant communication with the provincial governments. A warm and friendly relationship obtains between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the various provincial agencies. There is a quite active and close co-operation, but I think this is a matter in which the local citizens could play a prominent role. They should try to assume a measure of responsibility and initiative and to create an awareness by the proper level of government of the need for doing something in these fields, where private citizens are not capable of building or owning their own homes.


Erhart Regier: If I may pursue that a little more, I believe the other day the minister listed the Canadian cities in which blighted areas had been redeveloped. Is there a provincial government in Canada which has paid more than the municipal government in the carrying out of such redevelopment schemes? 1 realize the federal government pays a portion of the cost and assumes some responsibility for losses that may occur in connection
National Housing Act with the operation of such a scheme. Is there any provincial government that is offering to its municipal governments that it will pay more than the municipal government will be asked to pay? If so, what are those provincial governments?


Robert Henry Winters: The sharing between the municipal and provincial governments seems to vary from province to province. For instance, in connection with the project at St. John's, Newfoundland, the provincial government has paid a full 25 per cent of the cost. Regarding the other big slum clearance development in Canada, Regent Park South, the provincial government paid $1,000 per unit whereas one-half the cost of acquiring and clearing the land, which was paid by the municipality, would be of the same magnitude. In addition the municipal authorities stood the cost of building the project over and above the $1,000 per unit. That is all the information I can give the hon. member, because there have not been any other slum clearance projects in Canada. I hope this legislation before us now will stimulate further activity in that field.


Erhart Regier: Would the minister have information about the large housing development in Vancouver that was built under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation auspices? What was the relationship between the two levels of government there?


Robert Henry Winters: In the Little Mountain project?


Erhart Regier: Yes.


Robert Henry Winters: 
Alfred Claude Ellis: I wonder if the minister has any information on the relationship between the cost of clearing blighted areas and the value of the land after the clearance had taken place on the two projects to which reference was made a short while ago.


Robert Henry Winters: What is the question?


Alfred Claude Ellis: I was asking the minister if he could state the relationship between the cost of clearance of the two blighted areas that were discussed a few moments ago-I believe one was in Newfoundland and the other was the Regent Park North project in Toronto- and the value of the land. I would like to get the relationship between the cost of the clearance and the value of the land if it is going to be used for industrial purposes.

National Housing Act


Robert Henry Winters: In Regent Park North, which is the one developed so far, the end value assigned to the cleared land was $1. I have forgotten for the moment just what the arrangement was in Newfoundland. I am not sure I fully understood just what the hon. member is seeking to find out.


Alfred Claude Ellis: A few moments ago the minister suggested that municipalities would be in a stronger position as a result of this change in that the blighted area, when it is cleared of buildings and made available for sale for perhaps commercial or industrial purposes, is going to yield a sufficiently high price that the municipality is going to benefit, and I presume the government will benefit to the extent that under some circumstances it is not making any grant at all to the project.


Robert Henry Winters: I am still not quite clear. Perhaps the hon. member and I could have a private chat about this. Normally when the land is redeveloped its value is higher, as in the case of Little Mountain, where the property as it stands now is much more valuable than before the housing project was built.


Alfred Claude Ellis: That is the information I wanted. I wanted to know whether the minister could give some specific information. He has made some generalizations, but I would like to know if he has something specific.


Robert Henry Winters: I have no specific figures of land values before me.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
On clause 9-No liability after loans aggregate $200,000,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: In clause 9 we have another of those clauses in which the amounts provided for in the existing act are being increased. This time the aggregate amount provided by section 26 for guaranteed home improvement loans and guaranteed home extension loans is being increased from $125 million to $200 million. I wonder whether the minister could give the committee the figures upon which this increase has been calculated?


Robert Henry Winters: Under this section so far we have insured over $30 million of loans. I expect that with the higher level of loan we are going to make possible, if parliament approves this bill, the rate of home improvement loans will run considerably higher, and we estimate that the ceiling here would be reached at about the same time as the ceiling for insured loans, which we discussed a few moments ago.
'Mr. Ellis.]


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not wish to repeat what I said on the earlier clause. The significance of the minister's answer is that the amount now proposed, namely $200 million, will provide all the requirements of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in this respect until the year 1960, in other words four years in advance. I think that is too long a period for parliament to be making provisions of this kind in advance. I believe we shall maintain parliamentary control much more effectively with a shorter period than the one contemplated. A period of four years is too long in provisions of this kind. I think it is altogether desirable that there should be more frequent parliamentary review in regard to such financial provisions. The minister was not prepared to accept my suggestion in discussion of the earlier clause, and I take it he is no more amenable to persuasion on this one, seeing that the dates contemplated in both sections are approximately the same, but I wish to repeat what I said in the interests of strict parliamentary control.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
On clause 11-Limitation.
Donald Methuen Fleming: In clause 11 we have a provision extending the time within which proceedings may be instituted for an offence. Whereas under the present section the limitation period is six months, under the new clause it will be three years. I should like to ask the minister what experience has given rise to this proposal.


Robert Henry Winters: There have been experiences where, in connection with false statements made in obtaining a loan, six months has proved too short a period to allow the bank to catch up with the statements. It seemed to the corporation that in the interests of good administration we needed a longer period than six months to overtake the fraudulent efforts that occur from time to time. Six months is a rather short period, as the hon. member well knows, and in the several instances when it needed to be applied it has proved too short.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can follow the minister on that, but he has not told us why it needs to be three years. In the particular case to which he refers, within what period was discovery made of the alleged fraud?


Robert Henry Winters: The official of the corporation informs me that three years is the period they consider necessary in the light of the experience they have had, and also in the light of the longer risk period that we are providing for in the bill before us now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That does not answer the question. The minister purported to base his earlier observation on some specific experiences of the discovery of the evidence of fraud. What was the period in the particular cases within which the evidence was discovered?


Robert Henry Winters: I am told that in one instance a period of some eight months had elapsed, and in other instances there has been a longer period, but I have no specific information before me now as to just what the periods were in the cases we have had.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not require greater persuasion to believe that the period of six months is short and should be enlarged, but I think the committee has been left quite in the dark as to why the period should be enlarged to three years.


Robert Henry Winters: Another reason, as I said, is that under the present statute the term of the loan is three or five years, depending on the amount of the loan. We are extending the period of the loan to ten years which, it seems to me, has some bearing on the argument I am advancing that we should be allowed a longer period for overtaking these attempts at fraud.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a little hard to see what the length of the loan has to do with the period within which any fraud should be discovered. What possible relationship does the minister see between those two factors?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, as I said at the outset I am basing my reply on the experience of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But their experience falls so far short of what you are asking.


Robert Henry Winters: Just in that one instance where it was eight months against the six months allowed now, but there have been other instances where they have not been able to overtake these attempts in that time. In the light of their experience they believe they need three years to achieve effective administration of this section of the act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, with all
respect for the judgment of the officials, I believe that is a quite inadequate reason for making a change in the statute law of this country, and I think we should be given some better reason. As I have indicated, I do not require a great deal of persuasion to yield to the suggestion that the period should be increased from six months, but we have had one case only, apparently, where the period of limitation prevented prosecution. In that case the alleged fraud was discovered
National Housing Act
eight months after the period of limitation began. That is no reason at all for extending it to three years. I think it is quite evident from the minister's last answer that the suggestion that there is any connection whatever between the length of the loan and the length of the period within which the officials of the corporation ought to be able to discover fraud, if there is any, is just too far-fetched to have any bearing.
Unless there is some better reason for extending the time I do not think the minister has made out a case at all for extending it to three years. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has had a good deal of experience in a professional way with the criminal law. I think he would not be lightly disposed to support a lengthy increase in the period of limitation in a section like this without some better reason than has been given. Surely what we want here is to maintain and keep before the officials of the corporation at all times their duty to be vigilant and alert, and if the impression gets around that there is plenty of time and that they do not need to worry because they have three years, I do not think this sort of provision is going to keep before these officials the necessity for being vigilant and alert.
Surely what we want in this respect is twofold. First of all we want the sanctions of the law there to restrain potential lawbreakers from breaking the law. In the second place we want effective and early enforcement so that if there are wrongdoers who do break the law those who are charged with the responsibility for enforcing the law are going to be swift in.the discharge of their duty in executing the law; and surely to give them a nice comfortable feeling that they have three years to work on is not going to achieve the kind of results that we as a parliament should be seeking.


Mr. Lesage:: I have one observation. Why should parliament give to the man who is guilty of fraud the comfortable feeling that if he is not caught in one or two years he will get off the hook? That is what my hon. friend proposes now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it is not.


Jean Lesage: That is what I understand he proposes now. After all, why should a man guilty of fraud under this section-I understand it is a question of fraud through false statements.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is offences under the section. We have talked about fraud.


Jean Lesage: When it is a question of false statements and fraud it is quite possible it will take more than seven or eight months.

National Housing Act It may take a year and a half or two years. I believe it is only reasonable to make the period three years. Why should a man who is guilty of fraud get oil the hook because it has taken more than six months to discover his fraud? I do not believe that is reasonable; and from the experience I have had, as my hon. friend knows, I believe that under the circumstances three years is a reasonable limitation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let us bear in mind that we are dealing here with a section which has been in effect and which has set the period of limitation at six months. That was put forward by the government. Let there be no question about where the responsibility lies for the idea as to the length of the period of limitation. This was put forward as government legislation and presumably the government was satisfied at that time to set a period of six months on the limitation of prosecution in offences of this kind. As I understand it, the reason for setting a period of limitation is to impress on those who are charged with the responsibility for enforcing the law the need for being alert and vigilant.


Jean Lesage: That is the reason.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, and it is a very good reason. Apparently it was good enough to commend itself to the government in putting the provision in the legislation in the first place, and good enough to commend itself to the judgment of all members. Now the period is to be considerably enlarged. Nobody wishes to make the role of the lawbreaker any easier or the problem of the law enforcement officer any more difficult. Wherever there is wrongdoing we wish to see it discovered and those responsible dealt with properly, but I think we are all very conscious of the necessity of keeping before those who are charged with the responsibility of enforcement the duty of being alert in the discharge of their duty. It strikes me from what we have been told today that three years will give the officials a very comfortable feeling.


John Borden Hamilton: I feel that if a change such as this is to be put forward by the government the minister should be in a position to tell us how many prosecutions have been launched under the section and how many prosecutions were not launched because the time limit provided now had expired. Unless we have such information I do not think it is fair to any of us to have to make a decision whether this is a proper period of time or whether it is not.
I am not directing these remarks in any particular way, but I am always a little surprised at how soon after people in the legal

profession come to this chamber they become administrative-minded and begin to think about how much easier it would be for the department to carry on with a little extension of this type.
I am not thinking of people who are guilty and who are going to get some benefit out of this. I am thinking of the numerous people who are put to the trouble of a defence under a section of this kind and in many cases are found innocent. As a matter of fact I am reminded that sometimes the evidence is lost in the meantime and witnesses are not available because of lapse of time.


Jean Lesage: There is no limitation for most offences under the Criminal Code.


John Borden Hamilton: That may be so;
but if we have a continuation of this type of legislation then I assume that we will have a general extension in all types of legislation. Therefore I say I really feel that the minister should have statistics which will show how many prosecutions have been launched, when they have been launched, and how many have not been launched because of failure to come within the period of time set out here.


Robert Henry Winters: I am sorry, but I do not have those statistics before me. However, as I am sure hon. members know, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not become aware of this condition until the banks inform them of it, and there is usually a lapse of time in that connection. The banks themselves may not know of misrepresentation until a default occurs, and this may not occur till many months after the offence. I do not wish to ask for a longer period than seems reasonable under the circumstances. The officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, from their experience in the administration of this section, have informed me that in their best judgment three years is a reasonable time in tracing down these cases of false statement and other frauds which come to us, as I am sure hon. members know, through the banks. The cases do not come to us directly in the first instance. A sufficient space of time must be allowed so these matters can develop and then be referred to us by the banks when they become aware of the false statement or fraud.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not wish to prolong this discussion, Mr. Chairman, but I wish to make this concluding observation. I intend no disrespect for the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation when I say this. I would have the same observation to make about any government officials, or at least about their judgment, if a similar statement

were made by any minister in advocating any legislation that he was asking the house to pass.
When ministers come before the house asking the house to approve legislation we ought to have something more than simply a statement that the officials, in their experience or in their judgment, think this is the kind of legislation that parliament should pass. Parliament has a more far-reaching responsibility than that. Whatever the opinion of the officials may be, what parliament wants is the information upon which the officials reached their judgment. Parliament may or may not arrive at the same conclusion as that arrived at by the officials. It is not enough -indeed it is far from being enough-simply to be told that the officials have arrived at certain conclusions. The officials may or may not have taken into account all the factors that parliament may think ought to be taken into account. The officials may or may not have attached to the various factors the weight that parliament, with its experience, thinks ought to be attached to them, If we are to be asked to support legislation of this kind, I think we want more information given to us than we have been given here this afternoon; and in particular we want something more than just to be told that the officials, in their judgment or in their experience, think that a three-year period is required.


Auguste Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the period has been extended just in order to give the department more time in which to look into the fraud situation. I think it has been extended in order to impress the borrower, so that he will feel responsible. If a fraudulent borrower feels that within six months he may be caught but after six months he is free, he will not be too scrupulous with regard to his business dealings. He will feel that by waiting six months he can get away free. But if he feels that the department has three years in which to catch up with him, he will be more careful with regard to his actions.
I think that is the reason the period is being extended to three years. I do not think it is in order to give the department more time. I think it is in order to impress the borrower with the fact that there is a period of three years during which he can be caught up with. I think the period of three years is all right.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: No one knows as much about the act as do those who are required to put it into practice. I think we should listen to their advice.
National Housing Act


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, we like to hear their advice and I think that is what we are here for. They should be here with the information, and should give it to us directly, not on the basis that they have come to some conclusion. In this respect I am a little disappointed that we do not have the statistics we should have in order to make an adequate decision.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Surely the hon. member for Fort William is not suggesting that we should abdicate our legislative function to the officials?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Certainly not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why must we accept their judgment without knowing the grounds upon which they have arrived at it?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I have seen a mechanic on a machine that was extremely hard to run. After he had run it for a year he know more about it than did the people who bought the machine.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 12-Home improvement loan insurance fund.
Erhart Regier: This clause deals with insurance on home improvement loans. What I should like to ask applies as well to insurance on the ordinary National Housing Act loan. The complaint that is so widely made is that this is one-sided insurance, that it is insurance for the lender while there is no insurance for the borrower.
In some other debate-I believe it was at the time of consideration of the minister's estimates-I mentioned the fact that there was a feeling that the department should be able to arrange, with relatively little inconvenience, an insurance scheme which would be a little more extensive than the present scheme and which would provide protection for the borrower as well as for the lender. I had in mind particularly mortgage insurance, so that if the purchaser, or whoever had the home improvement loan or the N.H.A. loan, should pass away, the mortgage would be paid off; not the company paid off and the family lose the home.
I wonder whether the minister can tell us whether his department has given any consideration-either a year ago or recently when they drafted these amendments-to the possibility of extending the insurance feature in that respect. If so, what conclusion was arrived at?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I have already answered that question. I answered it when it come up under another section. I think it was when we were discussing matters of general interest.

National Housing Act


Erhart Regier: In that case I will read it in Hansard. I was obliged to be absent from the chamber for the purpose of attending a meeting.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 13.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the minister this question. Suppose a municipality had a rather peculiar and difficult problem something like the one I suggested previously. Under this section can they call upon your people to come in, look it over, advise them and make a study of it?


Robert Henry Winters: This is the section under which I think it would be appropriate for them to approach the corporation in that regard.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you.


Erhart Regier: Would this be the section under which a municipality might ask the federal government to undertake the study of housing conditions where people live on land owned by the federal government or on water that is under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and whereby a municipality might be able effectively to invite the federal government to do something about these slum areas that are definitely under federal jurisdiction?


Robert Henry Winters: Before answering that question I would have to know more about what the hon. member has in mind.


Erhart Regier: I am sure the minister has had representations made from Vancouver at various times with regard to people living on the flats. They are living in Burnaby as well. They live on federal government land. Many of them live in houseboats. Some of the conditions under which these people are obliged to live-and I am not blaming those people-are beyond description. I believe on a number of occasions appeals have been made to the federal government to assume its responsibility and supply these people with more adequate housing, but no action has ever been taken or no responsibility has ever been assumed by the federal government. On looking over this section, I might say that it looks as though it would be a wonderful section in that it would provide the municipality with a vehicle for appeal to the federal authorities. Am I right?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not see any reason why, quite outside the terms of the statute, the municipality could not bring that problem to our attention if it is one for our jurisdiction and responsibility. I shall be glad to bear in mind what the hon. member has said.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Jean Lesage: the second reading of Bill No. 250, to amend the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I made some general remarks in regard to this bill during the resolution stage, so I shall have very little to say at the present time. However, after having received the bill and studied it to some extent I have been wondering about the position of possible private operators who may wish to establish public utilities of any sort in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. An examination of the bill by no means makes their position clear.
I am wondering particularly whether the bill as drawn places what will now be known as the Northern Canada Power Commission in a position where it has complete control of public utilities of any kind in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. In other words I am wondering whether it is possible for a private company or individual or even a municipal district to establish a public utility of any sort except with the consent of the commission and under its control. That is the one general point which I thought perhaps I should mention, and perhaps we might have some explanation from the minister.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: I did
not have an opportunity to make a contribution to this debate when we were at the resolution stage, Mr. Speaker. It deals with an item of tremendous importance to Canada, because I feel that the bill before us, which is an attempt to broaden power development in our north land, is perhaps one of the most important steps that could come before this house.
In recent months there has been renewed attention given to development in the northern part of Canada. This has largely resulted from the fact that we have been building up our defence resources in the north, as far north as the extreme Arctic area. I think it is only fitting that we should try to bring the right balance to bear upon the subject by shifting the emphasis to activities that will

have more positive results, the general problem of development in northern Canada.
In a statement to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects the subject is summed up very nicely. In referring to the matter of the development of Canada's northland, the writer of this note used the following words; he was comparing the extent of development in northern Canada to similar development in the northern regions of the U.S.S.R.:
Canada has not done as much. This is not a reflection of discredit. Our population is much less; we have had an enormous work of development in the south; and our belief in private initiative and freedom of enterprise has caused us to refrain from the policies of government direction and control that have determined the lives and work of people in the Soviet union. We must, however, be fully alive to the importance of our northern frontier and of the resources-many known and many as yet unknown -that lie within it. It is not necessary, nor, it is submitted, is it at all desirable, for us to wait inertly for economic forces alone to set the terms and the pace of our action. Entirely in line with sound economic progress, a great deal can be done by national policy to hasten and extend our northward development. In a region as vast as the Canadian north, with problems of distance and climate, developments cannot occur with the speed they do in smaller countries or in the southern part of Canada. If we are going to want and to need the resources of our northland in 10 or 20 years, the time to begin the work of getting them is now.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that quotation sums up very precisely the attitude this parliament should take toward the development of that northern part of Canada. Now, the bill we have before us-


Jean Lesage: May I just ask a question of the hon. member? Was he quoting from the submission by the commissioner of the Northwest Territories to the Gordon commission?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, the Northwest Territories submission.


Jean Lesage: By the commissioner of the Northwest Territories, who is also the deputy minister of the Department of Northern Affairs?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is correct. Basic to the type of development outlined in this report is the development of our power resources. If we are going to be able to exploit the rich resources of the north it means that power must be available. From time to time in this house we have discussions as to whether power should be developed by public or private endeavour. Certainly, so far as the northern power potential is concerned, it would seem to be the responsibility of the national government to take the initiative in this regard. Only when we have power available can we
Northwest Territories Power Commission expect the private investor to become interested in the northern part of Canada.
I could go on ad infinitum to place on record the tremendous power resources that are available there. I noticed in a report on this matter in the external affairs bulletin for December of last year, the Yukon river alone has the staggering waterpower potential of 4 [DOT] 5 million horsepower, which is one quarter of the present developed capacity of all Canada. There certainly is, therefore, plenty of opportunity and scope for increased and vigorous action in this regard. In the long run the power, of course, will be used to develop the rich resources that have been stored in the Canadian shield. It is significant, Mr. Speaker, that most of the territory that we refer to as northern Canada is contained within the Canadian shield region, and this Canadian shield is one of the great mineral-bearing regions of North America.
Before you can develop your natural resources, one of the important problems that must be met is the population difficulty, which has been one of the major deterrents to development in all parts of Canada. We are a large geographic area. We have unbounded material resources; we have all the things that are necessary to make Canada a truly great industrial country. We lack one thing. This is a truism; it is almost a cliche these days. We lack adequate population resources. Lack of population is the great obstacle to Canadian development.
This is particularly true in northern Canada. While we have all the power and natural resources there, it seems to me that because of the transportation difficulties, it is going to be necessary to stimulate the settlement of that country and that, of course, will be interconnected with the development of power, and the development of power in turn will mean the development of our natural resources. The U.S.S.R. are away ahead of us in this respect. They have established several large cities in the northern part of that country. Admittedly they have a much longer history behind them.
This bill is at least a realization that we have to become much more active in the northern region of Canada than we have been in the past. So far as maintaining population is concerned, the argument is invariably put forward that climatic and soil conditions in what we refer to as northern Canada are not very suitable for supporting a large population; but as the result of recent geographical exploration and as a result of the increased interest in that territory we now know that there are 1J million acres of arable land available for settlement. We also know that climatic conditions in large areas of northern

Northwest Territories Power Commission Canada are quite agreeable to living a reasonable existence in that part of the country. For example, since 1947 we have had an agricultural experimental station at Fort Simpson.
While I am referring to the general problem of population I would not want to ignore the special difficulties faced by the native population. We have had discussions in this house from time to time-


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but he has been dealing with the general question of northern development, and he is now touching on the difficult human problems facing the indigenous population of the north. We are discussing second reading of a bill regarding the Northwest Territories Power Commission, and I respectfully remind you, sir, that we should deal with the principle which underlines a bill which has nothing to do with the problems of the native population of the north.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I do not quite understand the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was merely going to say that we have had-I heard the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce say something. He made some comment about not understanding.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Continue.


Thomas Miller Bell: That goes without saying.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I was going to say that we are faced with this indigenous native population problem and it seems to me, in reply to the query raised by the minister, that the bill, by encouraging the promotion of power potential which in turn will lead to the development of our resources, is going to be a much more positive way of handling the native population
problem than by direct relief. I raise that issue merely by way of further support of the principle of the bill.
Finally, I should like to ask a question which the minister can perhaps deal with more directly when we come to the sections of the bill. I should like to present it to him at this time so he will have the reply ready. I am particularly interested in the fact that the principle of the bill extends to areas outside the Northwest Territories. I presume, Mr. Speaker, the benefits of the bill can be extended to certain provincial areas if those provincial areas are interested in developing the power potential of their northern regions.
I mention this because the prairie provinces have certain areas that might be regarded as being within the Canadian north. Those regions are also a part of the great Canadian shield and contain tremendous power resources as well as natural resources. If the benefits of this bill could be made available to certain of the northern areas of the provinces it would go a long way toward implementing some of the recommendations that have been made by this group, which has suggested that before we can develop resources by private means public authority should make available the power potential. I should like to have the minister comment when we come to the particular sections of the bill.
On motion of Mr. Herridge the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We will take second reading of the pipe line bill tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

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

Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo): 1.	Have any planes licensed to carry freight for the D.E.W. line construction project been structurally altered subsequent to licensing?
2.	If so, have they been permitted to fly without further inspection after structural alterations?
Answer by:	Mr. Langlois, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1 and 2. Section 215, subsection 2, of the air regulations, 1954, reads as follows:
A certificate of airworthiness is not in force during any period of major repairs or major modifications or under such other circumstances as may be specified by the minister, and does not come into force thereafter except after inspection and certification of the aircraft in accordance with any directions of the minister in that behalf.
The department has no reason to believe that any plane carrying freight for the D.E.W. line has been structurally altered contrary to the provisions of the above regulation.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. White (Middlesex East): How many persons are employed by the Department of National Revenue in Canada; (a) customs and excise division; (b) taxation division?
Questions
Answer by: Hon. J. J. McCann. (Minister of National Revenue):
The number of persons employed by the Department of National Revenue in Canada as at April 30, 1956, was as follows: (a) Customs and excise division, 7,554; (b) taxation division, 7,454.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Pommer: How many Indians were hospitalized in each of the years. 1953, 1954. 1955, for (a) tuberculosis; (b) other conditions?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
(a)	(b)
Other	t
Tuberculosis conditions Total
1953	
3,008	32,339	35,3471954	
2,893	36,780	39,6731955	
3,343	31,156*	34,499*
* Figures are not yet available for Indians treated under the British Columbia hospital insurance service.


INCOME TAX COLLECTIONS, 1955
Mr. Hodgson: 1.	What was the total amount of income tax collected in 1955, by provinces?
2.	What was the total cost of collecting same, by provinces?
Answer by: Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE Taxation Division
Total income tax and succession duty collections and expenditures for fiscal year 1954-55
Income tax collections	Succession duty collections	Total collections	Total expenditures$	$	$	$Newfoundland	23,939,469.34	241,983.25	24,181,452.59	232,228.23Prince Edward Island	2,372,209.48	109,405.32	2,481,614.80	147,654.95Nova Scotia	35,501,509.78	2,106,114.14	37,607,623.92	838,478.14New Brunswick	27,960,747.99	953,245.74	28,913,993.73	590,187.21Quebec	632,739,551.99	7,402,107.65	640,141,659.64	4,943,350.09Ontario	1,183,396,931.85	20,871,605.46	1,204,268,537.31	9,080,197.74Manitoba	103,513,003.98	1,832,379.51	105,345,383.49	1,253,515.34Saskatchewan	52,430,952.13	958,615.36	53,389,567.49	1,323,836.18Alberta	119,553,717.10	2,719,781.32	122,273,498.42	1,629,232.75British Columbia	227,964,424.11	7,553,311.92	235,517,736.03	2,137,736.06Yukon	2,824,748.92	19,478.87	2,844,227.79	27,845.37Head office expenses not allocable by districts (public forms, office stationery, and other general administrative expenses)	3,472,213.81All Canada (Totals)	2,412,197,266.67	44,768,028.54	2,456,965,295.21	25,676,475.87
Note.-The collections shown above are those made by district offices located in the respective provinces.

Questions


MARITIME COAL PRODUCTION ASSISTANCE ACT-LOANS
Mr. MacEachen: 1. What amount in loans has been made available to coal producers under the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act?
2. Which coal companies received loans and what amount was received by each of them?
Answer by: Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):
1. $8,718,345.
2.
Avon Coal Co., Minto, N.B	
Dominion Coal Co., Sydney, N.S	
Four Star Collieries Ltd., Bras d'Or, N.S.
D. S. & R. A. Mills, Minto, N.B	
V. C. McMann, Minto, N.B	
Total approved $ 675,000.00 7,500,000.00
229.320.00
305.850.00
8,175.00
Amount received to date $ 675,000.00 4,673,524.92 162,000.00 305,850.00 8,175.00


$8,718,345.00 $5,824,549.92 COAL SUBVENTION STATISTICS  NOVA SCOTIA- UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. MacEaohen: 1. How many tons of Nova Scotia coal have been moved to the United Kingdom with subvention assistance?
2. What is the average subvention rate per ton?
Answer by: Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):
1.	265,609 net tons.
2.	$2.34.

Thursday. May 17, 1956


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY EXPROPRIATION OF PART OF CAUGHNAWAGA INDIAN RESERVE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in view of reports in yesterday's papers indicating that experienced real estate agents feel that the values being paid for properties on the Caughnawaga Indian reserve are well below their actual values, whether the minister is prepared to defer the expropriations or to reassess the prices which are being paid for land in that reserve.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to stay within the rules of the house for the precise purpose of having a debate on this subject, a purpose which has been obstructed by hon. gentlemen opposite. For that reason perhaps I may be allowed two sentences to state what is the position. The first is that the expropriations have already taken place. The second is that no person can suffer any prejudice whatsoever by virtue of that fact. I have assured the house before and I give the assurance again that anyone who is dissatisfied with what he has been offered will have the opportunity of having his case heard by the courts. This work has to go on and the fact that it has to go on is apparent to everyone. In order to avoid every possible hardship we have made arrangements with the seaway authority whereby they will make advances, without prejudice to the final settlement, to those who are not satisfied with the offers being made.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, further to a question which I asked the minister on April 12 respecting the need for rain gear at New Westminster, at which time he indicated that the gear had been sent, I wonder if he would inquire into this
matter. I have received word that it is raining to beat hell and they have no rain gear.


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be very pleased to make inquiries.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. On May 2 this house passed a motion for the production of papers as follows:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the province of British Columbia, or any ministers thereof, since January 1,	1956, with
respect to the trans-Canada highway.
Can the minister inform the house if he is now able to table that correspondence?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes. I have just received a letter from the minister of highways of the government of British Columbia agreeing, with certain reservations regarding correspondence he would like to have considered as personal and privileged, to have me table the correspondence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask
the minister a supplementary question relating to the answer he just made to the hon. member for Kootenay West. Under what rule does the minister say that the permission of a provincial minister is necessary before correspondence can be tabled in the house? Is not the rule rather that as a matter of courtesy a provincial minister is informed of the intention to table and asked if he has any objection? If he does object, then the decision rests with the minister here as to whether or not he will table the correspondence. Is not the position that the minister cannot table an expurgated edition, that he has to decide whether or not he will table the correspondence?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand the rule is one of courtesy. I simply acquainted the house with the information that was imparted to me by the minister of highways of British Columbia in a letter I received today. I have not yet tabled the correspondence, and I am in the process of giving consideration to that point now.
3892	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) on Friday last by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) concerning conferences which have taken place between Mr. Cyrus Eaton and government officials concerning the proposed development of a harbour in Ungava bay. The situation is that on April 10 I met with Mr. Cyrus Eaton, Jr., Mr. W. R. Daley and Mr. L. C. Turnock, Jr. On April 11 these same gentlemen met with officials of the Department of Public Works, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Department of Transport, under the chairmanship of the deputy minister of public works, to discuss the possibilities of harbour development in Ungava bay in connection with iron ore operations in the area.
Local conditions and possible sites for a suitable harbour were discussed. They were shown the hydrographic charts and other information prepared by representatives of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys last summer in that area. After discussion it was suggested that the International Iron Ore Company should appoint private consulting engineers to continue studies of suitable sites and methods of developing a harbour. I understand that the company has done this. The Department of Public Works engineers will be available to provide information in accordance with usual government practice.
The officials of the Department of Transport and the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys similarly undertook to make available to the consulting engineers information in their possession.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Public Works concerning this proposal to develop a harbour in Ungava bay. Does that include an extension of the present railway line from Knob Lake, I think it is, to Ungava bay?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand that is not visualized now.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Andrew Wesley Stuart: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public


Works. Has the government of New Brunswick requested the federal government to authorize it to participate with the state of Maine in a survey preparatory to building a bridge from Lubec, Maine, to Campobello island, New Brunswick?


Robert Henry Winters: There has been an exchange of correspondence between the deputy minister of public works for the province of New Brunswick and the deputy minister of public works in the federal government, in which the former has informed us that they are very familiar with this crossing and have met with several committees from Campobello and Lubec, Maine, to discuss the various matters involved.
The government of New Brunswick has been informed that there are certain considerations that have to be cleared with the international joint commission, as well as under the terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but that the federal government is quite prepared for the government of New Brunswick to undertake the joint survey with the state of Maine.



ARTS. LETTERS AND SCIENCES DOMINION DRAMA FESTIVAL-INQUIRY AS TO ADVERTISING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Has the Prime Minister any further statement to make in regard to the matter I questioned him about on Friday, having to do with the improper use of the name of the Governor General of Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the important factor, I think, in the hon. gentleman's question was with respect to the use that had apparently been made, by an organization of which the Governor General is a patron, of the fact that he was the patron of the organization. As the hon. gentleman knows, the extension of his patronage to organizations for the encouragement of the arts or to similar organizations is a personal prerogative of His Excellency the Governor General, and the hon. gentleman knows, as I do, from the publicity that has been given by the newspapers and also over the radio that His Excellency is dealing with the matter himself.

Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Stanley White: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in regard to the case of Theresa Anita Fernandes, the adopted daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Walter Fernandes of Toronto. Will the minister reconsider the decision made either by himself or the officials of his department on the appeal against the deportation order?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman was good enough to indicate that he had hoped to ask this question yesterday. In view of the great publicity given to this case, I think I should say that the first time I ever heard of it was when, like the hon. gentleman, I read the Toronto Star. Since then I have been looking at the particulars, and I am giving the case further consideration.



REPORTED TARIFF CUTS BY CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister in a position to give the house any information about the tariff reductions which Canada is reported to be making under GATT?


Walter Edward Harris: No. In due course I expect that my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce will deal with it in the house, but at the moment I have nothing to say.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister state whether a decision has been reached by the Supreme Court of Canada in respect to Ontario's producer marketing boards and, if so, what decision has been reached?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer to the hon. gentleman's question is no.



EXTRA HOURS OF SITTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. What arrangements are being made for overtime pay for employees of the House of Commons who may be required to work extra hours tonight and possibly on two or three other occasions, this week and next?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping it would be unnecessary that they should work overtime,, and that we might complete our work by ten o'clock tonight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the government .does not withdraw the closure motion and we' go on, will consideration be given to the matter I have raised?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Your Honour and the internal economy commission will consider every factor they ought to consider in connection with the good work our staff are doing.



DISABLED PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Have the officials of his department had discussions recently with officials of provincial departments with respect to the regulations under the Disabled Persons Act? If so, have any changes in the regulations been made as a result of these discussions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Edmund Davie Fulton: A short answer, now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will be short, accurate and informative.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And probably disappointing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The trouble with my hon. friend who has just interjected is that he always thinks that because he has been a cheer leader any achievement of the government results- in his having scored the touchdown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the Leader of the Opposition said last evening, I have all day. There has been such a conference, and the federal

Inquiries of the Ministry government is now awaiting the reaction of the various provinces to the discussions, I do not think we will be in a position before next September to make any final decision. I might say, however, that when the disability allowance program was announced we estimated that we would have on strength about 25,000 disability pensioners. I am happy to say that as a result of the initiative taken by the government that figure has been exceeded.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence? He has not had one for a long time.


An hon. Member:: He has his wrong ear to you.


George Randolph Pearkes: Are the CF-100 squadrons which are being sent to NATO to be in addition to or to replace the squadrons of the air division now in Europe?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The number of squadrons in
Europe at any given time will remain at 12 as at present. The four CF-100 squadrons which will replace four Sabre jet squadrons will do so in succession, but the over-all number will remain the same.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hugh Alexander Bryson: wonder whether the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is prepared to answer the question I asked last Friday regarding the eligibility of Indians to apply for bank loans against wheat stored on reserves?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have given some consideration to this question and it is a good thing I did, because it is exceedingly complicated. As I am sure the hon. member knows, section 88(1) of the Indian Act provides that real and personal property belonging to an Indian, which property is situated on a reserve, cannot be attached or seized except at the instance of another Indian, and I do not think the chartered banks were chartered as Indians.
If I may summarize the information I have, it would appear that if an Indian stored his

grain off the reserve and applied for a loan he would be eligible like anyone else but that the banks might properly say, if the wheat were stored on the reserve, and they could not realize, that the conditions did not meet with the terms of the bank loan legislation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does this means that with respect to bank loans the minister is an Indian giver?



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he has yet been able to obtain a copy of Trans-Canada's option on the pipe in the United States to which we both referred last Friday?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, it had not come to hand when I left the office this morning. I will table it as soon as it does. I have asked for it.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


Mr. Speaker:: Before I leave the chair, may I say that the house is in such good humour today that I hate to go.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You'll be back.
The house resumed, from Monday, May 14, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the constitution of a corporation to be known as Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation for the purposes, amongst others, of constructing, maintaining and operating a natural gas pipe line between the Ontario-Manitoba border and Kapuskasing, Ontario, and of leasing with an option to purchase such natural gas pipe line to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and carrying out such leases, including the disposal by the corporation of such pipe line in connection with such purchase option, and to provide that the Minister of Finance may lend money to the corporation for such purposes.
To provide also that the corporation may, on behalf of Her Majesty, out of moneys advanced by the Minister of Finance, make short-term loans to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited for the construction of a natural gas pipe line from a point on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border to the vicinity of Winnipeg, such loans not to exceed in the aggregate eighty million dollars or ninety per cent of the cost of construction of the said

pipe line, whichever is the lesser, and to be made upon such terms, conditions and security as approved by the governor in council.
To provide also that the corporation may do such things as are conducive to the attainment of the foregoing purposes, and that in the event of default of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in carrying out any agreement for the foregoing purposes the corporation may take possession and control of any or all assets, rights and undertakings of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and conduct the business and operations of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited with respect to such assets, rights and undertakings, and that if such default should occur prior to completion of the pipe line mentioned in the last preceding paragraph hereof the corporation may complete its construction and manage and operate it and that it may, out of moneys advanced by the Minister of Finance acquire shares of the capital stock of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
To provide that the aggregate outstanding at any time of the amounts authorized by the measure to be advanced for the foregoing purposes by the Minister of Finance to the corporation together with the loans authorized to be made by the Minister of Finance to the corporation shall not exceed one hundred and thirty million dollars.
And to provide further for the appointment and remuneration of directors, officers and employees necessary for the administration of the act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to notice given yesterday I move:
That at this sitting of the committee of the whole on the resolution respecting the constitution of a corporation to be known as Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, the further consideration of the said resolution shall be the first business of the committee and that the consideration of the same shall not be further postponed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


George Alexander Drew: The club.


William Earl Rowe: The guillotine.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Motion Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) agreed to: Yeas, 122; nays, 73.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of addressing an inquiry to you. The inquiry is, was the Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal party a member of the committee who voted in favour of the guillotine?


William Alfred Robinson: I think the hon. member will agree that that is not a true point of order. I am not here to identify the members of the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Probably you could give me a simple answer.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Charles Edward Johnston: At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that we are not in favour of closure. It has always been our 67509-247
15, 1956	3895
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation practice to have as much free discussion as possible in the house. It may be necessary, when it is clear that there is or will be obstruction to a measure, to enforce closure. Certainly we think closure should not have been put on at this time, and that a considerable amount of time should have been allowed for free discussion. I am only making that statement at this time, Mr. Chairman, because as a result of the conspiracy between the leader of the Conservative party and the C.C.F., we were prohibited from putting forward our views on this matter last evening before ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: On a question-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Major James William Coldwell: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I understand the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is rising on a point of privilege.


Major James William Coldwell: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman; the hon. gentleman has tried to leave the impression that I prevented him from speaking last night. I rose at half past nine and spoke for 30 minutes, which was my right. I resent very much any implication to the contrary being placed on the records of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I presume the Leader of the Opposition is also rising on a point of privilege.


George Alexander Drew: Now that the trained seals are silent, that is what I intended to say.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Perhaps I should rise on a point of privilege myself. I do not think, at the commencement of a debate which promises to be most interesting, it is appropriate for one member to say of other members that they are trained seals. Perhaps we could start our proceedings this afternoon by the hon. Leader of the Opposition withdrawing those words.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I regret that Your Honour was not so conscious of the noise which prompted that remark, and I do not propose to withdraw the words.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am conscious of the noise which prompts these remarks and we
3896	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation are, of course, all very conscious of the tenseness which pervades the atmosphere of the chamber at times like this.
In view of that fact, it is my duty to attempt to allay heat when heat is rising and I believe these words should be brought to the attention of all hon. members at the very outset of the debate. I think most hon. members will agree that this expression "trained seals"-


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about the word "conspiracy"?


William Alfred Robinson: -is not one that one hon. member of this house should apply to other members of this house. I may be wrong, but I feel I am on pretty sound ground.


An hon. Member:: Use "untrained" then.


William Alfred Robinson: May I ask hon. members to refrain from further demonstrations of any kind. I feel I am on sound ground, and I feel that the Leader of the Opposition, after these perhaps futile attempts to allay heat, will agree with me and I hope he will cooperate with me to the extent of withdrawing those words, which I do not feel have a place in this House of Commons.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, what about the word "conspiracy"? ,


George Alexander Drew: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will go so far as to point out that I rose and before I even had an opportunity to express the circumstances under which I rose there was such bedlam in unison that I felt the words I used on that occasion were appropriate having regard to the circumstances. I shall not repeat them on this occasion, and I shall now proceed to deal with the question of privilege that has been raised.


William Alfred Robinson: I am sorry, but the question has gone beyond that. I have asked in as kindly terms as possible for the co-operation of the Leader of the Opposition. I feel he will agree with me that an expression of this kind is bound to raise heat. It is my duty to see that this debate proceeds in an orderly fashion. I am now asking the Leader of the Opposition once more to withdraw those words which I am sure he must agree have no place in this honourable chamber.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, Mr. Chairman-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to you that the reason for the heat is the outrageous conduct of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: -and the words I used which described, I feel accurately, what has taken place have been used before and have not been challenged. Under those circumstances
[The Chairman.]

and in view of the provocation I do not intend to withdraw the words and I leave the matter in your hands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Alfred Robinson: I recall another occasion when the Leader of the Opposition used the same words when I was in the chair. At that time they did not raise the heat which they raised today.


George Alexander Drew: It is a question of temperature.


William Alfred Robinson: I must point out to hon. members that it is the fear of disorder which may arise in the chamber which causes those of us who occupy the chair to rise from time to time to attempt, as I said before, to allay some of this heat. At the beginning of such a debate as we contemplate for today, I do not propose to allow the debate to commence on a disorderly basis, and I must ask the hon. member to withdraw or I shall have to report the matter to Mr. Speaker.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Shame.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, may I with respect suggest that this is an occasion on which we ought to be very careful that we allow all the time possible to the person who has the floor to get on with an extremely important debate. I say that without in any way suggesting it was improper for the leader of the C.C.F. party to raise his question of privilege. I also agree it was quite in order and probably expected that the Leader of the Opposition would do likewise under those circumstances.
Of course there is no reason in the world why we could not be sure that the hon. member who has the floor should have his full time; however, we are about to engage in a rather lengthy debate in which, as I understand it, the speeches are limited to 20 minutes. I would hope during that time the committee would give the greatest attention to what is said with the least interruption.
As it happens, when the Leader of the Opposition rose I thought perhaps the remarks and the noise which greeted him were spontaneous rather than trained, but that might be a matter of opinion. I also recall on more than one occasion the Leader of the Opposition having used the phrase "trained seals". I have never taken the trouble to see if it is in order or out of order according to the book. I think we all discount that phrase, because everyone in this house knows that all parties practically invariably follow a single party line, with some exceptions which may or may not be evident later.
A reference of that kind is only a general reference, sir, to the party warfare which

goes on; and while it may be offensive to some of us toward whom it is directed, I have long since felt that it did not bother me personally.
While I realize your duty is to report the situation to Mr. Speaker, I wonder if under the circumstances it might be possible for us to continue with the debate subject to that and subject to our seeing if there is any precedent which would bear this out; not that I question your judgment or your authority to make a ruling under these circumstances. It occurred to me, however, that we might proceed with the debate and leave the matter as it stands, so that if a report to the Speaker is necessary that report could be made at a later time.


William Alfred Robinson: I think perhaps the minister has succeeded in allaying the heat which I attempted to allay a few minutes ago. As a matter of fact, when the Leader of the Opposition rose I did not have an opportunity to hear his question of privilege because the words in question were spoken early in his remarks. Perhaps I should hear his question of privilege before commenting further on the matter raised by the minister.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the question
of privilege that I proposed to raise was very brief. The question I would have raised, if I could have been heard at the time, was simply this. When I spoke yesterday I explained it was because the situation demanded a long speech and I spoke within the rules. I do not believe there is any right on the part of any hon. member to challenge the propriety of an hon. member using the time provided by the rules for discussing a subject of importance which is before this house.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the Leader of the Opposition I think is well taken. I am sure the hon. member for Bow River would not wish to leave on the record any implication other than that they had availed themselves of their privileges as hon. members of this house. I therefore expect that the hon. member for Bow River will withdraw any implication such as has been objected to in the questions of privilege raised by these two hon. members.
I hope further that the Leader of the Opposition will co-operate with me. He has already said that he will refrain from using the words objected to a short time ago. I hope that will close the question.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I meant no offence and I withdraw any offensive reference. I was stating that when 67509-247i
15, 1956	3897
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the Leader of the Opposition spoke until exactly half past nine and then the leader of the C.C.F. continued until ten o'clock it was quite obvious that we were cut off-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is a matter of fact.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, when I came back from the television station last night I was told I should probably wait until after nine o'clock, that the Leader of the Opposition would likely make a long speech. I came down to the house shortly after nine o'clock and the Leader of the Opposition sat down at 9.30. I sat down at one minute to ten, and I think I was fully within my rights in doing that, as was the Leader of the Opposition in taking all the time he could under the rules of this house.


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


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Bow River is entitled to speak in the committee, and he has been recognized. I wish to make it clear that I consider the points of order raised by these two hon. members to be well taken, and we should not have any further reference to the time taken last evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that the time we have lost is due to the utterances of the hon. member himself, and in view of the fact that we are under a time limit today, how many minutes-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -will the hon. member for Bow River be given?


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Bow River.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I should like to start my remarks this afternoon by referring to the resolution. The resolution before us is to set up a crown corporation to be known as Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. The resolution has two main purposes. The first is to build the northern Ontario section of the line with the two governments putting up approximately $118 million. The Ontario government is to advance $35 million and the federal government $83 million. When the line is constructed it will be leased to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited with an option to buy.
The second part of the resolution deals with the building of the western portion of the trans-Canada pipe line. The corporation will be allowed to lend $80 million to Trans-Canada at 5 per cent. This is a federal loan at 5 per cent, which would appear to be a good business transaction.
3898	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
There is a guarantee attached to the contract which states that if the company fails to comply with its terms the government can take over the whole project.
Let it be clearly understood that we favour an all-Canadian pipe line under Canadian control. We have expressed that on numerous *occasions. We have no favourite as to any company in Canada or anywhere else. We *certainly do not offer special favour to nor are we married to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited or any other company. At the moment that is the only proposition that is before the government. If we are to have a pipe line running across this country within the next two years it must be Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.
We want to make sure that the federal government is not handing control over to another country. The minister has indicated that there is certain federal control, that the federal government has absolute control over all export permits. On top of that the federal government has control through legislation passed by this parliament to do whatever they think is right and proper in the interests of Canada. Then in addition there is the control exercised by the province of Alberta in the matter of exporting gas from that province.
In order that there may be no misunderstanding in regard to control remaining in Canadian hands we would make three recommendations to the government. First, we would recommend that 51 per cent of ownership shall remain in the hands of Canadians at all times. Second, we recommend that the majority of the directors of the company shall be Canadians at all times. Third, we recommend that the company make available to Canadians 51 per cent of the stock which shall be negotiable in Canada only, and that the portion not purchased by Canadian subscribers be purchased by the federal government to be held in trust and made available for purchase by Canadian citizens in the future.
If the government will give consideration to those recommendations, along with the other controls which exist, I am sure there could then be no opposition and no question as to the complete control of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines being in the hands of Canadians at all times.
We are pleased to note that at long last the government has decided to go ahead with the construction of a trans-Canada pipe line. Certainly they have, and I think they will admit, caused a good deal of delay in the construction of this pipe line. But now we are pleased that they are about to permit construction of this line. We are pleased in this regard because the people of Alberta


and others have invested a tremendous amount of money in the development of oil and gas in that province.
We as Albertans started out in 1935 to develop the resources in our province. We made a policy statement at that time that as far as the supply of gas and oil was concerned, Alberta's requirements must be met first, then Canadian requirements, and then when there was sufficient quantity to warrant it exports should be allowed. We have reached that point now, and we think it is high time there was some means of exporting this gas to the other provinces of Canada.
There has been a great deal of questioning here, particularly by the C.C.F., over the fact that there has been United States investment in the development of these natural resources. It will be recalled that in 1935 the then premier of that province, the late Mr. Aberhart, along with Mr. Manning and the leader of this group here came to Ottawa to see if they could get Canadian capital to develop those natural resources. That was impossible. They then went over to Great Britain to see if they could get assistance there to develop those natural resources. That was impossible. They then went to the United States, and they were able to get the required assistance for the development of these resources. If it had not been for that assistance we would not be in a position today where we are discussing the building of a trans-Canada pipe line across this country.
Saskatchewan too is in need of a trans-Canada pipe line. The development of their resources has been done by private investment and private enterprise. I am amazed at the attitude taken by the C.C.F. so far in this debate, particularly by the leader of the C.C.F. who opposes the development of these resources by private enterprise. Certainly he cannot be forgetful that the resources in Saskatchewan have been developed entirely by private enterprise. He so stated in the debate the other day. Let me read what he said, as reported on page 3886 of Hansard of May 14:
There is only one alternative, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave it this afternoon. I took down his words and he said that short of public ownership there is no way of guaranteeing Canadian control. I took down the minister's own words.
Let me point out to him that if that is so, then United States organizations and financial interests have complete control of the development of oil in Saskatchewan. There is no question about it. Even the premier of the province of Saskatchewan favours private development. In a letter

dated April 21, 1949, addressed to "Dear Mr. Newkirk" he had this to say:
In response to your request for a statement of the policy of the government of Saskatchewan on the matter of mineral and petroleum development, I desire to reiterate the stand which we have taken and which has been expressed on numerous occasions in the past.
The government is desirous of encouraging mineral and petroleum exploration, development and production to the greatest extent possible, and to that end it has embarked upon a program designed to lend technical assistance and advice to bona fide persons and organizations able and willing to proceed with this work. In addition, it gives a firm understanding that no steps will be taken to expropriate or socialize the mining or petroleum industry in the province.
At the same time, the government will take all necessary steps to protect the public interest, and to that end the mineral rights in certain areas will be defined and reserved in advance to the use of the crown, and royalties will be fixed guaranteeing to the people of the province a fair return from the mineral wealth produced.
That is exactly what has taken place in Alberta. Saskatchewan has followed that plan and as a result of following Alberta's plan they have been able to develop their natural resources. They will benefit from the construction of this trans-Canada pipe line. The premier of Saskatchewan gave the assurance that there would be no socialization of these projects, yet the C.C.F. have the audacity to stand up in this house and say they oppose the construction of this pipe line by private enterprise which will provide further development of their natural resources.
I want to read further from the budget speech of the late-no, not the late, but I suppose he will be after the election-Hon. C. M. Fines, provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan, on Monday, March 5, 1956. They talk about lending money to private enterprise for the development of resources. Look at page 20 of this speech:
In just about five years, it has assisted in bringing to this province such industries as a pipe mill, a plywood factory, a generator winding plant, a garment factory, a farm equipment manufacturing enterprise, a cement plant-to name but a few. The industrial development fund, which a few years ago counted a $50,000 loan to a new company as a major transaction, is expected this year to lend up to $500,000.
How can they stand up and object to the government on this occasion lending $80 million to a private concern at 5 per cent interest? I wish they could be a little consistent.
I turn my attention for a second to the Conservative members of this house. I never saw such a mess as they are in now. They say it was a shotgun wedding that was performed in the amalgamation of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, but I would call this close association with the C.C.F. as almost a companionate
15. 1956	3ggg
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation marriage, because they see no other alternative. I do not think I could outline the stand taken by the Conservatives better than it is expressed by the Montreal Gazette of May 14, which expresses my opinion exactly. It says:
Poor Relations:
Poor liaison has caused a rift between the federal Conservatives and the party's Ontario provincial organization.
How mute was the leader of the Conservative party when he was asked to give Mr. Frost's ideas on this. He stood up here as though he were paralysed, and he never made a suggestion.
The coolness developed at mid-week. Conservative M.P.'s-
I want to emphasize that it was all the Conservative M.P.'s except the one from Calgary South.
Conservative M.P.'s had been hammering away at trade minister Howe and the Liberal government for more than a week for failing to give Calgary oil promoter Frank McMahon and other interested Canadian groups a chance to pick up the torch from the failing hands of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and build Canada's transcontinental natural gas pipe line.
Spilled:
But while the Conservatives were preoccupied with developments in parliament, Queen's park abruptly yanked the rug from under them. Ontario s Conservative government announced blandly its complete satisfaction with the Howe proposal to rush further financial aid to Trans-Canada. As for the McMahon offer-
Notice this. This was the main point the leader of the Conservatives had to offer yesterday in regard to this matter:
As for the McMahon offer, Ontario authorities scoffed at the suggestion that it deserved serious consideration. Ontario, they said, had itself canvassed the field of potential Canadian investors last fall-McMahon among them. And all it had found was a wide open space. The Ontario pronouncements didn't utter a single critical word about the stand taken by the federal Conservatives. But the implication was clear and the effect devastating.
Committed:
Indications are that opposition leader Drew and his followers in parliament (including the Ontario MP.'s), will, however, persist in their stand. They are too deeply committed to it, in any event, to backtrack in the face of the new pressure from Queen's park. Their battle against the continuation of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited as the "chosen instrument'' of Canadian pipe-line policy will remain, it is said, a fight to the finish.
A fight to the finish of what?


