1957-03-11

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give notice that it would be the government's intention, subject to the usual reservations, to introduce the budgetary debate next Thursday evening, March 14, at eight o'clock.



AWARDS AND DECORATIONS


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) asked me the following question on the orders of the day on Thursday, March 7, as reported at page 1963 of Hansard:
Are newspaper stories correct that a certain number of Canada medals have been struck and have been issued to former cabinet ministers and others? If so, how many and to whom?
In 1944, as shown in the annual report of the Royal Canadian Mint, 14 specimen medals were struck and I may say at once I am informed that the word "specimen" was engraved on the rim of each of these 14 medals. These were delivered by the mint to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard), and the Secretary of State department can account for 12 of these 14 specimens. Two were transmitted to His Majesty and six were forwarded to the Department of National Defence in order that two might be placed in the permanent records of each of the three branches of our armed services. There are four which are still under lock and key in a steel cabinet in room 238 of the west block. There were seven with the word "merit" on the bar and seven with the word "merite" on the bar.
There were transmitted to the secretary of the Governor General, for transmission to the King, one with the English word on the bar and one with the French word on the bar. Three with the word in English on the bar and three with the word in French on the bar were transmitted to the Department of National Defence for the permanent records of the three branches of the service. There is 82715-130i
one with the word "merit" in English and three with the word "merite" in French still in safekeeping in the department of state.
It has not been possible to account for the other two. Searches have been made in the records at the archives and Laurier House and there is no reference whatsoever to these in the papers of the late Mr. King. I can assert quite positively that none of them has gone to any cabinet minister. They are still trying to ascertain whether there is any truth in the stories published by some newspapers that Mr. King kept one and sent one to Sir Winston Churchill. We have found no correspondence to bear out that story, but as a matter of fact there are two that are not accounted for.



UNITED KINGDOM FINANCIAL AGREEMENT ACT


Walter Edward Harris: for leave to introduce Bill No. 238, to amend the United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 226 (from the Senate), to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first, time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12-Mr. Knowles:
For a copy of all agreements, contracts, arrangements and/or understandings made or entered into between Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, dated at any time since January 1, 1954; also for a copy of all agreements, contracts, arrangements and/or understandings made or entered into between the government of Canada, or any department or official thereof, and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, with reference to the northern Ontario section of the trans-Canada natural gas pipe line, dated at any time since January 1, 1954.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):: It is my understanding that all agreements between the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited have already been tabled. I can assure my hon. friend there is no intention of tabling them again. If my hon. friend will allow this motion to stand I shall make sure that all the agreements have been tabled and if there are any others I will table them.


Mr. Knowles:: If the minister finds they have all been tabled perhaps he will indicate the dates and numbers when he replies further tomorrow.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know why I should do research for my hon. friend who claims to be the research specialist in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some of my research has been helpful to the minister, and I had hoped he might put himself in the position of doing the same for me.
Motion stands.



FARM-STORED GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
CASH ADV *NCES
Motion No. 13-Mr. Zaplitny:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and/or other communications exchanged between the government and farm organizations and/or commercial firms with regard to cash advances on farm-stored grain and/or the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, since January 1, 1957.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposition):: I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, in connection with a news report today by the United Press that Egypt has moved swiftly to re-establish its authority over the disputed Gaza strip.
Would the Prime Minister say what the latest information is regarding this matter, and also the degree to which the United Nations emergency force is to be permitted only through the whim or caprice of Mr. Nasser to be in charge in that area?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing at all to say about the whims or caprices of Mr. Nasser. I have made it clear several times in the house in answer to questions that the United Nations force has its responsibility to the United Nations, and that whatever arrangements between the United Nations and the government of Egypt were required

to be made or discussed were through the United Nations and not through the United Nations emergency force.
With respect to the report which the hon. Leader of the Opposition has mentioned, I have seen that news report, but we have no official confirmation of its accuracy, nor do I think it would be helpful to comment upon a newspaper report in any detail. It has been made clear that the actions taken on Egyptian territory or on territory which was, under the armistice agreement, subject to administration by Egypt would be decided after discussions with the government of Egypt.
I know that there are discussions which have taken place, and there are probably discussions which are going on, and I do not think it would be helpful to comment on newspaper reports about them.


John George Diefenbaker: This is not comment on newspaper reports. But is it a fact that the situation is as described therein? Surely the Canadian Department of External Affairs, having regard to the fact that one-fifth of this force is Canadian, should have some information to place before parliament which is not dependent on newspaper reports but on communications from our officials abroad?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Inquiries have been addressed to our ambassador in Egypt, and no answer has been received yet.


John George Diefenbaker: Then will the Prime
Minister say what attitude Canada intends to take regarding the stubborn stand taken by Egypt in insisting that canal tolls should be paid to Egypt rather than in pursuance of the plan reported by Britain, the United States, France and Norway whereby 50 per cent of the tolls would be paid into a trust fund. What attitude is the Canadian government taking with regard to this matter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is true that by virtue of its advance of $1 million to the United Nations to cover part of the expenses of clearing the Suez canal Canada has acquired a special interest in the arrangements being made regarding the canal; nevertheless our interest can hardly be said to give us a position comparable with that of the major maritime powers whose stake in the future of the canal is of such dimensions that they are naturally taking the lead in trying to reach a settlement with Egypt through the good offices of the United Nations.
The government is in consultation with a number of the principally interested governments, but until their views have been received, and until there is some official indication of the Egyptian government's views on such issues as the payment of dues, the financing of the canal clearance and the

negotiation of a permanent regime, the government considers it would be definitely unwise to make a full statement. I can only say that the government has consistently supported the reasonableness of the proposition made by the principal users in respect of the way in which tolls might be handled until some more permanent arrangement has been found.


John George Diefenbaker: Has that view been transmitted to the Egyptian government?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec East: That view has probably not been transmitted directly to the Egyptian government because we are not taking part in the negotiations that are now proceeding through the United Nations. That view has been transmitted to the Secretary General of the United Nations and it is through him that the arrangements are being discussed with the government of Egypt.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister arising out of those asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Does the Canadian government consider that Egypt is the owner of the Gaza strip?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec East: No, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian government does not feel that it is its duty to announce considerations in the House of Commons upon all controversial questions that may arise anywhere in the world. The question of ownership or, I suppose, of the permanent sovereignty over the Gaza strip is a controverted question. The hon. gentleman's opinion or my opinion about what the correct legal solution might be is not going to have much bearing upon what it will be when it is finally determined.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister happens to be the Prime Minister of Canada and, as such, he should be in a position to tell this house and the Canadian people what stand the Canadian government takes. Does it or does it not consider that Egypt owns the Gaza strip?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec East: Mr. Speaker, I have just said to the hon. gentleman that this is a controversial question upon which it is not our duty or our responsibility to announce what our position is nor would it be, in my opinion, of any help in its solution to have the government of Canada announce what its position is over any kind of lawsuit, especially an international lawsuit.