An hon. Member:: The Conservatives.


Charles Edward Johnston: A fight to the finish to prevent the construction of the trans-Canada pipe line, good or bad. That is their position. Let me state further the Conservative policy as exhibited in the Ottawa Journal, and let me tell you that this is the
3900	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation underlying core of the whole thing. On April 7 the Ottawa Journal in its editorial had the following heading:
Why All the Mad Rush Over This Alberta Gas Line?
I want to emphasize those words "this Alberta gas line". The editorial stated:
Mr. Frank McMahon, described as "Alberta's multimillionaire oil and gas promoter", bobs up to say-
I like that word "bobs".
-that he and his associates will undertake to build an all-Canada gas pipe line without government assistance.
Note this. Here follows the crux of the whole thing:
But even if some delay did occur what vital difference would that make? Reading certain newspapers and listening to certain politicians one might get the impression that if this Alberta gas pipe line is not built within the next two years half the people in eastern Canada are going to freeze to death for want of gas fuel and most of our manufacturing plants close down for the same reason.
This is plain nonsense; almost a form of hysteria. No one in eastern Canada, Toronto or elsewhere, will perish from cold and not a factory chimney will go smokeless if not a single cubic foot of Alberta gas reaches the east this year or next year or the year after; there are too many other available forms of fuel.
That is exactly the same position the Conservative party in this house is taking. They do not want Alberta gas down here to assist the provinces in western Canada. They do not even want to have that cheap fuel here for industry in Ontario and for the assistance of the people of Ontario. There is their whole argument in a nutshell.


William Alfred Robinson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired. May I say that I charged up a goodly portion of the time consumed on the point of order to myself and a small proportion to the hon. member.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am only about half way through. 1 shall take another opportunity to finish it.


Marie Ann Shipley: As most hon. members know, I come from the part of Ontario that has caused a good deal of the difficulty in the financing of this line. You will well understand how keenly interested I am. During the course of the discussions I watched all the changes and disappointments very carefully. There were no stages that were not of keen interest to my people. We have had power shortages in the province of Ontario before, as is well known to the Leader of the Opposition. At the present time the government of Ontario is determined that this shall not happen again.
fMr. Johnston (Bow River).]

Today, at this particular stage of this debate, I wish to deal primarily with the criticism of the opposition. I have noticed- and I have been in this house for only three sessions-that the weaker the position of the official opposition and the fewer their arguments, the more vicious becomes the attack of the Leader of the Opposition. Yesterday,
I would say, he reached an all-time low. His paucity of arguments reduced him to personal attacks on our leader and our cabinet ministers.
I was very pleased today to hear the chairman call a halt to such terms as "trained seals." I gather I cannot refer to that particular term again. I think it has been ruled out, but I was including that statement. I want to refer to the abuse that has been heaped on the backbench members of this party by the Leader of the Opposition. I see no reason in the world why the men and women of Canada who have been elected to come here because their constituents felt they were capable of looking after their business, should have to sit here, and simply because we show loyalty to our leader and unity amongst ourselves, be called "trained seals", "an anvil chorus", "sheep" and an "organized cheering gang" and told that we are "toeing the party line".


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Marie Ann Shipley: Am I out of order?


William Alfred Robinson: May I express the hope that the hon. member will refrain from this type of discussion. I found a short time ago that we reached an impasse very quickly in that regard, and I should like to express the hope that she will confine herself to the terms of the resolution.


Marie Ann Shipley: Mr. Chairman, I had armed myself with quotations from this debate and previous debates where all these statements had been made by the Leader of the Opposition and I thought I would be in order, but I shall certainly agree to do exactly what you tell me.


An hon. Member:: Trained seal.


Marie Ann Shipley: Oh, I would never do anything that you might suggest. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, I may refer to the shout that went up yesterday when closure was announced. We heard shouts of "dictatorship" and so on. I had heard closure mentioned a few weeks ago and I wondered what it was all about. I took the trouble to read about it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who mentioned it first?


Marie Ann Shipley: It is unfortunate that it did not suit the purposes of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. party

to use the terms "mother of parliaments" and "cradle of democracy", with which these halls would have been ringing yesterday, because closure is a common practice there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not on the first day of debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Even before the first day.


Marie Ann Shipley: I do not understand how they can use the term "dictatorship" when such is not the case. I went to the trouble of counting the number of times closure has been used in England and in the last seven years it has been used an average of 21 times per session, so, so much for your dictatorship. Furthermore, we were informed by one of the would-be leaders of the official opposition-


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Marie Ann Shipley: I will tell you in a minute.


John Horace Dickey: You are covering the waterfront now.


Marie Ann Shipley: This hon. member announced in Toronto several weeks ago, I believe, that if we thought we had a filibuster last session -of course he did not use that awful word; he called it something else, but that is what he meant'-we had not seen anything yet. Therefore it is a little late, I would think, for the opposition to suggest for one moment that they did not intend to engage in obstruction of the discussion of this subject rather than debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Remember what happened last session. The government retreated.


Marie Ann Shipley: There is one other point to which I think I may refer. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition used the expression "tawdry and nauseating inversion of the truth." When I examined Hansard this morning I was delighted to note that even he could not stomach the word "nauseating" because it has now been changed to "insinuating".


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, changing Hansard.


Marie Ann Shipley: From the beginning of this debate there has been misrepresentation of fact, misrepresentation of what the minister has said, from start to finish. I have watched it and have made many notes by way of proof. Yesterday I asked the Leader of the Opposition to state at what time and where the Minister of Trade and Commerce had ever said or suggested that the offer of 51 per cent of the stock to Canadians would guarantee control by Canadians. Of course, as all hon. members know, the Leader of the Opposition said he had not said such a thing. I want to refer to page 2172 of Hansard of
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation March 15 of this year, where I find that the Leader of the Opposition had this to say:
He said that control of this company is open to Canadians. That statement is a shallow pretence. That statement has no meaning and is not borne out by the facts.
At other places he said it was an attempt to deceive the Canadian people. Here is exactly what the minister said when he made his statement to the house a few minutes before the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition to which I have referred. As found at page 2166 of Hansard of March 15 the minister said:
This offer has, to my surprise, been met with criticism, even derision, on the ground that it provides no guarantee that Canadians will buy the stock. Of course there is no such guarantee. Short of public ownership ... I know of no means by which control by Canadians could be guaranteed.
The minister has been most meticulous in making that specifically clear any time he has ever mentioned the subject. Then every time any reference is made to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines it is referred to by the members of the opposition as our "protege" or our "chosen instrument". Again and again it has been said, Mr. Chairman, that we did not choose the company. The company was chosen by the province of Alberta. At the time Alberta had surplus gas and was about to permit the export of that gas beyond its provincial boundaries there were two companies and two companies only that applied to the province of Alberta for such permission. Alberta was not quite satisfied that one company alone would be able to finance and handle the surplus gas, so ultimately there was an amalgamation or a shotgun wedding; I do not care what you call it. There was an amalgamation of the two companies.
Therefore at no time did we select the company. It was the only company with permission to export gas from Alberta, therefore if we wanted an all-Canadian pipe line there was no other company with whom we could deal. The federal government is the one that stipulated that the pipe line must remain on Canadian soil, and the people of northern Ontario are very pleased and happy that this was done. While I am on that particular point I should like to say that it is true there are not enough customers through that long stretch of land to make the line economically sound at the present time, but I venture to say that long before I am dead and gone it will be a happy day for Canada that the gas line came through that area.
It has been said again and again that there were other Canadian investors, but the only ones who have been named are McMahon and Gairdner. It has been pointed out again
3902	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation and again that they have no permits either from Alberta or to export abroad, that they have no customers and no pipe. What is more, they have no gas. It would be foolish to start at this late date and attempt to let a new company conduct the necessary negotiations. What they would do about the millions and millions of dollars that have already been spent by Trans-Canada on surveys, the development of customers, and so on, I do not know.
The suggestion was made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. party that the owners of the pipe, by not making the pipe available to McMahon, Gairdner, or anybody else who might want it, were holding a gun or a pipe at our heads. Who ever heard tell of people who pretend to be businessmen or who know anything about business even suggesting that a company in the United States that controls pipe, which is not only non-existent in Canada but is in very short supply and in great demand in the United States, should be told by the government of Canada to hand over the pipe to McMahon or somebody else. These arguments simply do not hold water, and it is a pity that the time of the house is taken up in having to listen to them.
With respect to closure, as I told you before I am a new member, but so far as I can see from my experience in the house closure will mean only one thing. We will have to listen to the same arguments from the same speakers probably six or seven times instead of 20 or 30. Already in the two addresses we have had from the Leader of the Opposition we have heard the same thing over and over again, and his arguments are just as unsound every time.
As to the McMahon proposal that we heard so much about yesterday, may I say this. There is something rather peculiar about that proposal. I would not like to say what it is, of course, but one could ask one or two questions. Here was a strange thing. A personal and confidential letter was sent to the minister concerned. The opposition pooh-poohed the fact and contended that it was not personal and confidential. May I say to them that if that is the way you run your business, that is your business; but we consider a personal and confidential matter to be personal and confidential unless we are released from that restriction, and I hope we continue to do so.
Here is correspondence, marked personal and confidential, in the hands of our minister concerned. But what happens in the meantime? Members of the opposition obviously have complete copies of that document. The newspapers in Canada obviously


have full copies of that information. There is something extremely peculiar about that. When it became evident that the confidential information had been given freely to everyone else, our minister said it must be released. What happened? Within five minutes the offer was withdrawn. If that does not seem peculiar to you, may I say that it seems extremely peculiar to me.
I shall not refer to the statements reported in the Globe and Mail of May 10 made by the premier of the province of Ontario, but I should like to refer to what was said by the Leader of the Opposition in this house the first time this matter was up for debate. Then I should like to cite what was said prior to that time and available to everyone, in the legislature of the province of Ontario. This is what was said by the Leader of the Opposition as reported at page 2179 of Hansard:
The Minister of Trade and Commerce spent some time speaking about the position of Ontario. It is well known that Ontario made another recommendation to this government. It is well known that Ontario prefers another method. It is well known that Ontario only adopted the course they have adopted because they want gas in Ontario. They have no control over this.
I suppose the same kind of pressure was put on the premier of Ontario that it is contended was put on Mr. McMahon. Now let me refer to what was said in the house by Mr. Frost; and may I say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not sitting behind him telling him what to say. I assume he said it of his own free will. I know the gentleman well, and I know that he says what he means. This is what he said, as reported at page 390 of the official report of the debates of the legislature of Ontario:
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, these difficulties are not small.
He was referring to the difficulties.
It was not an easy matter to negotiate the agreement at all.
In reference to his first proposal-that is with regard to the five or more provinces coming in-he said:
Apparently the Trans-Canada Pipe Line agreement provides for the quickest and most effective way of bringing gas to Ontario. I think the Glassco report-
That is the report of Clarkson and Gordon, one of Canada's most reputable investigating companies and one which was used frequently by the present Leader of the Opposition when he was premier of Ontario.
-and the investigations made by our own agencies, show that in connection with an all-Canadian pipe line, owned and financed by the governments concerned. federally and provincially, there could be at least four provinces which would occasion

delay-as set out in the Glassco report-if indeed agreement among the five governments could be reached.
That is Mr. Frost. Then he said:
But if it gets down to a point where the Trans-Canada line falls down, would we then participate in a publicly-owned carrier line from Alberta to Ontario? I would say the answer is "yes", although I cannot overemphasize the great commitments we have already made, and I certainly express the hope that such participation will not be necessary.
That is exactly the feeling of this government. Then further, as reported at page 389 of the official report of February 21, 1956; he said this:
Mr. Speaker, if private enterprise can do the job, I would say it is altogether in our interest in Ontario, and, indeed, in the interest of Canada, that it should do it.
That is the position already publicly stated by the premier of Ontario at the time the remarks I have just read you-about it being well known that Ontario this and Ontario that-were made here. Further, to clinch the attitude of the premier of Ontario, in the periodical "Ontario Government Services" put out by the Ontario government, here is a quotation from Mr. Frost:
The government of Ontario has entered wholeheartedly-
Mark that word.
-into this agreement with the federal government in the fervent hope that the deal will be carried out as scheduled. The provincial government is aware, however, that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited might not be able to carry through its part of the project. In this event, new ways of attaining the same end will have to be investigated.
As has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Bow River, a public statement by Premier Frost was just read with regard to the resolution now before this house.


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


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to comment briefly on two statements of the hon. member for Bow River. The hon. member for Bow River need be in no uncertainty whatever as to what the policy of the Conservative party is with regard to this pipe line. All he needs to do is read the speeches which have been made already in this house on three occasions by the Leader of the Opposition in which that policy was made crystal clear. There should therefore not be any uncertainty in anyone's mind as to what that policy is.


An hon. Member:: What is it? Tell us what it is.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When the hon. member for Bow River attempts to interpret Conservative policy himself from newspaper clippings, 67509-248
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation all he does is becloud the issue and try to confuse people's minds as to what is the clear position we have taken.


An hon. Member:: What is it?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It has been clearly placed on the record and I have not time to take it up again. I have some other remarks to make. The other point is this. The hon. member for Bow River made a completely ridiculous and untrue statement to the effect that the Conservative party does not want a trans-Canada gas line built at all-


An hon. Member:: It looks like it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -and this in spite of the fact that this was the very first party to propose a trans-Canada pipe line.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was the first party to try to get a trans-Canada pipe line proposition going in this House of Commons and in the railway committee, and that at a time when the Social Credit party would not permit the export of gas from Alberta, so no gas line was possible at that time.


John Horace Dickey: Why do you give up now?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the situation with regard to that. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the insults and attempted insults in his speech yesterday do absolutely nothing to make a bad proposition more palatable. I might say that the unpleasant effect of his attempts along this line is heightened by the fact that his attempted witticisms and sarcasms always partake much more of the character of the meat axe than of the rapier. The minister's supreme insult to parliament, however, was his notice of his intention to move closure; and this, Mr. Chairman, before one single opposition speech had been made. Then he implemented that notice by actually moving closure at the beginning of today's sitting.
We have had in this house many examples of the arbitrary and dictatorial attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but this is the supreme example. It is another of the fantastic developments in this whole pipeline picture, and there have been many fantastic developments in it. It is almost unbelievable that the government should be backing a proposition such as we find in the Trans-Canada Pipe Line and be prepared to force that proposition through this house by closure. My home town paper, the Calgary Herald, wrote a long editorial outlining the pipe-line proposition and headed it "An Unholy Mess"; and it is an unholy mess. I am
3904	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation not going to read this long editorial, but I think the heading at the top of it, "An Unholy Mess" is well substantiated by the editorial which follows. I would read only one sentence:
It is almost impossible to believe that the Canadian people will permit their government n Ottawa to get away with its current proposals in regard to the east-west natural gas pipe line.
The plain, ugly truth is that not only is the Liberal government prepared to allow control of a vital natural resource to slip out of Canadian hands, but is actually prepared to finance more than half the cost of turning that resource over to foreign control . . . with the tax dollars of all Canadian citizens.
It is an incredible situation-
I repeat, it is fantastic. Now, in its simplest terms what the Canadian taxpayers are being asked to swallow in the legislation now before us is this. Out of a total expenditure on this projected pipe line of $350 million to $375 million, well over half or approximately $200 million is being put up by the taxpayers, and being put up for what purpose? It is being put up in order to assist a small group of United States oil and gas men to control the transportation, marketing and export of one of our great natural resources. The proposition, Mr. Chairman, is as simple as that. The minister and others in his party can make all the arguments they like to try to becloud the issue, but the issue is just as simple as that. The sell-out is just as apparent as that, and I believe the great majority of Canadian people see it in those terms.
Now, when it comes to the men in control of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, these United States companies, it is only natural and human nature that these men will control it in such a way as to promote their own best financial interests. That is going to be the first object in their minds. The second object will be to serve the needs for gas in their own country; and third and last, to meet Canadian producers' needs for a market and the demands of Canadian consumers for gas. In other words, Mr. Chairman, Canadian interests will inevitably be at the bottom of the heap. Of course Canadian producers and Canadian consumers will get a poorer deal than they would under any reasonable scheme controlled by Canadians and operated primarily for the advantage of Canadians.
The members of the Liberal party seem to be intent on trying to heap as much scorn and ridicule as they can on Mr. Frank McMahon. As was pointed out yesterday, however, he is the only Canadian to build any large natural gas pipe line, or to finance it and have it under construction. I feel, therefore, that he can be considered as more of


an authority on these matters than any of the gentlemen to your right. In his memorandum to the minister on the basic faults of the Trans-Canada plan, Mr. McMahon had this to say; and this is a statement of the realities of the situation, not the cover-up we hear now from the minister and others. These are the realities of this proposition:
2. Trans-Canada as presently constituted is controlled by United States financial interests and is dominated by Tennessee Gas Transmission Company so that the principal interests behind Canada's pipe line is dealing with itself as the principal purchaser in the United States. Trans-Canada, so influenced and dominated, proposes an uneconomic plan to favour Tennessee Gas to the detriment of Canada and at the same time requests the governments of Canada and Ontario to subsidize a $122 million pipe line "bridge" across northern Ontario in order to make it possible to put the proposal into effect.
Those, I think, are the realities of the situation. Any gloss the minister and others attempt to put over the facts I think will be detected for what it is.
Since that memorandum was written by Mr. McMahon the government has put forward the proposal now before us to lend Trans-Canada $72 million to $80 million to construct the easy part of the trans-Canada pipe line from the Alberta boundary to Winnipeg. The government has thus made what was an improvident proposition infinitely worse. The minister has attempted to offer a sop to Canadian sensibilities in regard to United States control by saying that 51 per cent of the stock of Trans-Canada would be offered in Canada, and thus control would be or could be kept in Canadian hands. What a palpably weak and unconvincing attempt in the face of the realities of the situation as outlined by Mr. McMahon, to which I have just referred. Does anyone in this chamber or anyone in Canada believe for a moment that the United States controlled companies which control Trans-Canada will not buy sufficient of this 51 per cent of stock to maintain that control? Does anyone believe for a moment they will ever, under any circumstances, voluntarily relinquish that control? It is another of the fantastic assumptions which the Minister of Trade and Commerce and others apparently would like to have us accept. It is just not in the books.
I should like to consider for a moment the position of the producers of gas under this present scheme. Is it more advantageous to the producers of gas than the alternative schemes which have been proposed? The answer is no. In that regard I refer once more to the evidence of Mr. McMahon, as found in that same memorandum. I should like to put point No. 4 on the record:
4. The existing pipe-line companies and utilities in the great plains-midwest area of the United

States are the logical markets for Canadian gas and are best able to pay a fair price and purchase large volumes for their present markets. Instead of selling gas in this market to the existing companies, Trans-Canada proposes to sell its gas to a company which cannot pay a fair price because it does not control the market and must construct millions of dollars of duplicating facilities to market Canadian gas and unnecessary pipe line link to its system in Tennessee merely to comply with the policy of the United States requiring the use of Canadian gas only as a supplemental supply. This is shown by the fact that the Tennessee company will pay Trans-Canada some $2 million a year less for Canadian gas than would have been paid by Northern Natural Gas Company an existing pipe line from the United States, under its proposal to purchase approximately the same volumes.


John Horace Dickey: But they were turned down by the federal power commission.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They were not turned down by the federal power commission, because Canadian gas was not available and was not going to be available for some time.


John Horace Dickey: They were turned down
because the price was too high.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think there is no doubt that from the producers point of view we have, in this present proposal, a plan which will give the producers a lesser price in order to benefit the United States, the Tennessee company. The minister attempted to confuse this issue also by pointing to the example of the Westcoast Transmission Company, where you have a totally different situation and where the federal power commission as a matter of fact tried to put the Westcoast Transmission Company at the mercy of the United States producers, by refusing to allow it to carry the gas across the boundary. When you try to compare the price the company is getting under those circumstances with the price you might be getting at Emerson, that is a wrong type of comparison.
In addition to all this, the success of the Trans-Canada plan is dependent upon the United States federal power commission giving permission to Tennessee to import Canadian gas at Emerson and at Niagara. It is abundantly clear that this permission will not be secured for some years, if ever; yet in the face of all these facts which I have been talking about the minister in announcing the proposal now before us said at page 3665 of Hansard for May 8:
The action proposed today is another declaration of independence by Canada, affecting the building of an all-Canadian pipe line.
I would say it is hard to imagine any statement on the pipe line which contains such utter nonsense as that. The Winnipeg Free 67509-2484
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Press in commenting on that statement on February 9 characterized it as poppycock and went on to say:
Under the new plan, all we will have without United States approval is a hopelessly uneconomic pipe line. The taxpayers of Canada will have spent $80 million on a white elephant.
Surely the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not so hopelessly confused on this issue as to believe his own statement which I have just read. If he is that confused I do not think many other Canadians will suffer from what we should perhaps call equally childish mental processes. The thing is so palpably wrong and ridiculous that I wonder how the minister could ever make such a statement.
To turn to another phase of this matter, the chief argument and bait put forward by the government and its supporters in favour of this scheme seems to be in regard to the urgency of getting the pipe line built at once. They say in effect that this must be done immediately, that this is the only scheme under which it can start in June in order to have the Alberta-Winnipeg leg completed this year. This line of argument, these cries on the part of the government, remind me of two phrases which we used to hear very frequently before the last war. These are phrases which all hon. members will remember; "peace in our time," and "peace at any price".


Henry Alfred Hosking: The Conservative slogan.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If we paraphrase those slogans we would have "a pipe line this summer", and "a pipe line at any price". These seem to sum up in slogan form what the government are saying and the arguments they are advancing.
As far as the first slogan is concerned, I think all Canadians would like to see the first part of the trans-Canada pipe line built this year. But I do not think many Canadians are in favour of a pipe line at any cost; at the cost of United States control of this great resource; at the cost of reduced returns to the producers, and at the cost of an uneconomic line. The cry of the government now is the absolute urgency of getting the pipe line started. In view of that it may be well to ask who has been responsible for the delay of some six years since this project was first talked about. To begin with, the Alberta Social Credit government held it up by refusing to permit the export of gas from Alberta.


John Horne Blackmore: Why did they do that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Therefore the first responsibility for delay lies with them. In spite of anything they may say, the first responsibility for delay lies with the Social Credit government of Alberta. Since the time Alberta
3906	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation agreed to permit export the responsibility has been shared by the dominion government and the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company. The latter failed to live up to the assurances it gave when it received its charter, and did not succeed in its financing. For a long time the government could not make up its mind what to do. Finally the Minister of Trade and Commerce performed this shotgun marriage of the original Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company and another company.
The new company failed to finance once more, and the government did not know what to do. There was another long delay and a lengthy period of indecision while the government was trying to make up its mind. Then it brought forward the proposal for the northern Ontario bridge to help the company. The latter still failed to get going. And now in the past few weeks we have the government labouring mightily to try to reach a decision as to what is to be done. Finally the present scheme is put before us and after all these weeks, months and years of delay and indecision on the part of the government, we are asked here in the House of Commons to rush the thing through immediately. It is suddenly urgent and must go through without any delay whatever. The Minister of Trade and Commerce moved closure even before anyone else had a chance to speak on the matter.
It is quite apparent, Mr. Chairman, that the real urgency in this matter is political. I have not time to go into that, though I had hoped to do so to some extent. That is the real urgency as was stated in another editorial in the Calgary Herald of May 4 which says:
There will almost surely be a general election next year. And the Liberal government has no stomach for that fight if it has to go in to the ring with a half-dead pipe line project around its neck.
It is plain that the urgency is political, not urgency to do the proper thing in the national interest. It's important to remember that.
I think Canadians will remember that. I am sorry I cannot go into what is the actual emergency in regard to this matter from the economic point of view. There is some real urgency as far as Alberta is concerned to get a market for its gas; there is no question about that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I hope you will not deduct this outburst from my time, Mr. Chairman. That is the only real economic urgency there is, to assist in the development and exploration of Alberta gas and oil resources but-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I am sorry to have to inform the hon. member that he has exceeded his time.


Roland Beaudry: Mr. Chairman, it is a great pity-


George Harris Hees: Well, this is strictly for laughs.


Roland Beaudry: Is it not a great pity, Mr. Chairman, that the Leader of the Opposition has selected this occasion and the topic of pipe lines to play Don Quixote and joust with windmills, especially with windmills of his own fabrication?


George Harris Hees: It did not go over; no laughs on that one so far.


An hon. Member:: That was a dud.


Roland Beaudry: The time, the place, and the subject hardly call for the levity of mountebanks-


George Harris Hees: There is nothing flatter than a joke that does not go over.


Thomas Miller Bell: Who wrote that one?


Roland Beaudry: Mr. Chairman, did I hear
"once upon a time" Hees?


George Harris Hees: Still very weak laughter.


An hon. Member:: You mean "once too often" Hees.


Roland Beaudry: [DOT]-or the petulant, puerile and often pompous plea for procrastination.


George Harris Hees: No laughs at all on that one.


Roland Beaudry: We are talking about a fairly serious matter, at least on this side of the house. I would like to believe that the concern of the Leader of the Opposition for the ownership of natural gas pipe lines by Canadian majority interests stems from both a sense of realism and a sense of public duty. Having failed to convince one, at least, of his followers-and that one the most likely to best assess the situation and the weight of his leader's views-I fear he will also fail to convince this house and the country. The country will not forget that if at this time in our political history it is possible for anyone to even suggest that a billion dollar project should be undertaken or could be undertaken with Canadian capital only, it is precisely because Canada has made such tremendous economic strides in recent years, and this under the very aegis of the sponsor of this resolution and of this government. As between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Trade and Commerce this country has good and sufficient reasons for believing in the deeds of the one rather than

in the flow of words of the other. There has been no equivocation as to that since 1935, and still less since 1948.
The Leader of the Opposition will not convince the country because he omits to mention that his bosom pal, "autonomic" Duplessis, has just sold to what I believe to be United States interests the exploitation of-fancy that-the gas branch of Quebec hydro. He will not convince the country because the current president of the Conservative federation and the immediate past president have not yet determined which theory or speech sounds best, and where, when, and which version is' best suited, for Quebec, for Ontario and elsewhere, and which one of Duplessis' Ungava policies or of Bennett's hegira to London is best adapted for public wooing.
There is natural gas in Alberta, and approximately one-sixth of it is going to waste daily because it is not being tapped and is seeping out and vanishing into thin air. There is natural gas in Alberta. Alberta is one of the ten Canadian provinces, and it is the duty of Canada to help exploit a natural resource. So far this seems to be sound, even to the opposition, the more so since a large part of Canada will benefit from the advantage of gas. This would eliminate imports of natural gas and would be particularly interesting to the hon. member for Cape Breton South, because it would reduce our imports of United States coal by approximately $200 million a year. To achieve this a pipe line has to be built.
But in the many words of the opposition we should not have a pipe line yet because the Canadian people would have to endorse a note for $72 million redeemable on April 2, 1957 and carrying a 5 per cent interest charge. Is there any security? Yes, there is the pipe line and all movable and immovable assets of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. But to the Leader of the Opposition that is hardly enough. It is not substantial and concrete enough. He would rather ask for names on a board. The need for a pipe line is urgent. The hon. member for Calgary North has just stated that. Many Canadians realize the need is vital, but all the opposition, whether Conservative or C.C.F., seem oblivious to one thing.
We of the Liberal party who constitute the government are the ones, and the only ones, to whom for 21 historic years the financial, economic and social advancement of this country and the stewardship of Canada's patrimony have been entrusted. We are, and we have been for better than two-thirds of the life of confederated Canada, the country's trustees for what is good
15, 1956	3907
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation and sound for Canada. I have seen many elections, and in all the elections since the advent of the present Leader of the Opposition we have been happy to have our policies, our concept of Canadianism and our administration scrutinized and I trust approved by the six million-odd citizens of Canada who in the final estimate select those who occupy these seats.
Come that time of scrutiny, and fortunately it will be soon enough that no one may have forgotten this debate, neither the protagonists of the pipe line nor the antagonists, whatever the premise may be for their views, we on this side shall have this to say to our fellow Canadians: Entrusted by you with the task of safeguarding your interests, moral, physical and financial, now and in the future; satisfied that the future of Canada and of each Canadian, old or new, lies in the fruition of each of the natural assets with which providence has endowed Canada; believing in deep conscience that one of the ten provinces of Canada, Alberta, offers undeveloped natural assets, the exploitation of which would enhance the economic position of a great number of Canadians, if not of the majority; fully conscious of the responsibility which devolves upon us through the trust placed by you in us to implement your hopes for a greater Canada by deed, by constructive deed and by effective and speedy deed, we deem it our duty to Canada, to the vast majority of Canadians who have told us by their ballots to look after their interests, to do this and to say this: "There shall be a pipe line; it shall be constructed as of early June this year; the means: whatever is best for the purpose of speedy, efficient construction in the interests of Canada, and not the means advocated by dilatory parties for dilatory purposes and for spurious reasons."
If all Canadian capital is not available today and if the money of the taxpayers is required and if construction should start today -and construction must start today-let us use all sources of capital. The origin of the capital is relatively unimportant provided we do not lose sight of the country's interests. What is important, what is essential and what is paramount is that we act now. We shall; and we will stand on our doings come the next election.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Mr. Chairman, the matter we are discussing today is without doubt one of the most important matters that has come before the House of Commons for many years. What is the House of Commons set up for? What have we a parliament for? My idea of parliament is that it is a debating ground, a place where policies are hammered out. The government presents its policies to the
3908	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation house; the house has an opportunity to debate such policies and toy its decision indicate what it thinks are proper policies. In my short time in the House of Commons I have seen the odd time when the government has recognized as good some ideas that have come from the opposition. That has not been very frequent, but they have accepted some of those ideas. But on this most important matter-no debate. If the government had been faced with a long debate where it had got to the point that there was a repetition of speeches by the opposition, they might have had some excuse to' put on closure. I think there is absolutely no excuse for putting on closure the second day, and this government will live to regret the action it has taken.
When I prepared my speech I put it in two parts. The first part was to discuss this company, and the next part was to discuss the policy we in the C.C.F. thought the government or the people of Canada should put into effect. Under the 20-minute rule our leader was not able last night to bring out the policy of the party in this regard as well as cover the other matters that are in the resolution.
However, first of all I want to protest against the unholy alliance and this wildcat scheme the government has at the present time. What is the position of Trans-Canada today? They want to build a pipe line on a shoestring. They do not have any money. They want the people of Canada to build a pipe line for them; then they will operate it, control it and make the profits that are to be made out of it.
This company came before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines in 1951 and made a number of commitments. I had intended to put some of those commitments on the record, but I have not time to do that. A great many of those commitments they have not been able to carry out. The whole picture has changed. From what they said in 1951 the picture has changed very materially. To be brief, I claim that this company after five years has shown a total inability to fulfil its contract. It is not worthy of any further consideration, and should be ruled out of the picture at the present time.
Now I want to deal with what the minister said about the only other alternative policy. I am one of those who recognize that the province of Alberta has a tremendous amount of gas it wants to sell. We realize that, and we want them to have the opportunity to get rid of that gas. We recognize also that power and heat are needed more and more as eastern Canada has been growing so rapidly, and we want to see these two brought


together. But to do that we have to have something more than a company that is built on a shoestring.
The minister, speaking yesterday, made the statement that there was only one other alternative, and that he did not want that because it would not be very popular with some people. I do not think "popular" was the word he used. This is what he said, as recorded on page 3860 of Hansard:
No criticisms or tags such as "chosen instrument" here cast upon Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited will alter the fact that only that company has gathered together the gas purchase and sales contracts, the governmental permits, the organization and the access to pipe which make possible a start this year upon the pipe line.
There is no indication there that this line will be built to Winnipeg this year, but the minister says they are the only ones who can make a start. I just want to analyse that short sentence, "the fact that only that company has gathered together the gas purchase and sales contracts."
This company cannot fulfil its contracts. This company cannot fulfil those contracts it made with the province of Alberta. The province of Alberta is going to sell that gas to whoever has the pipe line. There is no question about that. If the government set up a crown corporation to build that pipe line right through Canada, would there be any doubt that the province of Alberta would sell that gas? They have to get rid of it. Then I come to the sales contracts. Do you mean to say that people in eastern Canada are too much interested in who is going to operate the pipe line, as long as they get gas?


An hon. Member:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: No, I will not.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Does the minister or anybody on the other side of the house-and they may follow me whenever they like-say that the people who want to use gas in eastern Canada are going to turn down the possibility of getting gas if it is operated by a government agency? Absolutely no. Those contracts are just as good for a pipe line operated by a crown corporation as they are for the present company, which cannot fulfil its commitments.


An hon. Member:: Who is going to get a permit to transport it?


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: That is all right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Speak at the proper time.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Just keep your mouth buttoned up for a while. The minister says this is the only company that has access to pipe,

and that they have an option on this pipe. Surely if anybody takes out an option on something, it does not matter what it is, and if they cannot take up that option, what happens? Is that option going to continue forever? No; there is a time limit on all options. When those options expire, the pipe company is in a position to sell its pipe to somebody else. The government says it will perhaps take until 1958 to get pipe. That pipe was made for the trans-Canada pipe line, and the company that made the pipe will sell the pipe to whatever agency builds the pipe line.
I want to say something about private ownership. I believe the people of Canada will be better served under a public ownership system such as the minister has himself been talking about, because a government agency or a public utility is set up for the purpose of providing that public utility at as low a cost as possible. We have had illustrations of public utilities in Canada for many years. This year the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission, which had a wonderful period of success, are celebrating their fiftieth anniversary. I want to read to the house just two of the congratulations that appeared in today's issue of the Globe and Mail to Ontario hydro on their accomplishments during the past years. I just picked out two at random. The Davis Lumber Company said:
We wish to extend our best wishes to Ontario hydro on the celebration of their 50th anniversary and to offer our congratulations on their magnificent accomplishments through the years.
I just wonder how many congratulations we can offer to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines today on the accomplishments they have made during the past years, and I wonder whom in the next 50 years the people of Canada are going to congratulate-


An hon. Member:: C. D. Howe.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: -on their accomplishments. Are they going to have an opportunity to congratulate a crown corporation that has given them gas at cost, or as near cost as it is possible to offer it, or are they going to say, "We wish we had never seen Trans-Canada Pipe Lines"?
Another statement of the minister's about which I wish to say something is the one he made about the organization of this company. The minister said:
It has an organization of men experienced in pipe-line construction and operation.
I wonder just how much of an organization these people have. These people have been drilling oil and gas wells. That is the kind of organization they have. They have got an organization to drill oil and gas wells.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
I want to say something about what has been done to give the minister an idea of what can be done. In the province of Saskatchewan we found gas only two or three years ago. What did we do in Saskatchewan? The government decided that the best policy, the policy that would suit the interests of the people of the province, would be for the government to build the pipe lines. The government did not have an organization but it did not take very long to set up an organization. They set up their organization. They got an experienced contracting firm with experienced men from the United States to come to Saskatchewan and build their pipe lines for them. The people of Saskatchewan, especially the people in the city of Saskatoon, were amazed at the speed with which the pipe lines were built. Within the next year our cities will all have gas and we are rapidly approaching the point where every fair-sized community in the province will be served.
I want to say something else to support m>
contention that the federal government should have its own crown corporation go ahead and build the pipe line. It is quite significant that the Toronto accounting firm of Clarkson, Gordon and Company, who were appointed by the Ontario government to look into the economics of the whole pipe line, declared in their report that "an all-government owned pipe line would be economically feasible even though no sales were made to the United States."
Other advantages of a publicly built line are obvious. The government can build the line much more cheaply because it has the ability to raise money more cheaply than a private enterprise firm. The interest rate factor is extremely important. A crown corporation with government guarantees could raise money at 3 or 3J per cent, while private firms would have to pay, for a construction project of this kind, almost double the interest rate on money borrowed.
The annual carrying charges on a government owned project have been estimated at 6 or 6i per cent and on a privately financed project 13 to 14 per cent, or about double. It is quite apparent that, apart altogether from the important fact that a government owned line would place the control of this vital energy resource in Canada, it would also mean a substantial financial saving to Canadian consumers.
Again, an income and a sales tax apply to privately financed projects but not to a project built by a crown company. Further, government backed schemes can be amortized for a period as long as 40 years while privately financed schemes can only be amortized for about a 20-year period. As a result, for the
3910	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation publicly financed scheme carrying charges over the period can be reduced approximately by half.
I should like to make an appeal to the Prime Minister that he and his government reconsider the attitude they have taken, that they reconsider the closure motion and that they tell us before eight o'clock tonight that closure has been removed. I should also like the Prime Minister to talk over again with his ministers the idea of stopping this wildcat proposal and bringing in another resolution which will set up a crown corporation for the purpose of building this pipe line.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Calgary South.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you have had a list of the speakers who are supposed to speak for our party today and the next speaker on our list is the hon. member for York-Humber. I should like that understood and I think she should be given the floor.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra raises as a point of order the order in which speakers are called from the chair. I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the committee as a whole will realize that officially there is no such thing as a list and that the chair is not bound by a list. I am going further perhaps than my responsibilities at the moment go because I consider that it is fair to all that the situation in which I find myself at the moment should be known.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra as spokesman for the official opposition-I do not mean to say this personally-states that a certain member was the next speaker on the list for his party. I may say that it had been my intention, and I think it would be the intention of whoever was occupying the chair, to call that member when the next understood turn for the official opposition came around. In the ordinary routine, which is not a matter of order and not binding either on the chair or on the house, it would not at the moment be the turn of the official opposition. It would be the turn of another party.
I may say that all the whips with the exception of one-I have not seen the Social Credit whip today-have indicated the order in which they wish their members to speak, and all the whips have agreed on the persons who should speak in the time unofficially allotted to their particular parties. Any time taken by the hon. member for Calgary South, who as a member of the house has full right to be heard in the same way as any other member, and it is the duty of the chair to


call him, will not be charged up to that unofficial time which as a matter of courtesy, is allocated to the party for which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra speaks.


Howard Charles Green: On the point of order, I take it then that I am to understand that this time is being allotted by the Liberal party?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I may say first to the hon. member that the question of the order in which persons are heard is not a matter of order other than that it is the privilege of anybody to rise to his feet and move at any time that a certain hon. member be heard. That motion, as I understand it, is always accepted. But as there is no desire whatever to put the party of the hon. gentleman who has raised the point at a disadvantage, I may say that I would most likely have seen a Liberal member at this time if I had not seen the hon. member for Calgary South.


Howard Charles Green: As long as we understand it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: However, the
matter is not a point of order. I answered the point because the hon. member who raised the question quite obviously thought that an injustice was being done to the party to which he belongs.


Charles Edward Johnston: As a matter of information, it is a little difficult to hear and I should like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, if the acting leader of the Conservative party is now ruling out one of their own members from the right to speak?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government has already ruled out a great many by their infamous closure motion.


Carl Olof Nickle: 
Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the hon. member is reading every word of his speech from a prepared statement.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I submit that the hon. member is reading every word from a prepared statement, contrary to the rules of the house.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think it is fairly well known in this committee and in this house at the present time that so far chairmen and Speakers have found it impossible to enforce any rule against the reading of speeches.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But there is such a rule, is there not, Mr. Chairman?


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I am following extensive notes. I would far rather follow notes for the short time left to me and deal with this subject in detailed form than talk blindly without them.
3912	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
In 1953, nearly all blindly ignored evidence that eastern Canadian gas distributors objected to the proposed high selling prices under the "all-Canadian" plan and that western Canadian gas producers also objected to selling their product at a somewhat lower price than available through another proposed pipe line that would initially serve Canadian prairies and United States markets, and at a later stage serve eastern Canada. Worst of all, none of the advocates of the so-called "all-Canadian" policy, which was essential, they claimed-and still do, and there is a good deal of merit in the argument -to the national interest and to the industrial development of northern Ontario and to which they were publicly committed, were publicly willing to admit any obligation of the nation and particularly the province chiefly benefiting, namely Ontario, to relieve producers, consumers and investors of any part of the extra burden imposed by the national policy. I refer, of course, to the much higher capital costs and lower potential earning rate of the politically desirable project as compared with the most economic pipe line route and market development plan.
The delays in starting construction-to which gas purchase and gas marketing contracts, and finances are essential-stem primarily from the slow descent from the clouds of patriotic emotion to the ground level of economic fact-facing by Canada's political leaders. Also a major factor in the delay has been the rising cost of the "all-Canadian" project, now up a cold $100 million to an estimated $375 million. The biggest part of the cost increase is due to rising labour, steel and other material costs; the balance to a change to bigger-diameter pipe, and route changes in northern Ontario. Pipe, labour and other costs are going higher, making more urgent an early start of construction.
Meantime, out in western Canada-particularly in Alberta-new discoveries of natural gas reserves have been piling up surplus, shut in for lack of markets, at an average rate of some 4,000 billion cubic feet per year. So far, some $150 million in hard cash has been invested by a host of Canadian and foreign companies in gas lands and wells which have no market and no income and are eating up interest at a rate that could soon crush some of the smaller Canadian companies and seriously curb even the big firms if the bars to export are not quickly torn down by the construction of pipe lines.
The successful results of gambling large sums of money on gas exploration, and the growing knowledge that only the surface of our west's huge gas potential has been scratched, are rapidly convincing more and more Canadians in high places that our
[Mr. Nickle.l

national gas policy should be based on recognition of long-term surplus and not fear of shortage, a stand I have urged in Alberta and in this house for several years.
The Social Credit government of Alberta and the Liberal government of Canada have become increasingly realistic in their recognition of gas surplus, and thus their growing willingness to allow a larger-but still tiny- percentage of the rising surplus to go into markets outside Canada. This government also now realistically recognizes-although I regret some of my colleagues in the Conservative ranks apparently do not-that the larger the volume of gas sold by Trans-Canada into American markets, the more economic will the project become, for the benefit of Canadian consumers and producers, by reducing the transport cost of gas moved between Canada's west and east.
There is also another vital fact that is realistically recognized by this Liberal government and by the Conservative government of Ontario, even though some of the Conservatives and Socialists in this house seem to be unwilling to concede it. That fact is that no pipe line company, no matter who its backers are, can hope to secure full finances from the insurance companies, banks and private investors-Canadian or foreign- until it ties up sufficient gas purchase and sales contracts, and necessary government export and import permits, to ensure an adequate minimum of income at least to service its bonded indebtedness.
The present Trans-Canada company which has been greatly increased in financial strength and vastly altered in its pre-publicfinancing ownership, has since the changes a few months ago made a tremendous amount of progress in gas purchase and sales contract negotiations. Its gas purchase contracts in Alberta now amount to almost 100 per cent of requirements, and the small balance will be arranged for very shortly. Sales commitments in eastern Canada and the prairies now amount to over 90 per cent of the required minimum. A firm contract has been entered into with Tennessee Transmission company for large volume highload factor sale of Canadian gas at Emerson, Manitoba, at most satisfactory prices, contrary to some erroneous reports, and for short-term import of American gas at Niagara for use in the buildup of Canadian markets east of Toronto as far as Montreal.	.
Trans-Canada also, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce pointed out yesterday, has the only available guaranteed supply of pipe to be found to do the job this year. One vital factor still stands between Trans-Canada and its ability to publicly finance the

quarter of one billion dollars it needs for the portions of the pipe line in Canada not covered by the northern Ontario government project. That is, of course, the federal power commission approval in Washington of its contract with Tennessee. Particularly important is the $8 million per year minimum that approval of the United States import would provide Trans-Canada for transport of gas between the Alberta-Saskatchewan border and Emerson, Manitoba. This income is after deduction of the purchase price of gas at the Alberta border. This anticipated income was a major factor in enabling Trans-Canada to reduce its proposed selling prices to Canadian customers to a level that made signing up of customers possible within recent months. Without the assurance of that minimum income from transport of gas for export, it is unlikely that Trans-Canada, or any other company, can raise money for construction, unless the consumers of eastern Canada would be willing to boost their prospective gas bill by $8 million yearly or the Canadian and Ontario governments would be willing to provide annual subsidies of that amount. Both of these alternatives are highly unlikely.
I am not as riled up about the federal power commission hearing in Washington or as pessimistic about timing of imports approval by the federal power commission as some members of this house. I believe, approval is not only inevitable, but that the odds now favour a decision before next spring. The actual construction of a pipe line across the prairies this year, assuring the federal power commission that the availability of Canadian gas at Emerson is a reality and not the pipe dream it was during the abortive federal power commission hearings of an important application over one year ago, is the best guarantee possible by Canadian action to win the desired result. This proposed export at Emerson, which the government approved despite strong resistance from some in this house, takes a sizeable part of the burden off Canada in making an all Canadian route pipe line financeable. Canadians are the beneficiaries, regardless of whether Canadians or foreigners own the shares of the pipe line.
Another step to help make the project feasible is one of those involved in the government's resolution, the joint federal-Ontario construction of part of the northern Ontario pipe line, for leasing to an ultimate purchase by Trans-Canada. Under the contract involved, the government company will get less than normal return of interest and depreciation during the initial tough years of eastern Canadian market buildup for gas,
15, 1956	3913
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation thus greatly improving the financeability of the over-all project, but is guaranteed a return of at least 3-5 per cent on investment plus depreciation by levying a first charge against profits of the whole balance of the privately owned pipe line system when that system gets into a profit position. Over the term of the lease, Trans-Canada is going to average out with a cost saving of only the difference between 3 [DOT] 5 per cent and normal commercial interest rate, which would amount to around $1,250,000 yearly, although the deferred portion of costs during early years will in effect provide a greater aid during the early years.
Contrary to some claims, the Trans'-Canada company will not get the benefit from the interest saving. All the benefit, and more, will go to the gas consumers of Canada, with the principal benefit going to the Ontario consumers. This is because, as a direct result of the government plan, Trans-Canada has been able in recent months to reduce its contract charges to Canadian gas purchasers by an amount that will exceed $2,500,000 per year during the first few years, and by progressively larger amounts as Canadian gas purchases increase.
The second phase of the resolution involves a federal government short-term loan, at 5 per cent interest, of 90 per cent of the cost of construction of Trans-Canada's pipe line as far east as Winnipeg in order to get it done this year and, among other things, meet the urgent need for gas at Winnipeg. Trans-Canada itself will provide about $7,500,000 of the cost, boosting its total investment to over $21 million by this year end. The plan is sound, from the government's point of view, for if the company cannot complete its full quarter billion dollar financing by next April 1, the government takes over a going pipe line for 90 per cent of cost, plus the very sizeable other assets of the company in the form of gas purchase and sales contracts, rights of way, engineering data, and so on.
The prairie pipe line, so long as it is confined to prairie markets, will earn operating costs from gas sales, but cannot earn interest charges. The $4 million a year interest will, however, be money well invested; for if the pipe line is not built this year at current steel and labour costs, it will cost an additional amount to build in future years far greater than the interest lost. If the company finances its project in full by next spring, which I am now quite hopeful of, it will pay off the government with full interest. If it fails in its earnest efforts the government gets a pipe line and other assets at far less than cost, and the companies who now back Trans-Canada will take a financial licking 30 to 40

Private Bills
times the mere $500,000 that Frank McMahon offered as a performance bond.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It is my duty to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Carl Olof Nickle: I shall carry on the next time I have the opportunity.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for York-Humber. It being five o'clock, the house will proceed to consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


John Decore: the second reading of Bill No. 291, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in this bill the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is seeking authority to build a branch line of railway for a distance of some 20 miles southerly from a point near Brocket, Alberta. As most hon. members probably know, all railway companies must come to parliament for authority to build a branch line which is longer than six miles, by virtue of section 183 of the Railway Act. Brocket is situated in the southwest corner of the province of Alberta and is on the secondary main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway between Vancouver and Medicine Hat, which runs through the Crowsnest pass.
The branch line will be built in a southerly direction to a property owned by Canadian Gulf Oil Company, where at the present time a plant is in the course of erection to process the natural gas developed from the Pincher Creek field by the Canadian Gulf Oil Company. It is not expected that the construction of this line will cause any great difficulty. The first five miles of this line will pass through the Peigan Indian reservation and I understand satisfactory arrangements have been made between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Indian band on that reservation.
I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that one of the significant sources of natural gas in Alberta is in the Pincher Creek field in the southwest portion of the province. This field has been discovered and developed by the Canadian Gulf Oil Company.
The gas at Pincher Creek is a sour wet gas. In other words, it contains approximately 10 per cent hydrogen sulphide. In the formation the pressures are in the order of 5,000 pounds per square inch. Because of these pressures, and because of the large percentage of hydrogen sulphide which the gas contains, the gas is very corrosive.
fMr. Nickle.]
In its natural state this gas cannot be placed in transmission lines for sale as a fuel. It must first be stripped or purified. Purification means removing all the hydrogen sulphide, almost all the carbon dioxide, and a large percentage of the liquefiable hydrocarbons. From the process of purification the following products will be obtained: sulphur, propane, butanes, natural gasoline and condensate.
The removal of these products requires the installation of a plant of considerable magnitude, and involves the installation of precision equipment. As a matter of fact, two plants must be built. One will recover the stabilized condensate and the hydrogen sulphide. When these products are removed the other plant will recover the elemental sulphur from the material taken from the hydrogen sulphide gas. At the initial stage, of course, the purified gas thus obtained will be reinjected into the formation on which the sour gas was obtained.
Construction of the Gulf plant at Pincher Creek began on April 1, 1956, according to the information I have. It is hoped that the plant will be completed by September 1 of this year.
The important purpose of establishing the plant now at Pincher Creek is to recover the elemental sulphur. A company known as Northwest Nitro Chemicals is now completing a plant at Medicine Hat, Alberta. This plant will produce a fertilizer with an ammonium base. To produce this fertilizer, sulphuric acid will be required. The acid will be manufactured from the elemental liquid sulphur supplied by Canadian Gulf Oil Company. This elemental sulphur will be shipped in a liquid state, in tank cars, from the Pincher Creek plant to Northwest Nitro Chemicals at Medicine Hat.
It is expected that the sulphur will be produced at the rate of 225 long tons per day. The stabilized condensate which will be another by-product of the purification will be produced at the rate of 76,650 imperial gallons per day. This condensate will be shipped to refineries at Calgary.
While the immediate customer for sulphur is the new fertilizer industry established at Medicine Hat by Northwest Nitro Chemicals, there will be a market for the additional sulphur produced by Gulf in the pulp and paper industry to the west and to the south of Pincher Creek. Northwest Nitro Chemicals plant will be in production, it is expected, by about September 1, 1956.
I am also informed that the only feasible and practical way to ship the volume of these by-products from the Pincher Creek gas field is by rail. The sulphur is, of course,

in molten form and must be transported in special tank cars. Furthermore, owing to the severe winter season in Alberta, highway service would be erratic because roads are frequently impassable because of heavy snow storms. Transportation otherwise than by rail would require multiple handling of the product and would be quite expensive. It would appear that transportation by rail is imperative in these circumstances.
If this bill is now given second reading, Mr. Speaker, I propose that it be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Representatives of the Canadian Pacific Company and the Canadian Gulf Oil Company will appear as witnesses before that committee and will explain in further detail the various aspects of this proposed project.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that this short branch line from the Canadian Pacific Railway's Crowsnest pass line, extending from 20 miles south to the area of the Pincher Creek gas field, is going to be built. As indicated by the sponsor, primarily it will make possible and assist in the development there of the sulphur and petro-chemical industry which will be of considerable value and importance in southern Alberta and, as a matter of fact, as far as Canadian industry generally is concerned.
Whilst that is the primary reason for its construction it will also provide certain services as far as the agricultural economy of that section of the country is concerned and as far as grain and cattle producers are concerned.
As the bill is going to the committee where we will get the details concerning exactly where it will run and what stations or trackage will be provided, and information concerning the purposes it is expected to serve,
I think there is no need of my saying anything further about it at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) closes the debate on second reading I wonder if he could give the house the positive assurance that this 20-mile line of railway will be built wholly within Canada and that the company will not come back five years from now seeking a 90 per cent loan of a large sum of money?


James Joseph McCann: That is too smart.


Ray Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to say very much concerning this project at the present time. Undoubtedly hon. members will have more to say in the committee. I do, however, welcome
Small Loans Act
this proposed extension of the Canadian Pacific Railway into the southern part of Alberta because there is an area there which needs the outlet now and will particularly need it after the chemical industries which will come about as the result of the exportation of gas are located there. This bill will certainly do a great deal to improve the financial status of that part of southern Alberta, and we certainly welcome it.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) speaks, would he tell the house whether any consideration has been given to building this branch line out of the town of Pincher Creek? I understand that the town of Pincher Creek has made some representations asking that the line be connected to that town.


John Decore: Mr. Speaker, answering the question asked by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, may I say that representations have been made by the chamber of commerce of the town of Pincher Creek as to whether or not it would be possible to have this line run from Pincher Creek rather than from Brocket. As a result of those representations the chief engineer of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company investigated the matter and made certain findings.
He came to the conclusion that owing to the heavy grading that would be required by this other route and the necessity of crossing highway No. 8 an additional expenditure of $170,000 would be required, and in addition there would be an extra maintenance cost per year of $20,000. Taking all things into consideration, it would appear that the best route to be followed would be the one proposed.
In reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), may I assure him that if he looks at the map of the province he will find Brocket and will note that a point 20 miles south is still within Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But we remember the assurance you gave five years ago.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: the second reading of Bill No. 213, to amend the Small Loans Act (advertising).

Small Loans Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of this bill I should first like to put on the record the explanatory note, which reads:
The purpose of this act is to amend the Small Loans Act, so as to require any money-lender or small loans company, in any advertising in which the amount required by way of monthly or periodic payments in order to repay a loan is indicated, to state what the cost of such loan amounts to in terms of percentum per annum.
In my opinion the significant words in that explanatory note are "terms of percentum per annum". The matter at hand concerns advertising by small loan companies which in my opinion is sometimes deceptive. For some reason or other there has been considerable Interest at this particular session in the operations of small loan companies. I think this is the fifth bill which has been listed this year. First there was a bill moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue); then there was the bill sponsored by the Minister of Finance; then there was Bill G5 of the Senate which was a private member's bill to change the name of a loan company and to increase its capitalization; then there was Bill H5 of the Senate to incorporate a new small loan company which was sponsored by an hon. member of this house; and then we have Bill No. 213 to amend the Small Loans Act with respect to advertising.
If the records of this house are any indication, small loan companies are becoming more important in the lives of individuals and families. I am not discussing today whether or not that is a good thing, but I have my own opinion about it. The discussion today concerns the advertising by these loan companies and in my opinion there should be some restrictions upon that advertising.
I think it is a rather sad commentary on our society that we have come to accept commercial advertising as certainly exaggerated. I think I can go further and say that most of it is misleading and some of it is dishonest. It is important to our economic life. We have the ridiculous type of advertising claims for cars which we see in every magazine we pick up. We have the advertisement of one cigarette company claiming that their cigarettes will cure the sore throats caused by the brand advertised on the previous page. Fbrtunately some of us have built up a resistance against that particular type of advertising.
The small loan companies sometimes use that type of advertising. They make statements such as those which were quoted by the hon. member for Assiniboia when he was dealing with his bill. We see references about small loans being the happy answer to

your money needs, that they are our pals and such things. We see pretty pictures of children under the Christmas tree revelling in the proceeds of a 26 per cent loan obtained the week before from a small-loan company. No one of course would be naive enough to pay any attention to that type of advertising.
But there is a more dangerous type of advertising, probably because it is not so patent. For example, we have the statements by one loan company that banks are not equipped to handle this kind of business, and then there is another statement in the same brochure that credit unions are poor places to go for that particular type of loan. Statements like that are perhaps plausible to some people but they are manifestly untrue. Here is a quotation from one of these advertising pamphlets:
Would you hazard a guess as to how much money we do make on small loans only?
They give the answer as one-fortieth of one per cent. Of course that is a plain lie, and there is no other term that could be applied to it. It is an ingenious method of advertising, a method once employed by a great packing company which had been accused in this house of falsifying its profits in that type of advertising. This is the profit on the dollar lent, which, of course, is a completely different thing from the profit on the funds invested. But the type of person borrowing this sort of money usually does not look into that.
Here is another statement under the heading of "The Rates We Charge". This, of course, is another complete falsification. My hon. friends on the other side will say that the government gets blamed for everything. They are blaming the government for this one. They say:
The charge presently stipulated by our federal laws is 2 per cent per month on the outstanding balance of a loan to $500.
If I have any knowledge of the English language in general, and in particular of that word "stipulated", I would characterize that as not even a white lie but a deliberate one, with the deliberate intent of fooling the customers.
The third type of advertising is one which I wish to speak against this afternoon. I am not intending at the moment, as I say, to criticize the loan company. I would be out of order, possibly, if I did so. That has already been done in speeches in the previous debates. Their operators have been called harsh names in this house.
They have been defended, may I say, in all honesty by my Liberal friends, who have with one or two exceptions leaped to their defence valiantly both by voice and by vote in this

house. They must look upon these companies as being a beneficial part of our economic lives. I am sorry 1 cannot agree with them. They were in favour of incorporating that new company and they were in favour of granting a change in name and increased capitalization.
Of course, one might say that those things were being done completely within the law. We had, too, the fact that the national chairman of the Liberal party was mixed up with a couple of these small loan companies. We on this side of the house were frankly surprised that a man of such eminence and connected with this great party that has formed the government here for all these years should bother with such small potatoes, as somebody said, battening upon the misery of the poor. However, I see the Speaker looking me over, and I shall proceed no further in that particular direction.


Elmore Philpott: You have been out of order for five minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That rule has been thrown out the window.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The assumption is then, and I am going to accept it for today, that these are legitimate concerns doing legitimate business under the law. I am prepared to admit that for the moment, and it may be that the operators of these legitimate concerns are also honourable men. They may be all honourable men; I do not know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So was Brutus.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: At any rate, as such they have something to sell. They are advertising their wares in the public press and they should be willing, if they are honourable men, to make clear the price of their product and the conditions under which that product is sold. If these honourable men, then, are under the shadow of the law and in fact countenanced, and indeed encouraged-it would appear from the debate that took place in this house-by this government, we would expect them to be open and honest about their operations.
I should like to talk for a while about advertising generally and about some of the ridiculous things that we do about advertising. I am thinking of liquor advertising, for example. There is a foolish idea that you must not advertise liquor on a bottle. It is all right to put it on the label but not on the bottle, because that makes a difference in law. We hear about magazines transferring from some "holier than thou" province to certain dens of iniquity in order that they might be able to carry on the business of liquor advertising in magazines and that sort of thing. We have so much of this sort of
Small Loans Ac*
thing in Canada, and we have an historical background for it all. We have so much of that rationalization. I could use a stronger word, but I shall not.


Walter Edward Harris: My hon. friend is pretty
rational.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Some may say that we should hesitate about telling people how to run their businesses and what they should or should not do. This has come up in regard to this bill. Some classical student may quote at me the words "caveat emptor", or "Let the buyer beware". In other words, they may say it is up to the user of the product to decide whether or not this particular bill is to his advantage. But I would point out to you, sir, that there are members of the public who are in need of protection. We do not allow people to use motor cars, for example, to run roughshod over everybody; we regulate the traffic. We are not supposed to sell liquor and tobacco to minors. We have an interference there with their liberty, surely. Under the Food and Drugs Act, I take it, labels are placed on all products to make the contents clear so that there is no doubt as to what you are buying.
After all, when the customer goes into an ordinary store, there is the piece of goods in front of him, and there displayed on it is a price ticket, so that he knows what he is taking. In other words, that particular buyer does not have to beware so much, because he has a chance. He sees what he is buying, and he knows what he has to pay for it. However, in the case of small loans, what is the situation? The one big point I wish to make here is that this small loans advertising never actually shows the interest in terms of rate per annum. You may ask, "what does it show?". It shows all these nice little things that I have been reading about and which have no significance, but it usually shows a scheme for repayment. You may say, "People ought to be able to figure that out." They do not. As a matter of fact, these people who will become the victims of small loan companies are usually people who are distraught about something. They are in serious financial trouble. They are in no condition to argue, either about the amount of interest or whether or not it is beneficial for them to take a loan at all. It seems so horribly easy. You just go down and you get the money on the same day, or, if you telephone a little ahead, you can get it when you go there. It all seems so terribly easy.
Further, a great many of them are, educationally speaking, incapable of working out the cost. I do not know whether you have noticed those advertisements, but they are

Small Loans Act
very seldom in terms of round figures. There is. always a balance of 73 cents or 99 cents or something awkward that is indivisible by almost anything, and it is a difficult proposition because you have 12 months and that is the thing that they do not realize.
The type of advertisement to which I particularly object and which I would like to see amended, together with this Small Loans Act, is the type of advertisement which shows the repayment month by month and does not show the rate of interest charged. By design or by mathematical accident, it may well be, these things are almost always stated in odd numbers which make the arithmetic difficult.
Lest I be misunderstood, I want to take a simple example, and I have given an example in a previous debate. I will put the matter in simple figures and I am thinking of the situation that existed some time ago before Bill 51 imposed certain restrictions on the interest. Let us say you are going to borrow $1,200. The advertisement says that you get $1,200. We will say that at the end of the first month you repay $112, at the end of the second month $112, until you get down to the twelfth month. We will assume that the loan is for a year. At the end of the 12 months you look the matter over and you discover that for the use of that money-I am saying nothing further for the moment; I am not mentioning the terms-you have paid $144. The person who is none too adroit at figures and who is perhaps not too particular because of the trouble he happens to be in will say that he has paid $144 for the use of that money and that looks like 12 per cent. He will say that is pretty high but that he needed the money and that maybe it was worth 12 per cent to get the money.
The catch is, of course, that it is not 12 per cent. It is not even double 12 per cent, or 24 per cent. It is more than double the 12 per cent that on its face it appears to be. The explanation is perfectly simple. Actually he only had the use of $1,200 for one month. At the end of the first month he repays $100 and at the end of the second month another $100, at which time he only has the use of $1,000. So it goes down the line until he gets down to the last month when he only has the use of $100 for the final month but pays exactly the same amount of interest. No, I did not say the same rate. He pays the same amount of interest each month but in each month on a different and decreasing amount of money. Therefore, it does take something of an arithmetician to sit down and calculate exactly the rate of interest he has paid.
Personally, I have had complaints about these things. People get into these jams and
ftlr. Knight.]
they come to me or to some other member of parliament and talk about their troubles. I have had these complaints and people have said to me that they never realized they were getting themselves into anything like that. You see, they had read an advertisement saying something like "just come to us and end your money troubles." A so-and-so loan "ended my worries." Look at how this man's worries were ended. He had been paying $60 or $65 a month on furniture or something else and discovered he could not do it. So he went to the loan company and he says, "You know what they did for me? Not only did they lessen the amount I had to pay back each month but they actually gave me some more money to take home with me." They lowered the amount he had to pay each month and he was a happy man. Of course, the thing that he neglected was that his troubles were not ended but were just beginning because he had contracted to double the time of his contract and repay a somewhat smaller amount per month than he had been paying.
For that reason and for the other reasons I have stated, I think that the government would be justified in passing a bill of this sort. Here is a class of people who in the first place are perhaps somewhat underprivileged. They are a class of people who need protection, and I think something should be done because there is no doubt that these people are being victimized. It is the type of people who want very small loans who are the worst victimized.
Even under the new government legislation, Bill 51, which I welcome, the interest rate on such small loans is untouched. It is still legal to charge a rate of 2 per cent per month. On loans between $300 and $500 the situation is not much better. It is true that the rate is perhaps something like 2 per cent per annum less but actually there is not much difference in the case of loans under $500. The situation is still pretty bad. These companies claim they have to have that amount of interest on account of their losses, and so on. That has been said before but I do not think they can justifiy their position on that basis because their actual losses are very small.
I ask this simple question. Why do these companies not disclose the actual interest rate in their advertisements? Is it because they fear that if the actual rate in percent per annum were disclosed the public would shy away from them and that would be detrimental to their profits? I ask a further question. Is it honest to conceal the rate? The purpose of the bill is to have the cost of the loan to the customer stated in the advertisements in terms of per cent per annum.

When a man can see that there will be some excuse then for saying caveat emptor, let the buyer beware, because what it is going to cost him over the period that he is using the amount he borrows will be printed plainly in front of him.
I would plead with the government to take action. I do not expect any particular action at this moment but I think this is a matter that does deserve consideration along with what has already been done by Bill 51 in making some small reduction in the interest rate.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give a certain amount of qualified moral support-


An hon. Member:: Be careful now.


Elmore Philpott: -to the hon. member for Saskatoon. Let me say at the outset that I agree entirely with his main point. I definitely think that in all advertisements of small loan companies and similar institutions which are directly or indirectly in the business of lending money the effective rate of interest should be plainly stated in the advertisement. I think if we were to do the one thing with respect to our small loan legislation that would probably be of the most benefit to the public we could not do anything better than to stipulate that one simple thing and to say that everybody who lends money must state in his advertisements the actual rate of interest which he charges. When Bill 51 goes before the banking and commerce committee and we have competent witnesses before us who can give us evidence on the matter I certainly hope that we will have evidence on this particular question.
But I should like to submit in all earnestness to my hon. friend opposite that the method of getting this thing applied may not be quite so simple as he seems to think. I suggest that this whole question of small loans is tied up with a vast amount of the business life of Canada. For instance, where are you going to draw the line between small loans actually made by lending institutions and loans made indirectly by furniture companies, electrical companies, automobile companies, and all the rest?
Earlier this year we heard the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) give some examples of what he thought were exorbitant interest charges. In doing so he did not refer at all to the small loan companies but referred to Simpson's, Eaton's and some of the other big mail order companies in this country. I should like to submit that if we want to even bring into the discussion the charges made by these admirable institutions, who have such a wide measure of support in
Small Loans Act
the house, some of the charges made by credit unions would not compare any too favourably with the charges made by some of these small loan companies.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is none over 12 per cent.


Elmore Philpott: I can remember going to the old Toronto Globe as a very young working newspaperman some 30 years ago when they had a kind of benefit society which we would now call a credit union and which they probably now call a credit union. The society used to make loans against our pay on a shortterm basis. Had the law been in effect which my friend the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) wants and which I agree with him we should have in Canada, and had we been forced to advertise the actual rate of interest charged, that would have been an exorbitant rate of interest indeed. A little earlier in my life I remember having a job for nearly two years and having some 20 salesmen under me selling electrical appliances. In the thousands of cases where we sold electrical appliances and in the years I was with that particular company, which was a very fine company, I had only one salesman ever tell me that any one of his customers ever sat down with pencil and paper and did all the intricate figuring that would be necessary to prove exactly what effective rate of interest she was paying per year. But when I listen to some of the remarks we have heard in this house this year, I wonder whether there is not another side of the story. For instance, we have been told about the poor borrower of money, about how he is getting soaked, and about how he is paying far more in the rate of interest than he deserves to pay. I do not know whether the hon. gentlemen opposite always listen to the same radio broadcasts to which I listen, but coming over the radio I hear "SomethingSomething Jewellers, nothing down"-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Credit Jewellers.


Elmore Philpott: -four years to pay". But when you go in to check up the price, you find that they are paying exactly the same price for the product as is the poor deluded creature who goes in and pays cash. I sometimes think that the forgotten citizen of Canada is the good old citizen, raised on the principles of Scots thrift, who believed that it was a sin to go into debt, that you must pay cash on the line for everything you bought. I sometimes think that our great merchandiser Timothy Eaton, who founded a great business on the principle of paying cash and paying less, must be turning over in his grave if he knows that people are going up and down the streets in the suburbs of

Small Loans Act
Toronto, knocking on the doors and asking people to open charge accounts and to go more into debt every month. So I say let us remember that there are two sides to this story, even on the question of these credits and on the question of debts.
I for one hope that when we get this Bill No. 51 into the banking and commerce committee we can have competent witnesses there first of all to show us how much the effective interest rate is and, second, to show us whether or not this advertising which is being used in showing the amount of repayment per month is deceptive. I submit that this is a big and complicated question, intertwined and involved with all the question of merchandising and time payments in Canada over which this federal parliament has little if any control. I submit that you might be putting our whole small debt legislation in jeopardy if you were to take an unwise step which would be held to be invalid.


Hazen Robert Argue: Are you for or against the bill?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest and pleasure to the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) because I observe that he discussed this problem and the men who carry on the business on the basis that they were honourable men carrying on a business which is under supervision and which honourable and decent men could carry on. It seems to me that the idea he has in this measure is sound and that no fair-minded man should object to it. 1 will therefore vote for the measure. I am impressed, however, by the difficulty which has been outlined by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott). I think there will be difficulties. However, I shall not spend time in discussing them now because I think we can do that to much better advantage before the banking and commerce committee. But when we are considering this measure I suggest that we do not overlook the fact that the problem is perhaps not as easy to solve as it appears to be on the surface.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of this bill has indicated, we have had several debates recently in the broad field related to small loans legislation. This is a fairly recent proposed amendment. It was introduced after the Easter recess. I was much interested to hear the sponsor say that, having regard to the fact that a government bill had received second reading by this house this session and was soon to receive the attention of the
[Mr. Philpott.l
banking and commerce committee, he surmised it might be appropriate not to press this particular legislation at this time prior to the intensive type of review that all hon. members know is available when a bill is referred to a parliamentary committee.
As I have said before in discussing this subject in a broad way, this legislation in this small-loan field is of relatively recent origin. It had its beginning as a result of activities in parliamentary committees which examined private bills in the first instance seeking incorporation for small loan companies. From those discussions it finally appeared to be desirable to attempt to legislate in this field under the authority of the section in the British North America Act which gives the federal parliament certain rights with respect to the subject of interest. Early in these parliamentary inquiries, not only to the parliamentarians who were giving this subject attention but to the officials in the department of insurance to whom the administration of any of our legislation was likely to be referred, it became evident that very possibly there could be a legal difficulty owing to the possibility of a rather thin legal line between the rights of the provinces under section 92 of the British North America Act and any rights that were extended to the federal parliament on the subject only of interest. Very early in these discussions the superintendent of insurance was sufficiently impressed with this factor that, in his annual report, he commented upon this matter of legal jurisdiction. I refer to appendix B to his 1936 report on small loan companies, page 117. There the superintendent of insurance, who at that time was Mr. Finlayson, had this to say:
It will be apparent from the foregoing that there may be question as to the relative jurisdictions of parliament and the provincial legislatures in regulating the total charges for loans of money to borrowers. Section 91 of the British North America Act assigns "Interest" to the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, but there is nothing in that act to say what charges, other than interest so-called, are to be regarded as interest in disguise. Section 92 of that act assigns to the exclusive legislative authority of the legislatures of the provinces "property and civil rights in the province" and it is conceivable that the regulation of some class or classes of charges in connection with loans of money may fall within that heading.
I am referring to this matter in order to show that, even with respect to any imposition of a cost or charge to a prospective borrower, there was some considerable uncertainty as to whether or not all costs could be placed within the definition of interest. My hon. friend, in the legislation he proposes, would go further than that and, under the guise of dealing with the subject

of interest, suggests that it is appropriate for this legislature to pass a law respecting the field of advertising.
My hon. friend has referred to advertising in some other lines of business. In doing so, he was referring to the general question of caveat emptor. He said that laws have been passed dealing with advertising in the field of dispensing liquor. He indicated that there were certain fair trade laws under which misrepresentation or anything misleading in the field of ordinary merchandising was prohibited. He referred to certain laws with respect to the driving of cars and other things. I point out to my hon. friend that in every instance to which he referred with respect to existing laws relating to advertising, those laws were passed within the federal system, operating in this country, by provincial legislatures under the general jurisdiction of the provinces for legislating in the field of property and civil rights.
This question, as I say, has been constantly in the mind of anyone who has been giving careful consideration to the small-loan field. The superintendent of insurance, both the gentleman I quoted, Mr. Finlayson, and later the present superintendent of insurance, Mr. MacGregor, after consultation with the Department of Justice, have expressed some doubts as to whether or not it would be proper for this parliament to legislate with respect to the style of advertising permitted in the small-loan field. When they considered this problem, of course, they have always pointed out that while it is open for the Department of Justice to give an opinion and it is open for the superintendent of insurance to act upon that opinion in the advice he gives to the government with respect to the sponsorship of any government legislation, the final decision on the legality or otherwise of action of this kind would have to be made by the courts.
I have pointed out that there was some doubt in the late thirties as to how far in the legislative authority over interest it was possible to go and define interest as inclusive of all forms of charges on borrowing. The house is aware that subsequently the legislation in the small-loan field has been tested in the courts with respect to this matter of all charges. It was established that mortgage costs, legal costs and anything else associated with these loans were properly to be considered as in the federal jurisdiction as something in the nature of interest in the borrowing of money. But I would suggest to the house that we are going to have an excellent opportunity to examine something that was
Small Loans Act
not examined as carefully as it might have been in the late thirties, namely, regulations respecting advertising. I am quite sure the banking and commerce committee would be able to call as witnesses officials of the Department of Justice. Of course, an essential witness in any committee meeting considering the Small Loans Act will be the superintendent of insurance. I think hon. members will have an opportunity of forming an opinion as to whether or not we are going a step farther than the courts might support if we were to accept the legislative proposal advanced by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight). If this parliament goes farther than the courts will uphold, then of course the danger is that the base legislation, as worth-while as the Small Loans Act has proven to be, might as a whole, be termed ultra vires and we would not have legislation at all.
My hon. friend has referred to certain types of advertising that have been made by companies operating in this field.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Might I ask my hon. friend one question. Does he remember the action that was taken here under federal jurisdiction in regard to the striped packages for bacon, and the prohibition put upon the people in the bacon trade?


William Moore Benidickson: But that was with respect to a special statute on the marking of goods under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. That is something my hon. friend will have every opportunity of examining the deputy minister of justice upon.
Now, falling short of placing on the statute something that might weaken the act itself and the whole basis of our legislative action, the superintendent of insurance has from the very beginning of the administration of this act gone as far as he thought he could go in the matter of advertising. I see I have not the time to give the full details of his memorandum to small loan companies to the house, but I could quickly give the reference to it and the hon. members will be able to look it up for themselves. I refer to the introduction to the 1940 report on small loan companies at page 11. There is a memorandum there indicating the direction, which is of long standing, from the superintendent of insurance to the people in this field and it says what would be and what would not be regarded by him as offensive in this field.
On motion of Mr. Benidickson the debate was adjourned.
3922	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION



CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the constitution of a corporation to be known as Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation for the purposes, amongst others, of constructing, maintaining and operating a natural gas pipe line between the Ontario-Manitoba border and Kapuskasing, Ontario, and of leasing with an option to purchase such natural gas pipe line to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and carrying out such leases, including the disposal by the corporation of such pipe line in connection with such purchase option, and to provide that the Minister of Finance may lend money to the corporation for such purposes.
To provide also that the corporation may, on behalf of Her Majesty, out of moneys advanced by the Minister of Finance, make short term loans to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited for the construction of a natural gas pipe line from a point on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border to the vicinity of Winnipeg, such loans not to exceed in the aggregate eighty million dollars or ninety per cent of the cost of construction of the said pipe line, whichever is the lesser, and to be made upon such terms, conditions and security as approved by the governor in council.
To provide also that the corporation may do such things as are conducive to the attainment of the foregoing purposes, and that in the event of default of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in carrying out any agreement for the foregoing purposes the corporation may take possession and control of any or all assets, rights and undertakings of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and conduct the business and operations of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited with respect to such assets, rights and undertakings, and that if such default should occur prior to completion of the pipe line mentioned in the last preceding paragraph hereof the corporation may complete its construction and manage and operate it and that it may, out of moneys advanced by the Minister of Finance acquire shares of the capital stock of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
To provide that the aggregate outstanding at any time of the amounts authorized by the measure to be advanced for the foregoing purposes by the Minister of Finance to the corporation together with the loans authorized to be made by the Minister of Finance to the corporation shall not exceed one hundred and thirty million dollars.
And to provide further for the appointment and remuneration of directors, officers and employees necessary for the administration of the act.
William Alfred Robinson: It being six o'clock, I do leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock. Miss Aitken: Mr. Chairman, the first few words of the resolution before us read, "Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a
rMr. Benidickson.j
[Stage Direction]
measure;" -resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure that will enable the government to use the taxpayers' money to build parts of a trans-Canada pipe line 83-4 per cent of the control of which will be in the hands of United States interests.
To be expedient, according to the dictionary, is to be suitable, fitting or convenient. We in this party do not consider it suitable, fitting or convenient to surrender our economic independence to a foreign country no matter how friendly that country may be. We do not consider it suitable, fitting or convenient that our business or the future of our national resources should be dependent on such foreign bodies as the federal power commission. We do not believe there is anything expedient in this resolution. I think the best description has been given by the Toronto Star which referred to it as a Canadian tragedy.
I wish to read the last paragraph from an article which appeared in the Toronto Star on March 17:
The Trans-Canada deal is so bad that it deserves to be laughed out of parliament. But with the government standing pat, and the Liberal majority evidently ready to fall into line, it is no laughing matter. The stage is being set for a Canadian tragedy.
This is what might be called the third plan for an all-Canadian pipe line. I call it a plan rather than a policy because the government does not appear to have any policy, even today, five years after the first plan emerged.
What is the government's policy in building an all-Canadian pipe line? First, the Minister of Trade and Commerce selected Trans-Canada as the chosen one, the white-haired boy. Trans-Canada sold itself on the basis of its ability not only to finance and build the pipe line but to operate it without financial assistance from the government. Then it became obvious that Trans-Canada could not finance and build the line without financial assistance. Not only does this company need help to build the uneconomical part of the line, but Trans-Canada cannot even build the easiest part of the line from Alberta to Manitoba without help.
During the five years we have waited for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to get going on the pipe line, several suggestions have been bandied around in parliament and in the press. The first of these is that the government might guarantee Trans-Canada bonds. There were hints that the minister liked that idea but that some of his colleagues did not like it. Then another idea emerged, that Trans-Canada should borrow from the international development bank. Nothing came of that idea. Now, finally, there is
[Stage Direction]
this resolution, that the government will build parts of the pipe line, the most difficult part and the easiest part, and Trans-Canada will lease-purchase the government-owned parts and eventually own them.
Where does that leave us? According to a well-known Canadian oil expert whose name has been mentioned several times today in this house, Frank McMahon, it leaves us with a pipe line subsidized by Canadian public funds and controlled by United States financial interests. The chief concern of those interests will be to sell gas as cheaply as possible in the United States. It is a government sell-out of Canadian resources to powerful United States interests.
Yesterday the minister accused the opposition of scaring the goose that lays the golden eggs. Well, Mr. Chairman, we in this party are only too happy to sell the golden eggs. But I believe the government is not killing the goose that lays the golden eggs; instead it is putting it on a silver platter and handing it to the United States.
William Earl Rowe: And they are not even getting the platter back.


Miss   Ailken@: Let us look at the bewildering facts. Five years ago this house was asked to grant a charter to Trans-Canada to build an all-Canadian pipe line. Parliament was given assurance by the officials of the company that the undertaking could be achieved without government assistance. A representative of Trans-Canada appeared before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to say that this project, and I quote, "would be entirely economic and go along by itself". And so, in 1951, the parliament of Canada gave Trans-Canada the franchise to build an all-Canadian pipe line on the company's own assurance that it would be entirely economic and would go along by itself.
A moment ago I suggested that we look at the bewildering facts; today we must look upon them not as facts but as fiction. Today, without any detailed facts, with no clear explanations, we can only assume that this project, so economically sound in 1951, is no longer entirely economic, nor can it go along by itself.
If Trans-Canada cannot fulfil its undertaking, why does it still have the exclusive franchise to build the pipe line? Why were Canadian companies not encouraged to finance it? The government has given us no evidence that this project cannot be financed in Canada and nothing will convince me there are not a good many Canadians who would be only too happy to take on such an attractive project, one part entirely financed
15, 1956	3923
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation by the government and the other part 90 per cent financed by the government.	*
One has only to look at the entire pipe line business during the past eight years to feel confident a trans-Canada pipe line could be financed by Canadian enterprise. Millions of dollars have been spent in building pipe lines in Canada and handsome profits have been made by all concerned-builders, investors and operators. The government ignores these basic facts which are not fiction.
I believe there is an overwhelming national opposition to this plan whereby foreign industry grows fat at our expense. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is showing complete contempt for that national opposition just as he is showing contempt for parliament in introducing closure. But I believe that better men than he have seen the wisdom of changing their minds. Indeed, one of the most interesting examples of this sort of thing-not a man but a newspaper in this case-occurred recently when a newspaper changed its mind, therefore showing bigness. The newspaper in question was the Calgary Herald, which was mentioned earlier today.
Last month the Herald reversed its previous editorial stand declaring that this may yet be one of the most important issues of our generation. In explaining its reversal, the Herald admitted that nationalist sentiment is more important than pure economics. The Minister of Trade and Commerce obviously has no intention of changing his mind nor has he any intention of listening to the voice of parliament.


An hon. Member:: He changed it last year.


Margaret Aitken: The guillotine has been introduced. Earlier today I detected something of a sensitivity in the back benches of the Liberal party when they were being called trained seals. I am not going to call them trained seals because I think it is an extremely sad state of affairs that there is no opposition in the government ranks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: The only divided party is the Tory party.


Margaret Aitken: There are no trained seals over here. What has happened to the great Liberal party of yesterday?


An hon. Member:: It is united.


Margaret Aitken: Surely there must be at least a baker's dozen in that vast Liberal majority who have the courage to speak up for the future of Canada.


George Harris Hees: No, not one. They are all dead; all gone. Pouliot has gone.
3924	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Miss   Aiiken@: Surely there must be ten men, five men, or even one man with the intestinal fortitude to say, "No, C. D. Howe".


Douglas Scott Harkness: You would think so but it just is not so.


Miss   Aiiken@: I find it sad that today this great Liberal party of yesterday is nothing more than a caricature of Hollywood yes men. What has happened to the Liberal breed that it has degenerated into rubber stamps?


Marie Ann Shipley: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. This afternoon I was refused the privilege of commenting on similar remarks which had been made by members of the opposition. I submit that hon. members of the opposition should not be permitted to continue in that same vein if we are not to be permitted to refute such comments.


Miss   Aiiken@: Mr. Chairman, I can say in all truth, in sorrow more than in anger, that it is a sad thing for Canada that no man in this Liberal government today will show the vision and courage and faith of his forefathers. With this resolution before us today we have indeed come a far way from the vision and courage of our forefathers. In his history of Canada Stephen Leacock called the building of the C.P.R. one of the greatest triumphs of our history. Today the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is telling us that it is expedient to bring about one of the greatest disasters of our history.
Our leaders of the 19th century had the courage of their vision. They began building a trans-Canada railway when there were only 24,000 people in British Columbia. Winnipeg was a town of less than 8,000 inhabitants. Regina was what the Indians called a pile of bones. Calgary was not even on the map. Despite those handicaps of geography and population we built that trans-Canada railway. We invited foreign investors to help us. We welcomed their help and we gave them profits. But we made sure that control of the railway stayed in Canada. We invite foreign investors to help us build a pipe line. We will welcome their money and we will make profits for them, but let us make sure that control of that pipe line stays in Canada.
If this resolution goes through, I should change that and say when this resolution goes through, or when this resolution is forced through, we will have a pipe line it is true, or at least we will have part of a pipe line. The only thing Canadian about this pipe line will be its geographical location. Public funds are to be used to ensure private profits for foreign investors. Public funds are to be used to ensure that United States consumers
fMr. Hees.]

get Canadian gas through an all-Canadian pipe line cheaper than Canadians can get it.
I do not believe that any other country in the world would put itself in such a position, not even a country less richly endowed than Canada. For instance, in India back in 1948 Mr. Nehru saw the danger of economic domination from outside and he issued this warning:
We would rather delay our development, industrial or otherwise, than submit to any kind of economic domination of any country. This is an axiom which is accepted by everyone in India.
We believe that the time has come for Canadians to assert authority over their own resources. No longer should we stand by and watch foreign industry control our resources. Presumably the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, and indeed I imagine the entire government, must be aware of the widespread resentment against United States capital dominating our pipe line while public capital takes all the risk. I do not believe that any Canadian government, or perhaps any government, has ever subsidized private enterprise in this way. No Canadian government, in fact no government anywhere has subsidized private foreign enterprise in this way. Whoever described this plan as one of the most bungled government transactions in Canadian history spoke truly.
The minister has said more than once that he is assured by Trans-Canada that more than half the common stock of the company will be made available to Canadian investors if they care to subscribe to it. That brings us to the question which has been brought up here more than once. Is the right hon. minister talking about a Pickersgill Canadian, someone born in Canada, or is he talking about someone who has a postal address in Canada? Is that a Canadian? If so, then the wholly-owned United States subsidiaries in the pipe line scheme are Canadians.
What we are facing today is not merely the building of a pipe line; we are at the crossroads in Canada's future. We are being faced with a basic policy which the Liberal party is trying to ram down Canadian throats. That policy can be summed up in five words: United States first, Canada second.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the hon. lady a question.


William Alfred Robinson: May I point out that the termination of this debate is fixed and I think it might be preferable to refrain from interrupting.


John Lorne MacDougall: Mr. Chairman, I rise in this debate to speak as a Canadian who comes from a province which will be neither a buyer nor a seller of any of the gas that will go

through Trans-Canada's pipe line. I believe it is my duty as a Canadian to rise on this occasion because I have no axe to grind in any way whatsoever.


An hon. Member:: You made a good messenger boy for the last day or two.


An hon. Member:: What about that political axe?


John Lorne MacDougall: I think I have been quiet when some of the opposition members have spoken but, as far as I personally am concerned, I do not care if they howl their heads off. They can call me all the trained seals they like, stool pigeons, and what have you, and it makes no difference whatsoever to me. I have listened for a long time to certain members of the opposition party-not all- crying blue ruin and damning the government because of the fact that the government attempts to run parliament. I am welcoming this action by the government in finally taking the bit in its teeth and determining to run parliament.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You mean "run over
parliament."


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is a witticism for you.


John Lorne MacDougall: I have heard some good speeches from some members in the opposition, but I listened to a magnificent speech from the gas expert for the Tory party. I never thought I would see the day however when my learned friend from Vancouver-Quadra woud get up and attempt to prevent free speech in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word. The hon. member will realize that again this evening we shall see opportunities to interfere with an hon. member's speech if the debate should get out of hand, and I feel I should rise immediately to ask him to co-operate with me by revising those words he has just uttered with regard to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, who is not in the house tonight.


An hon. Member:: Yes, he is.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, you were not in the chair this afternoon when this incident arose. I pointed out to the chairman at that time that he had the name of the hon. member for York-Humber as our next speaker on the list, and he finally admitted that the hon. member for Calgary South was being put on in place of a Liberal member.


William Alfred Robinson: I do not think I should
allow a repetition of an occurrence which took place this afternoon. As soon as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard uttered
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation words which I thought would be objectionable under our rules, and not seeing the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in the house, I immediately rose to my feet with the intention of asking the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard to withdraw those words. I am sure he will be happy to do so.


John Lorne MacDougall: Mr. Chairman, what
words do you wish me to withdraw?


William Alfred Robinson: I must ask the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard to withdraw the words that another member attempted to prevent free speech in this house.


John Lorne MacDougall: I am very glad to comply, because the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and I have been friends for a long time. I do not think that there is any invidious meaning. I said that I never thought that a Tory member would do anything like that.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


John Lorne MacDougall: I withdraw.


William Alfred Robinson: I do not think any member could ever have received a more spontaneous withdrawal.


John Lorne MacDougall: The hon. gentlemen on my left would prefer that I crawl back into my hole, but I am not prepared at this time to do that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Your party has just withdrawn free speech from the whole parliament.


John Lorne MacDougall: May I be allowed to
go on?


An hon. Member:: Go on.


An hon. Member:: Have you anything to
say?


John Lorne MacDougall: More than my hon. friends to the rear. Prior to the introduction of this resolution that is now before the house, I have witnessed possibly some of the most absurd attacks upon our Prime Minister and two or three of our ministers that I have ever heard in the years I have been here.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Why does he not answer for
himself?


John Lorne MacDougall: As far as I am concerned, I am 100 per cent in favour of the closure that was invoked by the administration. Now, if I am not completely drowned out by the magpies around me, I would like-


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


John Lorne MacDougall: -to point out a few salient facts with respect to the addresses that have been delivered by my good friends, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.
3926	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation I was stumped, and I am sure all members of the house were stumped, in trying to find exactly what policy, if any, the Leader of the Opposition had in mind on the various occasions when he addressed this house.


An hon. Member:: He never had any.


John Lorne MacDougall: It is quite evident, according to their tenets of faith, that the socialist party stands for public ownership. I can quite understand their attitude and the attitude of their leader on that occasion. But if the day ever comes-and I hope it will not-when the people of Canada and the government of Canada will of necessity have to take over the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, I can assure this house that they will do a much better job than has been done by so-called crown companies in the province of Saskatchewan. I should like to point out that there have been five crown companies in Saskatchewan that have gone down the drain. There have been more than that, but I am only including five in my remarks tonight. They are the leather products factory, the box factory, the woollen mills, the fish board, and the tannery.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Tell us about the insurance company.


John Lorne MacDougall: I have pointed those out, and I also want to say that it is a most intriguing thing for me that, when the socialist government of Saskatchewan has been asking and receiving foreign aid to come and develop the resources of that province for the past two and a half years to the extent of approximately $50 million a week, some of my socialist friends here from Saskatchewan get up and condemn it. Now that we all recognize, Mr. Chairman, that that great race horse, Citation, is dead, now that we have invoked closure, I am very happy to see that for the duration of this debate citations are also largely dead.
With that idea in mind I should like in the few minutes at my disposal to satirize the situation as far as my good friends of the Tory and C.C.F. parties are concerned. About the most concrete suggestion we have had from the Leader of the Opposition has been that we might consider running the trans-Canada gas line on railway property from Alberta to Quebec. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition has ever considered for a moment how volatile gas is, and how much additional insurance the railroad companies would have to bear if by any chance this suggestion as to the route of the trans-Canada line were ever carried out? So to me it has been most difficult to plot what might be considered a statement


of policy on the basis of any of the utterances of the Leader of the Opposition.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are always a little dull, Jack.


John Lorne MacDougall: I admit it. The only unfortunate part about that interjection on the part of my hon. friend is that he is a great deal duller than I am.


George Harris Hees: Grade 5 humour.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Another Bob Hope.


John Lorne MacDougall: It has been stated that the rules have largely gone by the board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Lorne MacDougall: That condition now being a matter of history, I wonder whether I might be permitted to summarize and satirize the positions of the government and the Tory and C.C.F. parties by naming batteries for these opposing teams in the House of Commons. If that is permissible, Mr. Chairman, for the government side I would announce as pitcher that veteran speedball artist, C. D. Howe, and as catcher-


Donald Methuen Fleming: He is throwing curves.


John Lorne MacDougall: -that pipe line specialist, the Conservative gentleman who sits behind me-Carl Nickle. For the opposition it is a little more difficult to select the battery mates but I cannot help remembering that the other night the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar nearly burst a button-


An hon. Member:: Is that all?


John Lorne MacDougall: -when he rose to speak on the resolution after the Leader of the Opposition. I think his closing word was "buccaneer". Therefore, for the opposition I am naming as pitcher "buccaneer Coldwell" and as catcher "I am working on the railroad Drew". There is a gentleman behind me, Mr. Chairman, who said he would like to play outfield. I should like to play shortstop or second base on the government team because I am quite sure I would be able to put across many double plays.


An hon. Member:: This is a real double cross.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This government is expert in double plays already.


An hon. Member:: Double shuffles.


John Lorne MacDougall: Mr. Chairman, as I said when I rose, I am not going to go into the intricacies of gas distribution in Canada.


An hon. Member:: You have not.


John Lorne MacDougall: I profess to know very little about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Lorne MacDougall: I wish that some of the gentlemen to my left were as honest as I in that admission.


John Horace Dickey: They prefer to prove it to everybody else.


John Lorne MacDougall: You know, it is a very nice thing to have friends in all parties, and when one does not indulge in smears I do not think it is a very difficult thing to do. I speak as a Liberal who has no axe to grind, political or otherwise, with respect to the pipe line. The Leader of the Opposition suggested yesterday that he would like to hear a Canadian speak on this matter. I think that without exception we are all Canadians but I happen to fall into a different category. I am what might be termed a neutral Canadian as far as the trans-Canada gas line is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Lorne MacDougall: I am neutral in this respect, that as far as my own province and city are concerned if and when we get natural gas in Vancouver and the province we will get it through the medium of the Westcoast Transmission line. Further than that, I believe it is well that a so-called neutral viewpoint on this question should be expressed. Originally I was raised on the prairies in the province of Saskatchewan, and I want to tell you without fear or favour that the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba are crying today for the admission of natural gas from the province of Alberta. There used to be an old saying in our schoolboy days-


An hon. Member:: Time.


John Lorne MacDougall: -that trade follows the flag. I did not call time on you, Doug.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not say a word, not a word.


William Alfred Robinson: It is my duty to call time and advise the hon. member that his time has expired. .


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there comes from our province of Manitoba a Liberal who is in the cabinet. He is a gentleman who sometimes, whether he likes or not, blurts out the truth. He did that yesterday noon, according to this evening's edition of the Ottawa Citizen-


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: He always tells the truth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -when he was speaking to 180 high school students taking part in an adventure in citizenship. The press report tells us that he told them that democratic government is still on thin ice.
15, 1956	3927
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That same minister came back to the house yesterday afternoon and saw his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, endeavour to push democracy through that thin ice. The Minister of Justice also stated at that meeting yesterday:
One of the possibilities which make our times so interesting and fateful is whether this great innovation will survive and expand or fall back into thousands of years of bondage.


Some hon. Members:: Boo, boo!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the use by the Minister of Justice of that word "bondage" made me wonder whether he is aware of the famous words attributed to John Pym who said this centuries ago:
Parliaments without parliamentary liberty are but a fair and plausible way into bondage. Freedom of debate being once foreclosed, the essence of the liberty of parliament is withal dissolved.
That is what this government is seeking to do, Mr. Chairman, under the alleged excuse of necessity. What is that necessity? That necessity arises from the fact, so far as the government is concerned, that it has already signed a contract with a private company. The make-up of that private company has already been described in full. In that agreement this government has virtually pledged that parliament will get this measure through in time for the required amount of money to be turned over to this private company by June 7. In other words, Mr. Chairman, this free and independent parliament of a sovereign nation is bound by a commitment that the government of this country has made to a private company.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is because of that commitment that the government has made that we are now under not the threat but the fact of closure. I remind hon. members of what my leader drew to their attention last night when he indicated that Mr. King in 1932 had certain fairly strong words to say about closure when it was put in effect after a debate had been going on for a month. In this instance closure is announced the very first day on which the debate is in progress. As recorded at page 1626 of Hansard of 1932 Mr. King said this:
They have used the weapon of closure twice in the course of a short debate-
I do not know how many times we shall get it in this still shorter debate.
-in order to end all discussion and debate on the most important question which has engaged the attention of parliament since this ministry was formed.
3928	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
I should like hon. members to note the next sentence Mr. King used on that occasion:
If ever in this world there was evidence of an autocratic power used to the 'nth degree, we have it in what we are witnessing at the present time.
If there is anything in spirits and ghosts walking this earth after a man like Mr. Mackenzie King has passed on, I am sure his ghost must be haunting every cabinet minister every night during the course of this debate.
Necessity they say; necessity arising from the commitment that this government has made to a private company. May I remind them of another famous quotation by William Pitt in the debate on the India bill in 1783 when he said this:
Necessity is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes that are at my disposal may I come to the issue that is before us at this present time, namely the issue of the across-Canada gas pipe line. As a Canadian, Mr. Chairman, I am intensely interested in this great national project of an across-Canada natural gas pipe line so as to make available to other areas in Canada this economic fuel of which there is such a tremendous abundance in the province of Alberta. Further, Mr. Chairman, as a Canadian from the city of Winnipeg I am particularly interested in the immediate building of a pipe line across the prairies so that, without further delay, this economic fuel might be available at cost of production and distribution to the people of that city as well as the people of other cities and towns in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
We in the city of Winnipeg have learned that there are times when you must look at certain propositions a second time. We recall to our sorrow what our city fathers, the city council of Winnipeg, did in the year 1881. It is familiar to all of us in Winnipeg but I happen to know something about it because, when I was on the city council myself in the early part of the 1940's, we took the first steps to try to do something about the mistake the city council had made in 1881. What was that mistake? In order to get the Canadian Pacific Railway to build its main yards, so far as Manitoba was concerned, in the city of Winnipeg it passed a by-law in 1881 and made an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway


Some hon. Members:: This is the pipe line.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -which made that railway free and exempt from all municipal taxes, rates, levies and assessments of every nature


and kind. For how long? For ever. Mr. Chairman, the city of Winnipeg has since tried to find whether there was not some way to change that arrangement, which has cost us many millions of dollars. The matter went through all the courts of this country, to the Supreme Court of Canada and to the privy council but it has been ruled that that bad deal which the city council of Winnipeg made in 1881 binds us in Winnipeg in perpetuity, for all time, for ever-and then some.
Mr. Chairman, it is because of our experience with bad deals like that, that we in Winnipeg-much as we want gas from Alberta in our city as soon as possible-realize that we must take a second look at any proposition that is presented to us, particularly when it is presented to us by the present Liberal government. When we look at this present proposition, what do we find? Do we find that it is in the main a way of getting gas to the cities and towns of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and eventually into Ontario and Quebec as well? No; we do not. We find that this is a proposition to aid Tennessee Gas and its associates in its gamble, its effort to try to break into a lucrative, profitable American market. That company knows that if it could get cheap gas from the inexhaustible supplies in Alberta and get that gas into the central and mid-western American market, it could compete with the other companies that are distributing gas in that area and make huge profits. That company has found that it cannot get a permit from the federal power commission to import gas into the United States. That company has the notion that, if it had the line built from Alberta down to Emerson, its case for getting a permit to import gas into the United States might be that much better. But despite the fact that the company believes that its case might be that much better, it has not been able to persuade private investors that it is a gamble worth putting private money into. People with private money are afraid that the federal power commission's permission will not be given and so it would be money put into a white elephant. So this same Tennessee Gas company comes along and asks the people of Canada not only to let it have Alberta gas as a pawn in its competitive game but asks the taxpayers of Canada to put up $72 million or $80 million-actually up to $200 million-to enable them to get into a position to strengthen their case in applying for a permit from the federal power commission.
Mr. Chairman, this parliament of Canada is being asked by this bill to put Canadian gas and Canadian taxpayers' money on the

chess board as a pawn in the game of a group of private financiers who are not interested in getting gas into the towns of Saskatchewan or Manitoba and who are not interested in getting gas into Ontario or Quebec. They are interested only in the profit they might make out of our gas and our taxpayers' money. That is the reason that we in Winnipeg, with the experiences we have had in the past, anxious as we are to have a pipe line built-and perhaps we are more anxious than anybody else because of where we are situated with respect to the line that is supposed to be built this summer; indeed it was promised for last summer -despite our anxiety we realize that this is a bad deal and that we should demand something better.
But, Mr. Chairman, we do not believe that it is necessary .to wait for something better. We believe that a better way can be entered upon this summer just as readily as can this plan which is proposed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We say that this plan which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is trying to bulldoze through this parliament is one that is almost sure to fail. He practically admitted that himself in his speech yesterday. He referred time and time again to what would happen if the company were to fail, and talked in terms of the government taking over as if it were almost a certainty that was what would happen. If the plan succeeds we will be at the mercy, in Canada, of a private monopoly controlled by financiers mainly foreign, and a monopoly that will not be interested in getting gas to the consumers of this country at a reasonable price. They will be interested only in the profit they can make out of the project and our consumers will be charged the limit. If they fail, the project will end up under public ownership. Someone says, is that not what you want? Why do you not go along with this plan and get public ownership that way? We want public ownership, but we want' to come at it directly and honestly, not indirectly and dishonestly.
Furthermore, we know from our history and experience in this country that when the government takes over an outfit that has defaulted and become bankrupt, far too often there are financial arrangements made that set up a capitalization that provides a false picture for years to come and the people really do not get the value out of public ownership which they get when we go in for it first, directly and honestly as we propose. So, Mr. Chairman, we say that the time for action on this question is now, this year, 1956. We are not fooled and the people of Canada are not fooled by the assertion made by the Minister 67509-2491
15, 1956	39291
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of Trade and Commerce that if he does not let this private company do it he cannot get it done until 1958. The minister does not know his own strength, his own power, his own capabilities for organization. This minister organized Trans-Canada Air Lines and the Polymer Corporation at Sarnia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This minister, whom the Liberals are so happy to applaud, knows very well that if he would shake off these shackles that are blinding him to the possibilities of public ownership he could do something for Canada with respect to this great national project that would be a star in his crown far brighter than any of the others that his Liberal colleagues like to boast about when they are singing his praises.
Yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that we could not get going with this proposition unless we put it in the hands of this favoured company, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. I am not sure that it will be done even if we put it' in their hands. We still have not got a clear statement from the minister as to what are the terms of the option this company has on the pipe that is still in the United States. I asked him as recently as 2.30 this afternoon whether he had yet obtained a copy of the option, and the answer was no. Yesterday he told us the option was being altered. Here we are within four hours of a vote forced upon parliament by this dictatorial government and we still do not know who has this pipe or whether the option is any good at all. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask you to note the attempt that the government is making not only to bulldoze us but to force this thing through without our having all the facts that are involved.
I say to t'he minister that if this company is in the position that he says it is to proceed with this project this summer it is only because of the favours the company has received, from this government and the constant extensions it has received from the government and the board of transport commissioners^; it is only in that position because of the loan that is involved in this proposition now before us and of the proposal by the government to build the line through northern Ontario for this private company.
If this company, as I say, is in this favoured position because of what the government has done for it then the government owes it to the people of Canada to take over that company now and start building this project for the people of Canada, a trans-Canada pipe line across western Canada and completed to Winnipeg before this year is out. The Minister of Trade and Commerce
3930	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation made a great many references in his speech yesterday to the question of public ownership. He kept insisting it had been looked at, but so far as he was concerned he could not recommend it to parliament. I noticed, Mr. Chairman, that the minister made it very clear to this house that he knows, he, the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce knows, and said so yesterday afternoon, that public ownership is a better way. Dealing with this proposition yesterday at page 3864 of Hansard for May 14, 1956, the minister said:
I repeat that, short of public ownership, it-
Referring to the plan he is trying to push through parliament.
-goes as far as could reasonably be asked to protect the Canadian interest.
What is that, Mr. Chairman, but an admission by the minister that public ownership goes farther than this present plan in protecting the public interest. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says he knows of many instances of public ownership. Yes, he is responsible for some of them. He is the proud father of some of them. In so far as gas is concerned, he does not know of any. Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce so old that he has lost his pioneering spirit? Is he so lacking in vision in so far as this Canada of ours is concerned that he is not prepared to make the venture into a gas pipe line under public ownership? Knowing some of the things he has done I call him, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as the best witness in this house to the assertion that public ownership is a better way rather than bulldozing this parliament into voting for a proposition that is little more than placing Canadian gas and Canadian money as pawns in the hands of United States financiers.
I call upon him instead to withdraw this proposition. It is not too late yet to withdraw the order that is on the order paper today, No. 17, and to withdraw No. 12 as well. We will do our part in giving unanimous consent to do it. He could then bring in a new proposition to provide for public ownership of this tremendously important national project so the Canadian people may get real value from the gas we have and the labour power we could put into it, so our economy could reap full benefit from such a project. This is an extremely important issue. We are being led down the garden path by a minister who has it in his power to lead us to tremendous advances in our economy. I call upon him tonight to withdraw this motion and bring in one he himself knows would be infinitely better, a motion


putting this whole project under public ownership for the people of Canada.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to take too much time of the house tonight on this subject because I feel it would be advisable to allow as much time and latitude as possible to the perpetrators of the filibuster to have their say, because if we should take a few minutes then they are going to go out in the country and say they were denied any right to speak on this.


Alfred Claude Ellis: What filibuster?