Howard Charles Green: Has it any opinion of its own?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, whether or not it has is not something that I am going to state in the House of Commons in answer to the hon. gentleman's question.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is in possession of any information which would confirm or deny the statement attributed to the mayor of Gaza and reported in the Globe and Mail, to the effect that two days before the Israeli invasion a message was sent from United States warships cruising in Gaza waters stating that the United States government was willing to occupy Gaza to prevent an Israeli attack?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. gentleman's question as notice. It is the first time I have heard any such suggestion. I will make sure whether or not there is anything that has any bearing upon it in information received by the Department of External Affairs.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I shall be glad to send a copy of the article to the Prime Minister.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister be
able to tell the house whether or not, if Nasser's attitude is as recorded in today's press that he requires the United Nations force to remove itself, that will be acceptable to Canada as one of those countries that contributed so much to this force? Surely, in view of the fact-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


John George Diefenbaker: -that what is happening there is described as a serious crisis, the Prime Minister has some information and is prepared to place before the house the stand of this government. Last week apparently the Prime Minister's stand-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


John George Diefenbaker: -was one of fire and
brimstone. What is the stand today?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the stand has been
stated over and over again in answer to questions that have come to me from hon. gentlemen on the other side. I have stated that we recognize the sovereignty of Egypt

Inquiries of the Ministry over Egyptian territory, and that we recognize that the United Nations emergency force would not be stationed on Egyptian territory without the consent of the Egyptian government, just as no forces of other nations could be stationed on Canadian territory without the consent of the Canadian government; that consent had been sought and had been obtained, and had been sought and obtained for the purpose of doing a certain job. I have stated that it was our view that if the government of Egypt felt the United Nations emergency force should no longer be there Egypt should make its position known to the United Nations for the consideration by the advisory committee and then by the United Nations. So far as our troops are concerned, they will follow the instructions given to them by the commander who has been appointed by the United Nations. They receive no instructions or no directions directly from the Egyptian government.


John George Diefenbaker: Are we not consulted
at all? Is the Prime Minister not consulted in regard to the disposition that is to be made, particularly of the Canadian forces involved?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Prime
Minister and the house were consulted as to the sending of Canadian forces who form part of the United Nations emergency force, and the Canadian government was advised that the acquiescence of the government of Egypt had been obtained. It was not sought and not obtained for the additions to the Canadian troops mentioned by the Minister of National Defence the other day. It is our view that consent having been obtained, we are justified in having our forces there, in virtue of our arrangement with the United Nations, and that it will be proper for them to remain there until they are informed by the commander appointed by the United Nations, under directions from the United Nations, that they are no longer required.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the Secretary General of the United Nations has at any time given assurance or made a statement to the effect that if Egypt requested that the troops of the United Nations emergency force leave Egyptian soil they would do so?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall have to take that question as notice. I have not attended the meetings of the United Nations general assembly nor have I been down there to hear everything that has been said in the

halls or corridors. I shall have to make inquiries about that. I do not know of any such statement having been made.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister inform the house if the forthcoming meeting between the representatives of the chartered banks and the Bank of Canada to discuss the question of funds for housing mortgages indicates that the government is preparing to inaugurate a system of selective credit control and direction of investment?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the governor of the Bank of Canada is meeting the representatives of the bank later this week to discuss all problems that have arisen as a result of the credit situation and many others that normally are discussed by the governor and the banks. I would not want to read into this meeting anything other than the fact that it would be one of several reviews that have been made from time to time of economic and banking conditions in Canada.


Colin Cameron: Can the minister tell the house if the newspaper report appearing in this morning's Montreal Gazette is correct? It reads as follows:
... a dispatch from Ottawa says the government will move to release millions-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Colin Cameron: I continue:
-in additional mortgage money "to cope with the worst house-building slump since the war".
If so, from what source does the government propose to find the millions that are to be released?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think I have
made it clear that I do not make any announcements about housing in the House of Commons. I have a certain amount of discussion on credit affairs, but I have not even seen the report so I am afraid I must say "no comment".


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the answer he gave a few moments ago to the hon. member for Nanaimo. In view of the



XL 1957

[Stage Direction]
substantial recent increase in interest rates on money being borrowed by elevator companies relative to their handling and marketing of grain, will the government give consideration to reviewing its credit control policies with a view to reducing these high interest rates?
Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think the obvious answer is that every time I have been questioned about the credit policy being pursued at the moment I have said that we have it under constant review and if any change is to be made it will be announced in the normal way.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the government's plans as announced in the week-end press to induce the chartered banks to make more funds available for housing, does the government believe that its plans will counteract the very serious effect that its tight money policy has had on housing in the past three months?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, in view of my answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo, I do not think I need even comment on the allegations made by the hon. member for Broadview.



DATE OF DELIVERY OP BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I have two questions I should like to address to the Minister of Finance. First of all, am I correct in understanding that the budget date is this coming Thursday, the 14th?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Second, would the
minister say whether it is correct as rumoured that the report of the Bank of Canada was shown this morning to the press, and is it to be laid on the table here today?


Walter Edward Harris: That was the intention, and I presume it has already been done, sir.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimali-Saanich):: May I ask the Minister of Defence Production if any orders have been placed by his department with de Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Limited, for any army transport
Inquiries of the Ministry planes similar to those ordered recently from that company by the United States army and known as the Caribou?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, negotiations with the de Havilland company for the development of the plane now called the Caribou go back over several months. A tentative agreement was entered into with de Havilland for an advance of $24 million to promote the development of the aircraft referred to at least six weeks ago. The exact terms as to the delivery of the prototype, how much would be paid for the prototype and how much would be repaid to the government out of the sale of the plane, were settled a week or 10 days ago. Whether the contract covering the arrangements has actually been completed I cannot say. It may be before treasury board now. But the fact is that de Havilland themselves straightened out the situation by a press release in which they said that the sale to the Americans had been possible by the arrangements made with de Havilland by the Canadian government. The prototypes for Canada will be delivered before the planes ordered for the United States.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister comment on week-end press reports concerning early increases in salaries for civil servants? Will he say whether adjustments will be made at the same time for printing bureau employees and others in that category?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I saw some comment on Friday. Whether or not that would be included in the week-end comments, I do not know. I have not seen any others. However, I think I appreciate the point made by my hon. friend, namely that he would like to be the first, if possible, in time, no matter how impossible in performance, to mention any given subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Despite the comments of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, may I ask him whether any consideration that is being given to these matters includes consideration of the wages of those employed at the printing bureau and others in similar categories.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that the people employed in the printing bureau and, in fact, all civil servants, have a good deal of confidence that this government at all

Inquiries of the Ministry times gives consideration to those things that are of interest and concern to them and that it usually comes up with the right result.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether it is the intention to have the governor of the Bank of Canada, now that the report is out, appear before the banking and commerce committee as he has done in the past?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think I may have slightly misled the house and the hon. member for Greenwood by a reference I made in answer to a question such as this earlier in the session. 1 find that it has not been a custom for the governor of the Bank of Canada to appear before the banking and commerce committee. It is true that the former governor and the present one have appeared before it on occasion but a good deal less frequently than I had thought when I made the answer. It would therefore not be correct to say that it has been customary, although on occasion it has been done. I shall consider whether or not it ought to be done in this case.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the minister say if his department has paid the transportation back to Hungary of any Hungarian refugees who came to Canada?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The answer, sir, is no.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a further question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Could the minister inform the house how many Hungarian refugees have returned to Hungary?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I presume, sir, the hon. gentleman means how many of the Hungarian refugees who came to Canada have returned from Canada?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Offhand I do not know that any have returned and I would be rather surprised if that were the case. There are

one or two cases where people have expressed a desire to return to Hungary and some consideration is being given in those cases as to what should be done about them, but to the best of my knowledge no decision has yet been reached.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Thank you; that is what I wanted to know.



HUNGARIAN REFUGEES


[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 Citizenship and Immigration arising out of our lack of information. Can the minister inform the house what financial assistance is given to individuals who are giving housing or living accommodation to Hungarian refugees?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall try, subject to the reservation that I may not be completely accurate in every detail, to give an answer, because I think there is a great deal of interest in the question. The department received a great number of offers of hospitality from Canadians, for which we were very grateful. Many of them were accepted. Many of these people desired no payment for this hospitality. In some cases it has been carried on much longer than might reasonably have been expected.
We have tried as far as possible to make it known that where people have stretched their own financial resources to a point which is not reasonable, the department is quite willing to provide the actual cost of subsistence in those cases until such time as the refugee or immigrant in question is able to support himself, and we hope that will be as soon as possible.
There are other cases where the department has made definite arrangements for boarding refugees, and that is done with other immigrants as well. I think it is well known to all hon. members that it is the policy of the department, during the first year that immigrants are in this country, if they become indigent or in need of help, not to treat them as persons who have become public charges and therefore are deportable, but instead to provide assistance to them until such time as they can support themselves again.