Solon Earl Low: Of course, hon. members who are shouting "What filibuster" have just given us an example of the histrionics of which they are capable on such occasions as these.
To begin with, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the statement he made yesterday. I thought it was straightforward and it was factual. I congratulate the government on bringing in this measure. I want to say right off that we in this corner support it. We will go along with it and we do not intend to contribute in any way to a filibuster on the matter at any stage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Solon Earl Low: I would like to examine for just a few minutes the validity of the position that has been taken by the dog that attempts to wag its Conservative tail, and the tail as well, because I think it is important for us to see what is going on. It must be remembered that both the Conservatives and the C.C.F. served warning before this measure ever came on the floor of the house that they were going to filibuster and completely destroy it if they possibly could. Now, under those circumstances and in the light of the demonstrations which we have had in this house over the past three or four days, let nobody say the Conservatives and the C.C.F. did not bring what has happened upon themselves.
I think, Mr. Chairman, the Conservatives should know better because the Conservatives have not very much of a case. In tribute to the C.C.F. I will have to concede that I think they are quite honest in their proposal concerning nationalization of the pipe line, but the Conservatives are doing nothing but scraping the bottom of the barrel. They are like a cat on a tin roof trying to find some dirt and manufacture for themselves an election issue. They have been so utterly bankrupt of ideas and propositions that they have to grasp at straws. They are trying their level best to make an issue out of this. I am going to tell them this and I am saying it particularly for the benefit of my friend the hon. member for Calgary North who

spoke in this house this afternoon. He will find out what it means to kill or be killed. He killed himself in Alberta and when the next election rolls around he will find out exactly what I mean. The people of Alberta are going to question the position he has taken.


Thomas Miller Bell: What about you in Quebec?


An hon. Member:: Leave Quebec alone.


Solon Earl Low: Let me say that as I listened to the Leader of the Opposition last evening I could not help feeling that the hon. gentleman, much as I respect and admire him personally, was proceeding in his address on the assumption that if he made exaggerated and unfounded statements often enough and loud enough they would eventually become true. I should like it to be known that I like the hon. gentleman and I want him to know that. All throughout his speech he continued repeating time after time statements he could not back up, statements that are completely unfounded and which I think he should be called upon to prove or to keep quiet about.
Now, as far as the C.C.F. is concerned, let me say this. As I said, I think they have honestly put forward their view with respect to nationalization of the pipe line but let me hasten to add I do not think they have a moral right to base a filibuster upon the principle of nationalization and I will tell you why. The C.C.F. have been putting forward this argument and this principle for the last 20-odd years in Canada and in every election campaign nationalization has been one of their major platforms. Election after election the people of Canada have turned down the principle and the proposition overwhelmingly. Under the circumstances I do not attempt to deny them the right to put forward the principle of nationalization of the pipe line here but I do say that morally they do not have the right to base a filibuster on it in an attempt to kill this bill.
One thing which interests me about the C.C.F. argument is the fact that they have closed their eyes to a lot of realities. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who just finished speaking closed his eyes to realities when he said the government could go ahead this year and build a pipe line under government ownership. He knows better than that. The government could not possibly start a pipe line this year and I will tell you why. If the government of Canada were to enter into a nationalization program for the building of a pipe line today it would be up against the problem of getting a supply of gas and I am telling you they would have a very difficult time getting a supply of gas.


Alfred Claude Ellis: So that's it.
15, 1956	3931
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Stanley Howard Knowles: Aren't you a Canadian?


Solon Earl Low: I am a Canadian. I will tell you why the government would have a difficult time obtaining a supply of gas.


An hon. Member:: Talk to the Alberta government.


Solon Earl Low: It is not a question of the Alberta government at all. If we can keep the goon gang quiet for a moment I will continue. I want to tell you briefly why the proposition of nationalization of the pipe line is untenable. I heard mention here today of a similarity between the Ontario hydro and ' a nationalized pipe line. There is no similarity at all. The fact of the matter is that in the case of Ontario hydro you have a government enterprise that manufactures the service and the product it has to sell to the consumer. In the case of a pipe line, if the government were foolish enough to try it, the government would hot own the supply and it would have to make a deal with a dozen private enterprise producers in my province and other provinces in an effort to obtain a supply of gas.
Now, that is not all. If the government were ever foolish enough to attempt to go into the nationalization of a pipe line of this kind it would find itself confronted with the producers on the one hand. The producers are attempting to get a return on the risk capital they have put into the exploratory work to get gas. They want to have a fair return on that gas. All they ask is a fair return and I believe they are entitled to it just as the government of Saskatchewan has already acknowledged that private enterprise developing its oil and gas also wants a fair return. As I said, the government would be between that group and the great group of consumers in eastern Canada. Let us never forget that the producers in Alberta look upon the proposition this way.
The number of consumer voters in Canada would be 50, 60 or 100 times as numerous as the producer voters in this country. Whom are the government going to consider first in any case where it finds itself in a squeeze between the consumers and the producers? The producers of Alberta are quite certain that no government with any sense of reality would put itself between a group of consumers 50 times as numerous as the group of producers and have to make a decision as between the two groups with respect to price.
The producers in Alberta do not want to be in that position. I do not want them to be in that position and the government does not want them to be in that position. For that
3932	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation reason and for many other reasons which I could cite, the people who are producing gas in western Canada today do not want to be in the position of having to sell or of being ordered to sell gas to a nationalized pipe line. Not only that, but the government of Canada does not own any right of way. It would have to get a right of *way and to do so it would have to negotiate in exactly the same way as a private company. It would take a long time. The government would have to secure a licence to export gas out of the province of Alberta. The government would also have to get a lot of other things all of which would take time.
If we should take the principle of nationalization

and God forbid that we ever do

it would probably delay the realization of a pipe line and a market for Alberta gas for a good many years to come. There is urgency, -Mr. Chairman, in securing a market for Alberta gas. Let us see what that means. I wonder if the Conservatives who are playing fast and loose with other people's money today in this filibuster realize-[DOT]


Robert Henry McGregor: Have you gone nuts?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Solon Earl Low: I wonder if they realize that the position they are taking actually means $50,000 a day to the people of Alberta in return for their gas. It does mean $50,000 a day. But that does not phase them a particle. Some of them will stand up and say, "Oh, well, it will not hurt to set this back one, two, three or four years". I want to tell hon. members of this house that there is a real urgency to get a market for Alberta gas and to get it at the earliest possible time.
Not only is it a question of dollars and cents to the actual producers of gas, and there are many hundreds of them in Alberta; it also means that there is waiting today in the province of Alberta a $100 million industrialization expansion program which depends upon the finding of that market for gas. Every day that this filibuster goes on that program is set back and made more difficult of realization. Any time industrialization takes place in the province of Alberta it helps not only the people there but the people of all Canada. We have to look at it in that way.
We have not been wholly satisfied that the government policy has been 100 per cent sound right from the beginning, but we decided at the beginning to go along with it because we felt it was in the interests of Canada to accept that policy and try to work for its realization.


An hon. Member:: How much money is Alberta putting in?


Solon Earl Low: You are forcing us to put in $50,000 a day which is now going up in smoke. Not only that, but there is something else that should be told to this house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Social Credit government held it up for three years.


Solon Earl Low: If you will just dry your tears, sister, I will answer you in a minute. There is a very important matter which I think hon. members should consider. The exploration in future years will be set back materially and perhaps for all time unless we do get busy soon and get a market for Alberta gas. We have something like 16 trillion cubic feet of reserves which we think will supply the needs of Alberta, the needs of the population of eastern Canada and the needs of the United States market if it is realized for some 25 or more years. But if a proper market is found for Alberta gas it is more than likely that further exploration will be stimulated which will result in the extension of those reserves at a rate of not less than one trillion cubic feet a year for the next ten years.
It is important that we get a market as soon as possible in order to realize something like the full potential of that tremendous gas field. We need to be put in a position to be able to export some of our surplus to our neighbour to the south in order to balance up our unfavourable balance of payments which in the current year amounted to one billion and thirty million dollars. That is one argument which we need time to develop and I do not intend to do it tonight. I shall have further comments on another stage of the bill.
Before I close, may I just answer the hon. member for Calgary North. He mentioned the fact that Alberta had been responsible in the initial stages for the delay. I deny that most emphatically. May I tell him that the only delay that ever occurred in the province of Alberta with respect to the export of gas was in those days more than 5i years ago when the province was determining by careful exploration the extent of their reserves. When they knew the extent of those reserves Mr. Manning and his government came out and announced the government's policy and it was followed immediately by an announcement by this government. The hon. member for Calgary North does not know what he is talking about and he will find that out when he gets back home.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, faced with
one of the most important measures ever to come before this house, the Canadian House of Commons has been gagged and fettered in this debate by a despotic government. This

is indeed a black day in Canadian parliamentary history. The government has inflicted lasting humiliation upon parliament.
The moving of closure has been resorted to only half a dozen times since confederation, the last time being 24 years ago on April 1, 1932. At that time a Liberal statesman, the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King, applied these adjectives to closure, which will be found at page 1611 of Hansard of that date:
. . . the most coercive and arbitrary act of which a government is capable . . .
I wonder if the present Prime Minister has forgotten those words. It must be remembered that when closure was applied in 1932 it was after days and days of debate; it came only at the final stage; it came only after the house had gone through various stages of a money bill, in committee, first reading, second reading and then finally in committee on the later sections of the bill. It was only then that closure was applied after weeks of debate.
But here this despotic government announces closure in the opening speech by the minister introducing the resolution in committee. This is a money bill. The amount of money involved in the present bill is $130 million, and the bill before the Canadian parliament in 1932 involved $140 million. Yet the debate on that occasion ran to the final stages. Listen to these words of Mackenzie King:
I submit that the discussion of a matter of such colossal proportions and so all-important to the taxpayers of this country should not be restricted under closure within a day and a half of the time it has been entered upon.
He was speaking only of the final stage.
Action so extreme in character has never been taken by any British government in regard to public taxation. The action of the present administration reduces parliament in its most essential functions to mere futility and complete farce.
What would he have said if the government of that day had imposed closure in the opening speech of the minister introducing the resolution instead of weeks after that stage? We have seen today a gagging and fettering of parliament by the government, aided and abetted by every Liberal member of this house and now supported by the Social Credit. Every Liberal in this house has toed the party line today and this synthetic enthusiasm we have seen on the Liberal benches remains completely unconvincing.
The hon. member for Peace River has made reference to a filibuster. This debate started yesterday and closure was announced before the debate was even begun. Yet we hear talk of a filibuster. Did you ever hear
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation such rubbish as we heard from the member for Peace River tonight? Yesterday that same member was busy disowning the announced alliance in the province of Quebec between the Liberal party and the Social Credit l'union des electeurs. Now we find the same Social Credit leader, not only carrying his followers into the Liberal camp but actually engaging in a warm embrace. Politics indeed makes strange bedfellows. This is an extraordinary alliance between the Liberals and the Social Credit.
In the kind of mentality exhibited by those who have forced closure upon this house today we see an attempt to create a situation in parliament where there is no place for an opposition. They do not want an opposition. Yet I would remind you that the function of an opposition is of the very essence of our parliamentary institution. The minority in the house does not speak by leave of the majority. If that were the case it would be the end of the freedom of speech. No, the minority in a free parliament speaks as of right. What has been done today has been to deprive the minority in this house of their right. When you tamper with that right you are jeopardizing the institutions that have proven themselves the bastions of democratic freedom, and destroying the rights of the minority in the house. This is but a lighthearted assassination of free institutions, and it is perpetrated now by those who call themselves Liberals.
This stratagem was not given birth in any democratic mentality. It is the evil spawn of a fascist mentality. But assassinations always must be performed quickly. It was Macbeth who, on the eve of one assassination, said:
If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly.
That is the mentality of this government. Having decided to perpetrate this assassination of free institutions, they decided that if it were done when it is done, then it were well it were done quickly. That is what their intention is now.
Is time of the essence? Well, they have let five years run by and, if their memories are so short, let me remind them that this house met on January 10 in this session, over four months ago. Even in his first speech of the session, the Leader of the Opposition called for the reference of this subject to a committee, in order that the facts might be laid before the parliament and before the public. This is a deliberate action now. No Cromwell could more swiftly and devastatingly have showed his complete antipathy to parliamentary institutions than the Prime Minister and his government have done here yesterday and today.
3934	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
We hear a great deal about the function of the committee on money bills. It is one of our parliamentary safeguards in relation to one of the most important functions of parliament, to protect the public against oppressive taxation. Yet what do we see here? The house is not given an opportunity to obtain information. This whole proceeding of the resolution before a money bill has been made a farce by this government. Here is a major project, one of the most important ever to come before parliament, involving the expenditure of millions of dollars, and parliament is not to be permitted to pursue its duty to seek information upon it. Information is not what the government wants parliament or the people to have.
If there were a committee, as there should have been, witnesses could have been called before it, papers could have been called for. But the government will not face a committee. They fear to face the revelation of the facts that will be exposed in a committee and they do not want to discuss it according to parliamentary processes. They do not want to produce letters, correspondence and memoranda. The time factor in this debate is entirely of the government's own creation.
We come now to shameful paradox No. 1. The more far-reaching the issue, the less debate is to be permitted by the government upon it. The more important the measure, the less parliament is to be permitted to know about it.
What of this project? Here we are engaged on a measure in relation to the vital subject of development of resources in Canada, the construction of a pipe line across half of this great country from Alberta to the markets in the east and particularly the market in Ontario, by this Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company, over 83 per cent of whose stock is owned by Americans and will remain under United States ownership, make no mistake about that. As. regards this fictitious argument that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has trotted out twice already, that under clause 6 of the agreement there is to be an offering of stock in Canada, I do not think any child is going to be misled by that kind of eyewash. In a public offering in Canada, Americans will have full opportunity to come in and order what stock they want through Canadian brokers.
This company entered into two solemn undertakings at the outset: first, that they could finance this project without government assistance and, second, that they could finance it without gaining the right to export gas to the United States. They have not fulfilled their obligations. They are in default.


This is a continuing default. In the face of this the government has simply temporized. They have dilly-dallied, they have entered into undercover deals, secret negotiations, and the secrecy was carried further by their denials of the existence of correspondence when correspondence was already in existence in their files.
What does this government's proposal amount to? It proposes to use public funds drawn from Canadians in all parts of Canada from British Columbia to the maritimes, and it is going to use that money first of all in constructing at public expense that portion of the line in northern Ontario. Even that portion of the line which should be easiest to build-on the prairies-they are going to use the money of the people of all Canada to build. If this company has any hope of honouring the undertakings into which it entered at the outset, surely it could have financed the construction across the prairies, but the government is coming to its rescue, and the company set up to construct a line through northern Ontario is to be denuded of its capital by this measure in order to finance the construction across the prairies. It is a wild venture on that basis. If the company cannot even finance the construction across the prairies, then I am afraid it is useless for any hon. member to expect this company to be able to finance the repayment of $80 million by April 2 next. It is a wild venture as it stands right now. The house is invited to take a wild leap before looking. There is no assurance of the financing by the company. It would not only be irresponsible on the part of the house, it would be utter madness to take this wild jump. The company is years in default. Has that not registered on hon. members opposite?
So we come to shameful paradox No. 2. The bigger the scale of default, the more aid this government gives. The longer the delay and the longer the continued default on the part of this company, the more benevolence this government is prepared to extend to it at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. We do not believe in policies of that kind, and we shall fight them. This policy on resources, indeed, is in its essence a proposal to put the money of the Canadian taxpayer at the service of United States investors, and I for one do not think that is the right or duty of any member of this Canadian parliament.
There are alternatives. In view of that company's default, why is not the door opened wide to allow others to come in who may be prepared to finance it? There was Mr. McMahon. It would be interesting to know, -and we could find out in a parliamentary committee-just why he was scared off at

some stage. There is the Gairdner proposal. That ought to be given very serious consideration. There may be others available if the government would stop making a political football of this.
We well know the way in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has for a long time now wielded his big stick over business, terrorizing business. If you wonder why more offers have not been forthcoming, you will find the reason in the big stick of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
They have money aplenty to hand over to the assistance of United States investors but they have not money for Canadian municipalities. They have not what is needed to help Canadian municipalities-[DOT]


An hon. Member:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -in the matter of housing and other essential services. Interest rates are going up, and many municipalities are going to find it infinitely more difficult than in the past to finance their essential services. Yet the government can find ample money to assist these United States investors. They are not Canadian philanthropists.
Who is the author of this infamous proposal? I say to you it is the same minister with the same mentality who sought a year ago an extension of absolute power at the hands of the house; who remains unrepentant over his own lust for power; who is indifferent to the fact that we are buying from the United States nearly $1 billion worth of goods every year more than we sell to that country; who will not lift a finger in the face of the growing concentration of Canadian trade in the American basket, who views with equanimity and indifference the growing United States economic influence over Canada, who demands of his followers that they toe the party line, who is up to his ears in unsold wheat, who has made such a monstrous botch of the marketing of wheat and now would make a botch of the marketing of natural gas in Canada, who wants to play fast and loose with a great national heritage, who will not have a committee because he does not think it is good for members of parliament, including his own followers, to know very much about the facts because they are only troublesome and unnecessary people, to whom communications are not communications and whose statements indicate, as I do not need to remind hon. members who have sat in the house this session, let alone memory going farther back, that he does not know so often what he is talking about.
So, sir, we see events reaching their inevitable climax. Here is the toeing of the party line. It is this same minister who said, "If we
3935
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation wanted to get away with it, who would stop us?" Now we will see the full fruits of that kind of attitude, that kind of mentality, on the part of a despotic minister.
But it is not only the Minister of Trade and Commerce, for others share the responsibility with him and principally the Prime Minister who sits silent in this house in the face of a major issue, who voted for closure today, who has retired in all but name, who is not doing his duty in this house in sitting silent and allowing measures like this to be perpetrated upon the Canadian parliament, who is' hiding behind a reckless Minister of Trade and Commerce. Behold the wantonness of power!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of Trade and Commerce concluded his words on May 8 with this sentence:
The action proposed today is another declaration of independence by Canada . . .
That is an interesting expression. There never was a declaration of independence in the history of Canada, but there was a declaration of independence in the history of the United States. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is confused, you see, as to what country he is supposed to be serving. What the Minister of Trade and Commerce really meant to say was: "The action proposed today is another American declaration of independence with Canadian assistance."
So I say to you, sir, in conclusion-would that I had more time!-that it is the duty of free men in a free Canadian parliament to assert Canada's independence of United States economic domination. That right was won for Canada by Sir John A. Macdonald in the construction of the C.P.R. as a Canadian enterprise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was won for Canada in the national policy of 1878. It was preserved by Sir Robert Borden in 1911, and if there is any-


An hon. Member:: What about 1930?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -respect for freedom in this country, Mr. Chairman, that right of Canada to preserve her economic independence will be maintained and assured to her not by the worn-out government opposite that has forgotten all sense of responsibility, but by those who value and understand the meaning of freedom and are prepared to struggle in this House of Commons to preserve freedom and to resist every arbitrary measure
3936	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation inflicted upon it by a despotic government headed by a Prime Minister who is not doing his duty.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, tor a few quieter moments I propose to place some facts on the record about this project, the greatest national project that has come before parliament in our generation. I should like to review the development of the gas industry in Alberta. In 1901 gas was discovered at Medicine Hat. In 1912 the first pipe line was built from Bow Island to Calgary. It was a 16-inch line and about 170 miles long. At that time it was an outstanding feature of pipe line construction on this continent. It was later extended to the Foremost and Turner Valley fields.
The second major pipe line in Alberta was from the Viking-Kinsella field to Edmonton, which was later extended to other nearby communities. The first major era of gas production in Alberta came with the discovery of the Turney Valley field. Turner Valley gas is wet gas. In other words, it contains a large amount of by-products in addition to the methane or dry fuel gas.
The flares of gas which burned in Turner Valley for 30 years are a black mark in the history of conservation and use of our resources. From the discovery of Turner Valley in 1924 until 1952 more than a trillion cubic feet of gas from that field was burned to waste with nearly all the by-products also lost. This represents a loss in equivalent heat value of 40 million tons of good grade coal.
The discovery of oil and gas in Alberta was no accident. The exploration which eventually led to the discoveries was based on painstaking and careful study by the geologists of the geological survey of Canada as well as by private companies and to some extent provincial governments.
The knowledge of the geology of the western provinces was built up over a period of 50 years by the geological survey of Canada. Their maps and reports have always indicated that western Canada was a very promising area for production of oil and gas. In 1947, following the discovery of Leduc, the men of the geological survey of Canada became very concerned lest the history of the waste at Turner valley be repeated. Dr. Hume, director-general of scientific services of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, in an article published in the magazine, Western Business, for November, 1947, discussed the prospects and had this to say:
It would seem highly improbable that a gas pipe line southeastwards from the Peace river area to Edmonton would be feasible in view of the gas supplies already available there and at


Athabaska. On the other hand, an outlet to Vancouver has many desirable features, such as a large market and the obvious advantage from the national standpoint of greatly assisting the development of the whole Peace river country. Such a plan would also have the further advantage of leaving the gas from central and southern Alberta available for other enterprises and if the reserve was found to be adequate it might be piped even as far as the industrial part of Ontario, supplying various prairie cities, including Winnipeg, en route.
The pattern of pipe line development that he suggested at that time is now being followed. In 1948, before I had the honour to come to this parliament, the Minister of Trade and Commerce asked the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to make a survey of gas reserves in western Canada. That survey was undertaken by Dr. Hume and Mr. Ignatieff and their estimate of gas reserves in 1948, in Alberta and Saskatchewan alone, exceeded 3 trillion cubic feet. At that time there were no proven reserves in British Columbia, although discoveries had been made in the Alberta part of the Peace river district. Their report indicated, however, that the prospects in British Columbia were excellent. Many thought at that time that their report was overoptimistic but subsequent developments have proven that it was very modest indeed.
In November, 1953, the conservation board of the province of Alberta stated that reserves in Alberta as of June 30, 1953, were 11 i trillion cubic feet. I believe that the hon. member for Peace River said this evening that they are now 16 trillion cubic feet. The Alberta government then stated that there was an excess for export over Alberta's needs. The Alberta conservation board placed Albbrta's needs for the next 30 years at 4-45 trillion cubic feet. Up until November, 1953, the dominion government had no gas with which to deal. There has been a great deal of loose talk about the five-year delay by this government. The hon. member for Bow River this afternoon charged that this government was guilty of delaying this project. I repeat again that this government had no gas with which to deal until Alberta declared a surplus late in the year 1953. That was less than two and a half years ago. In anticipation of surplus gas from Alberta the policy of this government was clearly stated on March 13, 1953 as recorded at page 2929 of Hansard of that year by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I quote in part his words:
Therefore the policy of the government of Canada is to refuse permits for moving natural gas by pipe line across an international boundary until such time as we are convinced that there can be no economic use, present or future, for that natural gas within Canada.

This government has never deviated from that policy. In 1951, shortly after I became Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, an American company known as the Murchison group came to Ottawa to consult with the geologists of our department about the gas reserves in the western provinces and indicated their interest in building an allCanadian gas pipe line. The information of our department was made available to them and it was suggested that, in order to speed up the establishment of reserves, they should enter into the exploration field in Alberta. They subsequently incorporated a company known as Canadian Delhi Oils Limited, which company became actively engaged in the exploration for gas in Alberta and with considerable success. I am somewhat at a loss to know why the hon. member for Calgary South this afternoon ridiculed that company. I know that in any approach they made to our department they never suggested anything but building an all-Canadian pipe line and they said it was entirely feasible.
On February 26, 1951, that particular group applied to the House of Commons for a charter. The bill was a private bill No. 75 introduced by the hon. member for Vegre-ville. It was a bill to incorporate Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. During that debate and subsequent ones an all-Canadian route won general support from members of all parties in this house. About that time another company was incorporated known as Western Pipe Lines Limited, whose stated objective was to export gas to the United States. This company was not interested in the central Canadian market.
On January 12, 1954, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a statement which I shall quote in part. It is recorded at pages 1017 and 1018 of Hansard: ... it has been anticipated for some time that Alberta would have a surplus of natural gas which could be made available to the eastern part of Canada. Three or four weeks ago Mr. Manning, accompanied by two members of his conservation board, called on the Prime Minister to say that the board had found that there is in fact an exportable surplus at present of three and a half trillion cubic feet of gas. It is anticipated by Mr. Manning that the surplus will grow at the rate of -75 trillion cubic feet per annum for the next five or ten years . . . Mr. Manning stated he had received two applications for export of the gas from the province and that the board feels that at the present time neither application satisfies its requirements. Mr. Manning suggested to this government that if the two applications could be combined into a single project the government of Alberta would be prepared to grant an export licence to the single applicant.


Erhart Regier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is it within the rules of the house
3937
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation for a minister who is not responsible for the resolution to be reading his speech?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think perhaps 1 might just answer that question by pointing out that even a minister is a member of the House of Commons and is treated in the same way as is any other member. The same point was raised earlier.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I have been quoting from Hansard. To repeat the last sentence of that quotation from Hansard:
Mr. Manning suggested to this government that if the two applications could be combined into a single project the government of Alberta would be prepared to grant an export licence to the single applicant.
This initiated the merger of the two companies I have mentioned.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of talk about a so-called "chosen instrument", and to the effect that the Trans-Canada company is the chosen instrument of this government. I should just like to say that the record proves that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, as it has existed since that amalgamation, is the chosen instrument of the Alberta government. It holds the only permit from the province to export gas from southern Alberta and that right to export surplus gas from southern Alberta is exclusive.
The reserves in western Canada have been increasing at the rate of two to three trillion cubic feet of gas per year. The hon. member for Calgary South places the figure at four trillion cubic feet. Hon. members might be interested to know that the total production of gas in Alberta, including wastage, since 1901 amounts to 2-J trillion cubic feet. Of this amount about half has been wasted. Only about half of that gas, since it was first discovered, has been used. Since the discovery of oil and gas in the Leduc field in 1947, the amount of gas burned to waste in the production of oil has amounted to 158: billion cubic feet. In order to indicate at what an alarming rate this wastage is increasing, may I point out that in 1953 this wastage was over 17 billion cubic feet and that in 1955, just two years later, it was over 37 billion cubic feet. That is an increase of 20 billion cubic feet in two years. These figures indicate how important it is to find a market for this gas in order to prevent this wastage.
An immediate market for surplus Alberta gas is extremely urgent, first, to prevent wastage; secondly, to release the large amounts of capital which are at present tied up in unproductive wells; and thirdly, as an incentive to exploration.
3938	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
The government of the province of Ontario says that new sources of energy are urgently needed to supplement hydro power. With the development that is taking place in this country, partly at least due to the good government we have here in Ottawa,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: No comedy, please.


George Prudham: [DOT]-it is my opinion that this gas will be needed to supplement existing sources of energy rather than to replace them. It is expected that when western natural gas is first introduced into Ontario and Quebec, there will be some slight dislocation of the coal industry by the replacement of coal with natural gas. However, in Ontario the coal that is used is largely imported from the United States. The growth of requirements for energy in Ontario is such that, after the initial adjustment, the gas that the Trans-Canada line will provide will be needed to supplement rather than to replace existing sources of energy.
During the last few days I had the honour of travelling through northern Ontario with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I had a chance at first hand to see the great storehouse of resources in that part of the country. No member from northern Ontario need apologize for the extra cost of building the line through that area. In that part of the country we have one of the greatest storehouses of mineral resources in the world. Natural gas will provide the key for unlocking those great resources.
Incidentally, the amount of gas that Alberta has dedicated to the project is 4-3 trillion cubic feet, which is equivalent to 174 million tons of coal. The delivery rate in the early years of the line is estimated at 300 million cubic feet of gas per day. And that is the equivalent of about 4 million tons of coal per year.
Mr. Chairman, the points with which I have dealt emphasize the need for an early start on the construction of the trans-Canada line. The proposal now before the committee provides the only possibility of getting the line under way this year. This project must be under way during the month of June in order to complete the construction of the first section this year. The company, by accepting the proposal, agreed to make an immediate start and to finance the balance of the line by March 31 of next year or failing that to forfeit its right to build the line as well as a substantial equity. If it does not perform within the time specified, this government is committed to seeing that the line is completed
IMr. Prudham.]

by other means. In the interests of conservation, in the interests of the orderly development of our resources and as the minister representing Alberta in this cabinet, I say let us get on with the job.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have witnessed in the House of Commons one of the strangest acts ever performed by a government of Canada, the imposition of closure at the virtual commencement of a debate. Yesterday in his introductory speech, the Minister of Trade and Commerce set out the arguments for the resolution now before us and gave notice of his intention to move closure. Today, he imposed it. In effect, closure was threatened and imposed before the subject matter before the house had been considered.
Now, closure was never intended to be used in this way and has never been used in this way before. In its origin in the 1880's, in Gladstone's time, it was introduced into the British House of Commons to prevent the wilful obstruction of the business of parliament by a small, irresponsible minority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was not designed in the British House of Commons to restrict the official opposition. When closure became part of the rules of the Canadian House of Commons in 1912, Sir Wilfrid Laurier raised the most strenuous objection. He gave four examples of the obstruction of the business of government in the period from confederation to his day. He suggested that in the interests of free speech and the liberties of parliament it was better to endure periods of obstruction than to impose a rule as severe as closure. He said that a government, faced with obstruction, would do better to dissolve and settle the problem by an appeal to the people.
On the other hand, the Queen's government must be carried on and occasions have arisen infrequently in the history of our parliament when the government of the day has imposed closure in order to force through the house some business which it considered of vital importance. But those instances of closure occurred only after extended debate and not, as on this occasion, before the debate had commenced. This is indeed a serious misuse of a very powerful weapon. Only a government drunk with power would stoop to the immediate use of closure in order to prevent discussion in this house. It is doubly serious to curtail debate on an issue such as the one before us which is so complex, so ill-devised and so improvident. If ever a measure before the House of Commons required complete and careful consideration and examination, it is

this one that provides millions of dollars as a handout to foreign capitalists.
The minister responsible for this is the very one who, during his career, has been ignorant of parliamentary history, impatient with parliamentary procedures and disdainful of the customs and usages of the House of Commons. He is the one who last year attempted to usurp full power and was checked by a vigilant opposition. This year he is determined to have his way and to use the forms of parliament in order to destroy the substance of our liberty. This is a black day in the history of the Canadian nation. All of this is being done on the plea of urgency, which is a specious plea.
We have been told that the pipe line must be started by July 1 if it is to be built this year, and that Trans-Canada company must have the handout of taxpayers' millions by June 7. After five years of bungling delays everything has to be decided by parliament in twice five days. This is coercion. The argument of urgency to pass this legislation is misleading. The pipe line could be started this week if the company had any initiative and was prepared to substitute deeds for words. There is no need for such an arrangement as an agreement that this legislation must be passed by June 7 before the company will undertake its part of the contract. It is misleading to suggest that if this legislation is not forced through the house by June 7 the company cannot proceed.
Apparently the company requires a loan of about $80 million. The work will take an estimated four months, and that is an average of about $20 million per month. In all likelihood the first month would be used in preliminary activities for which perhaps much less than $20 million would be required. The precious pipe, cornered by the Tennessee gas company, is worth $30 million. It cannot be put into the ground all at once. The option to purchase it runs until well into the fall and payment is required only on delivery. The company is reported to have $8 million in cash on hand. There is nothing to prevent the company from starting immediately. Certainly, it is right to press on with the construction of the gas pipe line this year, but to do that it is not necessary to mislead parliament or the people of Canada. It is not necessary to confuse the issue or to bypass normal parliamentary methods.
Why such a sudden concern on the part of this government for the people of Manitoba? Where was the concern last year or at any time within the last five years? They are now concerned that gas shall be provided for Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and they are anxious that Winnipeg shall have it this year.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation So are all of us who live in Manitoba, but Manitoba has been sold down the river by this government. In 1951 a charter was granted to a Canadian company to build a gas pipe line to Winnipeg. Had the Minister of Trade and Commerce not interfered, Alberta gas would have been delivered to Manitoba three years ago,


An hon. Member:: Have they an export permit?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Manitoba now has had to-wait and apparently it will have to continue-to wait. In addition to that it must pay a subsidy through taxation to get gas and to bail out the Minister of Trade and Commerce and assist his American friends. The urgency is not so much the desire of this government to get the Alberta gas to market nor is it a matter of getting gas to Manitoba this year. The real urgency has been summed up extremely well by Blair Fraser in an article published in a recent issue of Maclean's magazine, and I give you his words:
They are determined that they will not enter an election campaign next year still carrying an inactive American-owned pipe-line company on the back of their necks.
The American masters of the Minister of Trade and Commerce do not understand our parliamentary system and the minister cannot explain it to them because he does not understand it himself. They do not trust him-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We do.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -hence the agreement that the commencement of the work depends upon the passing of this legislation and hence this muzzling of parliament. Some of the minister's American masters perhaps may think Canada is still being ruled by Great Britain-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, on a question of personal privilege, I have no American masters and I suggest the hon. gentleman withdraw.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will withdraw that and substitute masterful American friends.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, once a louse
always a louse.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You ought to know.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is time they learned the facts of life. Perhaps they think that the House of Commons is like their House of Representatives or that our Senate is as powerful as theirs. Some of them may think the proposals of our government run the danger of being rejected by parliament. Perhaps they think that somewhere in the background is the power of veto.
3940	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
What they should be told is that once our government has made up its mind to lend money to the oil barons of Texas and has cracked the whip over the Liberal caucus all that remains is to debate the issue in the House of Commons, that that debate may run for several days or weeks but can be choked off by closure and therefore once government policy has been announced and legislation introduced into the house the green light has been given t'o the pipe line project and the money will be forthcoming in due course. The Trans-Canada pipe line company will get its handout of $80 million from this government, for this government is not only all powerful but is fully determined to pursue this wretched course of paying tribute to Texas oil barons, and nobody can keep them from their folly. All the opposition can do, to use the very apt phrase of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, is to expose them, and because of fear of exposure the government has clamped on closure.
The issue confronting us may be summed up in one sentence: Because the Tennessee Gas Company has cornered the market in 34-inch pipe, the Canadian people must now be taxed to pay tribute to Texas oil barons and the House of Commons is being muzzled by an arrogant oligarchy.
American influence on Canadian life has permeated right into our House of Commons. If it were not for this unwise, unnecessary and improvident arrangement to pass legislation by June 7 our parliamentary customs and usages would not now be in jeopardy.
Let us see what has happened to our customs and our usages. Not only has closure been applied at an unprecedentedly early stage in our proceedings, but yesterday the Minister of Finance, relying on the government majority, abrogated the customary procedure of questions before the orders of the day. The question period is one of the most valuable privileges of the House of Commons. Had it not been for the question period during the last several weeks we would have known even less about the pipe line problem than does the Prime Minister. We are witnessing here a continuation of the serious undermining of the power of parliament. The system is but imperfectly understood. People are under the impression that the opposition can prevent the government from carrying out its policy. The government, preying on those misunderstandings, uses its present methods to stifle debate and committee investigation and prevents full disclosure of the facts. The government pretends that closure is necessary this week. It is a thoroughly bad precedent that is being set and I hope it will not be forgotten. That is the seriousness


of the situation as I see it; this erosion of the institution which is the centre of our democracy.
In the book entitled "Parliament" by Professor W. Ivor Jennings which is a standard work on the British parliamentary system and which every hon. member of parliament should study-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Especially the government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -he sums up the function of the opposition in parliament. He points out very clearly that the power of the opposition itself rests only on sufferance. There is nothing whatever in the constitutional machinery that prevents the opposition from being suppressed. The government, being as powerful as it is, could wipe out the opposition if it so desired. The opposition cannot out-vote the majority; it can only defy it and appeal to the people.


An hon. Member:: And expose it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What are the checks' and balances in this system to offset an allpowerful government? There are three main checks; the freedom of election, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of organization. If you can have free elections and if you may assemble freely, and if you have the freedom to organize, you can effectively check a government which tends to be all powerful. The checks and balances are mutually interdependent; one alone cannot be overthrown. As long as they remain it is the function of the opposition not only to see that they operate but also to prevent gradual and insidious encroachments. We have witnessed here today a gradual and insidious encroachment, unprecedented and completely unnecessary.
We should have been permitted the right to conduct our examination of this resolution as we do all other resolutions in this house. We should be permitted on second reading to conduct a full debate when we reach that stage. When we reach the stage of committee of the whole house after second reading we should be permitted to fully examine the bill then before us, item by item, and receive answers to questions. We should have the chance at that stage to raise amendments and perhaps succeed in having the government agree to some of our proposals. Similarly we should have the chance on third reading to conduct a full debate. What faces us now? Closure; no debate; restricted debate.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing now?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are restricted to 20
minutes and the subject matter is worth a two-hour discourse.


Walter Edward Harris: You are doing very well.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are restricted to 20
minutes on an issue like this that touches upon our rights and privileges in a free country. We are restricted to 20 minutes and even those 20 minutes are restricted by unnecessary interruptions-


George James McIlraith: Irrelevancies.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -such as the one by the hon. member for Ottawa West. Let him get up and talk on this subject. Why is he not a defender of the liberties of the people?
Our parliamentary system has grown up over the centuries. The British people have gone through all forms and known types of government and have decided upon the parliamentary system as being best suited to their needs. We settle matters by debate, by majority rule; we settle matters by using the ballot, not the bullet. In the development of our parliamentary system the majority has learned not to ride roughshod over the minority.
Some hon. member said tonight that he was glad that the government had now determined to rule the opposition, or rule parliament, or something like that. Parliament is the union of forces; the government on the one side and the opposition on the other. There is give and take in the procedure. Under normal conditions the government would change and those on this side would change places with those on the other side. We have had 20 years of what has become almost one-party government and the people are forgetting the basis upon which our parliamentary system was founded.
It is unfortunate that we have reached the stage where parliament cannot be conducted as it was in the days of Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mackenzie King, Sir Robert Borden and Mr. Bennett.


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


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, it is almost presumption on my part to take part in this debate after the big guns we have heard have spoken. I should like to hear some member of the opposition, and I expect it would be the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, stand up and speak without calling the government or cabinet ministers by certain names which are undignified.
I had been on the committee of railways, canals and telegraph lines since the beginning and I cannot forget those first meetings. I see again the right hon. minister standing up and making his statement and saying, "We want an all-Canadian pipe line." He
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation wants to get it. He told us then that that was a government policy. It is government policy yet.
As I listen to the opposition I see that the official opposition and the C.C.F. are agreed on two things. They are agreed that we should have an all-Canadian pipe line. They are agreed also that the government is not doing it the right way. If the government did it according to the official opposition the C.C.F. would be up two, three or four at a time. If the government did it the way the C.C.F. want it the opposition would be telling them off. Perhaps they would be right in doing so.
I agree with the hon. member for Peace River when he says that the opposition have brought this closure on themselves because of their attitude. In the last two days we have had seven obstruction votes. An hon. member sitting on this side of the house cannot help but wonder why an hon. member would call another vote when he knew perfectly well how it would turn out.
Some years ago the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce was called a dictator, but I think that name would be more honourable to him than would LL.D. He was blamed for selling out to the United States when it was announced in some papers that Canadair had been sold. He was accused of selling out to the United States. But he said that a United States company had only got an option and that if there was anyone in Canada who wanted to buy Canadair they could do it. Those who called him a dictator then were no more right than are those who call him that today.
The reason we have this pipe line is because the people want it. I can remember when the right hon. minister was called home from Ottawa to Port Arthur and Fort William. The two city councils and a delegation including the mayors and representatives of nearly every municipality around met with him. It was just after the minister had got the two companies to co-operate. I asked the delegation why they were asking the minister for this thing and the whole chorus was, "We want it." They did not have anything to offer in the way of cash, but they wanted it and they still want it.
Then I asked the minister if when these two companies had come together the last hurdle had been cleared but the minister just shook his head. He knew far better than I did. I remember in the early debates in committee there was one hon. member who impressed me very much. He knew far more about oil and gas than I did. I refer to the hon. member for Calgary South. I congratulate him upon his courage. No doubt he
3942	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation told his caucus what he was going to do. That seemed to be quite evident today. He had the courage to stand up and support the dictator.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Well named.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I congratulate the right hon. minister upon his outline of the plan when he stood up. I do not need to repeat anything because I think it would be difficult for anyone to stand up now and say anything new. I congratulate the minister upon being clear and clean of Mr. McMahon. If I were forced to do so I could give my personal reasons for saying that, but they are not money reasons.
Another thing that I got up to say tonight is that a while ago we heard the opposition criticizing the government for not having work for the unemployed. Now this plan will give employment for 600. There is a good deal of unemployment in Vancouver and in Toronto and other places. Surely that is a good argument for going ahead with this plan.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think the Minister of Labour would be able to contradict that.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I think the Minister of Labour, when he speaks, will speak honestly and tell me very decidedly what he knows. But it will take about 600 men who will be employed in the work of this pipe laying. I shall repeat the report that I have that there are a good many unemployed in Vancouver and in Toronto. Why not get those men employed, instead of keeping them on relief? The minister who spoke said that northern Ontario will need gas. He knows and I know that northern Ontario is going ahead, and it will certainly need gas. I congratulate the minister on having the backbone to stand by his policy of putting this national gas line all across Canada. I just wish him good success and sweet sleep at night.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss some aspects of this Colombo plan for Texas tycoons. The first thing I should like to know is, what is the government afraid of? Why does it have to shut off the debate? What is it trying to hide?


An hon. Member:: Nothing.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: If you are
not hiding anything, why are you afraid to send this to a committee of the house where the whole matter could be investigated? What sort of skullduggery is there that you are afraid to discuss? That is an interesting question, and I should like to ask the Prime Minister, "Why not, if there is nothing to hide,


present this legislation to a committee of the house for investigation?" There is no answer, naturally. I challenge him to do it. There is still no answer, because the real Prime Minister, as a matter of fact, has left the house.


John Horace Dickey: You do not like action.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I have heard the ministerial assistant pop up like a gopher time after time. It is possible that his interruptions may have been intelligent, but it is doubtful. If he is under the illusion that he is a wit, I can assure him he is only 50 per cent correct. As I was saying before I was interrupted, I do not like venality but I can understand it. I might even have some appreciation for venality on a massive scale but what I cannot appreciate is stupidity, and this legislation which is going to come before us and which is forecast in this resolution is unmitigated, undiluted and unadulterated stupidity.
Of course, this legislation is also the love child of the minister, spawned in the most dubious areas, spawned in an area of fiction and fantasy, in a dream world or, to put it in Anglo Saxon, an area of lies. I rather think that, if Baron Munchausen were to come to earth, (a) the minister would clasp him to his bosom and (b) he would make him deputy minister in charge of pipe lines, because this whole story has been marked clearly by lie after lie. I intend to put some of them on the record right now. This is from the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines which sat in 1951. As recorded on page 8 of the proceedings, Mr. Tolmie, counsel for these pipe lines, said:
The project, Mr. Chairman, as all members probably know by now, is to build a gas pipe line from Alberta east as far as Montreal, and with the possibility and the hope that it can be extended further east from Montreal at a later stage when the capacity is fully utilized.
You will note that it is an all-Canadian pipe line, with no suggestion of exports to the United States. Then let us take the evidence of Mr. Frank Schultz, the vice-president of Canadian Delhi Oil Limited, on page 11:
You may be interested to know about the marketing situation. We are satisfied at this stage that adequate markets exist in the eastern part of Canada to consume all the gas that we can produce and move through this line.
There is no question of a line to the south. It is an all-Canadian project. On page 15 the same man again said:
Our only interest is bringing Alberta gas to the eastern part of Canada.
They were not interested in making money; they were not interested in having a pipe line to the United States. They just wanted to

serve eastern Canada. Mr. Shattuck, who represents a firm of marketing engineers, had the temerity to present certain financial statements to the board of transport commissioners and, I suspect, to the government. When I see an engineer getting mixed up with financial statements, then God help us all. As recorded on page 23 of the same minutes of evidence, Mr. Shattuck had this to say:
Our work has gone tar enough so that we are assured that, at any rate, the market would absorb one hundred billion cubic feet of gas a year at prices that will service the pipe" line, pay the operating costs, and service the debts necessary to finance construction.
On the basis of these lies, the committee gave approval to that legislation. But then there was the time when the company had to appear before the board of transport commissioners. In June 1954 we had the chief commissioner asking a witness certain questions. The witness was a man named Mr. Tanner, who was at one time a cabinet minister in the social credit government of Alberta and then went to his reward with the oil companies. Mr. Tanner is so convinced of the financial strength of this company and the future of this company that, of the millions of shares, he has subscribed for two of them. Mr. Tanner was asked by the chief commissioner of the board of transport commissioners if construction would begin by June 1, 1955. Mr. Tanner said:
Yes, we feel rather confident of that.
He had no doubt. He was quite confident. Then, on page 3525 of the evidence, Mr. Tanner said:
We will start construction early in 1955. We shall be in a position to deliver gas to Winnipeg by November 1955. Pipe laying east from Winnipeg will be taken care of in 1956.
There were no ifs, ands and buts. It was a certainty. This was going to be done. The company deceived the board of transport commissioners and they kept on deceiving them with other statements. For instance, Mr. Tanner said:
We Can undertake the building of the line in the spring of 1956, completing it during that same year.
Again there was no doubt. But what was perhaps the deciding factor with the board of transport commissioners was one of the minister's boys who was sent there to make a statement before the board of transport commissioners, and I hold the minister responsible for he cannot pass the buck to him for it. This civil servant said:
An export outlet such as Minneapolis may mean reduction in laid down price in eastern Canada.
When this emissary of the minister was making that statement, by then the company
15, 1956	3943
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation had already filed certain statements of its own. The company said that the price in Manitoba in 1955-56 would be 36-7 cents to the company which was going to deliver the gas to the consumer and that at the Manitoba border the price would be 34 cents. They never envisaged that by 1955-56 the line would be in the east. But we get another projection with respect to 1958-59. By this time the price of gas in Manitoba, instead of being down as the minister forecast, would be up to 40-7 cents, a 4-cent increase, while the price to the Americans at the portal at Emerson would be down to 32-9 cents. The hon. member for Saskatoon says that Canadians are subsidizing the Americans, and that is precisely what is happening.
But these were not the final figures. I have figures here which are perhaps more definite but I doubt if they are definitive. Now the Winnipeg price is going to be 33 cents to the distributor but the price at Emerson is going to be 25 cents per thousand cubic feet to the United States importing companies. In other words, there is going to be an 8-cent spread between us in Winnipeg and Emerson, 60 miles away, and this is being done, in the words of the Free Press, to confer great industrial benefit upon the people of Canada. Here is an 8-cent differential and yet Winnipeg is 60 miles nearer the source of gas. And so this company is determined to subsidize United States industry at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers with the help of the Liberal government made up of members of the Liberal party who insist on selling Canada down the river.
There is another aspect to this feature of cost. The minister is going to get this through. We know it. And he is going to get it through in a hurry. It is going to be done as rapidly as possible and it is going to be done in a mood of damn the cost. But the Canadian taxpayer is going to have to pay these costs, sooner or later. The government has had months to make up its mind what it was going to do, if indeed it was ever possessed of a mind at all, but it deferred it, it put it off until finally, almost at the last stage in the game, it brings forward this legislation and then the minister gets up and moves closure. I have a very high personal regard for the Minister of Trade and Commerce but there are times when 'he should not be allowed within a thousand miles of any democratic legislature.
Let me go on with some of the representations made by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. Mr.. Tanner said to the board of transport, commissioners:
In five years we would be able to build up a market in the east of approximately 500 million, cubic feet a day.
3944	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
The board of transport commissioners believed him and I do not blame them but I do blame the board when time after time this company went back to get its application renewed, although the board knew it had been lied to, although the board knew it had been deceived, the board still assented because a minion from the minister said, "It has got to go through; the boss has spoken." And so the company was given permission to extend the permit still further, and we see the result of the board's credulity in the judgment of the chairman of the board. He mentions Trans-Canada's hopes and says:
Trans-Canada hopes to commence construction early in 1955, deliver gas to Winnipeg and Emerson by November, 1955, complete the line to Toronto in 1956 and to Montreal in 1956 or 1957 at the latest.
The board believed that because they made the mistake of believing the witnesses who were heard. Dealing with the capital cost again the chairman of the board had this to say:
The estimated cost of construction of the line and facilities is $299,139,000. .	. . The board is
convinced that such estimates have made reasonable allowance for foreseeable contingencies and have been prepared by skills and reliable estimators.
This was in 1954. Two years have passed. The cost of living may have advanced in those two years but not by the 30 per cent increase with which we are now confronted by these skilled and reliable estimators. How skilled can they be when, having taken into consideration all contingencies, we find now that the cost of the line will probably be $100 million more? How reliable are these people upon whom the board relied? Their unreliability is more than obvious. Then, again, we were told in the judgment of the chief commissioner that there would be no question about financing. The financing was to be done on the American basis of 75 per cent in first mortgage bonds, 12J per cent in debentures and 12J per cent in common stock.
The committee will note the 12J per cent in common stock. Why is it so small? Because history shows that these gas pipe lines in the United States have been gold mines and after paying off a nominal sum in interest to the debenture holders those who have had common stock have had their -snouts thoroughly stuck into the gravy trough. In addition, as I will show later, this company Is going to be in a position where i,t can pay a dividend of at least 20 per cent on the common stock, whether one takes the first fanciful figures submitted or the less fanciful ones which the minister got a month or two ago.


Then we are told about the economic feasibility of the project. The board of transport commissioners had no doubt whatsoever about the economic feasibility of this line. Of course, doubt has recently arisen that it is not economically feasible, but the whole argument of the government now is based in no small measure upon the necessity of the lateral from Winnipeg to Emerson so that gas can be sold to the United States in order that the financing can be more readily arranged.
But what was the position of the counsel for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines in 1954 when he appeared before the board of transport commissioners? This is what Mr. Tolmie said:
The Emerson lateral is not a separate line and it, of course, cannot be proceeded with or even contemplated by itself. It may be that it can come in at the beginning as an added feature . . .
In other words, this so essential feature today was at one stage in the game merely an added feature, something of no consequence, something of no importance, something which could be sloughed off. But now this added feature apparently is all-important because American industrialists have got to be supplied with cheap gas and Canadian citizens have got to pay for that subsidization. Mr. Tolmie said:
It may be that it can come in at the beginning as an added feature and assist greatly in the financing towards the initial return.
Of course it would assist but I would call the committee to witness again that this lateral to the south was not an essential feature of the first plan. It has only become an essential feature in later days. Why? Because this company has no intention of having its sales to the United States restricted to 200 million cubic feet a day. The minister may not have liked McMahon's idea of 400 million cubic feet but this company is going to try to get it because it wants the gravy. This company is not going to sell in Canada to industry because its price will not be competitive so far as industry is concerned but is going to sell to the luxury trade. It is not even going to be competitive down here with oil. It is going to sell to the Cadillac group, to the ministerial class who can afford to pay that price.
I have already mentioned the Winnipeg price. Again the board of transport commissioners was fooled, and apparently they love being deceived for time after time they renewed the permit. The chairman said:
We noted that the price to be paid Trans-Canada at Emerson by Northern Natural is 34 cents per 1,000 cubic feet and is 2 cents per 1,000 cubic feet less than the anticipated price to gas distributors in Winnipeg . . .

Two cents at that time, now 8 cents. Does the government pretend for a moment that this is a provident suggestion to the people of western Canada? Does the government think for a moment that we like to pay 8 cents more in Winnipeg than American industries are going to pay south of the border? Yet that is what we are being asked to do by this legislation.
Let me deal with another matter if I have time, and if not I will deal with it at another stage. I want to discuss the balance sheet which was presented to the board of transport commissioners to show the financial solidity of the company. Assets are shown as $361,215,000 and liabilities are of course the same amount. But what is interesting is that the common stock at that time was $37 million. Here is the projection made by a firm of engineers to October 31, 1961, showing common stock of $37 million and earned surplus at that date of $32,765,000. That is not a bad showing for five or six years. There is also submitted a profit and loss account of this company projected to 1961. This profit and loss amount shows $13 million available for dividends after all bond interest has been paid and after all income tax has been paid. Of that $13 million, $2,190,000 goes to the preferred shareholders or the debenture holders, call them what you like, and the balance is left available for the ordinary stockholders. Mr. Chairman, this thing is a veritable gold mine. Why then have the Americans to come to the Canadian government to get it financed? What is the catch in the whole thing? Obviously either those who submitted this proposal and this balance sheet and profit and loss account to the board of transport commissioners knew what they were talking about or they were liars. I suggest that they had no idea at all as to what they were talking about, that they were trying deliberately to deceive the board of transport commissioners, and that they succeeded. The pity is that they succeeded not only the first time but on every other occasion.


William Alfred Robinson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am sorry too, Mr. Chairman.


William Alfred Robinson: -but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Chairman, I propose to deal mainly with the only issue which is before this house in this whole debate-


Alfred Claude Ellis: Closure.


Elmore Philpott: McMahon. Let me point out that in this particular case the whole project would have been completely impractical had they not sold the major block of gas to the United States. So, when I talk to my academic friends opposite whose slogan seems to be socialism or bust, public enterprise at any cost, at any time, wise or unwise, common sense or no common sense, let me tell them that in my opinion the whole public ownership proposition of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines would be an extremely difficult proposition to make on an economic basis. How is the government of Canada,-


Edmund Davie Fulton: How is the government of
Canada?


Elmore Philpott: -let us ask ourselves the practical question, if they are going to have to sell a big block of gas-the hon. member for Kamloops is good at obstruction, but his obstruction days are over now.
How is the government of Canada, which would require to sell big blocks of our natural gas to the United States in order to be able to serve eastern Canada at reasonable prices, going to go about selling gas in the United States? Do the hon. gentlemen opposite for-see the government of Canada going hat in hand and saying, "Please, Mr. Uncle Sam, will you buy our Canadian gas?" How ridiculous can you get?
So I say that, first we should not proceed now with the nebulous public ownership plan until we have tried every other avenue. A public ownership corporation would not be in the best position to try to sell gas and unless we do sell that gas it would result in higher bills for the actual consumers in Canada.
Now, what shall I say about that strange partnership, the other wing of that strange partnership? When I saw that strange alliance beginning last week, an alliance first of obstruction, I thought back to the year of 1932. We have heard today about 1932 when there was closure in this house and great protest about it. I remember another country in which there was a tie-up between the extreme right and the extreme left, namely Prussia. In that country the extreme right and extreme left, by tactics much the same as were attempted here last week by two gentlemen whom I shall not name, the extreme left and extreme right tied up and parliamentary government went down in that country. It was because the government of the day did not have the gumption or perhaps I would be forgiven the plain word "guts" to deal with that kind of obstruction as it should have been dealt with by parliamentary processes. Just for the benefit of the opposition may I say that the filibuster which they have been

attempting so often in recent weeks is a United States institution and that closure is a British institution.
As the hon. member for Timiskaming pointed out, in the last seven years the British House of Commons, that old mother of parliaments, has applied closure on an average of 21 times every session.


An hon. Member:: By agreement.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Tell the whole story. They do it by agreement.


Elmore Philpott: What shall I say about the old wing of that strange alliance? I think that the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth which has been most characteristic of the federal Conservative speeches and the federal Conservative attitude in the past week-they have obstructed and they have filibustered and used every expedient to prevent intelligent debate, for the obvious reason that they had nothing to say. Why have they nothing to say?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Why did you put on closure then?


Elmore Philpott: Because the federal Conservatives have been defrosted; because every argument made by any hon. member of the federal opposition has been answered in advance by the premier of Ontario. For instance, at page 390 of Ontario Hansard he said:
We have taken a generous view with the federal government and recognize their position in this matter has not been simple or easy. I have no intention here of making it more difficult for the federal government to carry its arrangements through. If I did that I would be doing a disservice to this country . . .
We must recognize that in working out an agreement with the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited the federal government has obviously been faced with many difficulties. It was not an easy matter to negotiate the agreement at all . . .
Then on page 391 he said;
Apparently the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines agreement provides for the quickest and most effective way of bringing gas to Ontario.
When I hear my old Tory friends over there trotting out this old, shabby, broken-down, moth-eaten horse on which they rode to victory in 1911, no truck or trade with the Yankees, I say let us see what Mr. Frost said about that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are the last people who should be talking about horses.


Elmore Philpott: On page 392 of Ontario Hansard, Mr. Frost said:
Since the very beginning of this country we have recognized there is a price to pay for Canadian independence. If we had not recognized that, certainly there would be no Canada today. In addition to what has been said about the control
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
of this company, whether the Canadian shareholders had the opportunity to take 51 per cent of the stock, or anything of that sort, the fact of the matter is that the construction is in Canada, wholly within the jurisdiction of our country, and is subject to the legislative enactment not only of the government of Canada but of the provinces through which it passes. That in itself is the real essential of control.
Then he goes on to speak about the benefits of foreign capital in Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The opposition is frostbitten.


Elmore Philpott: The reason why the Prime Minister of Canada, great statesman that he is, the greatest-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Elmore Philpott: -the greatest statesman that this country has yet had, will not agree to the request of federal opposition for an election now is that he knows if he did there would not be six federal Conservatives elected between the Ottawa river and the Pacific coast.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, this is a unique occasion in the life of this parliament. This is an issue that deeply concerns the people of Canada. As evidence of that it seems very few have noticed before that the galleries are so full some ladies have been standing and hundreds have been turned away from the door as is the case on budget night. Why all this excitement? Because, Mr. Chairman, there is no one who has been long enough in this parliament to witness a spectacle such as we have seen yesterday and today. No one has sat here long enough. These little junior squeakers at the back have no idea of the importance of parliamentary freedom and responsible government. Never in the history of this government, and I will venture to say never in the history of any democratic government, have we seen a resolution moved-


An hon. Member:: A revolution?


William Earl Rowe: -and closure put on at the same time. You could not even start a revolution. You never even drew up a resolution, let alone talk about a revolution.
After having mentioned this proposed resolution in the speech from the throne, it has lain hidden in the dusty alcoves of this old smug, complacent government all this time. Then, Mr. Chairman, it is brought out and presented in a hasty climax by that old man in a hurry to wind up what has been going on for five slow years in records filled with secrecy, mystery, changes, misrepresentation and uncertainty. Talk about private enterprise-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Talk about an anti-climax.


William Earl Rowe: You have been an anti-climax to more of your own climaxes than anybody else.
3948	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Mr. Chairman, this is neither private enterprise nor public ownership. It is a nondescript, mongrel amalgamation of the two. It is private enterprise for United States interests with nothing left for private enterprise in Canada except public ownership as everyone knows, because the minister told us that yesterday. It is private ownership controlled by United States interests and the only alternative left in the resolution is that when it now looks almost impossible for trans-Canada to complete it you propose to have public ownership next year. You have already stifled every private enterprise in Canada concerning this project and you have offered bonuses to United States enterprise.
You ridiculed the group to my left as being champions of public ownership when we in the Conservative party have been the real champions of private enterprise since confederation. The Minister of Trade and Commerce laughs and the Prime Minister says nothing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why are you
linked with the C.C.F. tonight?


William Earl Rowe: We are not linked because we are both opposing you. There are many people in Canada who are opposing you tonight who are interested in Canada. We are interested in the people of Canada. That is why you and your silent, acquiescing Prime Minister are afraid to go to the country. That is why the Prime Minister is afraid to rise and speak in this issue because he has already said that this is the worst proposal of the three.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would rather be silent than speak like you are doing now.


William Earl Rowe: The Prime Minister has already said that this proposal is the worst of the three. No wonder he does not speak.


An hon. Member:: He does not dare.


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of Agriculture can talk about the Saskatchewan river dam out in Saskatchewan at the next election. These great Liberal champions of private enterprise have stifled Canadian private enterprise and squelched the offers of every Canadian company which has ventured an offer. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration says that we are the Canadian babies. He is the last one who should speak about that. He looks more like a baby than anyone else I see in the house. The Canadian baby who did propose this was the only Canadian who built a line in Canada for $153 million.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, someone said we have had 20 years of one-party government. How long, oh Lord, how long are we going to be


confronted with a one-man party government in the future?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It did not take you long to put one government out of business.


William Earl Rowe: What was that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It did not take you long to put a government out of office, the one of which you were a member. How long were you a member there?


An hon. Member:: Six weeks.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Six weeks?


William Earl Rowe: I do not mind telling you that I do not have to apologize for that government. We had a leader at that time who has been chided for introducing closure. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration asked me to mention that tonight. When I sat here in 1932 from February 26 to March 23, your cohorts, the men who are not now associated with you because you were leaning toward being Conservative at that time-all the men you were not associated with at that time made the rafters ring in this house. I remember the Right Hon. Mackenzie King as prime minister walking out in front of the house and saying that the parliament of Canada had lost its supremacy and he almost shed crocodile tears. He talked about his dear old grandfather and how he had fought for Canada.
He said all this because the matter had been debated from February 26 to March 23. You great champions of the unemployed and the poor were voting against giving relief to the unemployed and the farm relief which was necessary because you lost every market during the time you were in power.
The only other time closure was put on was in an important session back in 1912 when Sir Robert Borden was trying to give Great Britain three dreadnoughts in her dire time of need as she was preparing for the first world war. Every Liberal henchman in this country for four solid months from December until April 5 sought to defeat doing this. They sat up at night, Mr. Chairman, and the Clerk told me at that time he thought he was going to collapse because he had to sit here day and night while discussion on that naval bill went on. In other words, the Liberals at that time said they were not going to send any dreadnoughts to old England and Sir Robert Borden finally put closure on. Compare these instances, Mr. Chairman. Why have you put closure on? You have put it on to force the Canadian taxpayers behind the dirty shrouds of closure to pay a bonus to United States interests which will help them control one of our most vital natural resources. How can the

government compare those two examples of closure?
You talk about haste. In 1951 you told us there was an incorporated company going to build the pipe line in three years in Canada. For three years all that took place was a courtship between the two and finally you made it a shotgun marriage. Then they came back to you and said, "Mr. Howe, we are married now but we cannot get along without a little bit of help and a line is difficult to put through your country around Fort William in that rocky part of the nation. That is the hardest section of the line. Will you give us some help?" And the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, "Yes, we will give you some help," and so he arranged for $130 million. After he arranged for that they came back and said, "Now that you have given us $130 million, will you let us use $80 million of it to build the softest part of the line?" So you bonused them to build the hardest part and let them use the same money for the softest part, and if they build the softest part, you will have to introduce closure again to get some more money for them to build the hardest part. What an unholy mess this has become. As has been mentioned, the taxpayers of Canada are being victimized and the crown company which has been organized will be disabled by this very move.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce says this company had great foresight. Yes, it had great foresight. It ordered 180 miles of 34-inch pipe. I believe he said it was ordered from the National Tube Company of McKeesport, Pennsylvania. They ordered it, however, on the condition that the federal power commission in Washington would accept delivery of the gas. As the minister said yesterday they had to know what they were going to get before they were going to deliver it. Now he says there is a change and they have ordered 600 miles of pipe. How did that come about? That is not what I call foresight.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the greatest piece of fiction we have heard tonight.


William Earl Rowe: This so-called foresight-


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is not a word of truth in what you are saying.


William Earl Rowe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to listen to any lectures on truth from a man whom we have heard misrepresent the facts more frequently than any hon. member during the session. Mr. Chairman, they ordered the pipe because the Canadian taxpayers were going to have to pay for it, and the government is hiding behind closure in order to force the issue. I can well understand why the Prime Minister gives his
15, 1956	3949
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation silent acquiescence. He has already told them what he thought about it. He said that of the three propositions it was the worst one. Eighty-three per cent of the control is in the hands of United States interests. Ninety per cent of the cost is to be paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. The taxpayers of Canada are paying for 83 per cent of the dividends and profits which go to United States interests.
We were told that a government agency might interfere with the federal power commission accepting gas. Now we have a government agency established to build the hardest part of the line and there is a 90 per cent mortgage on the whole thing.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you tell the truth?


William Earl Rowe: If this was not such a tragedy it would be ridiculous enough to be amusing. We were told tonight by one of the ministers that this is the greatest national project which has ever been put before this House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: It is.


William Earl Rowe: It is so important that the government does not want anyone to speak about it. The government is afraid to send it to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, as was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister seems to be afraid to speak about it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is afraid to let the rest of us speak about it and the Liberal party is afraid to go to the country. I challenge you. You are afraid to let the people answer. You cannot put closure on the people because they will defeat you.


George Harris Hees: That a boy!


William Earl Rowe: The Prime Minister is ashamed to speak about it. Closure was brought in, Mr. Chairman, because the date was fixed at Washington. The date was fixed by United States interests and we in parliament were told not to talk in order to please our friends. I am reminded of the old days when we were told that we must not provoke the United States. Our party has stuck solidly to its traditional policies. I am not concerned about those little henchmen or the ridiculous gibes from the front benches or the backbenchers. Down in the province of Quebec we have seen how you and the Social Credit are married in that province and are running a honeymoon up here. I am not a bit concerned about this.
If there ever has been a time in the history of this country when a man was more
3950	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation maligned and more misrepresented than the Leader of the Opposition it is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You cheap propagandists have gone out and misrepresented him and said he was not in favour of developing our resources when our party brought more United States capital into Canada than your party has ever done. It was the Canada first policy of R. B. Bennett in 1930 that brought plants from England and the United States to this *country. My little friend from Manitoba does not understand, as he has not been here long enough. That is what has happened down through the days of Macdonald, Borden, Bennett, and now-


An hon. Member:: Drew.


William Earl Rowe: Drew in the province of Ontario. You gentlemen laugh but you do not understand it. I know the young hon. member has not been in the house long enough but he applauds when he does not know what he is applauding about. That capital was brought to the province of Ontario, some of it to his own district. The Leader of the Opposition encouraged $200 million of United States capital to come in here by his policy of development, not for Americans but for Canadians.
I am not disturbed by the empty laughs of those who know no better; I am not disturbed by the gibes of the backbenchers who have made a custom of it. Those are the facts that history has recorded.


William Moore Benidickson: Where did the dividends go?


William Earl Rowe: They did not go to the United States of America as they are going to do in this instance.


An hon. Member:: That is strike two for you, Benidickson.


William Earl Rowe: We are told that this is another declaration of Canadian independence. Oh, dear, surely that should have been corrected in Hansard. Why did not the Minister of Agriculture correct that and call it Canadian interdependence?


James Garfield Gardiner: I was not the Leader of the Opposition.


William Earl Rowe: The government has now presented in a hasty, reckless, haphazard form a resolution which has been hidden for four months by a government which has refused to answer questions. Yesterday we were prohibited from asking questions. Now they bring out a resolution which is dusty and moth-eaten. The hon. member for Vancouver South said it was a moth-eaten horse. I know enough about horses that he has ridden more political horses than anybody in this country.
(.Mr. Rowe.]

Now we are told we are to have closure, the guillotine is going to be applied, the axe is to be swung by the Liberal government. Are these the people who bow at the shrine of Laurier? Is that the attitude taken by the Right Hon. Mackenzie King? Where are you now? Those are the men who fought for the supremacy of parliament. They would turn in their graves if they knew what was happening. What would the great Laurier say? What would the great Mackenzie King say? They were great men.
They are no more silent tonight, as they sleep in peace I hope, than the Prime Minister has been since the session started. This is an issue that concerns the rights and hopes of our people, in this country. This country is filled with resources of oil, iron and everything that makes a country great and rich. I urge the Prime Minister to rise and shuffle out from that smug complacency that prompts this government to do nothing about anything. I urge the Prime Minister to speak before one o'clock because he knows the country is interested. These things belong to the people of Canada. If you do not think that we are presenting this in sincerity I ask you to rise and tell us why you are silent. I know you are not afraid to speak; I know you can speak; I know you are not too old to grasp the problem. You may be afraid to go to the country but I know you are not afraid to rise in parliament.
If the Minister of Trade and Commerce is afraid to have an open debate on this and let us talk more than 20 minutes, and if you are afraid to speak, then get the cabinet together and call an election tomorrow and let the people speak. You can gag, as you have done tonight, and guillotine your opposition-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think I must remind the hon. member that he should address his remarks to the chair.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope that I have not reflected upon your able chairmanship. The government has gagged the people's representatives in the opposition but they cannot gag the voter at the ballot box. I urge them to trust them. I remember the words of the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King who said that we should trust the people. He said, "We trust the people, we are the champions of the supremacy of parliament." You are afraid to do either. So I urge you now, if you are afraid to debate it in parliament, go to the country. It is a nice time of year. If you are as powerful as you think you are, as you boast here that you are, and as you have been boasting for the last four

years, go out and face the people. You will be defeated just as surely as any other government was defeated that imposed closure so clumsily without giving parliament a chance to express itself.
I believe that my time has expired and rather than have you call me to time I will conclude my remarks.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to match my lungs against those of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, nor do I intend to match my lungs against the noise in the chamber. I shall hesitate when that is required. Hon. members of the Conservative party have said that this filibuster began only an hour before this motion was moved. Filibuster on pipe lines began in this house in 1949 and it was begun by members of the Conservative opposition. Never since that time has actual common sense been spoken when gas transmission has been discussed except on occasions when hon. members such as the hon. member for Calgary South or hon. members on this side of the house have spoken, particularly the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce.
When the filibuster began as it did in 1949 the chosen instrument for gas transmission at that time-it was the chosen instrument of the Conservative opposition

was Westcoast Transmission. What has been the result? An hon. member says "rubbish". I can quote speaker after speaker from Hansard saying that the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited has been the only company prepared to build the pipe line entirely in Canada. It was an uneconomic route, but, nothwithstanding that, it was a company that at all times was prepared to build an all-Canadian line.
That was the story of the official opposition. Nevertheless the actual facts were that two or three of the companies applied for charters, and at least two received charters, who were prepared to do basically the same thing, but they were prepared to build a pipe line to British Columbia where it would serve the people of British Columbia. The present pipe line has been brought to fruition because of this silly outlook with respect to the transmission of natural gas. Half of the consumption of gas in British Columbia will be lost. The east and west Kootenays in British Columbia would have consumed as much natural gas as the greater Vancouver area. Those were facts brought out in committee.
Nevertheless, a gas line is going to the west coast and, as the hon. member for Vancouver South has shown here tonight, the gas bills for those people will be cut in half. The gas bills for those people would have been cut another 20 per cent if the gas line
15, 1956	3951
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation had followed an economic route. Certainly the gas bills and the fuel bills of the people of Trail, Kimberley and the Crowsnest area would have been equally well served. However, that became the basic policy for all parties, and the Westcoast Transmission Company received its charter on the basis that it was going to serve all-Canadian consumers first. But the result is that natural gas will go to the west coast and serve a small number of consumers, and about 90 per cent of the gas will be exported to the United States. This is against the policy of the allCanadian consumers being served first.
As I have said, that was the chosen instrument of the Conservative party, and that was the policy which was to be undertaken by the president of Westcoast Transmission. Now what do we find? This great exponent of the policy of serving Canadian consumers first, last and foremost comes out with a proposal to transport natural gas to eastern Canada when it has already been shown that another company has the plans ready, the supplies at hand and the sale spoken for. But, as has been shown, unless a large proportion of that natural gas is sold in the United States, they are not able to finance it at the moment.
Mr. McMahon, president of Westcoast Transmission and the new proponent of a gas line to eastern Canada, makes a proposal and promises us in a confidential letter that he will personally post with the government $500,000 cash to complete the project by 1958, subject only to being able to obtain the necessary materials. You might note that he was not too sure of being able to obtain the materials, although he had said in other letters that he would obtain them. Half a million dollars is not a very great deal of money to this gentleman, as many of you may know. But what is the crux of the plan that this great exponent of the policy of serving Canadian users first proposes? A volume of 400 million cubic feet is to be exported into the United States, four-fifths of the total amount of natural gas that the provincial government of Alberta has authorized for export. If that is the understanding on which Mr. McMahon was prepared to go ahead, is is any wonder that he has been asked to pay up or shut up? It seems to me that that is what should have been done with a person who has made such a spurious offer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the hon. member ever heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce say that was a spurious offer?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I certainly heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce say that it was not, in his opinion, a firm offer.
3952	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Donald Methuen Fleming: But has the hon. member ever heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce say the offer was a spurious offer?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I have said that this project proposed by Mr. McMahon would export four-fifths of the entire amount of gas that has been permitted for export from the province of Alberta. Now what has become of the policy of Canadians being served first and foremost?
There has been a great deal of discussion regarding the control of the companies, and comparisons have been made between the McMahon offer and that of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. At least Trans-Canada Pipe Lines are proposing to move natural gas to eastern Canada. The McMahon proposal is to move gas to the United States. It may be true that with Trans-Canada more of the incidental profits will be paid to the bondholders in the United States, but in the other case much of the profit again will accrue to bondholders in the United States but there will be no gas in eastern Canada. We certainly may have control in Canada, but no gas. I should estimate that the great International Nickel Company in its smelters would use almost half of the amount of natural gas that would be left for consumption in eastern Canada should this proposal have been accepted.
That is not all. The proponents of Canada first at all costs, that is, mainly the official opposition, have said at all times that the main line must be built entirely within Canada. We have had bills passed here day after day, week after week, with the same silly argument being put forward. When a gathering company was being incorporated and gas or oil were being brought to one central location for transportation to a given area the official opposition have always insisted that the main line of the gathering system be built entirely within Canada to connect with the main transmission line regardless of whether it meant that the gathering line would be 100 or 200 miles longer. The principle is there.
What does Mr. McMahon propose in this case? Mr. McMahon finds that there are some basic faults in Trans-Canada's plan, and the third one is the following:
The Trans-Canada plan contemplates the sale of gas to Tennessee Gas Transmission Company and a subsidiary at Emerson, Manitoba, and Niagara Falls, Ontario. Gas sold at Emerson would be used by the Tennessee Company in the great plains-midwest area of the United States to invade the duly franchised market areas of the present pipe line companies . . .
Isn't that just too bad? It is going to interfere with some of his friends. But' that is not all. I want to point out that the official oppos-
TMr. Byrne.]

ition are supporting this proposal as the only alternative to the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company. Mr. McMahon proposes to build a 34-inch pipe line to Winnipeg and a 30-inch pipe line from Winnipeg to eastern Canada. Where is the main line being built? Four-fifths of the natural gas is, according to his plan, to be sold in the United States and 100 million cubic feet per day is to go to eastern Canada in a smaller pipe. It would be very interesting to hear from the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra who has always felt that this principle must be maintained at all costs. I am waiting anxiously to hear what he has to say about this matter.
I should like to say one word about the question of closure. I have said earlier that this pipe line filibuster began in 1949. We went' through it in the session of 1949 and the session of 1950. Two gas company charters were refused because of filibusters and the whole gas line policy of Canada was confused. The newspapers carried articles as long as four months ago indicating that the official opposition had stated they were going to filibuster this pipe line measure. One of their members even said that it would be an example of eternity, and certainly the members of the C.C.F. party have made similar statements. We are facing a position in which the minority are attempting to obstruct parliamentary procedure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is what you said last year.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: This is a very important matter and it has been shown that unless the financing can be assured by the end of this month the pipe line policy will be further confused and will be for another two years. It is my opinion that we should pass the legislation and get on with the job that we were sent here to do.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, on one thing I am sure we can all agree this evening and that is that we have had a very interesting and exciting day. Perhaps if the House of Commons had days like this more frequently we would be far more popular with the general public in the galleries than we have been in the past. However, I should like to speak very seriously tonight on some features of the debate on the question before the house.
The first is that within a little over an hour the axe will fall and debate will be stopped on this stage of the measure. That action is unprecedented in the parliamentary history of Canada, and I am sure that when members on the other side of the house have the opportunity to think over what has been done in the last two days they will realize that a very

grievous blow has been struck at our institution of parliamentary government in this nation. The Prime Minister has not been in public life for many years. He has never been, and I say this in all kindness, a House of Commons man, and I do not believe he realizes tonight the serious implications of the step he has allowed his senior minister to force on him in moving closure, not after there had been an extensive debate, but at the end of the very first speech when the minister introduced this particular measure.
The Prime Minister obviously has condoned that step and he must accept the primary responsibility before the Canadian people and in the history of Canada for what he has allowed to be done in this debate. Closure is particularly atrocious under these circumstances when we remember that in the speech from the throne on January 10 this pipe line measure was announced and it was understood then that it would be the main question before the house during this session. The resolution preceding the legislation appeared first on February 3, but debate was not brought on until March 15 and then it was cut off after one day. An amended resolution was brought in, came up for debate yesterday for the first time and the Minister of Trade and Commerce moved closure. I think that action can be fairly summed up in these words, that Liberalism as exemplified in the House of Commons in May of 1956 is synonymous with contempt of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: Let me analyse the resolution which is under debate. It precedes a measure to set up a crown corporation to be known as Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation which will have the power to construct a gas pipe line from the Ontario-Manitoba border 675 miles east to Kapuskasing. The corporation is to have the power to lease that pipe line, with an option to purchase, to this chosen instrument of the government, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. In addition, the corporation is now to be given the power to lend to this same company for a line from the Alberta-Saskatchewan border 575 miles east to the vicinity of Winnipeg a sum not exceeding $80 million or 90 per cent of the cost. The aggregate for all this work is to be not over $130 million.
I point out that the original resolution referred only to the northern Ontario line and it contained the same figure, $130 million. The cost was estimated to be $118 million, of which Ontario was to put up $35 million leaving $83 million for the dominion. If $80 million of that $130 million is now to go into the western line it is obvious that unless and until that sum is repaid there will not be
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation enough money to build the northern Ontario line. That line will just have to wait in the meantime. The resolution is very misleading because it should contain a figure of $210 million rather than a figure of $130 million. Remember this, Mr. Chairman. Under the government's proposal no share whatever of the profits, either of the western line or the northern line, is to go to Canada.
Then we must consider too the agreement made a week ago, on May 8. It gives further details of this proposal. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited is to repay on or before April 2, 1957. That means the company will have a further extension until April 2, 1957 to prove financial ability. Already within the last few weeks the government has extended the time for that to November 1, 1956. It means, of course, delay in the northern Ontario line, delay in the line from Winnipeg to the Ontario border and delay in the line in southern Ontario and into the province of Quebec.
Now I point out four important features which I suggest should be considered by hon. members and by the Canadian people. The first is that the government went to this chosen instrument hat in hand, an amazing thing for the government to do. On May 8, as reported at page 3664 of Hansard, the minister said this:
I emphasize that the approach came from the government, not Trans-Canada. Trans-Canada was not in default.
Actually Trans-Canada was in default and badly so. I need only remind you, Mr. Chairman, that on September 15 of last year the minister's representative, Mr. Sharp, appeared before the board of transport commissioners in support of an application the company was then making for an extension of time. The newspaper dispatch reads as follows:
Sharp said Trans-Canada and its bankers have given the federal government assurance that it will be able to build the balance of the pipe line.
That is with the government completing the northern Ontario section.
"The government of Canada is proceeding on the assumption that Trans-Canada now will be able to accomplish this objective and that construction will commence in 1956 and be completed in 1957," Sharp said.
In the agreement itself between the government and Trans-Canada dated November 21 of last year, we find this clause:
And whereas Trans-Canada proposes to arrange for financing of all its costs and commitments in connection with the said program of construction prior to May 1, 1956; . . .
What is happening is this. The government keeps bailing them out. If there is default on April 2, 1957, I believe the government

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation will again step in and bail out this company. When the minister spoke yesterday he was very careful to point out that the government is not obliged to take over the Western pipe line next year if there is default. He made it clear that while that power is taken, it does not have to be exercised. So I repeat this first feature is that the government has gone to this company hat in hand. What possible chance is there of Canada getting a good deal under those circumstances?
Then the second feature is this. These American companies are in the saddle, particularly the Tennessee Gas Transmission Company. Make no mistake about it, this plan that is being forced on the House of Commons is a Tennessee Gas plan. The minister has never denied that fact. What have they done? They have just refused to put up the money for the western section. On March 28 of this year they were told by the board of transport commissioners to go out and raise the money to build that section. I have here the judgment. It contains this paragraph:
The board has suggested to the applicant that the latter might further pursue the possibility of raising the necessary capital through private sources to permit of the immediate construction of this part of the line, the cost of which it is estimated would amount to between $70 million and $75 million.
On April 12 a newspaper dispatch indicated that it was expected that this company would be advancing the money to build the western section of the line. Remember this, Mr. Chairman. These are wealthy companies. When the Tennessee Gas company came into the picture last fall, we were told that it was a pipe line giant. A dispatch then said this:
The $826 million Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, which operates the world's largest natural gas transmission network in the United States, is to be a full partner in the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited line . . .
But they are not doing any gambling. They can get out of this deal next spring with very little loss. Tennessee Gas is not on any covenant to repay the government loan. The covenant is with the government's own chosen instrument, namely Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. The government is going to pay $80 million and these promoters only have to pay between $8 million and $9 million.
Just three or four days ago the counsel for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited went before the board of transport commissioners. What did he say? According to this newspaper clipping this is what he said:
Trans-Canada's counsel, Ross Tolmie, said the government's agreement to provide the $80 million will be used as evidence of financial ability to build the link.

Then in the third place, Trans-Canada will not be moving to complete the line-that is into eastern Canada and to Montreal-unless and until the federal power commission gives a permit to export gas to the United States. Throughout, from the beginning and right to the bitter end, so long as this Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited is the company-involved, the government's plan for a completed pipe line from Alberta to Montreal has depended and will depend on this permission from the federal power commission of the United States, a body set up in a foreign country to protect the interests of that country. The Minister of Trade and Commerce made the position clear when he spoke on May 8. As reported at page 3663 of Hansard he said this:
In spite of their best endeavours, however*-
He was referring to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.
-they have not been able to obtain guarantees-that the money necessary to finance either the whole of the line, apart from the northern Ontario section, or the western section, would be forthcoming in advance of approval by the federal power commission of their contract for the sale of gas into the United States.
Then, when speaking yesterday, he again made the position clear when he said this, as reported at page 3861 of Hansard:
However, there has been and there is no end clearly in sight.
He was referring to the granting of a permit by the federal power commission.
The company has made no agreement to complete the whole line without a permit from the federal power commission. There is no explanation by the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the effect on the over-all plan if the federal power commission fails to give approval. He is delightfully vague when it comes to telling the house and the people just what is to be done if the federal power commission fails to grant a permit for import into the United States.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, control of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines remains in the head offices of these American companies, and primarily, of course, in the head office of Tennessee Gas. No real attempt has been made by the government to ensure Canadian control. When they were renegotiating or when they were making this contract which was signed a week ago today, one would have thought that they would have included some provision which would have made it certain that there would be absolute Canadian control of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. But there is nothing of that kind in the agreement. The minister himself has intimated he considered it hopeless; that there was no use trying to get terms of that kind

included. No matter how the minister twists and turns he cannot get away from the fact, and none of his supporters can get away from the fact, that this Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited is and will be dominated by United States oil and pipe line companies, and that the Canadian government is subsidizing them in the construction of a major national project at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer.
I conclude my remarks by this statement, and I make it after careful consideration. I believe that this measure now proposed by the government is the greatest betrayal of the Canadian people since confederation.


John Decore: Mr. Chairman, I rise to take part in this debate and being a member from Alberta I am vitally concerned with the issue which is before us now. We have had [DOT]occasion tonight to listen to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys as well as the hon. member for Peace River, the Leader of the Social Credit party, and both of these gentlemen are Albertans. So far as Alberta is concerned, they have placed before you the hard facts of the urgent need for the [DOT]export of gas from that province as soon as possible. Figures have been quoted, and I do not intend to repeat them now, but the fact is that Alberta sustains a loss every day because of the wastage of gas resulting from the lack of export. At the same time this lack hampers our industrial development.
There are many producers in the province of Alberta. We have individuals; we have small companies and larger companies; we have syndicates. We have Canadian companies and we have United States companies. But by far the greatest producers in Alberta are the people of that province. They are the ones who have the greatest stake in this issue. This debate so far has been very interesting and very hot at times. I feel it is the duty of the opposition not only to criticize, but if necessary to oppose government policy. But that is not enough. It is also their duty to offer not only an alternative but a better alternative.
What has happened on this issue? The hon. member for Eglinton has suggested that the Liberals and Social Crediters have formed an alliance. What about this strange alliance that has taken place in this house? We note that the free enterprising Tories and the socialist C.C.F.'ers have got together. We have heard of the grand alliance. We have heard of the holy alliance, but it seems to me that this is the most unholy alliance we have yet witnessed in this house. At least the C.C.F., though I disagree with what they have to offer, have come out with a policy which is consistent, that is of public ownership. I still would like to know what
15, 1956	3955
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation alternative the Tories have to ensure that, in the face of the facts before us, at least the prairie section of this pipe line will be commenced and completed this year.	It
appears clear to all of us that the only alternative they have to offer is delay, not only to embarrass the government but in my opinion to embarrass the people of Alberta.
Furthermore from the consumer point of view, Premier Frost has indicated the importance of getting gas into Ontario as soon as possible. Yesterday we had occasion to listen to the Leader of the Opposition who spoke for about two and a half hours but who has not given this house any alternative, nor has he mentioned one word regarding the stand taken by Premier Frost on this matter. After all the leader of the official opposition was at one time the premier of Ontario and certainly he must have the welfare of the people of Ontario at heart. But as one who aspires to become the Prime Minister of Canada, I think he should also have the welfare of the people of Alberta at heart. It is essential to Albertans that we have the export of gas as soon as possible.
Much has been said in this house, especially by the C.C.F. group, in favour of public ownership. The Leader of the C.C.F. party has challenged this government to call an election. I doubt if the Canadian people, in a matter of a few weeks, would change their views and come out in favour of public ownership. They have rejected it before, and certainly they would reject it now. I should like to quote the views of one authority on this matter of public ownership. He says:
If the governments attempted to operate the line themselves they would face considerable difficulties. In the first place governments have no experience in gas pipe line operation and they would have to employ experienced operators, without being able to give them the incentive of ownership or part ownership of the line. Secondly, the governments would be in the position of having to balance the consumer and producer interests and there might be a division of opinion between the governments of gas-producing and gas-consuming provinces.
We have heard the hon. member for Peace River express his view and he has pointed out the difficulties in this respect.
There are few objective standards by which it could be determined whether the producers were getting too much or too little for their gas on the one hand, or whether the consumers were paying too much or too little on the other.
Even if the governments rented the line or turned over its management to some private organization, so long as they owned the line they could hardly escape some responsibility for the policies of the private organization. Therefore, any such arrangement with a private organization would probably only be satisfactory in the short run.
3956	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
This quotation is taken from a report to the treasurer of Ontario by Clarkson, Gordon and Company and known as the Glassco report. It seems to me that the essentials of a sound natural gas policy are, first of all, that the main pipe line run all the way through Canadian territory. To this policy, this government is dedicated. Secondly, in allocating gas, priority must be given to the needs of the Canadian consumer, whether it be for industrial or domestic use. The export of the gas must take second place, and again in this respect the government is dedicated to this policy.
The third essential is that it must be under effective Canadian control, and again in this respect the government is dedicated to this policy.
Some reference has been made to the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway company and to some of the statements made by Sir John A. Macdonald. Of course, all Canadians have great admiration for Sir John A. Macdonald, but was it not necessary to give land grants to encourage the Canadian Pacific Railway to build?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, and they kept it Canadian.


John Decore: With regard to effective Canadian control I would like to draw to the attention of the house a statement which appeared in the Financial Post Corporation Service, page 10, card dated September 23, 1955. It reveals that as of December, 1954, the combined stocks or the voting strength of shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway by countries was as follows:	At that
time Canada had 12-20 per cent; the United Kingdom and other British countries, 46-31 per cent; the United States-and note this- had 33-38 per cent or nearly three times as much as that of Canada; and other countries, 8-11 per cent.
I think these are very interesting figures. They show that the voting strength of the combined stocks held by Canadians was only 12-20 per cent; yet did this mean that the Canadian Pacific Railway company is not being effectively controlled by the people of Canada? Does it make the Canadian Pacific Railway company less Canadian than it should be? We Canadians feel that we can make sacrifices and I think we should be prepared to make them, to assure that this is an all-Canadian pipe line. Surely we could have taken the easy way out and allowed this pipe line to go south of the great lakes rather than north of them. In that event we would not have been called upon either to build the line ourselves through public ownership or to adopt the stand we now adopt. I say, let us be realistic.


I do not think there is an hon. member in this house, including the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who feels the trans-Canada pipe line project is completely ideal; but as the Edmonton Journal of May 10, 1956, put it:
Of all the schemes proposed for distributing Alberta natural gas, the trans-Canada pipe line project seems, in balance, the best. It is to be hoped that parliament will ratify it without undue delay, so that construction may commence this year.
I have read just the last paragraph of that editorial.
Much has been said during the course of this debate with reference to closure. The fact remains that before the Minister of Trade and Commerce even had a chance to speak to this resolution we had to undergo seven votes in this house. I think the opposition gave their notice of intention concerning what course they wished to follow; in other words, they asked for it.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke tonight about the freedom of debate I think we witnessed a bad example in his attempt to prevent the hon. member for Bow River having his 20 minutes which is allotted by the house. I think, Mr. Chairman, this is a fine example of a closure within a closure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I did not try to detract from the 20 minutes of the hon. member for Bow River. I just did not want the time he caused the house to spend on the point of order to be taken from the rest of us, including my hon. friend from Vegreville.


John Decore: Mr. Chairman, the fact remains that nearly 20 minutes was taken by that argument, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did get up and say that time should be counted within the 20 minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who was responsible for it?


John Decore: In other words, you tried to prevent the hon. member from expressing his views within the 20 minutes allotted to him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense. The rules of the house have to be upheld.


John Decore: Of course the same thing can be said with regard to what happened this afternoon when the Conservatives made an attempt to prevent the hon. member for Calgary South from speaking.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has made a statement which he must know is entirely untrue. There was no attempt made to stop any hon. member from speaking this afternoon. The time taken by the member for Calgary South was provided

by the Liberal party out of the time allotted to it in debate and was not taken out of the Conservative opposition's time. It was all done by the Liberal whip.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, I think May 15 will be remembered as the date on which we witnessed democracy reach its lowest ebb in Canada since confederation.


John Borden Hamilton: It is the 16th.


George Hugh Castleden: It will be a sad day only
if it is forgotten. Today we witnessed the denial of the rights of the representatives of between one-third and one-half of the Canadian people to speak in parliament. Seldom in Canadian history has there been such a betrayal of Canadian rights and Canadian interests and never has democracy in this Canada of ours been so brutally set aside to perpetrate that betrayal.
Forty-five years ago the Canadian government, dealing with a matter of reciprocity between this country and the United States, after debate in this house took that question to the highest court of the Canadian people in the land, and therefore they voted as to whether or not Canada should carry on trade with the United States, whether there should be restrictions and a cutting down of tariffs for both countries to permit the free trade of goods. At that time the government believed the proper thing to do was to let the Canadian people decide the issue on those grounds.
Some 30 years ago the Liberal party applied closure in this house but it was only after there had been weeks of debate.
Yesterday we had notice given that closure was being applied in this house even before the resolution had been introduced by the minister who introduced it. What is this resolution? The Canadian people should know what this resolution contains. It calls for about five things. Under this resolution the Canadian government in co-operation with the Ontario government is building through a government corporation a pipe line from the Manitoba border to Kapus-kasing which will cost the taxpayers about $113 million. After it is built it is to be handed over to the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company with an option to buy it after a number of years. If it is a paying proposition, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines picks it up; if it is not, then the Canadian people can have it and pay for it.
On top of that, this resolution makes arrangements for the Canadian government to loan to Trans-Canada 90 per cent of the cost of constructing the pipe line from Alberta to a point near Winnipeg, a sum totalling between $70 and $80 million. There is a specific provision under the arrangement
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation to be set up following the adoption of this resolution for a lead-off of 200 million cubic feet of natural gas per day from Manitoba at a point near Emerson. The corporation to be set up is to have the power to do such things.
In case the company defaults, the government is to take over the assets of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and operate the whole thing as a government enterprise. The government thus admits that there is a possibility that they may have to operate this as a crown corporation. In heaven's name, if they are building the eastern portion of the line and lending the company 90 per cent of the cost of building the western portion, they should take it over for the benefit of the Canadian people.
That is the indisputable argument which this government cannot escape. If Trans-Canada Pipe Lines wishes to build this line, then it should be allowed to operate it. If the government intends to build it and to provide the money for building it, then the government should operate it. This infamous resolution calls upon the Canadian people to lend the money to build it and then it is to be handed over lock, stock and barrel to United States interest.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce built the Polymer Corporation with Canadian money for the purpose of making artificial rubber during wartime. The government did not build the Polymer Corporation and then hand it over to the Canadian rubber companies. If they had done so the Canadian people would have objected. The Minister of Trade and Commerce did not build up a fine Trans-Canada Air Lines and then hand it over to Canadian Pacific Air Lines. The Canadian people would have objected strenuously if he had done so.
What do the Canadian people think of this proposition? We are going to practically build this line and then hand it over to United States interests, the big world oil combine boys from Texas who own and control such vast quantities of the world's supplies of oil. Canada is to help them out.
Who is this fine favoured friend called Trans-Canada Pipe Lines? I had hoped that the hon. member for Vegreville would have told us something about them in his introduction of the bill to establish Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in 1951. At that time he told the house that this was to be an all-Canadian company, it was to build an all-Canadian pipe line and there would be 100 per cent consumption of gas by Canadian consumers. That was the commitment made to the house, that was the commitment made
3958	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation to the committee which listened to the representatives who came here to tell us what a great company it was.
They brought in their men of money from New York who said that money would offer no difficulty at all. They had the engineers who had engineering know-how. They told us that there were difficulties and they told us how they could overcome them with their know-how. They had the money and all they wanted was the opportunity to provide this great service to Canadians. They assured the committee and they assured this parliament that they did not want to have anything to do with it unless it was to be an all-Canadian pipe line with all-Canadian consumption. That is a very vital point.
Something happened after they were granted their charter in 1951. This company fell under the control of a number of large United States oil and gas companies. A return tabled in the house a short time ago gave the details of the ownership of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. Some very revealing facts were given. Hudson Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited, part of a large United States company, holds 327,000 shares of stock. Canadian Gulf Oil Company of Calgary, Alberta, part of a parent company in the United States, owns 327,000 shares. Tennessee Gas Transmission Company of Houston, Texas, owns 327,000 shares of stock. Canadian Delhi Oil Company Limited of Calgary, part of a parent organization in the United States, owns 497,000 shares of stock. International Utilities Corporation, 44 Wall Street, New York, New York, owns 127,000 shares. Those are the blocks over 100,000 shares. N. E. Tanner, who I believe was formerly minister of natural resources in the Social Credit government of Alberta, holds two shares, and Sarah I. Tanner, Calgary, Alberta, owns 9,999 shares.
The thing I want to point out to this house and to the people of Canada is that when this company came under the control of United States oil companies every promise they made to the parliament of Canada was violated. They no longer said that this was to be an all-Canadian proposition. They said, "You get no gas in eastern Canada unless you arrange to have a lead-off in Manitoba to supply 200 million cubic feet of gas per day to the United States of America."
When they did that they violated their contract and their word to this parliament. They should have been repudiated at that point. But no, this company which had gold-bricked this parliament, which had deceived the Canadian people and their representatives in this house, instead of being repudiated were met with open hands and offered even more. What noble achievements has this com-
[Mr. Castleden.l

pany performed that it should be selected as the favourite son of the Canadian government to be granted these special privileges? What noble record of integrity and of honour has this company that it deserves such gifts? What foreign prince has come to our midst that we should take a natural resource of this country and hand it over? Why should a private corporation receive these gifts and have control over a great natural resource of this country?
I ask you to think carefully over what is going to be the ultimate result of the handing over of the control of our gas to this company. What is it going to mean? It will mean ultimately that the Canadian consumer of gas in eastern Canada will pay the price dictated by these people, while the United States consumer will get it at their price. Canadian gas will be sold to the Canadian people at a price which the United States people dictate. They will be able to give their own industry a favoured price. How can Canadian industry compete when the whole thing is stacked against them in that way?
We in Canada are asked to submit to this. This is being forced upon us. Excuses have been made. The stand of this party is quite clear. There is only one honourable thing to do and that is to operate this natural resource as a crown corporation so that any profits accruing shall not go down to the large gas and oil companies but will be paid back to the Canadian people. In heaven's name, by what right should a great natural resource of this country be handed over to .foreign industrial, gas and oil magnates? Is there any excuse for it? How can this government excuse its actions in handing this over to United States private enterprise?
That is what we are being asked to do. Opposition members who dare to raise their voices in opposition are told that at one o'clock closure will be applied and whether or not we want to speak the resolution stage will be passed. No wonder we rise in protest. This company, which violated its promises to this parliament, which broke its word, is now handed some more privileges. It did not get its pipe line built in 1951 or 1952, and it did not get it started in 1953. It violated its contract. The Canadian government, through the board of transport commissioners, granted it an extension of time. When it lost its nationality and became a United States concern, further extensions were granted. It has not built one foot of pipe line in five years. The government says it has to apply closure to get this through because it has made a contract to get the money out to these American people by June 7. If we endorsed this, we would be betraying the trust of the Cana-

dian people. This is not only a betrayal; this is an insult to the Canadian people, and it is our duty to protest against it with everything we have.
On March 15, the ides of March, the Minister of Trade and Commerce brought in a resolution to this house proposing only the setting up of the crown corporation to build the eastern portion of this line. It created such a storm of protest that the government dared not bring the matter back into the house. From March 15 until the other day, nothing was heard about the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. Now they have bunched together a proposition under which we shall build the eastern portion of the line together with the western portion of the line and they say, "Boys, get it through by June 7", when the caucus was called last Tuesday, and the committees of this house were called off in order that it could meet. Then they came back into this house. Apparently the Minister of Trade and Commerce had sold the cabinet a bill of goods and the cabinet told the members what could be done and that they had to toe the line to a man. I appeal to those members to think over their responsibility to the Canadian people.
They have sat here for 20 years with some of the largest majorities that the Canadian people ever gave to a government of Canada. Did the people who elected them say, "You can govern as you wish and give away the natural resources of Canada to a United States pipe line company. If you cannot get the bill through, apply closure." Is this the way you are to treat a democracy? It is colossal nerve. That is the only way in which we can describe the attitude of a government that would ask parliament to pass such a bill in the face of all the facts, a bill to pay for 96 per cent of the Canadian pipe line. To hand over control of a great asset, when you know you can operate it as a crown corporation, is nothing but an affront to the parliament of Canada. We would be traitors to Canada if we were silent. We would be traitors to the cause of democracy if we did not raise our voices in protest. We shall continue to raise them in protest throughout this whole debate.
Canadians for generations are being sold out today. What about the people of tomorrow? What about these great resources of western Canada and their value to the whole Canadian economy? What about the industries along this line that will be called upon from this day on to compete with United States industries? How can Canadian industry compete? This is a sell-out of Canadian interests such as Canada has never seen before.
15, 1956	3959
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
That would be bad enough but, when the Prime Minister and his cabinet lay their oil-soaked hands on the altar of democracy and defile it by closing off the opposition, the people of Canada will remember. For the second time in 89 years of confederation, the banner of liberalism has been dirtied with the stain of dictatorship. Today we are witnessing a portion of democracy dying. Today this government is betraying those who sent them here in trust with our resources and in trust with the sacred Canadian democracy.


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


Ray Thomas: If the gas that has been spread around here by the Tories and the C.C.F. were volatile, we would not need any importation into Ontario for the next ten years. Unfortunately, it is empty, it has no effect and no power.
A short time ago, when speaking, the hon. member for Vegreville said that he could not understand why the official opposition should join with the C.C.F. in this union. I think I can tell him why. The Tories have been looking around for a good long time, because of their lack of any basic policy, for something with which to jump on the government, and they thought this was it. In their blind groping, they found themselves attached to the dusty pink shirt-tails of the C.C.F. party, and they are stuck with it.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe was talking about marriages a few moments ago. I want to tell him that the results of this union at least are that it is going to bear fruit that will be for the benefit of all the people of Canada. I am glad that he admits we are young enough to have a honeymoon. At least we are not in the decrepit position of the official opposition. Whether they know it or not, they are in a rut, and the only difference between a rut and the grave is the dimensions.
The main reason why I am rising tonight arises out of a television broadcast seen on Monday night that was made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, in which he discussed this question. I have never seen a program more shot through with halftruths, misrepresentations and falsehoods. It is the type of thing that could produce disastrous results if the people of Canada were to pay any attention, and thank goodness they will not. In this broadcast, as well as on the floor of the house, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said that this $80 million was a payment for the building of the trans-Canada pipe line section between
3960	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Edmonton and Winnipeg. He did not tell the people it was a loan at 5 per cent and that it would be repayable in nine months. He did not say either that 5 per cent interest on a $80 million loan was a very high return indeed; and it is a very good investment.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I doubt if he could even figure that.


Ray Thomas: He spoke too, as did the Leader of the Opposition, about 83 [DOT] 4 per cent of the capitalization belonging to United States concerns. That may be true at the moment but that has absolutely nothing to do with the final figures when the final capitalization has been put through.


An hon. Member:: Then it may be 100 per cent.


Ray Thomas: We have the assurance that 51 per cent of the stock will be made available to the Canadian people, and if the government is willing to accept the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Bow River this morning we will have absolute control of the stock in Canada.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Wishful thinking.


Ray Thomas: As far as controls are
concerned-
Mr. Pallet!: More of that funny money, I guess.


Ray Thomas: -many times during this debate the controls have been indicated to the house, federal export permits, export permits from Alberta and permits from the board of transport commissioners. The arguments that are being put forward in the house gjjout selling out to United States capital, the same arguments as were used the other night by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar on a television program, are absolutely at variance with the facts. I remember very well that earlier this session the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar set himself up as the champion of free speech in this country. I want to remind the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that when you have freedom you have certain responsibilities as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ray Thomas: One of the most important responsibilities that anyone has is that of truth, and the minute that anyone, a member of the House of Commons or anyone else, steps over that line he has gone beyond freedom and into licence. I have absolutely no use for that type of thing at all.


An hon. Member:: He always tells the truth.


Alfred Claude Ellis: His reputation is far better than yours.


Ray Thomas: No man, Mr. Chairman, has a right to hand the Canadian people the type of tripe that was handed to them on that television program the other night.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It is true, nevertheless.


John Horne Blackmore: It is not true, not a word.


Ray Thomas: I can understand why the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the other members of the C.C.F. party are so absolutely opposed to this measure. It is because they are absolutely opposed to private ownership of any kind.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Ray Thomas: All you have to do is to read the last paragraph of the Regina manifesto.


An hon. Member:: You read it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Have you ever read it yourself?


Ray Thomas: You will get that later, too. This idea of public ownership of a line such as this is absolutely impractical. As pointed out by the hon. member for Peace River tonight -


Alfred Claude Ellis: And by the Liberals.


Ray Thomas: -under such a condition the government would be caught in a price squeeze between the producer and the consumer and it would become the greatest political plaything this country has ever had. Every political party in the country would be out campaigning for higher prices at the wellhead in Alberta and cheaper gas in the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. No self-respecting government would ever allow itself to be put in a position where it would be forced into that kind of situation.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You are defending the American gas companies.


Ray Thomas: The C.C.F. have mentioned several times during this debate, as have the Tories, that if the government cancels the franchise of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines all the government has to do is to form a crown company and pick up the option on the pipe. That is not correct.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Ray Thomas: Because if Trans-Canada
Pipe Lines forfeit their option the manufacturing company can go to any part of the world and sell the pipe to any company, and we have no guarantee that it will come to Canada.


An hon. Member:: They do not understand that.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: We will put it down in writing for them.


John Horne Blackmore: And hire a teacher for them.


Ray Thomas: Having said that, apparently I have made some enemies on this side of the house but I am not finished because the government itself is not without blame.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ray Thomas: It is as a result of their fumbling, bumbling and lack of decision that the present step was made necessary.


Alfred Claude Ellis: No applause now.


An hon. Member:: We can take it as well as hand it out.


Ray Thomas: If we had allowed Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to go ahead without any interference during the last four years we would have had the pipe line built now, built by private capital all the way through and without any trouble at all for the government. We have to realize that because of this fumbling and indecision the government have taken the only action they could have taken under the circumstances. I would not be surprised but what one of the greatest causes of indecision within the government was the attitude of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I say that because he has attempted all through the years to squash anything that would bring any credit to the Social Credit government of Alberta. It is quite possible that by his arguments he led some of the junior members of the cabinet to go along with him.
We also know that over the years it has been the expressed policy of the Liberal party in the province of Alberta that there will be no export of natural resources. They have opposed the export of coal, the export of oil, the export of gas. Now the whole thing has come down to the present situation. The government has made a mess of things. They have made it impossible for the company to get private financing. Now the government is in a hurry and it is imperative that this project should be commenced immediately. I want to point out to hon. members that for every week the line is being held up 1 billion cubic feet of gas are going to waste in the province of Alberta.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Why do you not build it with rubber money?