Edward George McCullough: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the house what further financial responsibility the federal government will

take for these refugees if they are still not self-supporting at the end of the year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, sir, if the hon.
gentleman had read the return I made to a motion put by his leader a little while ago he would have seen that, in the case of those refugees who were admitted without being able to satisfy the immigration health requirements, the government did offer to provide whatever was necessary for them until such time as they were able to satisfy those requirements and become landed immigrants, in any province which did not make an agreement with us similar to the one which was made with Saskatchewan. Beyond that the federal government accepts no responsibility for landed immigrants after the first year in this country whether they happen to be Hungarians or not.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration which is supplementary to that which the hon. member for Moose Mountain asked, and to which a reply was given. I think there is an extremely important point to clear up. Do I understand correctly that it is the policy of the department to provide assistance at at least a subsistence level to all immigrants in their first year in Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We hope, sir, that at least 80 per cent of all the immigrants who come to Canada will never need any such assistance, and they are not encouraged to seek it; but it has been the policy for a considerable number of years to provide assistance to those who come here and who for some reason or other are not able to get established quickly or who lose their jobs at a certain season of the year until such time as they can get re-established during the first year.
As hon. members know, in most localities it is not possible without a year's residence to qualify for the ordinary local social assistance and that is the reason for this program. We try to make it reasonably well known so that immigrants will not hesitate to apply for help through fear that if they applied they might be treated as public charges, because it is our feeling that many very fine immigrants who will become good citizens do run into difficulties in the first year and it is to help over that year that this policy is carried out. The policy applies to all immigrants, though we do not feel the need should really arise very often in the case of sponsored immigrants because the sponsors do accept some responsibility.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



UNITED NATIONS EMERGENCY FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he has any information as yet concerning the weapons that are available for use by the reconnaissance unit of the United Nations emergency force for defence in case of necessity.
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National
Defence): The hon. member asked me a similar question the other day when I told him that the reconnaissance squadron was being equipped with Ferret scout cars. I have made inquiries and I find that the scout cars are equipped with Bren guns.



STATEMENT CONCERNING REPORTED INCREASE IN IMPORT OF NAILS FROM JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) asked the following question:
Will the minister state why there has been such an increase in the import of nails from Japan recently, when at least one Canadian factory in Saint John is on part-time production?
I find in looking up the statistics that there was a considerable increase in domestic production of nails in Canada last year and there was also an increase in imports. Figures for the first ten months of 1956 now available indicate that imports of wire nails from Japan increased from 47,000 hundredweight in 1955 to 134,000 hundredweight in 1956, and the total imports from all sources increased from 105,000 hundredweight to 229,000 hundredweight. For the 12 months of 1956 Canadian production also increased from 1,777,940 hundredweight in 1955 to 1,849,560 hundredweight in 1956.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, March 7, the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the diversion of some 8,000 cubic feet per second of water

Inquiries of the Ministry from lake Michigan into the Chicago drainage scheme was continuing and, if so, what Canada was doing about it.
My information is that the increased diversion has ceased. No request was made to the United States supreme court for an extension of the additional flow of 8,000 cubic feet per second which had been authorized by an order of the court dated December 17, 1956, and extended on January 28, 1957, for another month. I understand that on February 28, the United States army corps of engineers reduced the flow of water to 1,500 cubic feet per second, which is the maximum permissible under the United States supreme court order of 1930.


Mr. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs would take this question as notice. Is any plan being proposed by the United States corps of engineers to maintain steady lake levels to permit proper navigation and avoid excessive dredging in Canada?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the United States army corps of engineers is studying this particular question, as are some of our Canadian engineers. The lake Ontario engineering association is studying this question and it is understood that at some future date a joint study will be made of the matter.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister's attention been called to the report of the steps being taken by the British medical research council to investigate the unusually high incidence of undersized infants in recent births in the United Kingdom to determine if this may be the result of an increase in background radiation and, if so, can he tell the house if his department is in touch with the British medical research council in regard to the investigation?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of this report which appeared, I think on Thursday last, in some of our own newspapers as well. I made inquiries of the director of the division of the Department of National Health and Welfare who is interested and concerned with this problem and he has informed me that this matter is one of those which receive the attention of the appropriate division in the department.



CORRECTION OF ANSWER BY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Righf Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are proceeded with I should like to correct an answer given on February 20, 1957, to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) as reported at page 1493 of Hansard of that date. The hon. member for Selkirk asked the following question:
I am asking about the Indians who produce grain on a reserve and then sell it. Under the act they are excluded from the benefits. Will the 1 per cent still be collected from them?
My answer was:
I think the 1 per cent is collected. The act says that on grain delivered at the elevators they must take off 1 per cent. I think the Indian comes under that provision as well as the others.
That answer is not correct and I wish to correct it. The regulations provide that the 1 per cent levy is not collected on grain grown by Indians on farm lands within Indian reserves. If it is collected, the practice is to refund the amount collected.
Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Baillefords):: Will
the minister indicate what would be the position where a white man is producing grain on an Indian reserve?


Mr. Gardiner:: I would not be too sure about that. I know a considerable amount of land on Indian reserves is rented to white men but I do not think it would apply because the regulations refer to Indians producing grain on an Indian reserve.



PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
*

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the government give the same consideration to the plight of the retired civil servant as it has just been stated they always give to civil servants?


Walter Edward Harris: I have given that assurance on other occasions, and I repeat it.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. If after reconsideration of the answer he gave with regard

to the application of income tax to the $28 tax payment by the British Columbia government on behalf of home owners he finds the act does not apply, is it his intention to bring in legislation to make such payments subject to income tax, as he indicated these payments should be in his original answer on March 7?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to what I said the other day. The whole matter is under consideration and until we have a copy of the legislation or the regulations which govern the matter I would not be able to give a definite answer.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Owing to the fact that the government has been in negotiation with the federation of agriculture and the farmers' union with regard to the placing of a 4-cent tariff on skimmed milk powder coming into Canada and a 6-cent tariff on cheese, has the government reached any decision?


Walter Edward Harris: The federation of agriculture and the farmers' union have made representations along the lines referred to by my hon. friend, and those representations are receiving consideration.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of what must obviously be inaccurate reports to the effect that Canada's gift to Ghana consisted of an oil painting and ten roll-up maps whose reverse sides would come in handy as screens for movies or slides, would the Prime Minister indicate to the house whether a gift was made from this the senior member of the British commonwealth to Ghana and, if so, what was the nature of that gift?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the hon. gentleman's question as notice.
Private Bill PRIVATE BILLS



TRANS MOUNTAIN OIL PIPE LINE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House in committee on Bill No. 15, intituled: An act respecting Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company.-Mr. Fairey.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before this order is called may I ask if it could stand in view of the fact that the printed evidence from the committee has not yet come into our possession.