Ray Thomas: This is gas that should be used for the welfare of the Canadian people.
I can assure hon. members of the Tory and C.C.F. parties that the holding up of the legislation will result in the loss of millions
67509-251J
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of dollars to the province of Alberta and the people of Alberta, is going to result in the loss of the availability of millions of cubic feet of gas to the people of Ontario and Quebec and is going to mean irreparable damage to the entire economy of this country.


An hon. Member:: Who held it up for the
last five years?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Greenwood.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Be calm now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do not lose your temper.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I think this must be one of the strangest enterprises on which this parliament has ever been asked to embark. We are asked to bail out an American controlled company which has among its shareholders some of the richest oil companies in the country. We are asked to bail them out because they have failed repeatedly in carrying out what they proposed to be able to carry out and we are asked to allow them to use the money of the Canadian people with which to speculate. It. is a question of heads I win, tails you lose. They can use this money and if things turn out well for them, then they can go ahead and make further money with it. But if things do not turn out well for them, they hand it back to us. That is one feature of this strange proceeding.
The second one is this. In order to carry it out, this democratic assembly is faced with a situation with which it has never been faced before, that is to say closure applied in the way which has been discussed. It is'-another instance-with which we are becoming all too familiar-of the disregard of parliament. As I watched yesterday, I noted some of the people who were applauding, closure. I think some of them were people whom, not so long ago, I would have regarded; as real liberals. I do not mean Liberals wLfflu a capital "L". I mean real liberals. Yet yesterday they were vigorously applauding closure. It made me realize what I have often realized before, but perhaps never more than tonight, namely what happens when we go on as we have been going on, year after year and when the rights of parliament are disregarded.
The situation is similar to that which confronted us a year ago. A year ago we had a situation where the Minister of Defence Production at that time was determined to have his way, his whole way and nothing but his way. That is what kept us here for nearly a month last summer. We now have
3962	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation a situation different in some ways but in other ways very much similar indeed. A year ago the difficulty was overcome. The government apparently got itself out of the impasse by getting the minister to go on a fishing trip. Now the fishing season has again arrived and it may be that the government could get itself out of this jam because I think it is quite possible that members of the government do not like what they have been forced into doing. At any rate, it is possible that the fishing season again might help us out of our trouble.
A year ago we thought we really had learned the ultimate on the question of the disregard of parliament. But a year ago we did not have this situation. A year ago we were allowed to debate at considerable length in what Liberals like to regard as liberal tradition. Reference has been made to the former prime minister. Let me give him full credit because in all his years here he never applied closure. He was a House of Commons man. However much we may have differed with him in many ways, we knew that he had a regard for parliament. He might almost have said, like Churchill, that he was a child of parliament.
As I said, the question now is in one way astonishingly similar to what it was a year ago. It is a question of power for this minister whose work is respected in many ways but who, as somebody said tonight, should never be allowed within a thousand miles of a democratic assembly on certain occasions, and I think that is probably right. There is this difference between last year and this year. Last year the minister at least allowed us to know what was going on. There was no mystery about it. There was no mumbo-jumbo. There was nothing behind the curtain. But of course this year we have had a most extraordinary situation-a situation which one would not have believed could have happened-where the minister has carried on the business of the country in his inside pocket, where he has had certain documents. I should not call them documents. They were :said not to be documents. They were just letters. It is a very interesting distinction that is made. When the minister was asked if he had documents, he said no. But when he was asked if he had letters-That was a little bit too hard for him, and he said "yes, but not such as you can see". So we learned there, as I say, that documents are not letters. I have asked my lawyer friends and I doubt very much whether the minister could get an opinion on that point.
At any rate, after many months of indecision-and let us remember that-and of considering various proposals-the government a week ago brought down this measure.
[Mr. Macdonnell.l

They had, we understand, spent months in considering it. There was plenty of gossip -and I think it was probably well informed -that there had been grave difference in the cabinet. At any rate the thing went on for months and there was delay and delay as I have said. But there was one place where there was no delay. Once it got beyond the cabinet and into the caucus, there was no delay there. It took them only an hour or two to swallow the whole thing. Theirs not to reason why. It would be interesting if we could get an account of what took place in that caucus just as it would be interesting if we could get an account of the conversation between the minister and Mr. Frank McMahon, but we probably never will.


James Sinclair: Or between Premier Frost. That would be very interesting.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is always very helpful and I am very grateful to him now.


James Sinclair: Have you consulted Premier Frost as well, and Premier Manning, your Tory colleague in Alberta? That is much more interesting.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the minister still
speaking?


James Sinclair: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is still
standing?


James Sinclair: Yes. I am asking a question.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member is asking a question. I should like to ask-


William Earl Rowe: He has only 10 minutes to go. Let him continue.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. The hon. member for Greenwood, who has the floor, cannot be interrupted without his consent.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member for Greenwood has only 10 minutes to go.


James Sinclair: I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask you to ask the hon. member for Greenwood-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. If the
Minister of Fisheries is not rising on a question of order or privilege, the hon. member for Greenwood may continue.


James Sinclair: On a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not know what happened in this caucus-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. Is the Minister of Fisheries rising on a point of order?


James Sinclair: Yes.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Then he will state the point of order.


James Sinclair: I want to ask the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


James Sinclair: I have a good point of order.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


James Sinclair: I want to know whether the hon. gentleman is asking rhetorical questions or real questions. If they are real questions I will answer them.


William Earl Rowe: That is not a point of order. It is just an interruption.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. If the committee of the whole will kindly keep order for 30 seconds, I will dispose of this matter. The minister has not raised a point of order. The hon. member for Greenwood will continue.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You must not pay any attention to the Minister of Fisheries. He is just one of those Rhodes scholars.


James Sinclair: I know that. I am asking whether these are real questions or rhetorical questions. If they are real questions, they will be answered. If they are rhetorical questions-


William Earl Rowe: It is too late now.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Sinclair: Is this a real turtle or a mock turtle. If you are a Rhodes scholar, act like a Rhodes scholar.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was just making reference to the caucus which we all would have liked to be at.


James Sinclair: You were asking questions which you do not want answered. You do not want any answers. You asked questions and you wanted some answered. If you want answers, ask me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do you know anything about the rules over there?


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


James Sinclair: He is asking questions but he does not want answers.
15. 1956	3963
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Sinclair: He would not know an answer even when he asked a question.


An hon. Member:: Better apply closure on the Minister of Fisheries.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Before the Minister of
Fisheries began his speech I was trying to say something about the caucus.


James Sinclair: You were asking questions and you did not want answers.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: ' I think we can all imagine what did happen there. After all, one can well believe that those gentlemen I see opposite and to my right did not need a long period of study to understand this question. They were able, in an hour, to grasp the whole thing. The argument was, "Good old C.D."; that was the argument. After all, the minister is the hero of 1,000 contracts and 100 caucuses. He carries great weight and even his private and confidential correspondence we hear about, even that no doubt had its place.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As I said a few minutes ago we had difficulty last year, but the government did pluck up its courage when the minister went fishing, and perhaps he may go fishing again.
I want to say a word about closure. There is evidently quite a misunderstanding about closure in England. It has been stated it occurred 21 times in a session, and that may be true, but that is not this kind of thing. It is done by agreement. It is not done against the will of the opposition for the purpose of closing them off. This closure is used in that way. No one who saw the way closure was applied could doubt for one moment that it was applied as the absolute antithesis of the whole principle of free discussion. It was applied in, what shall I say, irritation, almost in anger and with the feeling, "We will show you; if you want to have discussion, we will show you it is not so easy to have discussion."
I can understand quite well why the government wanted closure. It does not need the minister's crystal ball to know that. The reason they want closure is that they do not want disclosure. The last thing in the world they want is time to be given so the people can understand what this is about. They remember what happened a year ago. They remember that when the press got hold of what was happening, which they did not do quite as quickly as they have done this year, the government had to slow up and we got a measure of concession. That is the last
3964	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation thing in the world they want. Mr. Chairman, I believe they can read and when they do read they will know what the press is saying.


James Sinclair: That is what my learned
friend is doing, he is reading.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The whole idea-


James Sinclair: He wanted parliamentarians, not readers.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. It is impossible for me, even at this short distance, to hear the hon. member and I am sure it must be more difficult in other parts of the chamber. I wonder if we could have less noise.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


James Sinclair: It must be very obvious,
Mr. Chairman, with his manuscript in his hand, that he is reading.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No wonder you fell off the ladder.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. In parliamentary debate, the hon. member must not be interrupted without his consent.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I hope these interruptions will be taken off my time.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I also have a complaint because I was really getting on quite well until this began.


James Sinclair: Put your manuscript down and speak from your heart. You have had an expensive education and you should be able to speak from your heart.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I want to say-


Some hon. Members:: It is one o'clock.


William Alfred Robinson: I hear some hon. members saying, "One o'clock". May I draw their attention to citation 227 in Beauchesne's third edition, and to the new time in standing order 33 which is advanced from two o'clock to one o'clock. The citation reads:
If a member has taken the floor at 1.55 o'clock, he is entitled to speak for 20 minutes, but no member "shall rise to speak" after two o'clock.
The hon. member for Greenwood took the floor at 12.43 and his 20 minutes would accordingly have expired at 1.03. Thereafter, in accordance with standing order 33, the question shall be put and no other member shall rise. I am taking it for granted that I have taken a minute or a minute and a half of the hon. member's time, and I propose to remind him that his time will expire at 1.05.
fMr. Macdonnell.]


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Now, Mr. Chairman, after all this I have just one other point I should like to make. I have tried to make clear the curious manner in which this business was done and I should like to read here a question and answer addressed to the Prime Minister which gives me a picture of the action of the cabinet. It is very delightful but rather confusing. On page 3482 of Hansard for May 2, 1956, the hon. member for Prince Albert asked this question:
Will the Prime Minister table the offer of Frank McMahon and his associates. If the offer is confidential, will he ask McMahon to release the confidentiality so the terms of the offer may be brought before the house?
The Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, I have seen no offer from Mr. Frank McMahon. I will have to inquire from my colleagues if they individually have received a confidential offer. No offer has been brought to the attention of the cabinet.
I mention that because it gives me a curious picture of the Prime Minister going to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and saying, "Have you got a confidential letter?" No. The Minister of External Affairs? No. The Minister of Finance? No. And so he proceeds right across the cabinet. It is a picture that I like to think about but the point I want to make is this. The Leader of the Opposition has been asking for months to have a committee. Why did he want that? So that we might have some knowledge about this, independent knowledge, knowledge from experts. At the present time, we are asked to take a whole lot of unsupported statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now, I have a great respect for the Minister of Trade and Commerce apart from his views on democracy, but I do not think we should be asked to take his or anybody else's unsupported views on these important matters. First of all, we are asked to take his view that Trans-Canada are the only people who can do this. That is not an open and shut proposition. I have heard arguments which would drive a coach and six through that. The facts are not as clear as the minister would indicate. After all, Trans-Canada has gone from one position to another. First of all they were going to build the whole thing. Then the question of the northern Ontario bridge came up; they wanted that and finally they wanted to have the western line built for them too.
As far as the committee is concerned, I suggest there is a whole series of what are now questions which should be turned into matters of fact. For instance, what will be the cost to the eastern consumer? I notice in one of the papers a positive statement

that the cost to the eastern consumer will be higher. The next is the statements with regard to McMahon. After all, the minister has made him sound like a fly-by-night, a thing which he is not. He has been represented as if he were a kind of trivial creature that one should not consider seriously. His letters certainly do not suggest that. There are other things, too, which in my opinion should not be dealt with by this house until they become proved matters of fact. I think it is perfectly clear that the Liberal caucus dealt with this whole matter in the most casual manner because they only had it before them for about an hour.


Some hon. Members:: We want Sinclair. We want Sinclair.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My very last point is this. I should like to draw to the attention of the committee one or two opinions expressed in the press. We are not alone in this; indeed, it is heartening to us to realize the extent to which public opinion seems to be with us.


James Sinclair: It only seems to be, for the first time in 40 years.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In fact, it is rather
astonishing.


Some hon. Members:: We want Sinclair.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall read some brief expressions of opinion that were quoted in the Toronto Globe and Mail today.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.
According to the latter part of standing order 33, which I shall read:
.. .and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before one o'clock in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
The question to be decided is the following one:
Resolved, That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the constitution of a corporation to be known as the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation for the purposes-[DOT]
Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it unanimously agreed that I dispense with the reading of the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
15, 1956	3965
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


George Harris Hees: Never.


William Alfred Robinson: Those in favour of the resolution will kindly rise.
Resolution agreed to: Yeas, 156; nays, 58.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the resolution
carried.
Shall I rise and report the resolution?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, before the resolution is carried, there are a few observations I should like to make.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


William Earl Rowe: He is rising on a point of order.


William Alfred Robinson: Under standing order 33 may I point out that all questions must be decided at the expiration of the time of the last speaker at one o'clock and the only thing I can do is to put all questions to decide this matter. If the hon. member wishes me to, I will put the next question which is moved by Mr. Harris that I do now leave the chair and report the resolution with respect to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, now on a point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman,-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, does
Your Honour-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to explain my vote-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak to my pair-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Léoda Gauthier: Take your point of order home.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-


Edmund Davie Fulton: No question of privilege is allowed at this stage.


William Alfred Robinson: I am entirely governed by the provisions of standing order 33, the last part of which I will read once more:
...and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before one o'clock in the morning, no mem-
3966	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation ber shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
I have already put one question. I now propose to put the second question which is-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have been paired.


Some hon. Members:: He was paired in his vote.


Some hon. Members:: A pair.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South and I inadvertently rose and voted. I would ask you to withdraw that vote because I have a pair with the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


William Alfred Robinson: I regret very much that it is impossible for me to order that the vote be withdrawn but your remarks will appear in Hansard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, do I understand Your Honour to rule that no hon. member can take the floor after one o'clock?


William Alfred Robinson: That is the ruling I have made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I submit that it is not-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I have already ruled that I am bound by standing order 33. I must put this question immediately.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, I submit-


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


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I submit that Your Honour has no right-


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member must resume his seat while I am standing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


William Alfred Robinson: The terms of the standing order are perfectly clear, that no member shall rise to speak after that hour but that all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall be decided forthwith. I have put a question and I now propose to put a second question:
Mr. Harris moves that I do now leave the chair and report the resolution with respect to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation.
[The Chairman.]


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister cannot make that motion because you have already ruled that no one can speak after one o'clock. I now desire to speak to a point of order and I insist upon my right to speak.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon member will kindly resume his seat while-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I insist upon my right to speak to the point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Another gag.


George Alexander Drew: Another form of closure.


William Earl Rowe: Can a member not speak to a point of order?


William Alfred Robinson: I have already expressed myself on three occasions. I think the standing order is perfectly clear, and I read again from the standing order:
...but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
It is not a question of one member or another speaking after one o'clock, it is a question of deciding those matters which must be concluded in accordance with the standing order. I propose to put the question immediately.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I protest; I demand the right to speak on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not to be bulldozed by the Chairman as this house is being bulldozed by the government. If Your Honour will look at the record of past years he will see that many points of order have been raised at the stage at which I am raising this one. I demand the right to be heard.


William Alfred Robinson: If necessary I shall direct the hon. member to resume his seat.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You may do so, but I refuse to be bulldozed.


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


Edmund Davie Fulton: I submit-


William Alfred Robinson: If the hon. member will not resume his seat I must report the matter to Mr. Speaker.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will make one more endeavour-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will make one more endeavour to reason with Your Honour. I wish to be heard on the point of order. You may say that the minister has moved a question but I wish to be heard on a point of order before the question is put. Your Honour should permit me to put the point of order before the question is put. The point of order is this-


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I indicated that I was bound by the terms of the standing order and that I proposed to put the second question. I can do nothing else if the hon. member-


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out to Your Honour-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out to Your Honour-


An hon. Member:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has been permitted on previous occasions-


William Alfred Robinson: I ask the hon. member to resume his seat. If the hon. member does not do so I must report to Mr. Speaker.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out-


An hon. Member:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that points of order have been permitted at this stage.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am reducing the question to writing in order to report to Mr. Speaker.


William Earl Rowe: Another closure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Alfred Robinson: I am in the course of reporting this matter to Mr. Speaker and until that is done I have no further-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon when you were-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.
3967
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Major James William Coldwell: This is more disgraceful
than closure.


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


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member will
kindly resume his seat while-


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


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


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


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon when you were at this same stage you accepted advice from the Minister of Finance. Why is it you accept advice from the Minister of Finance and you will not accept advice from this side?


An hon. Member:: The majority are on this side.


An hon. Member:: The majority rules.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.
And Mr. Speaker having resumed the chair:


William Alfred Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in committee of the whole when considering the resolution with respect to Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation Mr. Fulton attempted to raise a point of order and I ruled that in accordance with the provisions of standing order 33 no member shall rise after one o'clock a.m. I directed the hon. member to resume his seat; I did so after putting the question with regard to concurrence in the resolution and immediately prior to attempting to put the question that I do leave the chair, and the hon. member declined to do so.


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


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think it should be pointed
out that I rose on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops realizes of course that I must take the report from the chairman as I received it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I object to the report; the report does not accurately state the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to place before you the fact that the report is not an accurate report-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
3968	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


George Alexander Drew: And that Your Honour on a point of order should hear the hon. member for Kamloops state exactly what did happen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order. My point of order is based on standing order 6(3) which deals with the time of adjournment. It is now well after ten o'clock, and this house under your speakership cannot continue to sit without unanimous consent. You have no option but to adjourn the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I can see that hon. members have had a very good day, and so did I. Now the hon. member claims that I cannot even resume the chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Having resumed the chair you must adjourn the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has cited a standing order but I would have preferred to have him cite standing order 6(4) which reads:
(4) When it is provided in any standing order that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment be forthwith disposed of or concluded, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the house until the specified proceedings be completed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there any standing order that specifies that the matter raised by the report from the chairman-


Mr. Speaker:: At this moment I am not going to be called upon to decide a matter which must be dealt with in committee of the whole. Standing order 59(4) says:
The chairman shall maintain order in the committees of the whole house, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the house; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the house, on receiving a report thereof.
Now this is the situation in which I appear in the chair at the moment. I have received a report from the chairman of the committee of the whole in which he said:
In committee of the whole, when considering the resolution with respect to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Fulton attempted to raise a point of order.
The chairman ruled that in accordance with the provisions of standing order 33 no member shall rise after one o'clock a.m. and directed the hon. member to resume his seat. Mr. Fulton declined to do so.
That is the end of the statement that I received from the chairman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Now, Mr. Speaker


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the hon. member does not accept the report as being an accurate one, but I have no knowledge of what goes on in committee. I have no control over the committee of the whole. The house in committee of the whole controls its own affairs. The chairman directs order according to standing order 59. By virtue of standing order 59 (4) he reports that this disorder
[Mr. Drew.)

has happened in committee, and that can only be dealt with by the house. I am only the pipe line through which this report is presented to the house. It is up to the house to deal with it.


An hon. Member:: What are you going to do about it?


Mr. Speaker:: What am I going to do about it? If the hon. member looked at the authorities he would see that once a report has been submitted to the house it is up to the house itself to do whatever it pleases with the report. In these instances may I suggest that the leader of the house has a part to play?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise on a point of order. I know that although this matter has been raised before, it has not been dealt with before and it has not been disposed of. I have read the debates on closure and the proceedings thereunder since 1913, and though the point has been raised before-


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I know. The hon. member now is trying to debate before me the matter which he attempted to debate before the chairman of the committee of the whole.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I am dealing with the
question of an inaccurate report, and what I am saying here is that so far as I am aware at this stage of the proceedings there has been no decision on the question of what happens when a report alleged to have been inaccurate is presented from the chair under circumstances such as this. My point of order now is that Your Honour, before you say, "The house has received the report", should give the member who is the subject of the report, an opportunity to state the facts as they actually occurred when an allegation is made, as has been made in this case, that a report is inaccurate, and I request the right to state to the house what the facts were-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member says there were instances of a report having been corrected. Would he be good enough to give me the citation of whatever authority he has for that statement?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not say that, but I refer to the debates of 1913-I think it is. It was one of the occasions when closure was moved in committee, and a point of order having been raised, members of the committee objected and said to the Speaker, "You are receiving an inaccurate report", and the Speaker did not deal with the question.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the instance? I am quite prepared to do the very best that can be done in the circumstances.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I refer to page 9590 of Hansard for 1912-13, in which it was stated by a number of members then sitting on this side of the house that the report was a false report, and that question was simply not dealt with by the Speaker. I claim the point should be dealt with and the member who is the object or subject of the report should be given an opportunity to state what the facts were.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, you were kind enough to suggest that I might have some responsibility in this matter, and I accept that, having in mind the fact that it is now 1.30.


An hon. Member:: Do you want to go?


Walter Edward Harris: I am quite prepared to stay as long as the hon. member. It seems to me that the chairman of the committee of the whole was called upon by the hon. member for Kamloops to consider a point of order which the chairman did not feel he could entertain, having in mind the wording of the rule.
Once again, I do not question at all the decision or the judgment of the chairman of the committee of the whole, but I am sure that we would save time if we heard the point of order in the committee rather than before Mr. Speaker in the house and that then, if the point of order is well taken, there might or might not be an appeal to you, sir. If there is no appeal we could dispose of the question in the committee of the whole and sooner or later we could come to the conclusion of whatever we are doing.
On the other hand, if there is a report made to Your Honour, as there has been, and Your Honour feels that' the matter rests with the house, we might take a considerable time discussing the report. If my hon. friend's point would be met by reverting to the position as it was in the committee of the whole, so that the point of order might be made and a ruling made on it, then I presume he would be content. Whether or not this point was accepted would really make no difference in the long run, because he would have the right to appeal to Your Honour in the circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that satisfactory to the hon. member?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was desirous of making a point of order in the committee-in my submission, a valid point of order. Naturally I am prepared to make that point of order in the committee. All I can suggest is that, if the leader of the house would restrain his colleagues in the cabinet as well as in the house, these difficulties would not arise-and I am perfectly prepared to go on in committee.
67509-252J
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. Speaker:: If the house is so disposed as to deal with the report that has been made to it through me in the fashion that has been indicated by the Minister of Finance and agreed to by the hon. member for Kamloops, all that the house can do now is to resume forthwith the sitting in committee of the whole.
And the house having resumed in committee:


William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members will realize that this procedure is somewhat new. I have drawn hon. members' attention to the latter part of standing order 33, which I shall read once more:
...and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before one o'clock in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
I had put one of the questions which must be decided, being the resolution itself. Then I put the other question. I asked if it were agreed that I should leave the chair to report the resolution, and some hon. members said no, as I understood it. I therefore proceeded to put the other question which must be decided in accordance with standing order 33. That question is the following one, that I do now leave the chair and report the resolution with respect to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation.
I considered and I still consider that I am bound by the strict terms of the standing order in putting the two questions at this time. On the other hand, as I said, it is a new question and I have in effect received instructions from the house. Therefore, I will be glad to hear the hon. member for Kamloops on the point of order, but since, after all, I must actually decide these points without debate, I hope he will confine his remarks to the problem as I have outlined it and what I think is the crux of the problem.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I accept your terms of reference subject to one amendment, and that is that you will decide it without debate, but I hope you will listen to debate before you decide it. My point of order relates directly to the last words of standing order 33 under which you have said that you and the committee are now operating. These words are:
...and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before one o'clock in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall be decided forthwith.
3970	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
In my submission the postponed consideration which was before us was the question which Your Honour said was the question before the committee, and I took down your words. You said, "The question to be decided is the following one" and you then put the question on the resolution.


William Alfred Robinson: May I interject at that
point? Some months ago we had a discussion here one day when hon. members entered the committee while voting was taking place. I indicated at that time that with respect to future votes in committee I would preface the question by saying, "The question is the following one", and if you will read Hansard you will find that I said that at that point hon. members would then no longer have the right to enter the chamber and vote. It was not that I indicated that there was only one question or that I wished to indicate that there was only one question to be decided. It was following a precedent which I thought I had established some months ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In my submission there is,
of course, only one question before this committee at the time when closure was moved and that question was: Does the committee approve or disapprove the proposed resolution? The motion to report is a separate motion and it was not before the committee when closure was moved. You cannot have two questions before the committee at the same time. There was no amendment moved and in the absence of an amendment how could it possibly be argued that there were two questions before this committee?
There was one question for decision. Upon the result of that decision depended another question. If the resolution had been defeated the question you now propose to put would not have arisen. If the resolution had been defeated you would not be suggesting or inviting a motion to report because there would be nothing to report. Therefore, the whole question with regard to the report of the committee is an entirely separate question from the question on the resolution itself, and that question was not before the committee. The matter or reporting was not and could not have been before the committee when closure was moved.
It is well established and well understood that the terms of the closure motion apply only to the question for consideration, debate on which is to be resumed at the time when the closure motion itself is moved. I point out to you that the notice given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday afternoon at the beginning of the debate


certainly did not include the question of the report of the committee. It included only the resolution then before the committee.
May I point out to Your Honour, who, I see, is receiving considerable advice, that my second point follows from the first and is to this effect, that it is not open, as you yourself have ruled, to any hon. member to rise and speak after one o'clock unless that member happens to have taken the floor a few minutes before one and carries over after one. But after that member has spoken it is not open to any hon. member to take the floor.
A little earlier, before we had what I may call the misunderstanding which resulted in the Speaker resuming the chair, you put the question which you proposed to move in these terms: "Mr. Harris moves that I report the resolution". Of course, it takes a motion by an hon. member that you report the resolution. My second point therefore is that it not being in order for any member to take the floor, as you made very clear to me, it is not possible for the Minister of Finance to take the floor to speak in order to say: "I move that you report the resolution".
You may argue, sir, anybody over there may argue, and I am quite prepared to meet the argument, that in that case there is a flaw in the drafting of the closure rule. I am quite prepared to accept that. This point that I am raising has never been raised before and therefore it has never been dealt with before. It has never been disposed of before.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no other way of getting out of committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am putting it to you as a
proposition which requires a decision at the present time. It is made clear in Beauchesne that the report of the chairman to the house cannot be based otherwise than on a motion to report. Therefore, I say that the motion to report cannot be made at this stage and the motion to report is not the question which was before the committee when closure was moved because it is a motion which depends entirely on the decision of the other question, that is, do we favour or do we oppose the resolution? Therefore, the motion to report is not one of those motions which must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration. The only postponed consideration was the resolution itself.
Therefore, I state that you are not in a position to make any report at this time to the house even if the house were in a position to sit and receive it, which I question, but your report must be made at some later stage, probably at tomorrow's sitting.


William Alfred Robinson: I have listened with care to the hon. member for Kamloops and I must draw his attention once more to the provisions of standing order 33 which govern us at the present time. This time I will read the entire standing order.
Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the house be in committee of the whole, or of supply, or of ways and means, any minister of the crown who standing in his place, shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his intention so to do, may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned, or that the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause, or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or tiles, shall be the first business of the committee, and shall not further be postponed; and in either case such question shall be decided without debate or amendment; and if the same shall be -resolved in the affirmative, no member shall thereafter speak more than once, or longer than 20 minutes in any such adjourned debate; or, if in committee, on any such resolution, clause, section, preamble or title; and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before one o'clock in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
May I point out the words "and shall not further be postponed". May I also point out to hon. members the words in the latter part of the clause:
...all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
As to the question of hon. members rising in their places, the words of the standing order to the effect that no member shall rise to speak after that hour must be considered in the light of the words:
... all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
May I also draw to the attention of hon. members Beauchesne's third edition, citation 227, which 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,...
Under the new rules, of course, it is one o'clock.
...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 twenty 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,...
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
And here are the words which I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members:
... when all questions connected with the main motion have to be decided forthwith.
In my opinion,-as I attempted previously to rule-the question of leaving the chair
and reporting the resolution is so intimately connected with the main motion that it is part of the proceedings which must take place tonight. I consider myself bound by what I must say are the clear terms of the standing order, and I so rule. If the hon. member wishes to appeal that ruling, I should be glad to report the matter to the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I wish to appeal your ruling to the house.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, may I make a
point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. While I am having the question reduced to writing I hope I shall not have any further questions of order raised.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the
chairman of the committee made the following report:
In committee of the whole when considering a resolution with respect to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Fulton raised a point of order to the effect that when closure was adopted, there was only one question before the committee and that the question that Mr. Chairman rise and report the resolution was not covered; and further that since it was not open to any member to take the floor after one p.m. the second motion was not in order.
Mr. Chairman ruled that, according to standing order 33, all questions which must be decided in order to conclude such postponed consideration must be decided forthwith and that since the motion that the chairman report the resolution is essential for disposing of the resolution, it must be disposed of in accordance with the standing order.
Whereupon Mr. Fulton appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows!
The question is the following one. In committee of the who. , when considering a resolution with respect to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Fulton raised a point of order to the effect that when closure was adopted, there was only one question before the committee and that the question that Mr. Chairman rise and report the resolution was not covered; and further that since it was not open to any member to take the floor after 1.00 a n. the second motion was not in order.
Mr. Chairman ruled, that according to standing order 33 all questions which must be decided in order to conclude such postponed consideration must be decided forthwith and that since the motion that the chairman report the resolution is essential for disposing of the resolution, it must be disposed of in accordance with the standing order.
Whereupon Mr. Fulton appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.
3972	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


William Alfred Robinson: Mr. Harris moves that I do now leave the chair and report the resolution. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Alfred Robinson: 
William Alfred Robinson: I declare the motion carried.
Resolution reported.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order. Standing order 6 (3) reads:
At 6.00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays and Fridays and at 10.00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, unless hereunder otherwise provided, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the house without question put until the - next sitting day.
This is, or it was when it started, a session of Tuesday, therefore it should be adjourned by the Speaker at ten o'clock. I point out
Gauthier (Nickel Belt) Gauthier (Portneuf) Gingras Gour (Russell)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Gregg
Habel
Hahn
Hanna
Hansell
Hardie
Harris
Harrison
Healy
Hellyer
Henderson
Henry
Kollingworth
Holowach
Hosking
Houck
Howe (Port Arthur) [Mr. Speaker.)

that it is now well after ten o'clock and therefore the house should be adjourned. It is my contention that unless there is unanimous consent no further business can be done by the house at this sitting which started yesterday and is still going now at 2.15 a.m. Your Honour may wish to call my attention to standing order 6 (4), which reads:
When it is provided in any standing order that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment be forthwith disposed of or concluded, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the house until the specified proceedings be completed.
May I point out that Your Honour has said on a number of occasions, in fact you said it within the last hour, that the house does not know what goes on in the committee of the whole. Earlier in these proceedings when another matter was reported to Your Honour you, sir, used these words: "I have no knowledge of what goes on in committee of the whole." Therefore Your Honour cannot know, although I am pleased to inform you-I should say that will inform you; I am not pleased to do it-that in committee of the whole today there was moved by the government a motion of closure under standing order 33. I not only give Your Honour that bit of distasteful information, but I point out that the motion for closure, which was moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, was *"that further consideration of this resolution shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed". The only decision taken in our committee of the whole, of which Your Honour has no knowledge, was that there be closure in the committee on the resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member to notify him that I have no knowledge of what goes on in the committee of the whole until it reports. The committee has just reported and I know what has gone on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your Honour knows that the committee has reported but you do not know the trouble the government went through to get that resolution before the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Let us have a discussion on the point of order that the hon. member started to state; let us not go into what happened in the committee of the whole on previous proceedings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I made that other reference to the committee was so that no one else would introduce the question of closure and claim that it applied at this stage. As Your Honour says, what you now know-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not intend to apply standing order 33.
15, 1956	3973
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is fine; you have saved quite a lengthy part of my speech. We are now at the point where the committee of the whole has reported. That report has not yet been received by the house, neither has there been a motion for concurrence in the report nor have there been any other proceedings that might follow thereafter. It is my contention that none of those proceedings should be taken by the house tonight for the reason that we are four hours and seventeen minutes past the time when the house should be adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has brought to my attention the standing order which has to do with the ordinary time of adjournment. Standing order 6 (3) reads:
At 6.00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays and Fridays and at 10.00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays,...
I emphasize the following words:
-unless hereunder otherwise provided, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the house without question put until the next sitting day.
Then standing order 6 (4) reads:
When it is provided in any standing order-
I stress the words "any standing order".
-that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment be forthwith disposed of or concluded, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the house until the specified proceedings be completed.
I would direct the hon. member's attention to standing order 62 which was approved last year and which reads:
Whenever a resolution is reported from an y committee of the whole, a motion to concur in the same shall be forthwith put and decided without debate or amendment.
I should like also to point out to the hon. member who has raised the matter of the sitting day-he said that we are four hours beyond the sitting day that we started on- that the sitting day starts at the moment that we parade in with the mace and stops at the moment we parade out with the mace. I would refer the hon. member to Bourinot at pages 212 and 213 in which he states that a full parliamentary day is one that is a sitting of the house. A sitting of the house is from the moment the house starts at 2.30 until it is adjourned. I quote:
If it is intended to meet earlier next day, a formal motion should be made previous to the adjournment of the house, as in the case of holidays or church festivals. Sometimes the house has two or three distinct sittings on the same day. In such cases each sitting is considered a full parliamentary day, and bills of supply can be advanced stages without objection.
In this case we have not done that. We have not divided our sitting to make two or three sittings in one sitting day. We only
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation have one sitting day which started at 2.30 and which will not conclude until the mace is paraded out.
Under the circumstances and basing my ruling on which I have said, specifically on standing order 62, I am left with no alternative but to forthwith put the motion for concurrence. I am bound at this moment to ask the house if it agrees that this resolution be now concurred in.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour
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:: I declare the motion carried.

Lafontaine Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere) Langlois (Gaspe) Lapointe Lavigne Leboe
Leduc (Jacques Lasalle)
Leduc (Verdun) Lefrancois Legare Lesage Lusby MacDougall MacEachen MacKenzie Macnaughton McCann McCubbin McCulloch (Pictou) McDonald Mcllraith Mclvor McMillan McWilliam Maltais Mang Marler Masse
Mitchell (Sudbury)
Nixon
Patterson
Pearson
Philpott
Pickersgill
Pinard
Pommer
Poulin


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


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman leave to introduce a bill based on this resolution?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the motion you now propose to put would be an entirely new proceeding. I appreciate that Your Honour has ruled that, under the provisions of standing order 62, whenever a resolution is reported from any committee of the whole, a motion to concur shall be forthwith put and decided without debate or amendment. That has been done. In my submission that ends the proceedings with respect to the making of the report, the receiving of the report and the motion for concurrence. Now we are starting a new proceeding related to the introduction of a bill. I go back to standing order 6(3) which provides that at 10 o'clock on a day like today, unless hereunder otherwise provided, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the house without question put. If Your Honour should then suggest that the provisions of standing order 6 (4) govern, I would point out that it reads as follows:
6. (4) When it is provided in any standing order that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment be forthwith disposed of or concluded, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the house until the specified proceedings be completed.
It was under that provision, as I understand it, that you acted to receive the report and the motion for concurrence in the report because standing order 62 says that the motion to concur shall be put forthwith. Our point now is that these proceedings are concluded. The committee's report has been received and concurred in. Now the minister seeks to make a separate motion related to the introduction of a bill, which is a new proceeding which was not before the committee or the house arising out of the previous stages. Therefore the provisions of standing order 6 (3) apply and the house is not at liberty to embark on these new proceedings because the government has moved and the house has accepted no motion altering the ordinary time of adjournment. The ordinary time of adjournment having passed, it is not within the competence of the house, except with unanimous consent, to take up any new business. In case Your Honour or the government should be under any misapprehension, I can assure you that such unanimous consent would not be given.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at length on this particular point of order. It seems to me that the
15, 1956	3975
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation arguments made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) are quite clear. In line with the argument which I made at the previous stage I might say that in addition to the fact that standing order 62, which Your Honour quoted on the last point of order, relates only to the presentation or the receiving of and concurrence in of a report, the introduction of a bill is provided for in a separate standing order, namely standing order 71, paragraphs 1 and 2, and also in two or three other standing orders after that. I mention the fact that the introduction of a bill is completely separate from the resolution in support of the contention that has already been made that we are now at a new proceeding. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not think all of this discussion is necessary at all. I think all I need to say is "Ten o'clock".


James Joseph McCann: Who are you?


Mr. Speaker:: When the hon. member says that all he needs to say is "Ten o'clock", he is repeating a point which he attempted to make earlier.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What time is it, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The time is a quarter to three. If the hon. member to whom I have listened- as I always do-with great reverence will be kind enough to listen to me, I will make my point, following which he will know exactly what his recourse may be.
I am not going to go back at great length to his point that because it is now twelve minutes to three he can call it ten o'clock and I should leave the chair. The hon. member knows very well that when a resolution has been reported and concurred in by the house it is customary-and I repeat "it is customary" -to take-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Provided the house is still in session.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, if the hon. member wishes to go back to a point that I thought I had already settled, we shall have repetition. Rules of procedure are the discipline which hon. members are prepared to accept for themselves and the authority which they are prepared to give their Speaker to enforce them. That is the situation. The citation No. 1 which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to me the other day in Beauchesne's third edition is one that would apply in the circumstances because it states very well what the position is. The point is that the minute the resolution is concurred in, an order issues for leave to introduce the bill. I am going to make the point again. The authority will be found at page 165 of Beauchesne's third edition in.
3976	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation which is outlined the procedure on bills day by day. On the second day the bill goes through the stage of a motion under government orders on the order paper and so on and finally the Speaker says "When shall this bill be read a second time?" "Next sitting of the house". That is what Beauchesne explains to be the procedure on the second day for the consideration of a bill. I say that when the house has concurred in the resolution on which a bill is to be founded, an order issues for the introduction of the bill. I am not going to say that without indicating what the authorities say on the point. There are bills that are introduced upon an order of the house and those bills are either preceded by certain preliminary proceedings or they are ordered in without any preliminary proceedings. At page 490 of May's fifteenth edition he deals with bills that are ordered in without any preliminary proceedings and he says this:
In the absence of any preliminary proceedings, a motion may be made that leave be given to bring in a bill.
And then at page 487 he deals with bills preceded by certain preliminaries-he says this:
A certain class of bills, the main object of which is the expenditure of money or the imposition of taxation, must, in accordance with the requirements of the standing orders regarding charges on the people, originate in committee of the whole house.
When the resolutions have been reported and agreed to by the house, a bill is ordered thereon, or upon some only of the resolutions.
On that same point Campion at page 177 has this to say under bills introduced with preliminaries:
A certain class of bills, whose main object is the expenditure of money or the imposition of taxation, generally called "money" bills, are still required to be preceded by resolutions passed in committee of the whole house and agreed to by the house on report. In this case the bill is ordered to be brought in immediately after the resolutions are agreed to.
Therefore the resolution having been agreed to, an order of the house does issue for leave to introduce the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would Your Honour permit just two observations?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: At the beginning of your remarks, Your Honour stated that it is customary to introduce immediately a bill based upon a resolution. In reply, may I point out that it is customary for the house, for instance, to permit the government whip to revert to motions if he wishes to announce changes in committees the next day or for cabinet ministers to revert to motions. It is the custom for the house to permit that, but it is not mandatory upon the house to do so


and if the house objects then leave to revert to motions is refused and that is not permitted.
Now, my point based upon that is that although it is customary to follow the passage of a resolution by the introduction of a bill, it is customary only because that almost invariably takes place before ten o'clock. It is now after ten o'clock and we have cited standing order 6(3), which must have some application. We submit it has application now and therefore we are entitled to say we are now in a position where we do not have to follow the usual custom and where, in fact, it would be improper to follow the usual custom. We refuse unanimous consent to do so.
If standing order 6 has any application, and unless Your Honour rules that the introduction of a bill is the same thing exactly as the receipt of a report, a proposition which I find it difficult to believe Your Honour would advance, then we are at another proceeding and we are entitled to refuse consent and do so refuse and the custom may thus be suspended for this occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot invoke standing order No. 6 because at ten o'clock he could not call it ten o'clock. He was at that moment under standing order 33.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your Honour does not know that.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I do, because the committee has reported. If the hon. member wants to play with words-


Edmund Davie Fulton: We might have given unanimous consent to sit after ten o'clock in the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think this evening I will convince very many hon. members, who apparently are not apt to be convinced and it is their privilege, but I must rule on the points that have been advanced. I have allowed hon. members to make their points, and I would be very happy if they would now allow me to make mine.
I say that the minute a resolution is reported a chain of events must take place, and they usually take place when a better climate prevails, let us say. I use that expression just so hon. members will understand. It is not unusual for leave to be granted, bills to be read the first time and the day appointed for second reading at 10.05 p.m.; 10.10 or 10.15. It is customary and unanimous consent is not necessary because as soon as the resolution is reported standing order 62 takes care of the motion for concurrence. Then, if it is true, as Campion and May say, that as a result of the motion being concurred in, an order for leave does issue, I will even make the point that the motion for leave is

not necessary. This is so true that when some bills are founded on resolutions which have been agreed to in committee of ways and means and the bills are not ready, they are therefore prevented from being introduced immediately after the resolutions are reported because of another standing order which says that a bill cannot be introduced in a blank or imperfect form-those bills are introduced later without notice. They do not even appear on the order paper. I have four instances right there on the desk that I can quote to the hon. member.
I will quote them immediately because I have the references here. He can look at the Journals for Saturday, December 8, 1945, page 455; Friday, August 9, 1946, page 669; Friday, June 6, 1947, page 496; May 12, 1950, page 372. All of those bills, founded upon ways and means resolutions, were introduced days and sometimes weeks after the resolutions were concurred in by the house and they were introduced without notice. Their introduction could not follow concurrence of the resolution because of standing order 72, which is to the effect that no bills may be introduced in a blank or imperfect shape. I will quote it at length:
No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.
When the Clerk gave me the result of the division a moment ago I asked him, "Do you have the bill?" He said, "Yes". It is only because I received the bill that I hold in my hand, and I can see it is not in blank or in an imperfect shape, that the order which does issue must be taken advantage of, and that is the ruling that I make at the moment.
Those who are in favour of the motion that leave-


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect, Mr. Speaker,
because I appreciate your patience at this late hour and because I regret that I am in fundamental disagreement with your ruling, I respectfully appeal your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I forgot, and if the hon.
member allows me I should like to quote one more precedent which I think might be interesting in connection with what I said, following which if he still wants to appeal I will be delighted to grant him that right. In 1921 a motion for closure was moved by Mr. Doherty on a motion for interim supply. You will find the motion at page 2076 of volume III of Hansard for 1921. At page 2094 you will see that the motion was agreed to, that the resolutions were reported and concurred in and that at that moment it was past two o'clock because closure was applied at two o'clock in those days. We were kind to ourselves when we amended the rules last
15, 1956	3977
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation year and inserted one o'clock instead of two o'clock. Once the supply resolutions were reported from the committee and concurred in, the house went back into committee of ways and means, reported the resolution and concurred in the ways and means resolution. Then a bill was introduced, the motion was agreed to, and the bill was read the first time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But Your Honour will agree that the point of order was not raised.


Mr. Speaker:: No point of order was raised, but it just indicates that notwithstanding the fact the point of order was not raised, at 2.25 a.m. they were dealing with these motions which at the time were much more numerous than those we have before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I make one brief comment? The brief comment I wish to make is that some of the references that you read the time before last when you were on your feet indicated that there have been bills, I believe they were budget bills, introduced on a day later than the day on which the resolutions were passed and reported to the house. In other words, although Your Honour's statement is correct that it is customary for a bill to be introduced and given first reading immediately after the resolution is reported, it does not always happen that way and therefore it is not mandatory. It is on that basis that we feel that this is a separate proceeding.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member says it does not always happen that way. It does always happen that way whenever the bill is ready. When there were so many amendments in the ways and means resolution that the bill could not be ready for introduction as soon as the resolution was concurred in, the bill was introduced later, and as I say they were introduced without notice.
There is one case this session in which a resolution of the Minister of Finance was reported and concurred in and the bill has not been introduced yet. It is not ready. Whenever it is, there will not be 48 hours' notice for that bill to be introduced because an order of the house did issue. There was never any notice given in the cases I have cited in the Journals. Let us not discuss this forever. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has appealed my ruling. Those who are in favour of sustaining my ruling will say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
3978	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
May I ask hon. members-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no,no.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members are now saying "order", but because of the previous noise I was not allowed to start putting the question. May I ask hon. members to realize that if noise prevails in the chamber it will be most difficult for the Clerk and the Clerk Assistant to proceed with the taking of the division. I would ask them to co-operate in this regard.
Mr. Fulton raised a point of order to the effect that when the resolution under closure had been adopted, reported and concurred in it was not in order to proceed with any further business unless unanimous consent was obtained. I ruled that with the concurrence in committee of the whole an order of the house should then issue for leave to introduce a bill and that it was customary to introduce such a bill forthwith. Whereupon Mr. Fulton appealed to the house from my ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The question now is on the
motion for leave-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia: That the house do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows that the motion for leave to introduce a bill is a non-debatable motion. If it is non-debatable, how can he speak even to move this superseding motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Standing order 25 says:
A motion to adjourn (except when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance), shall always be in order, but no second motion to the same effect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I ask hon. members to allow the member who has the floor at the moment to be heard not only by those who are sitting around him but also by the Chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was simply reading standing order 25. Perhaps I had better read it again:
A motion to adjourn (except when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance), shall always be in order, but no second motion to the same effect shall be made until after some intermediate proceeding has been had.
Obviously the part in parentheses does not apply, and obviously the last few lines do not apply. What does apply is the very direct statement that a motion to adjourn shall always be in order. I submit that "always" means always.


Mr. Speaker:: But I submit to the hon.
member that standing order 25 must be read in conjunction with standing order 44. I must confess to the hon. member that following certain superseding motions that were moved recently I have gone into this question very carefully, namely the relationship between standing orders 24, 25 and 44, concerning these superseding motions. They are always in order providing something is under consideration, something is under debate. Standing order 44 says:
When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; or for the adjournment of the house.
At this moment what is before the house is an undebatable motion, a motion that cannot be debated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in standing order 25 that says that it depends upon standing order 44. In the previous discussion we had, Your Honour was able to cite the words "unless otherwise provided hereunder, with respect to another standing
15, 1956	3979
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation order. There is nothing to that effect in standing order 25, and there is nothing to that effect in standing order 44. Therefore I contend that the motions referred to in standing orders 24 and 25, namely a motion for reading the orders of the day or a motion to adjourn, are in a different category from the other motions that are referred to along with those two in standing order 44.
Standing order 44 does not say that motions to postpone to a day certain, to read the orders of the day, to adjourn the debate or to adjourn the house can be moved only when a question is under debate. Standing order 44 puts it in the very reverse. It says rather that when a question is under debate that debate cannot be superseded or interfered with, except by these various motions. I submit that it is quite clear that standing order 44 does not say that a question has to be under debate before these other motions can be put. Along with that is the very clear language of standing order 24 and also of standing order 25, which is the one we are under at the moment, which says that a motion to adjourn shall always be in order.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member a question? He will have time to look up another reference that he is trying to put his finger on at the moment. In his view, is the motion for leave to introduce a bill a debatable motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member, who
has been kind enough to answer my first question, be kind enough now to answer my second? If the motion for leave to introduce a bill is not debatable, even if what he says about the motion under standing order 25 is right, how can he utter a single word in order to move that motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the same way-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Kootenay East will have an opportunity after the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has stated his point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The question is a good one.
The answer is that one gets the floor to move the adjournment that is always in order, even though we are on an undebatable motion, in just the same way as one gets the floor to raise a point of order. It is always in order to do that, even on an undebatable motion, as has been done several times tonight. I submit very strongly that there are certain things, such as raising a point of order, raising a point of privilege and moving to adjourn the

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation house, which are clearly spelled out in our standing orders as always in order, and there are no strings attached to that fact.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, you made your
ruling on Thursday last, at which point you said that a motion to adjourn is a dilatory motion, that is, that when a motion to adjourn is made a question must be under consideration. For a matter to be under consideration, the members must be prepared to fix their minds on it with a view to careful examination, that is, they should be prepared to think on it with care.
The question at the moment is not debatable, that is, the motion that is before the house is not debatable. A division simply is being taken. Therefore members are not to rise. They must hear the Speaker in silence. The other day the hon. member referred-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Filibuster.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -to citation 104 of Beauchesne, third edition, which reads in part as follows:
The Speaker is responsible for the due enforcement of the rules, rights and privileges of the house, and when he rises he is to be heard in silence.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Liberal filibuster.


James Sinclair: Envy will get you nowhere.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: This matter has been gone into quite thoroughly and it is quite clear who may move a motion for adjournment. A member who has moved adjournment of the house is not entitled to move the adjournment of the debate as he has already spoken to the main motion which in effect means that he can only rise and move the adjournment if a matter is under consideration and if he has spoken on the question he cannot move the adjournment of the debate. It simply means that there is no matter before the house for consideration so the member is completely out of order when he moves the adjournment of the house at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member for Kamloops rises, he is probably looking at page 332 of Bourinot where he will find precisely what I wanted to quote to him and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It is not very pleasant for me to make this ruling because I find that I am correcting a ruling that I made not very long ago which I consider wrong. If Bourinot is right, then I would say that whenever there is a controversy between Bourinot and Beaudoin I will take Bourinot any day.
But I would like hon. members to consider this. Bourinot is dealing with dilatory motions and under "motions of adjournment" he says:
When any question is under the consideration of either house, a motion to adjourn will always be In order. The 39th rule provides . . .
Then he reads the 39th rule which is our present standing order 25. Its purpose is the same as what is provided in standing order 24, which has to do with a motion to proceed with the orders of the day. It is a superseding motion. Mr. Speaker	Sevigny-or
Rhodes-in 1917 said that standing order 24 had to be read in conjunction with standing order 44. Of course, the rules did not bear the same numbers then. He said:
That rule must be read in connection with rule 36, which I will read, as applying to this case.
* "When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it" . . .
And so on. That is standing order 44. Perhaps the climate is not as good as it might, be in order to make a point that appears new in view of the fact that I have so recently given a ruling which is at variance with the one I should like to make at the moment. I am not going to press the point now. I would imagine that another occasion will present itself and we will have more time in the meantime in order to examine the point further. It seems to me to be unreasonable for the one rule to defeat the other. According to our rules we have a stated definition that a motion for leave to introduce a bill has to be decided without debate or amendment. All that is permitted is a succinct explanation when a bill is introduced after 48 hours' notice and that is not the type of bill that is preceded by a resolution concurred in by the house.
If a motion of that type is not debatable, how can anyone stand up and even utter one word to say: I move such and such a motion. As I say, I will not make a ruling. I will accept the hon. member's motion and I will put it to the house. I hope that after this one is dealt with we will either go home to have a good rest or we will proceed with the next step.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The question now is' on, the motion moved	
by Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) and seconded by Mr. Harris for leave to introduce a bill based	
on this resolution.	
The house divided	on the motion (Mr. Howe, Port Arthur) which was agreed to on the following division: *	
YEAS	
Messrs:	
Anderson	Garland
Applewhaite	Garson
Arsenault	Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Ashbourne	Gauthier (Nickel Belt)
Batten	Gauthier (Portneuf)
Benidickson	Gingras
Bennett	Gour (Russell)
Blackmore	Gourd (Chapleau)
Blanchette	Gregg
Boisvert	Habel
Boivin	Hahn
Bonnier	Hanna
Bourget	Hansell
Bourque	Hardie
Breton	Harris
Brisson	Harrison
Brown (Brantford)	Healy
Brown (Essex West)	Hellyer
Bruneau	Henderson
Buchanan	Henry
Byrne	Hollingworth
Cameron (High Park)	Holowach
Campney	Hosking
Cannon	Houck
Caron	Howe (Port Arthur)
Carrick	Huffman
Carter	Hunter
Cauchon	James
Cavers	Johnston (Bow River)
Clark	Jutras
Crestohl	Kirk (Antigonish-
Dechene	Guysborough)
Decore	Kirk (Shelburne-
Deschatelets	Yarmouth-Clare)
Deslieres	Laflamme
Dickey	Lafontaine
Dumas	Langlois (Berthier-
Enfield	Maskinonge-
Eudes	Delanaudiere)
Eyre	Langlois (Gaspe)
Fairey	Lapointe
Follwell	Lavigne
Fontaine	Leboe
Forgie	Leduc (Gatineau)
Fraser (St. John's East)	Leduc (Jacques Cartier-
Gagnon	Lasalle)
Gardiner	Leduc (Verdun)

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Lefrangois
Legare
Lesage
Lusby
MacDougall
MacEachen
Macnaughton
McCann
McCubbin
McCulloch (Pictou)
McDonald
Mcllraith
Mclvor
McMillan
McWilliam
Mang
Marler
Masse
Mitchell (Sudbury)
Nixon
Patterson
Pearson
Philpott
Pickersgill
Pinard
Pommer
Poulin
Power (Quebec South)
Power (St. John's West)
Proudfoot
Prudham
Purdy
Quelch
Ratelle
Reinke
Richard (Ottawa East)
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Richardson
Robertson
Robichaud
Robinson (Simcoe East)
Rochefort
Ross
Rouleau
Roy
St. Laurent (Quebec East) St. Laurent (Temis-couata)
Schneider Shipley, Mrs.
Simmons
Sinclair
Smith (Battle River-Camrose)
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Studer
Thibault
Thomas
Tucker
Viau
Villeneuve
Vincent
Weaver
Weir
Weselak
White (Waterloo South)
Winters
Wylie-156.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Aitken, Miss
Argue
Balcer
Barnett
Bell
Blair
Bryce
Bryson
Cameron (Nanaimo)
Campbell
Castleden
Charlton
Churchill
Cold well
Dinsdale
Drew
Ellis
Fairclough, Mrs. Fleming
Fraser (Peterborough)
Fulton
Green
Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace)
Hamilton (York West) Harkness Hees Hodgson Howe
Johnson (Kindersley)
Jones
Knight
Knowles
Lennard
Macdonnell
MacLean
McBain
McCullough (Moose Mountain)
McGregor
Michener
Mitchell (London) Monteith
Murphy (Lambton West)
Nesbitt
Pallett
Pearkes
Perron
Rea
Regier
Robinson (Bruce)
Rowe
Stanton
Starr
Tustin
White (Hastings-Frontenac)
(Wellington-Huron) Zaplitny-55.