Mr. F. T. Fairey (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, the house has discussed this bill on several occasions and while the evidence of the committee has not been made available to members of the house, I am not disposed to allow this bill to stand as all necessary information is before hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I rise on a point of order. On Tuesday, February 19, as recorded on page 159 of Votes and Proceedings, which are the Journals of this house, the chairman of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines presented a report of that committee which included this paragraph:
Your committee recommends:
3. That it be empowered to print, for the use of the committee and of parliament, such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto.
That same issue of Votes and Proceedings contains this further entry:
By unanimous consent, on motion of Mr. McCulloch (Pictou), seconded by Mr. Cavers, the said report was concurred in.
The point I make at this juncture is that this house by a unanimous decision empowered the committee to print its evidence for the use of the committee and of parliament.
I would point out further that on Friday, March 8, when the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McCulloch) presented the sixth report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, that report read as follows:
Your committee has considered Bill No. 15 (Letter I of the Senate), intituled: "An act respecting Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company", and has agreed to report the said bill without amendment.
A copy of the evidence adduced in relation to the said bill is tabled herewith.
Then there appears on page 241 of Votes and Proceedings this notation:
The minutes of proceedings and evidence accompanying the said report recorded as appendix No. 5 to the Journals.
Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, Votes and Proceedings is the name given to our minutes as they are recorded day by day, but at the end of the session, when they are put in a bound volume, they are referred to as the Journals. I draw to your attention

Private Bill
the fact that the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee in connection with this Bill No. 15 are referred to as an appendix to the Journals.
I hold in my hand, now, a copy of the most recent volume of Journals that has been printed. It happens to be the Journals for 1955, and I find there were 28 appendices to the Journals in that year. They are listed on pages 1053 and 1054 of the index to the Journals of 1955, and in every case the indication is that it was the printed evidence which was made an appendix to the Journals. I could take any one of these, but I will refer to a pipe-line one just to be in the same field. I quote:
No. 16. Trans-Prairie Pipelines of Canada, Limited. Bill No. 376, Printed evidence, re consideration of, in railways, canals and telegraph lines committee presented at page 651 as appendix No. 16.
I emphasize the point that it was the printed copy of the proceedings and evidence which was made an appendix to the Journals. I could read a dozen examples, but it is not necessary. I could refer to citation 168 of Beauchesne's third edition which makes it clear that the Journals are the official record of the house; also to citation 170 of Beauchesne's third edition which points out that the courts of the land have the right to have access to the Journals of the house, which are our official records.
The hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Fairey) wants up to proceed with this bill without our having before us something which is our right; because when they are printed and ready, the minutes of the proceedings and evidence before the committee on Bill No. 15 will be an appendix to the Journals, or to Votes and Proceedings, which are one and the same. The Journals are our official record, and I claim we should not be asked to proceed to consider this matter without having in our hands the actual document, appendix No. 5 which, as I have already suggested, will be the printed document when the records are complete.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that there is all the difference in the world between the evidence of one of our committees on a bill and the evidence in relation to divorce cases. The reason I mention that is because it used to be that we were not asked to proceed with divorce bills if the evidence was not iri our hands; but the time came when it was decided that that evidence, being evidence taken before a committee in another place, was not part of the proceedings of this house, and that therefore we had no right to claim it before proceeding to deal with a divorce bill.
We accepted that decision. Everyone knows, as far as that evidence is concerned,

that once we have finished with a divorce bill the evidence is sent back to the other place. This matter now before us is something different because it relates to the evidence of one of the committees of this house -a committee appointed by this house; a committee to which this house referred a bill; a committee which has printed its evidence on the basis of a motion passed in this house. And we are told by Votes and Proceedings that such evidence is an appendix to our Journals. We have not got it, and yet we are being asked to proceed.
On that ground, Mr. Speaker, I think that in all fairness we should not be asked to proceed with this bill today. As the hon. member for Victoria. B.C., knows, and I have checked this by consulting with some of my colleagues who were on the committee, there was a pretty contentious debate in the committee. At least one amendment was moved and defeated; there were votes and there was considerable discussion. I feel, therefore, that we have a right to read what took place before we enter upon a debate at this time. I had hoped that the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., would have responded to the request that he let the bill stand until another day-and there will be plenty of other days for him to proceed with his bill. But since he is not prepared to meet that reasonable request, I have no option but to place the matter before Your Honour as a point of order. It is my contention that until we have a printed record of what went on in that committee, which is referred to as appendix No. 5 of the Journals for this session, the official records of the house are not complete and therefore that we should not be asked to go ahead with this matter at this day's sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell) speaks, I would ask whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has any cases to refer to the Chair in which a similar point of order has been argued and decided by the Chair one way or another.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry, but I have not been able to find any. There may be, and there may not be. I know that on many similar occasions either the sponsor of the bill has responded to the request of other hon. members to delay the matter or those who have asked for the delay have finally consented to go ahead. That is the way in which this question is usually resolved, but maybe the time has come when we should have a ruling on it, and it is on that basis that I submit for your consideration the case I have laid before you.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a novel point. I do not even recollect any insistence being made upon the production of printed evidence before a second reading of a bill was proceeded with. In all my experience in the house since 1945 I cannot recollect any request being made in the house, except in the case of divorce bills, that the printed evidence should be made available to all hon. members before they proceeded to the second reading of a bill.
I do not know whether the hon. member for The Battlefords wishes to address himself to the point of order which has been raised, but I want to say that the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is, in my view, a novel one, and one which is not easy. I have listened to him very carefully, as I always do. I have my own views on the matter, but before I give a ruling I would like to have a chance to consult with the officials of the house. The hon. member has had a chance, so to speak, to prepare himself, and he has come to the house well prepared to put a certain point of order. If the house is to insist, as it usually does-and as the house, I think, may be entitled to-on an immediate decision on my part, I would say that I am almost prepared to give one, but I would like to have an opportunity of looking at this point further and, at least, for consultation with the Clerk.
The hon. member for The Battlefords may speak.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: consider that this is a matter of the rights of parliament. I sat on that committee, and we heard the witnesses of the company for some hours, but I could not make up my mind if this was a bill which would be for the good of Canada or not. I think hon. members of this House of Commons should have an opportunity to review the evidence that was given on that committee before they make a judgment and I think Your Honour, that it is only a matter of the rights of parliament that hon. members of the house should be able to take a good look at the evidence given by the witnesses at that committee before they can be expected to reach a reasonable and just decision.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on this point of order. As hon. members of the house will recall, when this bill came up for second reading there was an amendment moved by the C.C.F. party that the bill should not be read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to the committee. On that occasion I was one of those who
Private Bill
objected to that procedure on the ground that there would be no bill before the committee, but I said I would be prepared to support the bill going to the committee so that we might be able to hear the evidence from the witnesses, and so that members of parliament would then be able to know the facts. I think I took the proper course in that case when I voted to have the bill sent to the committee.
From my point of view I can say that after having heard the evidence I did come to certain conclusions, conclusions that I would not have been able to reach had we not had the hearing before the committee. I am sure that members of the house would not want to be placed in the position of having to vote on the bill, the passage of which would give this proposal legal sanction, when they do not know what the evidence was and have no way of knowing until the evidence in its printed form is submitted to the members of the house.
I think it would be an injustice to the people of Canada and to the members of the house if hon. members were asked to make a decision on a matter about which they know nothing. The only members with any knowledge are those who were on the committee, and I may say here that only a very few over the quorum did attend the committee. Therefore, only a very limited number of members of the house even heard the committee evidence. For that reason, if for no other, I think that the bill should be postponed until members of the house have the proceedings before them and have read them carefully. It is an important bill, and they will then be able to make a decision intelligently. They will not be able to make an intelligent decision until they have the printed matter before them. I think the bill should be left over until such time as the printed committee reports are made available.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, since this is a private bill I am not speaking for the government but only as a member, but may I say that since I have been here I have not been aware of any rule requiring a bill not to be presented in committee of the whole if the printed evidence from the committee concerned is not available.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Usually when my hon. friend is involved an agreement is reached. If I may say so, I think Your Honour and the Minister of Finance are both correct, that this matter has not come to an issue as it has today. The question has often arisen but usually there has been agreement by the two sides.