Clarence Decatur Howe: the first reading of Bill No. 298, to provide for the constitution of a crown company to construct a pipe line, make short-term loans, etc.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour will please
say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it. Call in the members. Do hon. members consider that they have been called in for the purpose of this division? I notice that the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir), the whip of the party to my right, has so indicated, and so has the whip of the Conservative party. Is that generally agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) take notice?


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Never.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow we shall take the resolution in committee of the whole on the National Housing Act, then second reading of the bill to amend the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act, second reading of the bill to amend the Canada Land Surveys Act and second reading of the bill to amend the Tariff Board Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Have you been scared off?


Walter Edward Harris: On Thursday we shall take
second reading of the pipe line bill.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 4.42 a.m.

Question ANSWER TO QUESTION
The following answer', deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:



PUBLIC WORKS-BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, N.S.

Mr. McCulloch (Pictou): 1.	How many buildings are under construction or have been completed by the Department of Public Works in Nova Scotia to date in 1956?
2.	Where are they located and for what purpose are they intended?
Answer by:	Mr. Bourgel, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	Buildings under construction, 10. Buildings completed, 3.
2.	Buildings under construction:
Baddeck, N.S.-Federal building
Accommodation	for:	Post	Office	Department; Department of National Revenue, customs division; Department of Fisheries.
Halifax, N.S.-Ralston office building
Accommodation for:	Department of National Revenue, customs division, income tax division; Department of Labour; Department of Trade and Commerce; Department of Agriculture; bureau of statistics.
Liverpool, N.S.-Federal building Accommodation	for:	Post	Office	Department; Department of National Revenue, customs division; Department of Fisheries; unemployment insurance commission,
Middleton, N.S.-Additions and alterations to federal building	*
Accommodation	for:	Post	Office	Department.Sydney, N.S.-Federal building Accommodation	for:	Post	Office	Department; Department of National Revenue, customs division; Department of National Revenue, income tax division; unemployment
insurance commission; Department of Transport; Department of National Health and Welfare; civil service commission; Department of Veterans Affairs; Department of Citizenship and Immigration; Department of Fisheries; federal government telegraph services.
Tatamagouche, N.S.-Federal building Accommodation for: Post Office Department.
Yarmouth, N.S.-Ferry terminal building Accommodation for customs and other administrative services in connection with ferry service between Yarmouth, N.S., and Bar Harbor, Maine, U.S.A.
Yarmouth, N.S.-Federal building Accommodation for; Post Office Department; Department of National Revenue, customs division; Department of Fisheries; unemployment insurance commission.
Halifax, N.S.-Dalhousie University Alterations to pilot plant for national research council laboratory.
Halifax, N.S.-Camp Hill hospital New prosthetic building for Department of Veterans Affairs.
Buildings completed during 1956:
Lunenburg, N.S.-Federal building
Accommodation for: Post Office Department; Department of Fisheries; unemployment insurance commission.
Pictou, N.S.-Federal building Accommodation for; Post Office Department; Department of National Revenue, customs division; Department of Fisheries; Department of Transport; Department of Trade and Commerce.
Sydney, N.S.-Royal Canadian Mounted Police Officers' living quarters.

Wednesday, May 16, 1956 NATIONAL DEFENCE



R.C.A.F.-CRASH OF JET PLANE AT ORLEANS, ONTARIO

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, may I crave your indulgence to say how deeply shocked we were to hear of the tragedy which occurred last night at Orleans, near Ottawa, in which .several persons were killed and others were seriously injured. On behalf I think of all hon. members, as well as on my own behalf, I should like to express the most sincere sympathy to this distinguished community of Grey Nuns of the Cross and to the relatives and friends of the unfortunate victims of the disaster, including of course the two gallant airmen who were aboard the ill-fated jet craft. I am sure we all trust that the number of victims will not increase beyond that actually known at the present time, and I know we will all wish the injured a very complete and prompt recovery.
Perhaps the Minister of National Defence will have some information which he can give the house, because I know this has shocked all hon. members and that we are all deeply sympathetic with those who have suffered from this terrible tragedy.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members of the house will wish to learn such facts as have so far been ascertained in connection with the appalling accident about which the Prime Minister has just spoken. Before giving those facts I should like to express the heartfelt sympathy of all the members of the Canadian armed forces, as well as my own, to the relatives and friends of those who died last night when a Royal Canadian Air Force aircraft crashed into the Villa St. Louis convalescent home operated by the Roman Catholic religious order of the Grey Nuns of the Cross near Orleans.
The exact number of persons in the building at the time is not yet known with certainty, but it is believed that between 15 and 20 persons, including the crew of the aircraft, have lost their lives in the explosion and fire which resulted from the impact of the aircraft. In addition several members of the religious order were injured. I have just returned from the scene of the accident, and
from the facts which so far can be ascertained, pending the findings of the official court of inquiry which is now undertaking a full investigation, the details briefly are as follows.
An R.C.A.F. CF-100 jet interceptor aircraft, flown by a pilot and navigator, took off from Uplands airport at 9.30 last night as one of two aircraft ordered to intercept an aircraft detected by the radar warning system but not immediately identifiable. The mission is one which airmen of our nine CF-100 squadrons across Canada perform constantly in their task of protecting this country from possible hostile aircraft attack.
Before the interception was carried through to finality the identity of the unknown aircraft was definitely established by the ground control system, through the aircraft's flight plan, to be an R.C.A.F. transport aircraft returning from the Arctic.
Following identification of the unknown aircraft, at about 7,000 feet, as friendly, the two interceptor fighters climbed to about 33,000 feet to carry out practice interception manoeuvres with one another, which is a normal air defence procedure to build up training experience while using up excess fuel load, which is a necessary practice for safe landing.
Continuing under radar control from the ground, one of the two interceptor aircraft returned normally to its base and the other reported by radio from 33,000 feet altitude that he still had some excess fuel on board and would remain airborne longer. This was the last transmission received from this aircraft, following which it rapidly disappeared from the radar screen and within a couple of minutes crashed near the town of Orleans, at about 10.17 p.m. All evidence so far available points to the likelihood that the aircraft descended in a steep dive out of control from a high altitude, crashing directly into the convalescent home. The violent impact resulted in an explosion and fierce fire which completely demolished the building and the aircraft.
Up until the time of the aircraft's last radio transmission no indication of trouble was given by the pilot. The cause of the accident at present remains unknown. There is no trace of the two aircrew members having abandoned the aircraft by parachute prior

National Defence-Plane Crash to its crash; therefore it must be presumed that their remains are buried in the debris of the demolished building which is at present oeing searched.
R.C.A.F. equipment and crews have been on duty at the scene of the crash all night and are continuing to co-operate with provincial and local authorities, and officers of this department are doing whatever is within their power to assist the bereaved.
At this time, I am sure the hearts of all members of this house and, indeed, of all Canadians go out to those bereaved by this terrible accident. Despite his best endeavours and the ingenuity of modern science, man's mastery of machines can never be complete. It is a cause for profound sorrow that this accident has taken the lives of so many selfless members of a religious vocation and two members of a service whose mission it is to do everything within its power, by day and night, to provide security for the Canadian way of life.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to join in the expressions of sympathy to the members of the religious order who have been bereaved, the friends and relatives of those resident in the convent who died and those who are injured, and to the relatives and friends of the gallant members of the air force who died on this occasion.
As has been said by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, the extent of this tragedy does emphasize the terrible nature of what has occurred. It also emphasizes the continuing magnitude of the task that is assumed in preparing for the defence of this country.
As our sympathy goes out to all those who suffered personally or through the loss of loved ones there is also, I am sure, recognition of the fact that the members of our air force are carrying out their services magnificently in every way and that these terrible and unavoidable accidents are simply a reminder of the extent of the effort that is being made to defend the freedom of every Canadian.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have spoken for all of us. Nothing remains for me to say except that we join in extending our sympathy to those who are bereaved, the members of the religious order and the relatives of the airmen, and I am sure this will be generally shared by all the people of Canada.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the Prime Minister and others who have spoken in expressing

sympathy to the community of the Grey Nuns where this tragedy happened last night. We find no words to express the sorrow we feel, and we join with the Prime Minister in expressing the hope that those who were injured will experience a speedy and complete recovery.


Joseph-Omer Gour: Monsieur le president, je desire remercier le tres honorable premier ministre, as well as the leader of the Conservative party, the leader of the C.C.F. party and the leader of the Social Credit party for expressing their sympathy on this very tragic and sad occasion. I want to join with them in expressing my condolence in the name of all the citizens of my constituency to the mother general and all the members of the congregation of the Grey Nuns as well as to the families who have suffered as a result of this sad and tragic accident. I also wish to thank the Minister of National Defence and the members of the air force for doing everything possible. I was there at 11.15 last night, and every care and precaution were taken to help in every way. I also thank the Minister of National Defence for the sympathy he has expressed. All the Canadian people are very sad on this occasion, and I am very sad because most of the nuns who were there were the best friends of my wife and my family, and many of them come from my constituency of Russell.



DISPATCH FROM CANADA OF CF-100 SQUADRONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question supplementary to one asked yesterday by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) in connection with the replacement of R.C.A.F. fighter squadrons in Europe. Are the squadrons being returned to Canada to be reequipped and, if so, with what type of plane?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, I think the basic facts of the matter are well within the knowledge of the house. We have 12 squadrons in Europe equipped with Sabre jets. We propose to equip four of those squadrons with CF-lOO's instead. The first squadron will be sent over this year and we hope the other three will be sent next year. It is not a question of more or fewer squadrons; it is a question of change of equipment.


John Borden Hamilton: As a supplementary question, are not personnel of the present squadrons in Europe being withdrawn when the four CF-100 squadrons are sent to

Europe; and if so, what type of plane will they be equipped with in Canada on their return?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The personnel of the four CF-100 squadrons which will replace the four Sabre jet squadrons are being retrained. Headquarters have worked out a system of retraining and substitution in the air force. As the hon. member knows, air crew in the air division in France are constantly being replaced and changed. There will be no particular change in the system except that a greater number of air crew will have to be trained to operate CF-lOO's.


John Borden Hamilton: As a further supplementary question-after what I have listened to I am sure it is not asking too much-would the minister inform the house what disposition is being made of the Sabre aircraft which are still in Europe as a result of the re-equipment program?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There are several possible dispositions which can be made of these planes. I am not in position at the present moment to say which one of them will be followed.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, earlier in this session I gave undertakings to make some further statement by the middle of this month on the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The commission has continued to study and analyse the results of these operations under the new act, which has now been in force during the past seven months. This period has not yet been sufficient to form anything like final conclusions with respect to all of the factors involved.
As to the factors related to section 45 (2), as outlined in my statement of the 18th of April, Hansard, page 3038, a decision on any amendments affecting the claimants referred to in that statement must be deferred until later, pending the outcome of the analyses of the commission and of the actuary.
From these studies it is clear already, however, that to forestall unintended consequences under section 45 (2) that would otherwise affect insured workers next fall and early winter, I shall want to recommend, before the session ends, a corrective amendment to the act in that connection.
Such an amendment would apply only to a person who had a seasonal benefit claim
Inquiries of the Ministry and who, within 104 weeks after the beginning of that claim, again becomes unemployed and files a second claim, this time for regular benefit, and who may fail to qualify because he may not have made 30 contributions in the preceding 52 weeks. Of course any amendment I may find necessary to propose will be submitted to the unemployment insurance advisory committee .so that its relation to the stability of the fund may be considered.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, while I followed the minister's statement as carefully as possible, I wonder if he would advise the house whether or not steps have been taken to do anything for those people who are at present suffering because of the interpretation placed on section 45 (2)? As I take it, his statement referred to arrangements which are being made to take care of those unemployed next winter. What about those who are at present suffering?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Those to whom I referred on April 18, as I indicated at that time, or by far the largest number of them were under seasonal benefits then. I cannot give my hon. friend the exact details but I know that most of them are now back in employment again. Hence it is to the future we are looking at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may ask the minister if we may take it for granted that before he brings before parliament amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, in addition to discussing them with the unemployment insurance advisory committee, he will also discuss them with representatives or officers of the Canadian Labour Congress?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, that has been my practice in the past and will continue to be so in the future.


Michael Starr: May I ask a
supplementary question of the Minister of Labour? I understand that something like 70,000 people were affected by this section. Can the minister tell us how many are still left without employment or benefits out of that 70,000?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I cannot do so this afternoon but I will get the information for my hon. friend as soon as may be.



STATEMENT AS TO APPLICATION TO FISHERMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I promised also to make some further statement with regard to fishermen.
We have also been continuing diligently our

Questions
investigations to find out to what extent, if any, the Unemployment Insurance Act might apply to a reasonable number of those who are engaged at sea in the fishing industry, many of whom are self-employed.
I hope to have a further report to make on this topic before many weeks. Even though it should be found that a plan could be formulated to provide coverage for fishermen generally, it will take a good deal of time to work out anything like a practical detailed plan. If a practical plan can be devised, while its effect upon the fund must be considered by the unemployment insurance advisory committee, it may not require an amendment to the act but may be put into effect by regulation under the authority of the governor in council.

On the orders of the day:


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour in connection with a statement he made earlier on the Unemployment Insurance Act. Can the minister assure the house that the changes which are being made by regulation in connection with the inclusion of fishermen will be made during the current session of the house so that hon. members will have an opportunity of discussing the proposals that are brought forward?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I can make no promise regarding the time factor, but I can assure my hon. friend that since I have the unemployment insurance estimates still to be completed before the estimates committee and before the committee of supply of this house there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss his point.



RESEARCH


George James McIlraith: that the first report of the special committee on research, presented to the house on May 14, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Fulton: 1.	Were any payments made to McGill University or any agency or department thereof by or on behalf of the Department of National Defence, the defence research board or any other agency of the government of Canada for research in connection with "brain-washing", in each of the years 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955?
2.	If so, what amount was paid in each of these years?
(Mr. Gregg.]
3.	To what departments or agencies of the government have the findings, or any of them, been made available?
4.	To what outside individuals or agencies have the findings, or any of them, been made available?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The answer to parts 1 and 2 of this question by years is as follows: 1951, $4,178; 1952, $8,502; 1953, $4,320. No payments were made in this connection in 1954 or 1955.
The answer to part 3 is the Department of National Defence.
The answer to part 4 is in the United Kingdom, the admiralty, air ministry and the ministry of supply. In the United States, the navy, army, air force and the central intelligence agency.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


SASKATCHEWAN


Mr. Sluder: 1.	What was the total expenditure in the province of Saskatchewan for the fiscal year 1954-55, by the federal government, including the statutory subsidy and tax rental agreement payments?
2.	What was the total expenditure during the fiscal year 1954-55 in Saskatchewan by each federal government department and agency?
3.	What is the estimated amount that would be payable to Saskatchewan under the proposed national health plan?
4.	What was the total amount of expenditures in Saskatchewan by all federal government departments and agencies since April 1, 1944?



MILITARY AIRCRAFT REPAIRS AND INSPECTION

Mr. Pearkes: 1.	When the Royal Canadian Air Force, or the Royal Canadian Navy aircraft stationed at (a) Sea Island; (b) Comox; (c) Patricia Bay, require repairing or major inspection, where is this work carried out?
2.	What percentage of the work is carried out by Fairey Aviation Company of Canada at Patricia Bay?
3.	What buildings, if any, at Patricia Bay airport have been sold or leased to Fairey Aviation Company of Canada?
4.	What is the total area at Patricia Bay occupied by Fairey Aviation Company of Canada?



COLOUR ADDED ORANGE IMPORTS

Mr. Hahn: 1.	Are any oranges, labelled "colour added", permitted entry into Canada?
2.	If so, what is the source of these oranges?
3.	What quantity entered Canada last year?
4.	What is the composition of the substance used to colour such oranges?
5.	Can orange peels so treated be safely used in making marmalade?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 77-Mr. Mallais:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, maps, agreements and other documents

exchanged, during the past six months, between the government of the province of Quebec and the federal Department of Public Works, regarding the construction of a new wharf at Baie Ste. Catherine, to improve the ferry-boat service between Tadoussac and Baie Ste. Catherine, Quebec.
Robert Henry Winters: Subject to the usual reservation,
Mr. Speaker, about first communicating with the government of Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 79-Mr. Dufresne:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents in the possession of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, dealing with the dismissals or suspensions of all temporary or permanent employees of the department, in the city of Quebec, since the 1st of January 1954, including those referring to William Georges Rodrigue, 625 Bonaventure street, Quebec 8, Quebec.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, this motion would not be objectionable in so far as it might refer to any correspondence from persons outside the public service. In so far as any correspondence between members of the department or between members of my department and any other department is concerned, those documents would be privileged. I suggest, however, that perhaps the hon. gentleman, on consideration, would consider dropping the motion because in fact if it were passed it would have no practical effect at all because no person was dismissed at Quebec from January 1, 1954, to the present date, and only one person was suspended and that for only one day.
I know the hon. gentleman has in mind the fact that we did not re-engage the services of a temporary seasonal employee and that particular person, whose name is cited in the motion, did write 13 letters to me which he marked "Personal and confidential". Before the hon. gentleman laughs, I should like to say that so far as I am concerned I could not care less whether these letters were published or not, but they do refer to this unfortunate man's private affairs and I would be very hesitant about making them public. If, however, he wants to give them to the hon. gentleman who represents Quebec West, I have no objection whatever. So far as I am concerned there is nothing personal or confidential about them, but they are about his affairs and I do not like to treat his personal and confidential affairs as public affairs.
Inquiries of the Ministry


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, the minister claims there was only one man who has not been re-engaged.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say that.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The fact is that many in the city of Quebec-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -in this department have not been re-engaged. I should like to have the correspondence between the department and these unfortunate people who are still starving today on account of this injustice. I do insist on having this correspondence tabled.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, I am within my rights in making a correction in the hon. gentleman's statement. I did not say there was only one person who had not been reengaged. I said there was only one person who had been suspended and that for only one day. I made no statement whatever about the number of people who had been re-engaged, except about this one unfortunate man.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: At this moment we have a motion that is not debatable. Because of the lengthy explanation of the minister I allowed the hon. member for Quebec West, who was the sponsor of this motion, to make a few comments but at this moment the house must make up its mind about this motion. Those who are in favour 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 the motion is lost.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can he give any indication to the house of the progress toward settlement of the dispute between the seamen and the shipping interests on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river, particularly as this seems to be becoming an extensive lockout by the shipping interests?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I had an indication before coming into the house that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) was going to ask a similar question, so I can reply to both hon. members at the same time.
The house will recall that I made a long statement on this last Tuesday, followed by a shorter statement on Wednesday. In that shorter statement I said that Mr. Carl Goldenberg had been appointed as a mediator in the dispute. Mr. Goldenberg met with the parties that same day, Wednesday, and they met for discussions on Thursday morning at 9.30. Since 9.30 on Thursday morning discussions have been going on almost continuously, with the exception of Sunday, of course, and some good solid progress, so it is reported to me, has been made. Those discussions are going on today.
I cannot report beyond that. But I should like to state to the house that it has appeared to me that the impression has gone abroad that most of the grain ships on the lakes are tied up. That is not true. Of those that were in operation, or coming out of winter tie-up for operation 10 days ago, the vast majority are still in operation.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister what was the tremendous and compelling urgency to bring the debate to a close yesterday by the application of the closure rule, in view of the fact the government is not prepared to go on with the debate today and the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not away fishing?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the very courteous way in which the hon. gentleman has put his question, I will tell him that the reason it was not suggested we should go on today with the second reading of the bill was so that hon. members would have an opportunity to consider it before second reading was called.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask a supplementary question. Since it is obvious that time is not pressing, why was closure applied to bring the debate to a conclusion yesterday?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I think we have had a full discussion and a full explanation of the reason closure was applied. The government felt that it was in the public interest that this legislation be
[Mr. Coldwell.l

passed so a start could be made on the construction of the pipe line this year. It had become quite evident from statements which had been made over many weeks that resort was going to be had to every procedure that could be provided by the rules to retard and prevent the adoption of such legislation. We had many examples of that and it became quite evident that if we wished it to be done the only practical way was to take the responsibility of asking for the application of another standing order of this house.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the desire of the government that hon. members have a chance to study the bill that we are to debate tomorrow, will he make available a sufficient number of copies of the agreement with Trans-Canada so that all members may have it. If I may state this as a question of privilege, I personally have obtained a copy of the agreement, so I speak not for myself. But I do know that only a few copies are available.
I did not raise the matter earlier because I thought the agreement would be included in the bill as a schedule. Actually I think it should have been, but that is a point to be argued later. Since it is not included in the bill as a schedule, and since only half a dozen copies are available in the office downstairs, would the minister arrange to have copies of the agreement made available to all hon. members before second reading of the bill is discussed tomorrow?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the usual number of copies were tabled. If any hon. member finds that he cannot get access to the tabled copies and will get in touch with my office we will try to help him out.


Major James William Coldwell: May
I ask the minister a supplementary question. I may say I got a copy of the agreement, but I did not have it in my possession for very long before the office downstairs asked me to return it because there were so many inquiries for it. I did return it without, I may say, having given it sufficient study. If the minister has copies in his office could he make them available to members of the house in the usual way? I think it would be well if we could get copies.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not sure what the situation is about copies. I know that I have complied with the rules of the house. I was asked to table the agreement and I tabled it. I imagine we have extra copies, and if we have I shall be glad to provide them.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question arising out of the motion for the production of papers by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) with reference to the dismissal of William Georges Rodrigue, Quebec city. The matter of the veterans' preference was' entirely ignored by the minister in making this appointment. This man had had considerable experience in this work when he was dismissed from the service, and should have been considered as a permanent appointee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it does seem to me that this is the kind of question that should be asked when the estimates are before the committee, but in view of the incorrect statements made by the hon. gentleman I think those incorrect statements should be answered. This man was employed by the department on a seasonal and temporary basis. He was not dismissed, he was simply not re-engaged for another season. The reason he was not re-engaged was that, unhappily and unfortunately, through no real fault of his own he was incapable of doing the work. I think it is rather a shame to try to make a victim of a poor unfortunate man like that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He was made a victim by your department.



HOUSING

[Stage Direction]
PROVISION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO _ MUNICIPALITIES, HOME LOANS,

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, April 26, consideration in committee of Bill No. 215, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954-Mr. Winters-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Home extension loan.
Howard Charles Green: A day or two ago I received a letter from the Vancouver housing association which I think the minister will agree is a reliable and worth-while organization. They point out that over eight months ago the city of Vancouver requested the senior levels of government, which presumably
National Housing Act would include the dominion government, to construct a 130-unit housing project for senior citizens at 47th avenue and Knight road under section 36 of the National Housing Act.
Then they go on to say that the plans for this project have been stalled in Ottawa since that time for the reason, it is understood, that the federal government is reluctant to participate in a project designed solely for a single age group meaning, of course, for the senior citizen group, while the city council does not wish to provide more family housing at the present time.
As I read the National Housing Act, there is no provision of that type in the act. If the complaint made in the letter is accurate, the difficulty seems to be in the policy that has been adopted by the government or by the crown corporation. I need not point out to the minister the great need there is for housing for the senior citizens. That has been dealt with quite fully in the earlier stages of this debate, and it is a particularly important matter in British Columbia, where we have a larger percentage of senior citizens than any other province of Canada. This question is vital in that province. There are different organizations, such as service clubs and churches and other organizations, which are doing very good work in helping with the construction of homes for senior citizens, but the need will never be met until the government steps into the picture more fully than it is doing at the present time.
I notice that the resolution preceding this bill did not include any amendment having to do with the question I am raising today, but it did refer in the last paragraph to providing for a number of administration and other changes deemed necessary for the more efficient administration of the act. There are some changes in the act which I think would help with regard to housing projects, but the difficulty here seems to be deeper than that, in that there has been a policy adopted somewhere in Ottawa against going ahead with projects where the people who would be benefiting are in one group, such as a group of senior citizens.
Once again I ask the minister to explain the situation. It seems to me that on this particular problem of getting decent housing for senior citizens there is not enough leadership being given here. There does not seem to be the energy behind any move sufficient to meet that problem in an adequate way. I hope I am wrong in that belief, but it does appear to be the situation at the present time. Perhaps the minister could explain why it is the government is against the policy of helping a housing project for a group such as senior citizens.

National Housing Act


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, might I ask what clause we are on now? Am I right in assuming we are on clause 1?


William Alfred Robinson: Clause 1.


Robert Henry Winters: That deals with home extension loans. I should think I would not be in order under the rules of the house in answering the hon. member, and I would like to be guided, Mr. Chairman.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the minister raises this particular point, I think, more frequently than any other minister in the cabinet. He must know that it has been the rule here that on the first clause of a bill the discussion has not been limited solely to that clause. That is a right which the opposition cherishes and which in the long run means that legislation gets through much more quickly, because if that were not the case it would mean more extended debate on the other clauses.
My question to the minister has to do with his policy; not the particular wording of any clause, but the policy with regard to projects for housing senior citizens. I suggest that I am in order in asking it.


William Alfred Robinson: This is a matter which raises a difficult problem in view of the fact that we are governed in committee by the strict rule of relevancy under standing order 59 (2). The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in his remarks, I believe, used the word "rule" and he also used the word "right". I cannot concede that there is any "rule" allowing a broad debate such as he apparently has in mind, in view of the very clear language of standing order 59 (2).
I might say that in my personal opinion we are governed by the relevancy rule. I have been able to make, up to date, only a partial study of the "custom" in that regard. I have some material in my office and would be very glad to make an enlarged statement on it at a later date. In the present instance, I think the hon. gentleman from Vancouver-Quadra will agree that he is in effect attempting to discuss an alternative. He shakes his head as if he does not agree with that statement; but an alternative, I presume, would be more appropriately discussed when we are discussing the principle of the bill.
I do not wish to say, and in fact I cannot say, anything more at this time except to indicate that I have been giving the question some consideration and would be glad to lay something before hon. members at a later date when I have had a chance to study it more fully.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it will be agreed that in the earlier stages of this discussion the

house has been fully co-operative, and I do not think anyone wants to see the discussions and progress today impeded by too technical considerations. The point raised by my colleague from Vancouver-Quadra does give rise to certain questions regarding policy that have a bearing on section 36 of the act. Instead of renewing the discussion we so often have as to whether the rule of strict relevancy is to be applied or whether the custom should prevail of permitting general discussion on the first clause, Jnight I suggest that we are going to lose time by standing on any rule in this matter and that we shall make much ttiore rapid progress if we follow custom and dispose of questions relating to policy on this first clause of the bill.
"The Chairman: Order. I might say that the result of the meagre inquiries I have made to date into this matter neither establishes nor denies a custom, but until I can make a lengthier and more comprehensive statement to hon. members I am inclined to agree with the position taken by the hon. member for Eglinton, and I believe if hon. members co-operate we can perhaps make progress in that way at the present time. I must say to hon. members that until that statement has been made I hope they will not consider that we are establishing a precedent for the future.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps I could now have the answer to my question.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not mind answering any questions, Mr. Chairman, when they are in order. I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is perhaps labouring under a misunderstanding. Normally when a bill is introduced there is a first clause which is rather general in nature. For example, in the housing act the first clause is:
This act may be cited as the National Housing Act, 1954.
I-understand that in such a case it has been customary to have general remarks and questions on the first clause. This bill seems rather different, in that the first clause is very specific in having to do with the deletion of the home extension loan provision under part 4 of the act. I therefore questioned whether I was in order in answering general questions under a specific clause. I do not think there has been any practice established in the committee which would indicate that that is the situation, but where a bill has been introduced with a first clause of a general nature I do acknowledge that a practice has developed. But if the committee wishes me, subject to

the reservations you have stated, to comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra I am quite willing to do so.
The situation is that several members of the housing authority in Vancouver and members of the city council saw me when I was in Vancouver last December and discussed this point with me. Subsequently there has been an exchange of correspondence with respect to it. Their request was that we make provision under section 36, which is the federal-provincial partnership section of the act, for the building of projects to be assigned exclusively to aged citizens. I told them I had some doubts about the policy of having any housing project assigned exclusively for any particular group of Canadian citizens.
We are constantly asked to build housing projects for this or that ethnic group or this or that economic group. I personally think, and I believe my view is shared by the corporation, that it makes for better housing arrangements and for better all round citizenship if there can be incorporated into housing projects a good cross-section of the Canadian way of life. For that reason we have always stated that we have no objection whatever to having any federal-provincial project incorporate a percentage of aged citizens or any other class of Canadians.
I did remind the citizens of Vancouver that under other provisions of the act such as the limited dividend section, where a limited dividend company, which is a private organization, takes the initiative and asks for a loan from the federal government and that loan is approved, they are then free to house any people they choose. That device has been used successfully in Vancouver and elsewhere to house senior citizens.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister not think there is a great difference between say a group of one racial origin being put in a housing project and a group of senior citizens? I do not see that there is any similarity there at all. There is a great need for help for our senior citizens. Why should the dominion government lay down a policy of that kind which certainly is not contemplated under section 36 of the act? There is nothing of that kind set out in that provision or in any other section of the housing act that I can find. I hope the minister will adopt a policy that deals specifically with senior citizens.
Certainly there is a demand in British Columbia for projects of this kind to help our senior citizens, and I think that demand should be considered quite apart from any other demand. Let them be treated on their merit. Here is a demand that has great merit 67509-253i
National Housing Act and has public support. People in all our cities are in favour of steps of this Kina being taken, and I believe the minister, in laying down the policy that he will not give assistance to a project for senior citizens, is running counter to the spirit of the act itself. I hope he will reconsider that stand.
It is quite evident that the statement made by the Vancouver housing association in its letter of May 14 is correct and that there has been and is delay now because of the policy adopted by the minister. I must protest it. I think it is very unreasonable and unfair to the people in Vancouver who are trying to work out a scheme of this kind, and particularly unfair to the senior citizens of this country. They deserve far better treatment than they are getting under a policy of this type. Goodness knows they have a hard enough time to get along on their meagre payments even in British Columbia, where they can get $60 a month. I do not know how people are able to live on that amount, and surely they should not be deprived of the benefit of this act by the policy which the minister has explained today is in existence and which is entirely contrary to the terms of the legislation itself.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Chairman, as I have had a good deal of correspondence with the minister on this very matter for a good many months past and for some months before this letter came to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and myself, may I say that to me the minister's answer makes it very clear that there is no conflict between the policy he is trying to pursue and the policy suggested in the letter from the Vancouver housing association, where they say in paragraph 3:
There are no doubt good grounds for objecting to the segregation of old people in large projects, but if the projects are broken down into smaller units and scattered over different neighbourhoods, as our association has suggested, this objection no longer holds good.
That is exactly what the minister told me many months ago with respect to his objection to the plan proposed by the Vancouver city council subcommittee under Alderman Anna C. Sprott. His objection was that he did not think it was wise to have too many of what he called islands of housing for old people alone, and it was partly in view of what the minister had written me that I tried to make the strongest plea I could, on the occasion of an earlier reading of this legislation, for action for old people's housing under the limited dividend section.
I personally think we are going up a blind alley by putting all the emphasis on

National Housing Act
section 36 of the act. It does not seem to me that section 36 is the best section under which to proceed with housing for old people, and that if everybody inside and outside the house really put their shoulders to the wheel and got interested service clubs, churches, branches of the Legion and so on to take the initiative under the limited dividend section we would have a lot of old people's housing that we have not now.
As I see it, under that act they cannot possibly lose. For the whole lifetime of the entire project their loans are under the government guarantee. In other words I think there is no conflict between the views held by the minister and the views held by the Vancouver housing association. They both favour these small units scattered over the whole neighbourhood, and not great big islands of old people's housing.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words in support of what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. As a matter of fact I think we are many years behind other countries in this question of looking after the housing for our old people. 3 have brought the matter up previously in connection with veterans across Canada. I think some effort should be made not only to provide homes for our old veterans but to provide homes for the old people in general. I know the sentiment or feeling among many people across Canada today is that our old people are not being fairly treated.
Today we have perhaps many more old people in isolation than formerly on account of our social legislation. They are put in what are called nursing homes; they are isolated; they are off by themselves; they have no community life of any kind. I believe this is one of the important problems confronting us here in Canada. It is not only a local problem in Vancouver; it is a problem all across Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
In the city of Saint John a short time ago a decision was made, I believe, to establish homes for old people. When I was overseas many years ago I recall that in certain sections of England homes for old people had been established. They were a sort of community homes. If an old man and his wife were living together a home was provided for those old people. There was a place for them to go. There was a place also for old bachelors and others. There was a definite community, and over this community there was certain supervision. For instance, there was a nursing organization that looked after the health of the old people. There was a recreation centre where the old people could have recreation.

I believe there is a great need for that sort of thing in Canada today. I think the minister's department could very well take this matter under consideration. In centres all across this country some provision should be made so the life of the older people of this country would be made happier and more contented instead of, as I say, putting them away in a nursing home, in a room away back in the country or in some city, somewhere by themselves where they are unhappy and where they are obliged to live out their last days in loneliness and almost in privation as far as social life is concerned.
I think this is a great question. As I said before, I have raised it in connection with veterans' housing. It also applies to other old people. I am in hearty accord with what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has brought out this afternoon. We are behind other nations. We are behind Sweden, Great Britain and most European countries as far as this problem is concerned.


William James Henderson: I should like to say a few words on this bill and on the topic under consideration which has been discussed by those who have spoken previously. I might say that I am pleased that in the city of Kingston we have a group of public-spirited citizens of all races, religions, creeds and politics who have joined together to take advantage of the limited dividend provision of our legislation in order to provide good low-rental housing for senior citizens. At the same time, I think most of our senior citizens like to enjoy that feeling of independence which comes from feeling that they are paying for what they are getting.
With respect to this Bill No. 215, I might say that I am pleased to see that the limitation is removed from part III whereby that part would apply only to low or moderate cost rental housing or for municipal, provincial or federal public purposes. I am glad to see that part III can now be made use of, upon the approval of this bill, so that blighted substandard areas may be put to the best use.
That is most important in older cities like Kingston, for instance, which I represent. In many of these old cities, though they have many historical parts, possibly the early planning has been interfered with by the growth of our country. Many municipalities are looking for an equalized assessment whereby certain areas may be used for either commercial or industrial use in order to increase the assessment where other assessments for an increased number of homes at the beginning cost the city a great deal more money than the tax return. The removal of this limitation certainly will assist the municipalities looking for these features in

removing their blighted and substandard areas and putting them to better use.
I am also pleased that the bill provides that the administration of the National Housing Act will pay one-half the municipality's cost of acquisition and clearance as such costs are incurred, rather than waiting for a long period of time. This removes a considerable burden from the municipal authorities who enter into a scheme like this.
In conclusion I might just say that I should like to congratulate the minister and those charged with the administration of the National Housing Act. May I say that their far-reaching thoughts by this bill keep the National Housing Act not only in step with the growth of our country but in particular with the growth of our cities as our country grows. Once again I feel that I can endorse it as very good legislation.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like to say a word or two on this topic, Mr. Chairman. I think it is a good thing in our modern society that more and more we are beginning to assume our responsibilities toward our older citizens. It is, of course, the fortunate fact that people live longer nowadays, but for that reason a problem is created in that there is a longer spell of, shall we say, leisure life which must be provided for. As to these projects that have been mentioned in connection with old people's housing, may I say that we also have some of them in my city and my province, and that everybody is extremely happy about that fact.
I think an important thing is this. When something is being done in the nature of a project of this sort, somebody must start it. There must be local participation. I think that local participation should be encouraged. It is a fine project for service clubs and people of that sort. With regard to private homes, of course the private individual puts up the necessary money that Central Mortgage and Housing does not put up and the matter proceeds. But someone must take the lead in projects of the type mentioned here by two or three of the hon. members who have spoken previously. I want to stress the idea that encouragement should be given to local participation so that people will go out actively to start these projects which are, as I see it, one of the greatest needs of our modern society.
I am going to suggest to the minister that there is a way in which he could encourage such projects. I do not know his .own opinion about the matter. I do not know whether or not he considers that these are good things.
I know we did have a bit of a struggle to get some of them started, or to have some of them considered by Central Mortgage and
National Housing Act Housing, but my suggestion is this. Where people are prepared on a local basis to go out and put up their own money through public subscription-let us say the Kiwanis Club come to me and say they want to get another of these homes for senior citizens started, am I prepared to give them $100 toward this project-I think that money should be considered as a charitable donation and should be deductible for income tax purposes.
I know the minister may say, as many ministers have a habit of doing when you get tied up with two departments, that it is the responsibility of the other department. I am well aware that the Minister of Finance has to be persuaded about this. I think the minister to whom I am now addressing myself has a responsibility, being in charge of housing, for bringing some pressure to bear on his colleagues so they will endorse that particular proposition. I know that a definite attempt has been made, and I know that in my city we are lacking one of these homes for elderly people today as a result of the fact that the government has not seen fit to agree with that particular part of my argument. I think if the ordinary private individual, professional man or worker, is prepared to put up a couple of hundred dollars of his own earnings in order to benefit the community in general and in particular that section of the community which is unable to help itself, that man should have consideration and the donation should be considered as a charitable gift for the purposes of income tax deductibility.
I want to be a little careful about the word "charitable". I do not want it to be understood that anything we do for these senior citizens who, certainly in our western provinces, have contributed so greatly to the wealth of this country, should be considered as charity, if there is indeed any stigma attached to that word. I merely use that expression because it is the technical one in connection with deductibility for income tax purposes. I would plead with the minister to collaborate with the Minister of Finance to see if that could be brought about. I think perhaps it would solve to some extent a problem which has been in the minds of many municipalities, particularly the cities throughout the country.
I have heard Vancouver mentioned, and I am surprised if the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra has found that his municipality is unable to get this type of loan. I am sure my hon. friend's information must be correct. Was that my hon. friend's statement, that in Vancouver he has discovered it is difficult to get money for this particular type of home?
3996	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member has asked me a question. I pointed out that eight months ago the city of Vancouver submitted a plan to the two senior governments, the provincial and dominion governments, for the construction of a 130-unit housing project for senior citizens, and nothing has happened. Mind you, there are other projects in greater Vancouver, some of them financed by churches or service clubs, but here was a case where there was a specific proposal put up which has been stalled and I am trying to find out whether it has been killed and just why this is so. It looks as if the dominion government is responsible.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I think my city has been more fortunate in that regard. We have not, as my friends suggested, these big places where a great number of people are isolated. Our projects are smaller and are scattered here and there throughout the city. The elderly people themselves are so happy about it. I am quite sure if the minister would follow our suggestion he would find a happy solution to the problem. I know of one particular case where they are just waiting to go out and fill up the subscription list if they could get the amounts made deductible for income tax purposes.


Elmore Philpott: Make the contributions
through the churches and then take them off income tax.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister's comments on the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra lead me to say something about it. The city of Vancouver has asked that steps be taken under the provisions of section 36 of the housing act to provide housing accommodation for elderly persons. The minister in his statement has taken the position that the proper way to handle a situation of that kind is by resort to the limited dividend housing corporation sections of the act. While on the one hand it is suggested that the provisions of section 36 should be used for the purpose, I take it that the policy view indicated by the minister is that if anything is to be done by way of providing special housing accommodation for elderly citizens it should be done by the use of the limited dividend housing corporation provisions.
The minister raises the further point that the idea of the segregation of elderly persons is not in harmony with the policy of the government in relation to housing for elderly persons. It is quite true that the limited dividend housing corporation provisions of the act have been used in a number of cases to provide housing accommodation for elderly persons. No doubt where that is possible it
fMr. Knight.]

is a useful way of meeting the need, but it is quite evident that those provisions are not adequate to meet the entire need. There are many places where the local support, financial and otherwise, is not adequate to sustain the incorporation of a limited dividend corporation for such purposes. I would join my colleagues the hon. members for Vancouver-Quadra and Royal in urging that use should be made of the provisions of section 36 in such cases.
I cannot follow the minister's argument in relation to segregation of elderly persons. There certainly could be some forms of segregation that would be quite intolerable if applied to housing accommodation constructed under the provisions of section 36 or any other provisions of the act. "Segregation" is a baneful word and has many nasty connotations that I am sure are not in the minds of any of the hon. members in this house, but there surely is no reason in principle why housing accommodation should not be constructed specially for the use of elderly persons. I do urge that there should be an abandonment of any rigidity in the policy of the government in this regard. I do not think it is a case for a rigid policy at all. It is rather a case for the application of a policy designed to make the provisions of the act as effective as possible for meeting the needs that parliament recognized in enacting the provisions.
The needs of elderly persons are in many areas the most acute needs, and particularly those who have nothing to provide for their subsistence except the old age pension. I think the minister will agree that in the case of such deserving persons, if we are to wait until there are enough local resources and enough local initiative to make use of the limited dividend provisions of the act, then such persons are going to continue to suffer and will not have any opportunity of living in decency in their declining years.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues and urge that the department and its agent, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, should not allow rigidity to characterize their approach to needs of this kind. The need is there; the need is paramount in the consideration of parliament. Parliament is not going to be niggardly or carping in its approach to questions of this kind. Let there not be rigidity because, it seems to me, in the face of considered requests such as those which come from the city council of Vancouver, what is needed is an understanding and a flexible approach, not a rigid one.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, briefly I want to support the pleas of the previous speakers

for flexibility in the act to provide for the needs of our senior citizens; but I rise particularly to ask the minister a question. It has not to do with policy; it has more to do with purpose so far as this act generally is concerned.
In the city of Trail for a good number of years they have been plagued by the Canadian Pacific Railway track running through the centre of the city. Consideration has been given throughout the years to changing this situation, particularly in the Rossland avenue area. Plans have been considered for the redevelopment of this area, the relocation of the yards and the freight sheds required for the business people of the district in one particular place, and the removal of the necessary houses and their transfer to another location. At the present time this problem is being considered on the basis of financial co-operation between the city and Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, with the Canadian Pacific Railway more or less looking after its own track removal and things of that sort.
Would a redevelopment scheme of that nature come under the terms of the amendments to this act at the present time? I am speaking of the relocation of the yards, the relocation of those persons who have to be moved from certain areas because of the poor type of buildings and the necessity to move them, and so on.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, there is a specific clause in this bill, namely clause 23, under which I think this could appropriately be discussed. I would refer my hon. friend to it so that he can peruse it and have its provisions in mind when we reach it. I think that a reading of the clause will answer some of the questions he himself has raised. If it does not, then I shall be glad to deal with it when we come to the section. We are on a specific section now, namely section 1, having to do with home extension loans, and we were diverted into a discussion of housing for aged citizens in Canada. I have just been asked to ensure that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not become too rigid in its application of government policy. I can assure hon. members it will not.
I remind the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, who is mistaken in some of his statements-I am not too concerned about that because the general principles are the same- that when he says there is a proposal before us, there is not. This has been a matter of discussion, but no specific proposal has been put before us so far. The situation, as I said in reply to him, is that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as well as myself
National Housing Act
believe it is quite in order to house a percentage of senior citizens in any federal-provincial project. Generally speaking, and without being rigid about it, we think it is all right that about 20 per cent of the tenants of any such project should be senior citizens, and that has been a part of the policy of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I have statistics which show that, as at the present time, the total percentage of senior citizens in relation to the total population- and when I say "senior citizens" I mean those over 65 years of age-is 7-73 per cent. As against that we are agreeing that it is quite in order to house up to 20 per cent of senior citizens in a federal-provincial project.
At the same time we say that if anybody else wishes to show the initiative that so many already have shown to develop limited dividend companies and obtain a loan from Central Mortgage and Housing, then it is their responsibility to house anybody they wish within the appropriate income range. They are simply the borrower, and they have all the rights and privileges of administering the project as they see fit and of housing anybody they deem desirable.
Therefore rather than discriminate against the senior citizens, which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra might have implied without actually saying so, I think quite the reverse is the case. I am quite sure that my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare could make quite a convincing statement and assert to the satisfaction of all members of the committee that the senior citizens in Canada have not been discriminated against but, on the contrary, the government has gone a long way in meeting the needs of this very worthy group of Canadian citizens.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, that is all very well, but here we have one specific case. If the minister did not get a written application from the city of Vancouver, at least his officials have been discussing this particular project with the city for a matter of eight months. I am told by reliable people vitally interested in housing, and working on a community service basis on this problem, that this project has been submitted to the government; a 130-unit housing project for senior citizens at 47th avenue and Knight road in Vancouver under section 36 of the act.
Now, there is an actual application; and there is a possibility for 130 senior citizens to benefit if the project goes through. What I should like to know from the minister is whether or not that particular project can be approved by the dominion, or is he going

National Housing Act to follow the policy that not over 20 per cent of the people going into one of these projects can be senior citizens? If that is the case it is obvious that there is not the slightest chance of this plan which has been put up by the city of Vancouver becoming a fact.
I think that would be a great tragedy. The city is actually prepared to step into a plan of this type which will help 130 people, and I hope the minister is not taking the broad position, that he will rule against that plan because it is a plan exclusively for senior citizens. Apparently that plan has been worked out by the city of Vancouver in the belief that there is a need that should be met. Section 36 of the housing act obviously could be used for that purpose if it were not for this ruling by the minister which, with all due deference, is very rigid, since he said a few minutes ago that he will not allow more than 20 per cent of those living in one of those projects to be senior citizens. What is the minister going to do with regard to this particular project? It has been delayed now for a matter of months.


Robert Henry Winters: There is no official project before us.


Howard Charles Green: The minister himself said he had been discussing it with the council of the city of Vancouver.


Robert Henry Winters: We have been discussing general principles.


Howard Charles Green: What was the minister discussing if not this project?


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member should not make such assertions.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister say that he has never heard of this project?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I understand that officials of the city have discussed a suggested proposal with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They have brought it forward in the nature of a feeler to see what the reaction would be. There is no specific proposal. Nothing has come forward from the province, as is required under section 36 of the statute. I wish the hon. member would not mislead as much as he does.


Howard Charles Green: If a proposal to implement
the plan I have been discussing were submitted, would it be considered by the government and would there be any chance of it being accepted?


Robert Henry Winters: How could I say when I
have not seen it?


Howard Charles Green: The minister is just evading
the issue.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What cities and towns have
made specific provision for this 20 per cent?
I understood the minister to say that 7 per cent had been provided for already.


Robert Henry Winters: I am afraid the hon. member for Royal did not hear my statement.
I said that the percentage of old people in the total population was about 7-73 per cent, and that as a general rule, without any of the rigidity which my hon. friend tries to associate with us, we have been telling the local housing authorities that we see nothing wrong with allowing up to 20 per cent of the total in any of these joint projects to be senior citizens.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What cities have submitted
plans to the department?


Robert Henry Winters: I would say that there are
federal-provincial projects in about 50 cities across Canada.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is that to provide for older
people?


Robert Henry Winters: Older people and other classes of citizens; not exclusively older people.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Did the city of Saint John
recently make application for accommodation for older people? I saw in the press some time ago that they had.


Robert Henry Winters: I have no knowledge of any proposal from the city of Saint John to house older people exclusively.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment to make regarding homes for senior citizens arising out of the comment made by the hon. member for Vancouver South in which he referred to islands of housing for older citizens and suggested that this was not a good policy. I suggest that the need for housing for senior citizens is very great and that the main thing is to get some form of housing provided.
In our own province we have recognized the advantage of getting away from multiple units, the institutional type of housing, and have provided more of the cottage style self-contained units. In answer to the inference drawn by the hon. member for Vancouver South and I believe by the minister, may I say that in my belief the main thing is to do everything we can to increase housing for senior citizens. They are the ones in the community who are generally unable to take advantage of the provisions of the act. Those who are working and with years of life ahead of them are possibly in a position to build homes, but many of our

senior citizens have no savings and are unable to pay the 10 per cent required by the act.
I think the main thing is to provide housing for senior citizens. I gathered from the minister that there was some hesitancy or reluctance about going too far in the provision of housing for a particular group of citizens, and those to whom he was referring were our senior citizens.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two comments regarding the situation in Saskatchewan. There seem to be three points where there is a difference of opinion between the government and the people in Saskatchewan, but these points apparently are receiving further consideration by the department.
One point at which we were at variance was as to the number of hostel units and the occupancy of those units. As hon. members know, we in Saskatchewan have put a different interpretation upon the act and have been building hostel units on the basis of one hostel bedroom unit for every ten general units. That has been done under section 16 of the act and does not apply to other provinces. In spite of that we were restricted to a 50 per cent occupancy of hostel type units. We believe that should not be the case, and I understand the government is now giving serious consideration to the request of Saskatchewan. I hope the minister will look with favour upon that request.
The second point had to do with double occupancy of hostel units. Again I understand the government is giving serious consideration to this request.
We asked that June 1 as a cut-off date for applications for limited dividend type accommodation be extended until October 1. I understand that this request is being given serious consideration by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Mortgage insurance fund.
Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the remarks made today with respect to senior citizens, and this subject formed the main part of my remarks during the debates on April 23 and April 26. During the debate on April 26 I asked the minister if there had been large commitments under the insurance fund, and he indicated that there had not. There are some other questions I should like to pose and a suggestion I should like to make in respect to the fund.
What is the present amount in the insurance fund? Is the fund in liquid form, or has it 67509-254
National Housing Act been paid out to other insurance companies? I understand from the minister's previous answer that there are no commitments, so it would appear that the fund is bigger than it need be. If the fund is in liquid form, and as the rate of 2 per cent on mortgages running up to a total of $1 billion would return something like $20 million a year, I would suggest that the money be reinvested in homes for senior citizens at reduced interest rates.


Robert Henry Winters: The fund stands now at something over $12 million. There have been no charges against it so far. It is liquid and is invested in government securities, the interest from which accrues to the fund under the provisions of the statute.


Frederick George Hahn: Has consideration been given to reinvesting it in a scheme of homes for senior citizens wholly owned by the dominion?


Robert Henry Winters: No consideration has been given to that, and I think it would be difficult to carry out. This is an insurance fund to guarantee certain obligations, and I think we are under an obligation to keep it in liquid form so we can discharge quickly any commitments which might arise. The hon. member knows that a substantial change was necessary in the Bank Act before we could induce the banks to lend against the security of residential mortgages, and this is one of the provisions that made that possible.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact is that the government could not lawfully use the insurance fund for the proposed purpose.