Walter Edward Harris: This is only an example, Mr. Speaker, of how generosity on the part of the

Private Bill
government is sometimes misunderstood and twisted into a rule by the opposition groups.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Edward Harris: I have often thought one ought to do what people do when they close a gate on a roadway after 19J years so as to make sure that a man cannot drive through by road by right in the twenty-first year, because we are doing a great many things by way of courtesy to hon. members which are not called for by the rules. My point is, however, that the hon. member who has the carriage of the bill is in a position to ask that the house deal with the bill at such time as the rules permit, and the report of the committee having been made and the bill having appeared on the order paper in the sequence in which it does, it seems to me there is no rule that would prevent it from proceeding.
It might well be that hon. members would not feel like passing on it until they had seen the printed evidence, but that is not the rule of the house and therefore until it is it seems to me that the hon. member should have the right to proceed or not to proceed as he feels would be in the public interest. I repeat again that unless we are prepared now to amend the rules to say that bills shall not be considered until the printed evidence is available the present system should continue and bills should be placed on the order paper by the Clerk, as they have been, in the sequence in which they appear.


Francis Thrower Fairey: Mr. Speaker, before the minister spoke I was about to rise to say that I know of no rule forbidding the introduction of the bill in committee of the whole until the printed evidence of the standing committee is before the house. I would remind members that towards the end of a session we pass many bills without having seen the printed evidence as it comes from committees.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I was asked privately to allow the bill to stand for other reasons, which I will not go into, and because this is the last private members' day and probably one of the few remaining times when I could bring the bill before the house I said that for that reason and that reason alone I preferred to stand by my privilege and have the bill called. If I were to agree and the house were to decide that the bill should stand, inasmuch as this is the last private members' day it seems to me very unlikely, judging from what has happened on three different occasions, that the bill would ever reach the floor of the house again. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because I know of no rule which would prevent the bill coming before the committee of the whole now I must ask you to rule that the bill may be considered in committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he not aware of the fact that if the bill stands today it will be called again at five o'clock tomorrow evening?


Francis Thrower Fairey: I am indeed, Mr. Speaker, and I know what happened to it on two other occasions at five o'clock. It will be preceded by several dozen divorce bills, and that is one of the reasons why I refused to allow it to stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will be first on the list tomorrow at five o'clock.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, before you give your ruling, there is one point which has not been emphasized. This house has authorized the printing of 600 copies in English and 150 copies in French of the reports of the proceedings of the committee. It would seem to me that we are making a farce of setting up committees and going to the expense of printing evidence if we are going to reach a decision without even having a look at the evidence which was submitted. I think the fact that two Liberal members of the committee considered the proposal so offensive that they submitted amendments, which, it is true, did not carry, suggests to other hon. members who were not on that committee that we should at least have a look at the evidence before we reach a decision.
I know that there are enough government members to force this through in spite of the fact that there never has been a case like this in Canadian history. But that does not mean that we should make a wrong decision just because there is an overwhelming number of government members on the other side. When a standing committee has considered carefully the evidence with respect to a controversial question of this sort and when 600 copies are being printed, I think we should delay reaching a final conclusion until other members who were not on the committee have had a chance to look at the evidence.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the manner in which hon. members have placed the point of order before the Chair indicates that they forget that the printing of evidence by a committee is for the use of the committee. I can see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is surprised at what I say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: There is one thing I am going to ask hon. members. I have listened to them. Will they now be good enough to listen to me?
The point that has been raised is not an easy one and it is one about which, as usual,

I want to make a very sound ruling. I say that the printing of evidence is done by a committee, through an order of the house at their request, for the use of the committee. When I say that I am merely echoing citation 539 of Beauchesne, third edition, which is in these words:
In case a committee requires its evidence to be printed for its own use in the course of an inquiry, it will make a report requesting that this be done. Formerly it had to apply to the joint committee on printing, but this practice had to be abandoned in view of the fact that the printing committee consists of senators as well as members and the matter is one which concerns the commons only.
Therefore, in case a committee requires its evidence to be printed for its own use in the course of an inquiry it will make a report requesting that this be done. Immediately the hon. member will ask himself what I asked myself. Why is it that the report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, to which the bill now up for consideration in committee of the whole was referred, is in the form found at page 159 of Votes and Proceedings? As found there, it reads:
3. That it be empowered to print, for the use of the committee and of parliament, such papers and evidence . . .
Whereas down below on the same page we find this. The standing committee on industrial relations asks that its evidence be printed but it asks for it in the following form which is the traditional form:
1. That it be empowered to print from day to day 750 copies in English and 250 copies in French of its minutes of proceedings and evidence, and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto.
The wording in the report of the standing committee on industrial relations which appears in the Votes and Proceedings at page 159, the very same day, is in the traditional wording whereas the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines does not use the traditional wording. I can see a very good reason for that. So far as I can remember- and I think that at one time I was a member of that committee-that standing committee never asks that its evidence be printed except on extraordinary occasions. The standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines very seldom request the services of shorthand reporters. So far as I can recall, I have never seen a bill going through that committee where the proceedings were being taken in shorthand. We hear the officials at various sittings of the committee and they answer questions, and the evidence is not printed. I am informed by the Clerk that it may be that the clerk of that committee prepared the report which was submitted to the house and approved, as it appeared at page 159 of the Votes and Proceedings, in that
Private Bill
form. But as I say, that is not the traditional form. The traditional form is the one exemplified in the report which appears at the bottom of the page; and the report which appears at the bottom of the page is quite in line with citation 539 of Beauchesne's third edition which contains the words, "a committee requires its evidence to be printed for its own use".
There is another point I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) himself stated that the committee had asked for the printing of 650 in English and 150 copies in French. If the hon. gentleman could state that as of right he must have the evidence before he can proceed with the second reading of a bill, he should at least make sure that there are enough copies in both languages to proceed with the bill; that is 265 copies in English and 265 copies in French. That is so with respect to any measure that comes before the house. The rule is to the effect that all documents that we deal with here must be translated into the two languages.
I should also like to point this out to hon. members. If we were to agree with the reasoning that was presented to us by those who have placed the point of order before the chair, then towards the end of the session when several committees have had matters referred to them, if we had to wait for the evidence to be printed before we could deal with the legislation that has been reported from these committees, and evidence printed in both languages, we would have to wait sometimes one week, two weeks or three weeks, and sometimes more than that; and in cases of French evidence we would have to wait for from one to two to three months, so I am informed by the officials at the table. What that would mean is this. Any bill reported from the various standing committees towards the end of the session could not be proceeded with until about three months, four months or five months in order to get the evidence.
The point raised by the hon. member is, as I said,-and I think he will realize it himself-a novel one. In my experience I never heard it raised before. It is a matter of courtesy, I would say. The hon. member has asked the sponsor to allow the bill to stand because he would like to see the evidence. Presumably he is not a member of that committee. The sponsor of the bill says no. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raises the matter as a point of order. After consultation with the Clerk at the table I must come to the conclusion that under our practice or under our rules it has never been contemplated that we should have to wait for the evidence to

Private Bill
be printed before we take up second reading, study in committee of the whole or third reading of a bill. I am satisfied that citation 539 of Beauchesne's third edition states the position clearly, namely that the minutes of evidence of a standing committee are printed for their own use and once they are reported, they become a permanent record of the house of the proceedings of that committee. But if we were to state that they are required for the study of any of the stages of a bill, I would say that we would in fact be placing in our book a new rule to the effect that the bill had better not be reported before the evidence is ready and we would have the result I outlined a few moments ago, namely that in certain cases the committee could not report the bill because the evidence could not be printed for three or four months.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just say a word, Mr. Speaker, before you make the ruling which I gather is obvious.