Frederick George Hahn: I am satisfied with the statement of the minister that the fund must be kept solvent at all times and that my suggestion would require a change in the Bank Act, but I would draw to his attention that when making these particular changes-we know that we pay our senior citizens a regular income-that there could be an automatic charge on the old age pensioner in the way of rental and so continue keeping the fund itself solvent. Certainly, as it is indicated at this time that there is no demand on the fund we can only hope that conditions will remain such that the demand will not be too great and that the fund should not become too great in itself.
Therefore I contend that some consideration should be given to this other aspect of the reduction of the interest rate. I am not sure that the fund has been in operation long enough for the actuaries to determine whether a reduction could be contemplated at this time, but what consideration is being given to the reduction of this rate? Would the minister say that possibly the fund has not been in operation long enough to determine that at the present time?
4000	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act


Robert Henry Winters: I would say the latter is the case. We have obligations against the fund of over $600 million worth of residential mortgages, and I would be hesitant to do anything that would run the risk of making the corporation unable to meet any obligations that might possibly come against this fund. I do not foresee any. The Canadian economy is strong and the fact that we have had no charges against the fund now indicates that mortgages are in a healthy position, but I do not think $12 million to guarantee a total amount of over $600 million is too much at this stage of our experience.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Aggregate maximum of four billion dollars.
Donald Methuen Fleming: In clause 5 we have a provision that section 13 of the act is to be changed in order to raise from $2 billion to $4 billion the aggregate amount for which insurance is to be provided under the mortgage insurance fund scheme of the act. Would the minister give the committee a report as to how far the fund is committed, and how this figure of $4 billion has been chosen as the desired increased amount?


Robert Henry Winters: At the end of 1955 the figures I have indicate that commitments have been given of more than $1 billion, and that undertakings are being made at the rate of about $600 million a year. The present ceiling of $2 billion would be reached about the middle of next year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the present rate continues, then, the new $4 billion ceiling would be reached probably around 1960?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right, because I thought it was logical that the ceiling should be set at such a level that the minister would be required to come back to the house during the course of the next parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder if there should not be a little more control on the administration than that? After all, the doubling of this huge amount would mean, even if the present substantial rate of commitment continues, that the $4 billion fund would be ample to meet all current requirements at least until 1960. That means it would not be necessary in the ordinary course, so far as one can foresee, for the government to come back to the house for another four years.
I wonder if that is not too long, with a view to maintaining strict parliamentary control while at the same time affording every opportunity to make financial provision adequate for all foreseeable needs, and in that way to make the provisions of the act as efficacious as possible. I ask if it would not


suffice to increase this already substantial total ceiling to, say, $3 billion. In the ordinary course that would mean that the $3 billion limit would be reached, say, about the beginning of 1959. Surely that is quite long enough when we are dealing with substantial amounts of money like this. After all, $2 billion is still a large amount of money, in spite of the astronomy that we resort to in this house at times in regard to expenditures and commitments.
I raise that point quite seriously, as to whether all apparent needs would not be fully provided for and at the same time more effective guarantees of parliamentary supervision and control preserved by making the new ceiling $3 billion instead of $4 billion.


Robert Henry Winters: I am sure the hon. member is aware that these figures we are talking about are not government expenditures at all. They are just ceilings of commitments by the lenders.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But the principle of parliamentary control is involved. It is a question of commitment rather than expenditure.


Robert Henry Winters: I think parliament should have adequate opportunity to scrutinize the operations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and its administration of the terms of this statute. The hon. member will see, as we get through the various sections of the bill now before us, that we are making provision to give parliament more scrutiny than it has had before of the operations under the statute, and particularly those provisions that involve the expenditure of moneys provided by parliament.
This is simply our authority to guarantee mortgage lending up to that level, and I personally am of the opinion that $4 billion is a reasonable figure in relation to our present commitments and the rate at which mortgage loans are being guaranteed at the present time. I might say to the hon. member that at the outset there was a feeling that the figure should be somewhat higher, but after we gave a great deal of consideration to this particular point we decided that $4 billion was reasonable in relation to the present ceiling of $2 billion and the rate at which loans are being guaranteed now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think the point the minister is making is nearly as sound as he seems to think. What we are dealing with is the right to make commitments that are binding upon parliament, binding upon the public treasury. It is quite true that we are not dealing with expenditures. It is not as though we were voting money in the estimates for expenditures; nevertheless it is



IS. 1956

[Stage Direction]
clear that we are permitting the creation by this section of public liabilities.
Let me give you those figures briefly again. Already the commitments to December 31, 1955, amount to $1 billion. The present commitments are coming in at the rate of $600 million a year. The present ceiling of $2 billion will be reached in the ordinary course about the autumn of 1957. If an increase of another $1 billion is permitted, that at the present rate is going to provide for all foreseeable needs until the beginning of 1959, and I see no necessity for adding another $1 billion of possible commitment to that before the government must come back to parliament for review of this matter and to seek, if the conditions then warrant it, the right to increase these commitments.
We are dealing with vast sums of money here, and the right to make huge commitments binding upon the public treasury of this country. Surely we do not need to make a provision of this kind that far into the future. I press the point upon the minister that it is quite adequate and quite in keeping with the generous attitude the house has shown with regard to the provision of funds to assist housing under the various parts of the National Housing Act if we increase the ceiling from $2 billion to $3 billion instead of $4 billion. Will the minister not accept that suggestion?
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I can add to what I have said. In the light of the best judgment we could bring to bear upon the matter $4 billion seemed reasonable. I must say I thank the hon. member for his comments, but in our judgment we will stand on the $4 billion in the bill.


Auguste Vincent: Was any consideration given to the possibility of insuring the borrower instead of the lender? At the present time I think the lending institutions are well protected, but on the other hand if the borrower does not make his mortgage payments he can be foreclosed. If the borrower were insured his monthly payments would be insured. Therefore I do not think the fund would require to be as large because the government would not be called upon to pay bulk sums of money. Instead, the government would only be called upon to pay in cases where the borrower could not meet his obligations. It is not to be assumed that the borrower could not meet his obligations indefinitely, because after all we do not assume that the country would be in such a crisis that we would have to pay the monthly instalments for years to come. In other words, if foreclosure should take place, instead of the 67509-254J
National Housing Act
government having to pay $8,000 or $9,000 on a guaranteed loan, if the insurance were paid by the borrower for the borrower instead of being paid by the borrower for the lending institution we would arrive at a proper solution whereby the borrower would benefit from the insurance premium he has paid and at the same time the lending institution would be protected.
I do not think there is any lending institution in Canada that wishes to take back any property on which it has made a mortgage loan. They are not in the lending field for the purpose of engaging in the administration of property. They do not wish to take back property on which they have lent money. Consequently if we insured the borrower his monthly payments would be insured and at the same time the lending institutions would benefit and would be protected. Therefore we would not arrive at the improper situation where the borrower would have paid his fee and at the same time would face foreclosure after five or six months of non-payment on his part. Should some crisis arise in Canada we would be faced with an unfortunate situation whereby many people would have to vacate their homes after having paid a 2J per cent insurance fee. The lending institution is protected but the borrower, the home owner, is not protected.
What consideration has been given by the government to this matter in order that the insurance will protect both the borrower and the lender? I think the limit of $4 billion would be sufficiently high, because we would not have to pay out bulk sums of money and put out on the street people who have already paid an insurance fee to protect their homes and mortgages.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member may recall that the former member for Spadina made a good speech in the house several years ago in which he advocated a program of equity insurance. That matter was explored very fully. The question is often asked why we insure the lender and do not insure the borrower. That is followed by a supplementary question as to what the borrower gets for the insurance premium he pays. The obvious answer is that he gets mortgage money which he would not otherwise get, so by paying the insurance premium there is assurance that he will get mortgage money.
That was the only basis on which the banks could come within the provisions of this statute, as my hon. friend is well aware. The other side of the argument has to do with just what is an insurance principle under the operations of this statute. There have been very few cases indeed of foreclosure, certainly not enough to make an equity insurance
4002	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act
principle one of general application, and since the 1954 statute was enacted there has been no call to charge against the insurance fund at all. Therefore it is a very difficult concept to think in terms of asking all borrowers under the statute to pay into an insurance fund to protect the relatively few cases out of all the thousands of borrowers who have had mortgage money under the National Housing Act.
I think the number who have been subjected to foreclosure would be much less than 100. In other words the percentage is negligible. Therefore that is also a consideration when one thinks in terms of an insurance principle and the charges that go with asking people to contribute to an insurance fund. In reply to the hon. member's specific question, the answer is that this matter has been given a great deal of consideration but that at the present time the government believes the insurance principle is warranted only to guarantee an adequate flow of mortgage money into residential housing.


Auguste Vincent: The life of such mortgages being 25 years, I think the principle should be studied still further and that some consideration should be given to the situation. Last year I spoke to the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, who is in the house today, and placed the problem before him. It may not be a very vital problem today or a measure that is essential at this moment, but I think we should look into the future and that the officials of C.M.H.C. should not just drop the question but should keep on studying the matter to see how the insurance principle could work in case it should be needed in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Contributions to municipalities for clearance of substandard areas.
Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to refer specifically to the situation in Saint John. May I say at the outset that we have a difficult slum clearance problem there because of the fact that Saint John, New Brunswick, is the oldest city in Canada. We also had a fire which completely destroyed the city. The entire city had to be rebuilt and naturally the houses are all of the same age and at the same stage of depreciation. What general plans are being negotiated at the present time with respect to slum clearance?
I should also like to ask this specific question. In the city of Saint John I understand that the municipality is planning to investigate slum clearance and planning generally, and that they have asked some experts from Toronto to come to the city this summer
iMr. Winters.]

and conduct a program in that respect. I was wondering whether the minister could say whether the costs of these experts, if there are costs, can be charged up to this section. I have just those two thoughts in mind, namely the general program and the specific cost of planning.


Robert Henry Winters: Under part V of the present statute we have made a grant to the city of Saint John to conduct a study of housing conditions there. The relationship is that the federal government pays 75 per cent of the cost of making the survey. I understand that it is either under way now or will be very shortly. Saint John has done quite a good job in public housing. They have an extremely active housing authority there. Several projects have been developed, all of which have turned out successfully, in my opinion, and have met a need. This is one of the places in Canada where I think good progress is being made in accommodating a class of citizens that perhaps otherwise could not have had the type of decent accommodation with which we have been able to provide them under the partnership arrangement provided by section 36 of the statute.


Alfred Claude Ellis: In the explanatory notes of the bill I note the statement that the main part of the bill has to do with part III. I was wondering whether the minister could tell me how many projects were undertaken under the old part III, the part III that this act will supersede.


Robert Henry Winters: There have been only two cities in Canada that have taken advantage of the slum clearance section of the statute, although a good many cities, as I said before, have taken advantage of section 36 which is related to this matter dealt with in this bill before us now. The two cities that have taken advantage of the slum clearance section of the statute are Toronto, which has developed that large Regent Park North project, and St. John's, Newfoundland where a good job has been done in removing some of the slums that existed in that city.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I was just trying to assess the result of the change suggested in this bill. I note that the main change seems to be in the formula under which the government will provide assistance to the municipality concerned. I note that under the present part III the government makes provision for a contribution based on the difference between the cost of the clearance and the eventual price realized from the project, and that under the proposed change the government will make the contribution on the basis of the over-all cost and will recover later.

My question is this. How will this affect the over-all contribution made to the municipalities? Will it have any effect-that is my point-or will it still mean that the government is making roughly a 50 per cent contribution under either formula?


Robert Henry Winters: I think the big contribution this section will make to the redevelopment of cities is in the end use of the redeveloped land. The present statute places a limitation on what the redeveloped land might be used for. This amendment opens that considerably. In many places where there is. substandard housing it often happens that the area does not lend itself to redevelopment for housing purposes, as I said before in the house. I think that has been one of the obstacles in the way of civic redevelopment. We are saying now that redeveloped land may be used for its best purposes. That is spelled out in the section. It envisages that an area which is now given over for residential purposes can be used for commercial, industrial or other purposes, whichever is the highest use for which the area is envisaged in the over-all civic plan.
On the monetary side of it, the general formula is the same but the change in application I think is important. The old formula provided for a grant which was half the net cost of acquiring and clearing the land, and a grant was made after the operation had been completed. That meant that the municipality was obliged to finance the undertaking from the outset until final completion and to carry all the charges that go with financing. Under the bill now before us it will be possible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to pay as the costs are incurred, and thereby relieve the municipality of quite a bit of the heavy onus of financing the project during the course of acquisition and clearance.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate that slight effect, in that a municipality will perhaps be spared the carrying charges on a certain sum of money which under the present section it would be obliged to provide. However, I am concerned about the 50 per cent formula, because in answer to my previous question the minister intimated that there had been only two cities in Canada which had been able to take advantage of this assistance or which have seen fit to do so.
I hardly believe that cities in Canada are not anxious to avail themselves of any assistance. I am quite certain that cities throughout Canada would be most anxious to undertake projects of this type. I can only conclude that their failure to do so is based on their inability to finance their share of
National Housing Act the cost. My suggestion therefore is that while the change will be of some slight benefit, I am not too certain that as a result of this new bill we shall get any substantial increase in slum clearance throughout the country. I hope I am wrong in that respect, but judging from the past record I think we have no real reason for believing that the municipalities are going to be in any better position now than they were a few years ago to undertake the tremendous burden of 50 per cent of the cost of slum clearance.
With reference to the statement made by the minister that under the new section, the removal of the limitation in the existing part III which requires that this land be used for low-cost or moderate-rental housing or for federal, provincial or municipal public purposes will perhaps provide a further incentive to municipalities to clear blighted areas, may I say that we are concerned about housing. While I say it is highly commendable that municipalities across the country should undertake the removal of blighted areas, nevertheless if they are simply going to reassign that area to commercial purposes, for example, we are still not getting to the heart of the matter, which is the provision of adequate low-cost housing.
I am just wondering now whether the minister really feels that the elimination of this previous restriction is going to assist- and I should like to know the manner in which it is going to assist, if he feels it is going to do so-the building of additional low-cost housing units in those cities.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Perhaps before the minister replies to the hon. member for Regina City I might make an observation and ask a question. First of all, there may be some difference of opinion between the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, representing Bonavista-Twillingate, as to which is the older city in Canada, but certainly one who comes from Montreal as I do would believe that Montreal is the most mature city in Canada.
The question I should like to ask is whether, in view of the agreement which has been entered into by the three authorities in respect of the rehabilitation program in Montreal, there is anything we on the federal side may do to expedite the matter? The very fact that it has been brought about recently, does not that partly answer the question raised by the hon. member for Regina City?


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I might answer this question and thank the hon. member for St. Law*ence-St. George for his contribution.

National Housing Act
I know he is interested in the so-called Dozois plan, which is one of the big projects for development under this section. The other large redevelopment now moving forward is Regent Park South in Toronto. I do think this section will overcome most of the barriers that have been in the way of civic redevelopment. I am sure my hon. friend from Regina City has cause to know that the problems are not always of a fiscal nature. In the city of Regina some time ago interests there favoured a federal-provincial housing project. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation thought it had merit, but the local taxpayers themselves turned that down.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Actually I campaigned for it.


Robert Henry Winters: Often it is the case that local problems dealing with civic administration or what might be called local politics are more severe than local financial problems. We found that to be true in many municipalities across the country, and it is quite understandable. I have no criticism to make of civic administrators who find great difficulty in uprooting citizens who have lived in a certain area for a long time, in demolishing their homes and having them go to live elsewhere. Sometimes these problems have been so severe locally they could not be overcome regardless of the financing arrangements we might have made.
I think this new approach to the financing problem will help in so far as financing is an obstacle in the way of redevelopment. The hon. member made an observation as to whether or not we were really coming to grips with housing rather than redevelopment for commercial and industrial purposes. The answer is that we have tried to keep squarely before us that this is a measure to assist housing. If the hon. member will read the various sections of the clause, for example paragraphs (c) and (d), he will see that great emphasis is placed on housing. In fact paragraph (d) says specifically:
A substantial part of the area at the time of acquisition was, or after redevelopment will be, used for residential purposes.
Paragraph (c) delineates even more specifically the government's intention that there shall be adequate housing for those people who are displaced through any redevelopment.
As to the Montreal plan, there has been a proposal made to us by the city and I understand that a statute of the provincial government of Quebec has authorized the city to act as its agent in entering into a slum clearance operation with us under section 36. I would imagine that under provincial statutes there will need be an order in

council. We have no knowledge that the order in council has been passed. There has been no direct communication from the Quebec government to the federal government to indicate that they have authorized the city to act as its agent. But as I said before, I do not see any barrier that will develop there. The proposal is with us now and we are giving it very careful study. I assume that whatever steps will need to be taken as between the government of Quebec and the city of Montreal will be taken so this project can go forward without any delay.


Auguste Vincent: I would not like the opportunity to pass without saying a few words on part III, because I happen to be representing a constituency which really needs housing redevelopment. I think the minister is aware that within the last month or so Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have opened an office in my constituency. I must comment very favourably on the outcome, and on the achievements of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, especially in the constituency of Longueuil which needs redevelopment. We have made great strides. During the four years before the new act came into force approximately $7 million worth of loans were made in all seven municipalities in my constituency. In the past two years' this amount has risen to $8,500,000, and municipalities which previously had not obtained loans have obtained loans under the new act. I think that in this respect Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the National Housing Act, 1954, have really played a big part in housing in my area.
Nevertheless I think the problem of housing redevelopment is still very acute. We have, for example, in the city of Jacques Cartier a population of approximately 38,000 people. Up to a year ago the city unfortunately did not have sewage or water facilities. Now the population has spent about $12 million and has a proper sewage and waterworks, so they are ready for a real redevelopment program. Consequently I hereby advise the minister we will be knocking at his door to have some plans approved for slum clearance and the replacement of substandard homes by new homes. Certainly the city will take advantage of this act in order to develop a plan whereby the present situation will be cured.
Before sitting down I should like to know from the minister how the estimates of the cost of acquisition of land and clearance of the area are arrived at. In other words, who does the estimating and how are those estimates made?


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. gentleman's question was who makes-


Auguste Vincent: Subsection 4, paragraph (a) says:
An estimate of the costs of the acquisition and clearance of the area;
On what basis is the estimate made and who makes it?


Robert Henry Winters: If the project develops along the pattern that has prevailed so far, a committee is set up composed of representatives from the levels of government concerned. In Toronto it was the civic, the provincial and the federal government levels. They constituted a committee and made estimates. In Montreal, where the provincial government indicated to the city that it would be empowered to act as its agent, there was a committee with membership from the city of Montreal and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The estimate was compiled under the general supervision of that committee. The initiative in the first place must come from the civic authority, as my hon. friend can well appreciate. The bill provides that it must be done with the knowledge and authority of the provincial government concerned. So I would imagine the city authorities would be communicating with the provincial government, and then it normally flows through that channel to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I asked a question on section 1 and the minister advised me to read section 23. Well, I have read it two or three times and I am not quite clear as to the interpretation; therefore I am going to repeat my question. I said the city of Trail has been concerned about removing the tracks of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which pass through the centre of the city, to a location at the north-' west end of Rossland avenue, removing certain houses, some of which are not quite good and others not so suitable, making a yard at the end of Rossland avenue for the unloading of freight and the building of warehouses, and so on.
This matter has been very carefully gone into and it is suggested that the relocation of the tracks, the building of the railway yard and the provision of warehouses, and so on, could be provided for by co-operation with the city and financial assistance from the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway.
My question is this. Would this section apply under those circumstances; that is, would any agreement be affected by the fact that the company was willing to bear a share of the cost and the Canadian Pacific Railway
National Housing Act
the cost of moving the tracks and doing certain things in connection with the yards? Will the minister explain to the committee what procedure the municipal council should adopt in making representations with respect to the use of this section?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, it is pretty hard for me to sit here in Ottawa and judge whether or not a project in Trail could qualify under this statute. I do not know enough about the local conditions. There are certain elements about it, however, as expressed by the hon. member, which would raise doubts in my mind as to whether it could qualify. On the other hand he said that part of the area is now given over to housing which needs to be redeveloped. Perhaps that part could qualify. We would have to make a study. I presume the city of Trail would be prepared to initiate some investigation as to whether the project they have in mind could qualify under the statute. I refer the hon. member for Kootenay West particularly to paragraph (d) of clause 23, which reads:
A substantial part of the area at the time of acquisition was, or after redevelopment will be, used for residential purposes.
We must keep in mind, as the hon. member for Regina City said, that this is housing legislation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to mention that the Minister of Fisheries visited Trail recently and I think raised their hopes considerably, which is quite normal procedure for cabinet ministers. What should I suggest to the council? Should I suggest that the council would be well advised to present the whole scheme to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, I would suggest that.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I referred a few moments ago to the removal of the limitation which exists in part III where slum clearance is a factor in the agreement between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the municipality. I was quite aware, as the minister pointed out to me, that 3(b) and 3(c) in particular of section 23 refer to the fact that where the buildings in an area have to be torn down and the area made available for perhaps industrial purposes, or whatever purpose the municipality sees fit to use it for, alternative accommodation must be provided to those who are dispossessed at reasonable rents.
I note that the section calls for provision of this housing through either sections 16, 19 or 36; but I suggest that if the municipality is going to pay 50 per cent of the cost of slum clearance of a blighted area, and then be called upon to make a contribution with respect to construction of low-rental housing,

National Housing Act presumably under section 36-because certainly it is difficult to believe that under the other sections housing could be built, which would provide for the needs of people who are in those blighted areas-I think the minister realizes that limited dividend corporations are not going to charge the type of rents that the people who are now living in blighted areas can afford to pay. I know rents in the limited dividend housing dwelling units-low-rent housing they call it-are often in excess of $60 a month. Certainly people living in slum areas in our large cities are not going to be able to pay that amount of rent. Therefore I suggest it will have to be brought about under section 36, in which case of course the municipality is again going to be making its contribution.
Now, in the event of slum clearance, if the houses on that land bring a sufficient return to exceed the cost of the purchase of the land, it means that the municipalities are going to be put to an extra expense. I am trying to make my point quite clear. If the municipality went ahead under section 36 I am suggesting that it might well be that under subsection 3 of section 23 of part III of the act the municipality would find itself in a position where it was paying more as a result of the diversion of this property to industrial or commercial purposes. Perhaps the minister can reassure me on this point. This is the doubt that exists in my mind at the moment.


Robert Henry Winters: I feel that the municipality has a great deal to gain from these projects. It almost invariably develops that the land redeveloped produces more revenue than it did previous to the redevelopment. I believe that when municipalities make detailed studies they will find that they are the level of gov-% ernment which really stand to benefit most directly from any of these redevelopment projects. And rather than having the weight of the financial burden bear on them I think they are in a very favourable position to benefit from those redevelopment projects.


Erhart Regier: Since I noticed that these
amendments would be before us today I looked up what the minister had to say at page 3332 of Hansard. I should like to read what he said:
. . . the Liberal aim, namely, to provide adequate housing for every Canadian.
Then I read on in his comments, and I am going to relate this to part III in a very few moments. He pointed out that the average down payment in 1955 was $2,821. He further indicated that in 1955 some 490 loans had been made to people whose income was under $3,000. When we consider that the

average down payment is $2,821, and that out of 100,000 housing units fewer than one-half of one per cent were purchased by those whose income was under $3,000; and when we consider that there are more people in Canada whose income is under $3,000 than those in excess of $3,000, I think the minister will agree that we are not providing as much housing for the people of Canada who really need the housing as both he and the rest of us, I am sure, would like to see us provide. I feel that the act is in effect being used to help build houses for people many of whom would be able to build their own houses without assistance. So far as that statement is correct the whole act is falling short of its original objectives.
We now have part III, which is headed "Urban Development". I do not intend to express any opposition to the proposed amendments, but I do feel they will take away our attention from what the real purposes should be. I realize that this new part will serve a useful purpose. We on the lower mainland can certainly use it if we can persuade our ratepayers to co-operate. However, I feel that an extensive use of this new part and the leeway which is to be granted will take away our attention from the real need, that is the providing of more housing for people in the low income brackets.
I do not know what all the answers are, but I do know the local government is expected to take the initiative under the new part. What does that involve? The minister referred to the citizens of one Canadian city who were faced with a plebiscite and who voted out a proposed redevelopment scheme. I can sympathize with the local taxpayer who resents the taxes on his home being increased in order to meet an obligation which he feels should be assumed by society as a whole and not be the direct responsibility of the real estate which he owns within that municipality.
I know the minister is anxious at all times to expand home construction, and I feel that perhaps the provincial governments are more to blame than the municipal and federal governments. I should like to ask the minister whether any efforts have been made by his department to persuade the provincial governments to assume more responsibility, to carry on a little more education and to make it easier for the municipal people to endorse redevelopment undertakings?
Has the department made any effort to induce the provincial governments to assume more of the initiative? I realize it is hard for a department in Ottawa to assume much

of the initiative in removing a blighted area in a city perhaps thousands of miles away, and which may not be of such immediate urgency in Ottawa as it is back home. Yet the taxpayer back home feels he is being overloaded; he does not want to take the initiative, and the provincial government places the blame on the municipal and federal governments. Have any efforts been made along these lines?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes. I am sure all hon. members are aware of the section of the British North America Act which makes property and civil rights a provincial responsibility. Housing and property associated with housing are clearly matters of property and civil rights; therefore the provincial governments have a definite responsibility where the housing of their citizens is concerned. I think generally speaking all provincial governments recognize and accept that responsibility.
When section 35, now section 36, of the housing act was being developed in 1949 I visited every provincial government accompanied by the then president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We had a number of discussions with the appropriate ministers about housing and about what could be done to house the class of people who could not normally contemplate their own houses under the home ownership provisions. I found there was quite a keen interest on the part of the provincial governments, which has manifested itself to a considerable degree in the utilization of section 36 of the present statute.
Apart from that we are in constant communication with the provincial governments. A warm and friendly relationship obtains between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the various provincial agencies. There is a quite active and close co-operation, but I think this is a matter in which the local citizens could play a prominent role. They should try to assume a measure of responsibility and initiative and to create an awareness by the proper level of government of the need for doing something in these fields, where private citizens are not capable of building or owning their own homes.


Erhart Regier: If I may pursue that a little more, I believe the other day the minister listed the Canadian cities in which blighted areas had been redeveloped. Is there a provincial government in Canada which has paid more than the municipal government in the carrying out of such redevelopment schemes? 1 realize the federal government pays a portion of the cost and assumes some responsibility for losses that may occur in connection
National Housing Act with the operation of such a scheme. Is there any provincial government that is offering to its municipal governments that it will pay more than the municipal government will be asked to pay? If so, what are those provincial governments?


Robert Henry Winters: The sharing between the municipal and provincial governments seems to vary from province to province. For instance, in connection with the project at St. John's, Newfoundland, the provincial government has paid a full 25 per cent of the cost. Regarding the other big slum clearance development in Canada, Regent Park South, the provincial government paid $1,000 per unit whereas one-half the cost of acquiring and clearing the land, which was paid by the municipality, would be of the same magnitude. In addition the municipal authorities stood the cost of building the project over and above the $1,000 per unit. That is all the information I can give the hon. member, because there have not been any other slum clearance projects in Canada. I hope this legislation before us now will stimulate further activity in that field.


Erhart Regier: Would the minister have information about the large housing development in Vancouver that was built under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation auspices? What was the relationship between the two levels of government there?


Robert Henry Winters: In the Little Mountain project?


Erhart Regier: Yes.


Robert Henry Winters: 
Alfred Claude Ellis: I wonder if the minister has any information on the relationship between the cost of clearing blighted areas and the value of the land after the clearance had taken place on the two projects to which reference was made a short while ago.


Robert Henry Winters: What is the question?


Alfred Claude Ellis: I was asking the minister if he could state the relationship between the cost of clearance of the two blighted areas that were discussed a few moments ago-I believe one was in Newfoundland and the other was the Regent Park North project in Toronto- and the value of the land. I would like to get the relationship between the cost of the clearance and the value of the land if it is going to be used for industrial purposes.

National Housing Act


Robert Henry Winters: In Regent Park North, which is the one developed so far, the end value assigned to the cleared land was $1. I have forgotten for the moment just what the arrangement was in Newfoundland. I am not sure I fully understood just what the hon. member is seeking to find out.


Alfred Claude Ellis: A few moments ago the minister suggested that municipalities would be in a stronger position as a result of this change in that the blighted area, when it is cleared of buildings and made available for sale for perhaps commercial or industrial purposes, is going to yield a sufficiently high price that the municipality is going to benefit, and I presume the government will benefit to the extent that under some circumstances it is not making any grant at all to the project.


Robert Henry Winters: I am still not quite clear. Perhaps the hon. member and I could have a private chat about this. Normally when the land is redeveloped its value is higher, as in the case of Little Mountain, where the property as it stands now is much more valuable than before the housing project was built.


Alfred Claude Ellis: That is the information I wanted. I wanted to know whether the minister could give some specific information. He has made some generalizations, but I would like to know if he has something specific.


Robert Henry Winters: I have no specific figures of land values before me.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
On clause 9-No liability after loans aggregate $200,000,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: In clause 9 we have another of those clauses in which the amounts provided for in the existing act are being increased. This time the aggregate amount provided by section 26 for guaranteed home improvement loans and guaranteed home extension loans is being increased from $125 million to $200 million. I wonder whether the minister could give the committee the figures upon which this increase has been calculated?


Robert Henry Winters: Under this section so far we have insured over $30 million of loans. I expect that with the higher level of loan we are going to make possible, if parliament approves this bill, the rate of home improvement loans will run considerably higher, and we estimate that the ceiling here would be reached at about the same time as the ceiling for insured loans, which we discussed a few moments ago.
'Mr. Ellis.]


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not wish to repeat what I said on the earlier clause. The significance of the minister's answer is that the amount now proposed, namely $200 million, will provide all the requirements of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in this respect until the year 1960, in other words four years in advance. I think that is too long a period for parliament to be making provisions of this kind in advance. I believe we shall maintain parliamentary control much more effectively with a shorter period than the one contemplated. A period of four years is too long in provisions of this kind. I think it is altogether desirable that there should be more frequent parliamentary review in regard to such financial provisions. The minister was not prepared to accept my suggestion in discussion of the earlier clause, and I take it he is no more amenable to persuasion on this one, seeing that the dates contemplated in both sections are approximately the same, but I wish to repeat what I said in the interests of strict parliamentary control.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
On clause 11-Limitation.
Donald Methuen Fleming: In clause 11 we have a provision extending the time within which proceedings may be instituted for an offence. Whereas under the present section the limitation period is six months, under the new clause it will be three years. I should like to ask the minister what experience has given rise to this proposal.


Robert Henry Winters: There have been experiences where, in connection with false statements made in obtaining a loan, six months has proved too short a period to allow the bank to catch up with the statements. It seemed to the corporation that in the interests of good administration we needed a longer period than six months to overtake the fraudulent efforts that occur from time to time. Six months is a rather short period, as the hon. member well knows, and in the several instances when it needed to be applied it has proved too short.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can follow the minister on that, but he has not told us why it needs to be three years. In the particular case to which he refers, within what period was discovery made of the alleged fraud?


Robert Henry Winters: The official of the corporation informs me that three years is the period they consider necessary in the light of the experience they have had, and also in the light of the longer risk period that we are providing for in the bill before us now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That does not answer the question. The minister purported to base his earlier observation on some specific experiences of the discovery of the evidence of fraud. What was the period in the particular cases within which the evidence was discovered?


Robert Henry Winters: I am told that in one instance a period of some eight months had elapsed, and in other instances there has been a longer period, but I have no specific information before me now as to just what the periods were in the cases we have had.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not require greater persuasion to believe that the period of six months is short and should be enlarged, but I think the committee has been left quite in the dark as to why the period should be enlarged to three years.


Robert Henry Winters: Another reason, as I said, is that under the present statute the term of the loan is three or five years, depending on the amount of the loan. We are extending the period of the loan to ten years which, it seems to me, has some bearing on the argument I am advancing that we should be allowed a longer period for overtaking these attempts at fraud.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a little hard to see what the length of the loan has to do with the period within which any fraud should be discovered. What possible relationship does the minister see between those two factors?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, as I said at the outset I am basing my reply on the experience of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But their experience falls so far short of what you are asking.


Robert Henry Winters: Just in that one instance where it was eight months against the six months allowed now, but there have been other instances where they have not been able to overtake these attempts in that time. In the light of their experience they believe they need three years to achieve effective administration of this section of the act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, with all
respect for the judgment of the officials, I believe that is a quite inadequate reason for making a change in the statute law of this country, and I think we should be given some better reason. As I have indicated, I do not require a great deal of persuasion to yield to the suggestion that the period should be increased from six months, but we have had one case only, apparently, where the period of limitation prevented prosecution. In that case the alleged fraud was discovered
National Housing Act
eight months after the period of limitation began. That is no reason at all for extending it to three years. I think it is quite evident from the minister's last answer that the suggestion that there is any connection whatever between the length of the loan and the length of the period within which the officials of the corporation ought to be able to discover fraud, if there is any, is just too far-fetched to have any bearing.
Unless there is some better reason for extending the time I do not think the minister has made out a case at all for extending it to three years. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has had a good deal of experience in a professional way with the criminal law. I think he would not be lightly disposed to support a lengthy increase in the period of limitation in a section like this without some better reason than has been given. Surely what we want here is to maintain and keep before the officials of the corporation at all times their duty to be vigilant and alert, and if the impression gets around that there is plenty of time and that they do not need to worry because they have three years, I do not think this sort of provision is going to keep before these officials the necessity for being vigilant and alert.
Surely what we want in this respect is twofold. First of all we want the sanctions of the law there to restrain potential lawbreakers from breaking the law. In the second place we want effective and early enforcement so that if there are wrongdoers who do break the law those who are charged with the responsibility for enforcing the law are going to be swift in.the discharge of their duty in executing the law; and surely to give them a nice comfortable feeling that they have three years to work on is not going to achieve the kind of results that we as a parliament should be seeking.


Jean Lesage: I have one observation. Why should parliament give to the man who is guilty of fraud the comfortable feeling that if he is not caught in one or two years he will get off the hook? That is what my hon. friend proposes now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it is not.


Jean Lesage: That is what I understand he proposes now. After all, why should a man guilty of fraud under this section-I understand it is a question of fraud through false statements.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is offences under the section. We have talked about fraud.


Jean Lesage: When it is a question of false statements and fraud it is quite possible it will take more than seven or eight months.

National Housing Act It may take a year and a half or two years. I believe it is only reasonable to make the period three years. Why should a man who is guilty of fraud get oil the hook because it has taken more than six months to discover his fraud? I do not believe that is reasonable; and from the experience I have had, as my hon. friend knows, I believe that under the circumstances three years is a reasonable limitation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let us bear in mind that we are dealing here with a section which has been in effect and which has set the period of limitation at six months. That was put forward by the government. Let there be no question about where the responsibility lies for the idea as to the length of the period of limitation. This was put forward as government legislation and presumably the government was satisfied at that time to set a period of six months on the limitation of prosecution in offences of this kind. As I understand it, the reason for setting a period of limitation is to impress on those who are charged with the responsibility for enforcing the law the need for being alert and vigilant.


Jean Lesage: That is the reason.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, and it is a very good reason. Apparently it was good enough to commend itself to the government in putting the provision in the legislation in the first place, and good enough to commend itself to the judgment of all members. Now the period is to be considerably enlarged. Nobody wishes to make the role of the lawbreaker any easier or the problem of the law enforcement officer any more difficult. Wherever there is wrongdoing we wish to see it discovered and those responsible dealt with properly, but I think we are all very conscious of the necessity of keeping before those who are charged with the responsibility of enforcement the duty of being alert in the discharge of their duty. It strikes me from what we have been told today that three years will give the officials a very comfortable feeling.


John Borden Hamilton: I feel that if a change such as this is to be put forward by the government the minister should be in a position to tell us how many prosecutions have been launched under the section and how many prosecutions were not launched because the time limit provided now had expired. Unless we have such information I do not think it is fair to any of us to have to make a decision whether this is a proper period of time or whether it is not.
I am not directing these remarks in any particular way, but I am always a little surprised at how soon after people in the legal

profession come to this chamber they become administrative-minded and begin to think about how much easier it would be for the department to carry on with a little extension of this type.
I am not thinking of people who are guilty and who are going to get some benefit out of this. I am thinking of the numerous people who are put to the trouble of a defence under a section of this kind and in many cases are found innocent. As a matter of fact I am reminded that sometimes the evidence is lost in the meantime and witnesses are not available because of lapse of time.


Jean Lesage: There is no limitation for most offences under the Criminal Code.


John Borden Hamilton: That may be so;
but if we have a continuation of this type of legislation then I assume that we will have a general extension in all types of legislation. Therefore I say I really feel that the minister should have statistics which will show how many prosecutions have been launched, when they have been launched, and how many have not been launched because of failure to come within the period of time set out here.


Robert Henry Winters: I am sorry, but I do not have those statistics before me. However, as I am sure hon. members know, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not become aware of this condition until the banks inform them of it, and there is usually a lapse of time in that connection. The banks themselves may not know of misrepresentation until a default occurs, and this may not occur till many months after the offence. I do not wish to ask for a longer period than seems reasonable under the circumstances. The officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, from their experience in the administration of this section, have informed me that in their best judgment three years is a reasonable time in tracing down these cases of false statement and other frauds which come to us, as I am sure hon. members know, through the banks. The cases do not come to us directly in the first instance. A sufficient space of time must be allowed so these matters can develop and then be referred to us by the banks when they become aware of the false statement or fraud.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not wish to prolong this discussion, Mr. Chairman, but I wish to make this concluding observation. I intend no disrespect for the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation when I say this. I would have the same observation to make about any government officials, or at least about their judgment, if a similar statement

were made by any minister in advocating any legislation that he was asking the house to pass.
When ministers come before the house asking the house to approve legislation we ought to have something more than simply a statement that the officials, in their experience or in their judgment, think this is the kind of legislation that parliament should pass. Parliament has a more far-reaching responsibility than that. Whatever the opinion of the officials may be, what parliament wants is the information upon which the officials reached their judgment. Parliament may or may not arrive at the same conclusion as that arrived at by the officials. It is not enough -indeed it is far from being enough-simply to be told that the officials have arrived at certain conclusions. The officials may or may not have taken into account all the factors that parliament may think ought to be taken into account. The officials may or may not have attached to the various factors the weight that parliament, with its experience, thinks ought to be attached to them, If we are to be asked to support legislation of this kind, I think we want more information given to us than we have been given here this afternoon; and in particular we want something more than just to be told that the officials, in their judgment or in their experience, think that a three-year period is required.


Auguste Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the period has been extended just in order to give the department more time in which to look into the fraud situation. I think it has been extended in order to impress the borrower, so that he will feel responsible. If a fraudulent borrower feels that within six months he may be caught but after six months he is free, he will not be too scrupulous with regard to his business dealings. He will feel that by waiting six months he can get away free. But if he feels that the department has three years in which to catch up with him, he will be more careful with regard to his actions.
I think that is the reason the period is being extended to three years. I do not think it is in order to give the department more time. I think it is in order to impress the borrower with the fact that there is a period of three years during which he can be caught up with. I think the period of three years is all right.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: No one knows as much about the act as do those who are required to put it into practice. I think we should listen to their advice.
National Housing Act


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, we like to hear their advice and I think that is what we are here for. They should be here with the information, and should give it to us directly, not on the basis that they have come to some conclusion. In this respect I am a little disappointed that we do not have the statistics we should have in order to make an adequate decision.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Surely the hon. member for Fort William is not suggesting that we should abdicate our legislative function to the officials?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Certainly not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why must we accept their judgment without knowing the grounds upon which they have arrived at it?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I have seen a mechanic on a machine that was extremely hard to run. After he had run it for a year he know more about it than did the people who bought the machine.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 12-Home improvement loan insurance fund.
Erhart Regier: This clause deals with insurance on home improvement loans. What I should like to ask applies as well to insurance on the ordinary National Housing Act loan. The complaint that is so widely made is that this is one-sided insurance, that it is insurance for the lender while there is no insurance for the borrower.
In some other debate-I believe it was at the time of consideration of the minister's estimates-I mentioned the fact that there was a feeling that the department should be able to arrange, with relatively little inconvenience, an insurance scheme which would be a little more extensive than the present scheme and which would provide protection for the borrower as well as for the lender. I had in mind particularly mortgage insurance, so that if the purchaser, or whoever had the home improvement loan or the N.H.A. loan, should pass away, the mortgage would be paid off; not the company paid off and the family lose the home.
I wonder whether the minister can tell us whether his department has given any consideration-either a year ago or recently when they drafted these amendments-to the possibility of extending the insurance feature in that respect. If so, what conclusion was arrived at?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I have already answered that question. I answered it when it come up under another section. I think it was when we were discussing matters of general interest.

National Housing Act


Erhart Regier: In that case I will read it in Hansard. I was obliged to be absent from the chamber for the purpose of attending a meeting.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 13.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the minister this question. Suppose a municipality had a rather peculiar and difficult problem something like the one I suggested previously. Under this section can they call upon your people to come in, look it over, advise them and make a study of it?


Robert Henry Winters: This is the section under which I think it would be appropriate for them to approach the corporation in that regard.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you.


Erhart Regier: Would this be the section under which a municipality might ask the federal government to undertake the study of housing conditions where people live on land owned by the federal government or on water that is under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and whereby a municipality might be able effectively to invite the federal government to do something about these slum areas that are definitely under federal jurisdiction?


Robert Henry Winters: Before answering that question I would have to know more about what the hon. member has in mind.


Erhart Regier: I am sure the minister has had representations made from Vancouver at various times with regard to people living on the flats. They are living in Burnaby as well. They live on federal government land. Many of them live in houseboats. Some of the conditions under which these people are obliged to live-and I am not blaming those people-are beyond description. I believe on a number of occasions appeals have been made to the federal government to assume its responsibility and supply these people with more adequate housing, but no action has ever been taken or no responsibility has ever been assumed by the federal government. On looking over this section, I might say that it looks as though it would be a wonderful section in that it would provide the municipality with a vehicle for appeal to the federal authorities. Am I right?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not see any reason why, quite outside the terms of the statute, the municipality could not bring that problem to our attention if it is one for our jurisdiction and responsibility. I shall be glad to bear in mind what the hon. member has said.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Jean Lesage: the second reading of Bill No. 250, to amend the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I made some general remarks in regard to this bill during the resolution stage, so I shall have very little to say at the present time. However, after having received the bill and studied it to some extent I have been wondering about the position of possible private operators who may wish to establish public utilities of any sort in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. An examination of the bill by no means makes their position clear.
I am wondering particularly whether the bill as drawn places what will now be known as the Northern Canada Power Commission in a position where it has complete control of public utilities of any kind in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. In other words I am wondering whether it is possible for a private company or individual or even a municipal district to establish a public utility of any sort except with the consent of the commission and under its control. That is the one general point which I thought perhaps I should mention, and perhaps we might have some explanation from the minister.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I did
not have an opportunity to make a contribution to this debate when we were at the resolution stage, Mr. Speaker. It deals with an item of tremendous importance to Canada, because I feel that the bill before us, which is an attempt to broaden power development in our north land, is perhaps one of the most important steps that could come before this house.
In recent months there has been renewed attention given to development in the northern part of Canada. This has largely resulted from the fact that we have been building up our defence resources in the north, as far north as the extreme Arctic area. I think it is only fitting that we should try to bring the right balance to bear upon the subject by shifting the emphasis to activities that will

have more positive results, the general problem of development in northern Canada.
In a statement to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects the subject is summed up very nicely. In referring to the matter of the development of Canada's northland, the writer of this note used the following words; he was comparing the extent of development in northern Canada to similar development in the northern regions of the U.S.S.R.:
Canada has not done as much. This is not a reflection of discredit. Our population is much less; we have had an enormous work of development in the south; and our belief in private initiative and freedom of enterprise has caused us to refrain from the policies of government direction and control that have determined the lives and work of people in the Soviet union. We must, however, be fully alive to the importance of our northern frontier and of the resources-many known and many as yet unknown -that lie within it. It is not necessary, nor, it is submitted, is it at all desirable, for us to wait inertly for economic forces alone to set the terms and the pace of our action. Entirely in line with sound economic progress, a great deal can be done by national policy to hasten and extend our northward development. In a region as vast as the Canadian north, with problems of distance and climate, developments cannot occur with the speed they do in smaller countries or in the southern part of Canada. If we are going to want and to need the resources of our northland in 10 or 20 years, the time to begin the work of getting them is now.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that quotation sums up very precisely the attitude this parliament should take toward the development of that northern part of Canada. Now, the bill we have before us-


Jean Lesage: May I just ask a question of the hon. member? Was he quoting from the submission by the commissioner of the Northwest Territories to the Gordon commission?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, the Northwest Territories submission.


Jean Lesage: By the commissioner of the Northwest Territories, who is also the deputy minister of the Department of Northern Affairs?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is correct. Basic to the type of development outlined in this report is the development of our power resources. If we are going to be able to exploit the rich resources of the north it means that power must be available. From time to time in this house we have discussions as to whether power should be developed by public or private endeavour. Certainly, so far as the northern power potential is concerned, it would seem to be the responsibility of the national government to take the initiative in this regard. Only when we have power available can we
Northwest Territories Power Commission expect the private investor to become interested in the northern part of Canada.
I could go on ad infinitum to place on record the tremendous power resources that are available there. I noticed in a report on this matter in the external affairs bulletin for December of last year, the Yukon river alone has the staggering waterpower potential of 4 [DOT] 5 million horsepower, which is one quarter of the present developed capacity of all Canada. There certainly is, therefore, plenty of opportunity and scope for increased and vigorous action in this regard. In the long run the power, of course, will be used to develop the rich resources that have been stored in the Canadian shield. It is significant, Mr. Speaker, that most of the territory that we refer to as northern Canada is contained within the Canadian shield region, and this Canadian shield is one of the great mineral-bearing regions of North America.
Before you can develop your natural resources, one of the important problems that must be met is the population difficulty, which has been one of the major deterrents to development in all parts of Canada. We are a large geographic area. We have unbounded material resources; we have all the things that are necessary to make Canada a truly great industrial country. We lack one thing. This is a truism; it is almost a cliche these days. We lack adequate population resources. Lack of population is the great obstacle to Canadian development.
This is particularly true in northern Canada. While we have all the power and natural resources there, it seems to me that because of the transportation difficulties, it is going to be necessary to stimulate the settlement of that country and that, of course, will be interconnected with the development of power, and the development of power in turn will mean the development of our natural resources. The U.S.S.R. are away ahead of us in this respect. They have established several large cities in the northern part of that country. Admittedly they have a much longer history behind them.
This bill is at least a realization that we have to become much more active in the northern region of Canada than we have been in the past. So far as maintaining population is concerned, the argument is invariably put forward that climatic and soil conditions in what we refer to as northern Canada are not very suitable for supporting a large population; but as the result of recent geographical exploration and as a result of the increased interest in that territory we now know that there are 1J million acres of arable land available for settlement. We also know that climatic conditions in large areas of northern

Northwest Territories Power Commission Canada are quite agreeable to living a reasonable existence in that part of the country. For example, since 1947 we have had an agricultural experimental station at Fort Simpson.
While I am referring to the general problem of population I would not want to ignore the special difficulties faced by the native population. We have had discussions in this house from time to time-


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but he has been dealing with the general question of northern development, and he is now touching on the difficult human problems facing the indigenous population of the north. We are discussing second reading of a bill regarding the Northwest Territories Power Commission, and I respectfully remind you, sir, that we should deal with the principle which underlines a bill which has nothing to do with the problems of the native population of the north.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I do not quite understand the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was merely going to say that we have had-I heard the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce say something. He made some comment about not understanding.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Continue.


Thomas Miller Bell: That goes without saying.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I was going to say that we are faced with this indigenous native population problem and it seems to me, in reply to the query raised by the minister, that the bill, by encouraging the promotion of power potential which in turn will lead to the development of our resources, is going to be a much more positive way of handling the native population
problem than by direct relief. I raise that issue merely by way of further support of the principle of the bill.
Finally, I should like to ask a question which the minister can perhaps deal with more directly when we come to the sections of the bill. I should like to present it to him at this time so he will have the reply ready. I am particularly interested in the fact that the principle of the bill extends to areas outside the Northwest Territories. I presume, Mr. Speaker, the benefits of the bill can be extended to certain provincial areas if those provincial areas are interested in developing the power potential of their northern regions.
I mention this because the prairie provinces have certain areas that might be regarded as being within the Canadian north. Those regions are also a part of the great Canadian shield and contain tremendous power resources as well as natural resources. If the benefits of this bill could be made available to certain of the northern areas of the provinces it would go a long way toward implementing some of the recommendations that have been made by this group, which has suggested that before we can develop resources by private means public authority should make available the power potential. I should like to have the minister comment when we come to the particular sections of the bill.
On motion of Mr. Herridge the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We will take second reading of the pipe line bill tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

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

Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo): 1.	Have any planes licensed to carry freight for the D.E.W. line construction project been structurally altered subsequent to licensing?
2.	If so, have they been permitted to fly without further inspection after structural alterations?
Answer by:	Mr. Langlois, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1 and 2. Section 215, subsection 2, of the air regulations, 1954, reads as follows:
A certificate of airworthiness is not in force during any period of major repairs or major modifications or under such other circumstances as may be specified by the minister, and does not come into force thereafter except after inspection and certification of the aircraft in accordance with any directions of the minister in that behalf.
The department has no reason to believe that any plane carrying freight for the D.E.W. line has been structurally altered contrary to the provisions of the above regulation.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. White (Middlesex East): How many persons are employed by the Department of National Revenue in Canada; (a) customs and excise division; (b) taxation division?
Questions
Answer by: Hon. J. J. McCann. (Minister of National Revenue):
The number of persons employed by the Department of National Revenue in Canada as at April 30, 1956, was as follows: (a) Customs and excise division, 7,554; (b) taxation division, 7,454.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Pommer: How many Indians were hospitalized in each of the years. 1953, 1954. 1955, for (a) tuberculosis; (b) other conditions?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
(a)	(b)
Other	t
Tuberculosis conditions Total
1953	
3,008	32,339	35,3471954	
2,893	36,780	39,6731955	
3,343	31,156*	34,499*
* Figures are not yet available for Indians treated under the British Columbia hospital insurance service.


INCOME TAX COLLECTIONS, 1955
Mr. Hodgson: 1.	What was the total amount of income tax collected in 1955, by provinces?
2.	What was the total cost of collecting same, by provinces?
Answer by: Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE Taxation Division
Total income tax and succession duty collections and expenditures for fiscal year 1954-55
Income tax collections	Succession duty collections	Total collections	Total expenditures$	$	$	$Newfoundland	23,939,469.34	241,983.25	24,181,452.59	232,228.23Prince Edward Island	2,372,209.48	109,405.32	2,481,614.80	147,654.95Nova Scotia	35,501,509.78	2,106,114.14	37,607,623.92	838,478.14New Brunswick	27,960,747.99	953,245.74	28,913,993.73	590,187.21Quebec	632,739,551.99	7,402,107.65	640,141,659.64	4,943,350.09Ontario	1,183,396,931.85	20,871,605.46	1,204,268,537.31	9,080,197.74Manitoba	103,513,003.98	1,832,379.51	105,345,383.49	1,253,515.34Saskatchewan	52,430,952.13	958,615.36	53,389,567.49	1,323,836.18Alberta	119,553,717.10	2,719,781.32	122,273,498.42	1,629,232.75British Columbia	227,964,424.11	7,553,311.92	235,517,736.03	2,137,736.06Yukon	2,824,748.92	19,478.87	2,844,227.79	27,845.37Head office expenses not allocable by districts (public forms, office stationery, and other general administrative expenses)	3,472,213.81All Canada (Totals)	2,412,197,266.67	44,768,028.54	2,456,965,295.21	25,676,475.87
Note.-The collections shown above are those made by district offices located in the respective provinces.

Questions


MARITIME COAL PRODUCTION ASSISTANCE ACT-LOANS
Mr. MacEachen: 1. What amount in loans has been made available to coal producers under the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act?
2. Which coal companies received loans and what amount was received by each of them?
Answer by: Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):
1. $8,718,345.
2.
Avon Coal Co., Minto, N.B	
Dominion Coal Co., Sydney, N.S	
Four Star Collieries Ltd., Bras d'Or, N.S.
D. S. & R. A. Mills, Minto, N.B	
V. C. McMann, Minto, N.B	
Total approved $ 675,000.00 7,500,000.00
229.320.00
305.850.00
8,175.00
Amount received to date $ 675,000.00 4,673,524.92 162,000.00 305,850.00 8,175.00


$8,718,345.00 $5,824,549.92 COAL SUBVENTION STATISTICS  NOVA SCOTIA- UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. MacEaohen: 1. How many tons of Nova Scotia coal have been moved to the United Kingdom with subvention assistance?
2. What is the average subvention rate per ton?
Answer by: Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):
1.	265,609 net tons.
2.	$2.34.

Thursday. May 17, 1956