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow the hon. member to say a few words only after I have said this. Rulings by the Speaker are not debatable. I want to establish that fact. If I allow the hon. member to say a few words, it is because he does so by unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Through my leniency we have often had these exchanges and then it is taken for granted that a member has a right to argue with the Speaker. I want to make it clear that the Speaker's rulings are not debatable. As long as the hon. member understands that fact, I certainly should like to have his views. But that is not going to change my ruling which has been made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to point out that what we have before us in connection with this matter, since we are on it as a point of order, is not what the committee on industrial relations presented to the house and not what is contained in the citation in Beauchesne's third edition but rather the actual motion which this house passed with respect to the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee that dealt with this bill, namely the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. To suggest that some other committee worded its request in some other way does not, I submit, get away from the fact that the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines obtained the permission of the House of Commons to print this material for the use of the committee and of parliament. I emphasize the words "and of parliament", and I believe we are obliged to stand by the terms of that motion.
[Mr. Speaker.l
The other point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that although it may result in inconvenience for us to apply the rules and to apply the rule of fairness in the sense that we might be obliged to wait a number of days for certain documents to be printed, that consideration does not seem to me to be a good basis for setting aside either the rules of procedure or the rule of fairness.


Mr. Speaker:: Where is the rule of procedure in this case?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, am I permitted to answer?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. I should like the hon. member to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Votes and Proceedings of March 8, which are over the signature of L. Rene Beaudoin, Speaker, contain the statement:
A copy of the evidence adduced in relation to the said bill is tabled herewith.
(The minutes of proceedings and evidence accompanying the said report recorded as appendix No. 5 to the Journals.)
That is over your signature, sir. We have not received it and yet we are being asked to proceed with consideration of this bill.


Mr. Dickey:: It is available here.


Mr. Speaker:: A copy of that has been attached to the report right here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One copy in Your Honour's hands.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the official copy that is in the Journals branch. It was there and is still there for consultation by any hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it in both languages?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, it has been produced, I think, at the time in both languages. If it is not, it points up the fact that the committee itself does not have to present that evidence in both languages, for the convenience of the house, for the study of a bill which comes to them. It fortifies the point I made a moment ago, which I think is very sound.
When the hon. member says that, under my signature, the Votes and Proceedings are being published and that they constitute the official records of the house, no one can dispute that. It is as clear as daylight. The point is, are we going to be put in the position in the future, through a ruling of the Chair, that the printed minutes and evidence of the committee, for the use of parliament as part of the records, is to be available

before a bill is proceeded with in the house, when under the rules a bill is put on the order paper, has been called and read by the deputy clerk, the particular bill must be either proceeded with or must be withdrawn or discharged. I must rule against the point raised by the hon. member.
Is it agreed that I do now leave the chair-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to appeal your ruling, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. gentleman has
appealed the ruling. Those who are in favour will say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The order for the house in committee on Bill No. 15 (Letter I of the Senate), intituled: "An act respecting Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company" (without amendment) being read, Mr. Knowles raised a point of order to the effect that the order for the consideration in committee of the whole on this bill, an act respecting Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company, should stand until the printed evidence of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines with respect to the consideration therein of the said bill has been distributed to members of the house.
Mr. Speaker ruled that the point of order was not well taken since the evidence of a committee is printed for the use of the committee as stated in citation 539 of Beauchesne's third edition and that the words in the report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines which appear at page 159 of Votes and Proceedings-"for the use of the committee and of parliament"-must necessarily mean that the printed evidence will be ultimately for the use of parliament as part of the permanent records of parliament and cannot in any way preclude and stop the consideration of an order appointed such as that which has been read this day, because immediately it would place the consideration of such orders at the mercy of the printing in both languages of the various reports coming from the standing committees which, as it is well known, sometimes may take from one to five months before they are made available. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others appealed from this ruling.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, like those hon. members who have spoken earlier this afternoon I regret that hon. members of the house have not had an opportunity to review the evidence presented to the committee. If they had they would have discovered that the evidence adduced in the committee was not such as to justify the demands of this company and its sponsor in this chamber that its shares be split five to one. At the extremely interesting sessions which we had the alleged reasons kept changing and I think I should refresh the memories of hon. members with regard to the position of the shares of this company at the present time.
A total of five million shares were authorized by the act which passed the house in 1951. Of those five million shares, some
1,500,000	have been issued and of those 1,500,000, less than 500,000 have been offered to the general public. These shares are of no par value. We are now asked to authorize the splitting of the shares in order to make the total authorized shares 25,000,000.
The first reason given in the committee was that the company wished to have a wide distribution of its shares. I recall that at that point I asked one of the officers of the company why they wished to have a wide distribution and the answer I got was that it was good public relations. I must confess that that surprised me considerably because the president of the company had told us already that this company has no dealings whatever with the general public. In fact he stressed again and again that it is merely a transportation company which transports oil belonging to certain oil companies to the customers of those companies. When I pressed the president to be a little more explicit on the subject of public relations he suggested that the place at which they came in contact with the public was when they were trying to get rights of way for their pipe line. I pointed out that their present pipe line is already on a right of way, but he pointed out in turn that they still have another pipe line or perhaps more that they intend to build and for which rights of way will have to be negotiated with the public.
He was unable to tell me just why the owners of the land through which the line would go would be particularly favourably impressed if the company officials were able to tell them that they had five times as many shareholders as they have at the present time. I made what I thought was a reasonable suggestion to him, that the owners of that land would be interested solely in the

prices they were going to be offered for their land in order to permit the pipe line to go through it.
We were told that this particular measure has been brought forward on the advice of the financial advisers of the company. I asked what was the advice of those advisers. I would presume that the financial advisers of any company would give advice calculated to improve the financial position of the company and I wanted to know just how the financial position of this company was going to be improved by splitting the shares five to one. I was unable to get any satisfactory answer.
Then there was an even more fundamental question to be asked and to which we got no answer, and that was whether or not there will be any actual effect of a wider distribution of the stock if this house in its wisdom sees fit to authorize the split five to one. The officers of the company were unable to tell us that they had received any information from their shareholders that any of them would be prepared to place any of their stock on the market after the split took place. The officials of the company also told us that the company has no intention of placing on the market any of the existing 3,500,000 shares which now lie in the company treasury.
Those rather ambiguous and evasive statements on the part of the company officials led me to pursue this matter of public relations again and I followed up a lead offered by the hon. member for Bow River who with a deplorably cynical attitude suggested that perhaps the public relations referred to had something to do with the impact upon the public mind of the net return per share of this company. He had suggested, as I say in a deplorably cynical manner, that perhaps this was what the company had in mind, that things would not look quite so bad if the net return per share was only one-fifth of what it had been in the last year. Being of rather duller mind than the hon. member for Bow River, although perhaps equally cynical, I seized on this. I thought that perhaps the hon. member had something.
Therefore I looked into the figures showing the net return and found that in 1955 they had a return, after all taxes and depreciation had been allowed, and they were very generous with those two items, of something over $3 million or approximately $2 per share on the 1,500,000 shares which were in the hands of the public. In the following year 1956 things picked up tremendously because the company had a net return of over $7 million on the 1,500,000 shares in the hands of the public.

Then we asked the treasurer of the company if he would care to make an estimate of the possible net return in the current year of 1957. That gentleman did so, perhaps rather inadvisedly from the point of view of the case he and his colleagues were presenting to the committee, and he told us that judging by the returns for the first two months of this year he would estimate that the net return this year would be at least $10 million, being 50 per cent over last year which was 100 per cent over the year before.
I think this brings us to the milk of the coconut, or perhaps I should say the juice in the melon because the statement was made, and reiterated several times by the president, that this company has not yet been declared a common carrier. He was asked on a number of occasions whether the rates of his company were subject to any regulation and he said no, that they had not been declared a common carrier. The thought occurred to me that possibly if they feared the creating of bad public relations that certainly would raise a feeling among the unfortunate oil consumers of British Columbia when they received another increase in their bills-they have had two in the last two months-if that increase was coupled with a net return per share for 1956 of some $4.75 and a possible net return of about $6.60 in 1957. There might then well be a public demand that this concern be declared a common carrier having its rates subject to regulation by a federal authority.
However, the four witnesses before the committee were unable to see anything whatever in the suggestions of this sort that were made to them, and they fell back, time and time again, on the statement that it was just a general matter of public relations they were concerned About-that it did not really matter whether the stock was divided into five or ten parts, or how it was divided; they wanted to see that it was more widely distributed in the interest of good public relations. We were told that this decision was made on a recommendation from the board of directors to a shareholders meeting. It was described, Mr. Chairman, as a well attended shareholders meeting, but I do not think that phrase was repeated after we elicited the information that out of some
4,000	shareholders there were 50 present, nor was it repeated after we elicited the information that something like three-quarters of the shares of this company are held by corporations and one-quarter by private individuals.
There is every reason to believe, Mr. Chairman, that the corporations which hold the majority of the stock in this company
Private Bill
are, in the main, oil companies who are interested, naturally enough, in the transportation of their product to the market, and I cannot imagine that they would be really very concerned about a wide distribution of the stock; I cannot imagine that that would cause them very many sleepless nights. I can only reach the conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that it was concern for the very large net returns per share which are now made evident wherever the company makes a public statement. It was, of course, pointed out to us that even after the shares have been split into five, and we have, instead of 1,500,000, some 7,500,000 shares out, a perusal of the company's balance sheet would reflect the profit situation of the company accurately to anyone who wished to study it. That is quite true, but the fact remains that the general public have the habit of looking at the net return per share and this is much more convenient, for instance, to the Langley Greenhouses with whom some of us have been having correspondence, and who have had their fuel bills raised twice in quick succession-it is much more convenient for them to read that the company gets, instead of $6.60 a share merely one-fifth of that per share; and very few people look behind that into the actual financial setup of the company.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I think the house should be very chary of permitting this sort of stock market manoeuvre to take place. There are, I think, only two explanations for this demand on the part of the company. One is the concern I have suggested, namely that it will place their net profit situation in a more respectable and acceptable light with the general public. As to the other reason, hon. members may recall the suggestion I made during the second reading of this bill that there might be some capital gain to be acquired by those who now hold larger units. If they are split, and if shares of much smaller value become the subject of active stock market trading, the prices of the split shares might rise, bringing considerable financial benefit to those who own them. Under our present economic system and under the present government such forms of income are virtually untaxable and must be very attractive to those who otherwise may have to pay out big sums in income tax.
For these reasons I think there is no justification whatever for this house agreeing to the demands of this company. The fact that it is a common and disreputable practice of a great many corporations in this country with whom this house does not have to deal, because they do not operate under act

Private Bill
of parliament, does not alter the situation here, when we have a case which is actually our responsibility.
Because this company was established by act of parliament we are responsible for the activities of this company in the future, and I suggest to you, sir, that to agree to this is to agree to what will be, in effect, a gross misrepresentation of the tribute which this company is drawing from the oil consumers of British Columbia.
I am not going to touch on another aspect of this company's operations, because I imagine it will be dealt with by other speakers; I refer to the relative importance of the Canadian and the American markets for the production of this company. However, I would urge all hon. members of the house, in spite of the fact that they have been deprived of the privilege of reading the proceedings before the railways, canals and telegraphs committee, to regard this measure with a very great deal of suspicion and doubt, and decide that a company which has done very well for itself in the past and which, apparently, has determined to do even better for itself in the future by means of price increases which I doubt can be justified even on the basis of the Suez canal closure, should not be permitted to mislead the public -they should be made to reveal their real position. And if there is a public outcry demanding that this company should be designated a common carrier, then that is all to the good, because I think such a project should be a common carrier and should be subject to the control and regulation of this parliament.


Charles Edward Johnston: I would not like this opportunity to pass without saying a word or two on this bill. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, when the bill was up for second reading, the stand which this party took on that occasion, a stand which in my view was sound, namely that the bill should go to the committee for study, so that we might get the facts, and so that every hon. member of the house would have an opportunity to consider the evidence before making up their minds.
Of course, that did not come about, and out of the total membership of 265 in this house only about 20 will be in possession of the knowledge which was gained as a result of what took place in that committee. That is not a very good representation on the basis of which this house should pass judgment upon an important measure of this or any other kind. I think the principle is entirely wrong that we should proceed with this question until hon. members of the house are in possession of the facts.
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo).1
This arises in my mind, sir, as an instance where there were members on that committee from the Liberal party who did not agree with this bill. In fact they disagreed with it to such an extent that they put in an amendment, and had that amendment carried it would have changed the bill entirely. It was such a strong amendment, Mr. Chairman, that the company officials were very seriously opposed to it and the sponsor of the bill himself was opposed to it.
I suppose that when the bill comes up now for a final vote those very members who had such strong objections in the committee will support the bill. That shows their inconsistency: they oppose it on one occasion, then back it on another, and now they do not Want the evidence to come before the House of Commons. That is the reason why all hon. members should have the printed evidence, without having to take any hon. member's word for it.


Mr. Byrne:: A point of order.


The Chairman:: Do I understand the hon. member for Kootenay East is rising on a point of order?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It is my understanding of the rules of the house that it is improper to refer to a decision which has already been made.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was not referring to any decision made in the house. I am referring to something that happened in the committee. Surely some of the members opposite are not going to prevent us now from discussing things which occurred in the committee. They have prevented us very effectively from getting the printed evidence and now they would attempt to criticize-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. It is that type of remark to which I think the hon. member for Kootenay East was directing his attention. There is, of course, no restriction on the hon. member referring to what occurred in the committee as the report of the committee and the evidence are before the house.


An hon. Member:: Where is the evidence?


William Alfred Robinson: As I understand the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kootenay East, it is that the hon. member who has the floor may not reflect on a vote which was taken earlier this afternoon as we are bound by that vote. He cannot reflect on that vote nor may he mention the vote itself.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not reflecting on any vote-


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Yes, you did.


Charles Edward Johnston: -or any action taken by the house, but when you suggest that we are proceeding here on the evidence of the committee I suggest we are doing no such thing because there is no evidence before the committee of the whole, and that is one of the things to which we object.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It is right behind you. The member behind you has it.


Charles Edward Johnston: There are a few things about the structure of the company that I think members of the house should know. There were 5 million shares authorized. Of those 5 million shares the treasury of the company retains 3J million. Those 3i million shares have never been put on the market, and when the company says that it wants to have wider distribution so as to have greater public relations the thought must occur to all of us that if that is so, if they want wider distribution, why in the world did they not distribute some of those 3j million shares which they now hold in the treasury?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You had better take some lessons from Gunderson. He knows something about financing.


Charles Edward Johnston: Private Bill
Of course, the officials of the company went to great lengths to explain that they had to have good public relations. I admit immediately that good public relations are a good thing in any company. Public relations are very good for the chartered banks, too. You will remember that the last time the Bank of Toronto brought out a report it showed an over-all profit of 24 per cent on their paid-up capital. It is not good public relations to have that widely known, so after issuing further shares and taking out their reserves they got it down to about 4 per cent per share, and that was as a result of watering stock. That is good public relations for them but the public just do not know how they are being gypped. That is the only word I can think of and I will have to put it on the record.
I suggest, too, that so far as the public relations of this company are concerned, the thought that is running through the minds of the officials of this company is not that they want to create good public opinion but to deceive the public by splitting the shares five for one. Assuming they pay a dividend of $1, as they did last year, and assuming there is no greater profit and no additional money for distribution the amount of the dividend, provided the shares are split five for one, would be brought down to 20 cents.
I say to you that the public are more apt to accept as reasonable the 20-cent share than they would be to accept the dollar share. What will happen in a few years if these dividends are $5 a share or $6 a share? The public is going to say to themselves-and rightly so-that the transportation charges that these pipe line companies are charging for the transportation of oil and gas products are out of all reason and that there should be some reduction in the price of these fuels to the public. Instead of that, we find the price of gas and oil products going up all the time. That fact is due in part at least to such manipulation of shares as we find we are being asked to agree to in this bill. From our point of view as members of parliament I think that is poor public relations and should not be permitted.
I do not want it to be said, Mr. Chairman, that I am against private enterprise. This party, the Social Credit party, are staunch private enterprisers. But let it always be said that we are against exploitation of the public. For that reason and for the other reasons that I have indicated we just cannot support this bill splitting these shares five to one. Some people seem to take this thing a little bit lightly. They may not view it as seriously as we do. I am inclined to think that when the amendment was submitted in committee to divide the shares not one to five

but one to ten, that was done from a standpoint of humour rather than good sound thinking. When you split the shares one to ten, you do not necessarily create any wider distribution than would be created by splitting them one to five, or very little. But you would cut the dividend down per share a great deal more than would be done on the basis of a split of one to five. That is why I think the amendment was not put forward with too much serious consideration. Of course in the committee I was obliged to vote against the amendment. I should have liked to join in the fun but from the standpoint of principle I could not see how we could support a split of one to ten when we were objecting to a split of one to five; and we were objecting to it on the grounds I have indicated this afternoon to the house.
I am sorry that more members of this house are not here to hear the arguments that are put forward by members who were on the committee. When the vote is called, of course, the members will come in to vote. Maybe some of them, had they been here to hear the story completely from all sides, would be in a much better position to make a decision on the basis of sound judgment rather than just as a result of persuasion from some of their friends. I would hope that the members of this house would not pass this bill. I would hope that the company would reconsider their stand and possibly, if the necessity arose, when they had issued a substantial portion of these 3,500,000 shares that they now hold in the treasury-which number will be increased to 16 million when the split takes place-or when they had issued some of those on the market, would come back to this house and ask for further consideration for an increased issue of stock because they need the money. Then I would be one of the first to agree that they should have it if they need it. I think they would be well advised, if for no other reason than that of good public relations, that they do that very thing and not try to force this bill through for a one to five split.


Mr. Barnett:: If we go back for a moment to read again the explanatory note that accompanied this bill when it was first introduced to this house and then compare that with the story of some of the evidence given to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, I think we cannot help but come to the conclusion that not only is the proposal contained in this bill, as was suggested by the hon. member for Bow River, an attempt to deceive the public but that it was also an attempt to deceive the members of this house. The explanatory note says this: The reason for the proposed subdivision is that the company wishes to achieve a wide distribution of its stock among investors in Canada.

As I recall some of the evidence that was given to the committee by the president of that company, when this question was raised he said, in so many words, that the company really had no particular interest in whether this stock split was made or not, that it was not really anything that was going to affect the company as such. Then when the question was asked as to whether this thing had been requested by the shareholders of the company, we were informed that no such request had been made by the shareholders to the board of directors. When we asked whether the board of directors had decided it themselves, we received only very vague explanations as to how, when and why the board of directors had apparently decided to submit that proposal to a meeting of the shareholders of whom we were informed there were 5,806, of whom something over 50 attended what was described as a largely attended meeting of the shareholders of the company.
I recall that, at an earlier stage in the discussion of this bill, some of the facts and figures which were placed on the record by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam were called into question. I am hoping that the figures I intend to use in the course of my remarks will not be called into similar question. As has already been pointed out, we are under the disability of not having in our hands the official evidence and an opportunity to study it. Under these circumstances it is perhaps fortunate that some of us who were in attendance at the committee meetings tried to take a few notes. As far as I know, the figures I am going to use are those that were actually given to the committee, although I do not feel that I can use them with the same degree of confidence I could if I had had the actual printed evidence before me. The figures and facts, as those of us who sat in the committee recall, clearly indicate that the original purpose which was set forth as being the purpose of this bill, and which some of us at an earlier stage were inclined to doubt, certainly is not the real purpose that is behind the introduction of this bill.
You know, sometimes the housewives of Canada are criticized for being overly anxious to keep up with the Joneses. Apparently that same philosophy extends into the august financial realms of the country in which the people who own and operate pipe lines live. Actually, as I recall it, the principal reason given to us for the decision to introduce this bill in parliament for splitting the shares was that it is the thing other companies do and therefore this company did not dare do anything different from any other company. They thought it was the correct thing
Private Bill
to do, so they wanted to occupy the time of parliament by introducing a bill to split their shares five for one. Apparently, it is something like the latest fashion in Easter hats. When one achieves a certain standing in the financial and industrial world, one has to follow the fashion in Easter hats.
Actually, so far as I am concerned I think that some of the facts that were given to us in the committee did help to reveal that, not only in the operations of this particular company but also the operations of other companies which they claim they are following, we have the root cause of some of the serious disabilities under which the average citizen of this country is labouring today. This is not, therefore, the kind of proposition which this parliament should support. The figures, as they were given to us, show that the current book value of the assets of this company amount to $104 million, and that a large part of the original financing of the company was gained not through the issue of shares but through the issue of bonds bearing fixed interest rates. This has resulted in the actual book value of the shareholders' equity today being approximately $14 per share for the 1,504,928 shares that have been issued from the treasury of the company.
The figure given in the committee as to the quoted value of the stock on the market that day was $117. Well, Mr. Chairman, you can readily see that the shares which had a real value of $14 were being sold on the market for $117, which is fantastically above their real value in terms of the assets of the company. If these 1,504,928 shares were to be sold at $117 on the market, they would sell for $176,076,576 according to my calculation, whereas if the shares were sold at their real value of $14 per share they would be worth $21,066,992. The difference, therefore, between the real value of those shares and the currently quoted market value is $155,009,784. This represents, in the hands of these shareholders, over $155 millon worth of unearned purchasing power.
In other words, if the shareholders sold all the shares at that price they would have over $155 million going out into the market places of the country buying goods and services, with what to me is an obvious result- obviously, an inflationary pressure upon the economy. Some may say, well, all the shareholders are not going to go out and sell their shares at that amount; that is merely a paper value which does not represent actual purchasing power. Probably that is quite true, but it does represent potential purchasing power of an inflationary nature within the economy.

Private Bill
We were told in the committee that in recent months the actual number of shares in this company being traded monthly totalled something like 2,500 shares. The fact that these 2,500 shares are traded at a market price of $117 means that the people who are selling these shares at $117 are selling them at $103 over their real value according to the book value of the assets of the company. Each time one of those shares is traded in the market somebody is getting $103 in unearned purchasing power which can be used to buy goods and services or which can be reinvested. This means that these 2,500 shares which are being traded on the average each month put into the economy $457,500 every month of inflationary purchasing power. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that is one of the reasons why this house should not deal with the introduction of this kind of bill lightly.
I think all of us realize full well it is highly unlikely these shares are going to be traded at one-fifth of their present market price when they go back on the market. In the normal course of events these shares are going to creep up within the foreseeable future to something like the same market value as that at which they are selling today. We all know that has happened in the past. We cannot say with any certainty it is going to happen in this particular instance, but if these shares are split and if they do come back on the market on the basis of their present market value, that would mean that instead of 2,500 shares-assuming the same volume of trading-putting only $457,500 per month of what I described as inflationary purchasing power into the economy, there would be $2,287,500 per month going into the purchasing stream. And that, Mr. Chairman, multiplied by the activities of other companies which are doing the same thing, gives us some idea of the magnitude of the social and economic problem that lies behind this business practice.
As far as I am concerned this is a valid reason why hon. members of this parliament should not acquiesce in this kind of business transaction. Some of us cannot help but contrast this sort of activity and its resultant increasing of purchasing power in the hands of the few people who own these shares with the problem that most Canadians are facing today in keeping their incomes in line with what they must pay for the goods they need to maintain an ordinary home containing some of the goods that our modern industrial system is able to turn out so freely.
When we think of the people who are struggling along to buy for themselves some furniture, or a new washing machine, or whatever it may be and are compelled to

go out and deal with some of the financial institutions we have discussed on other occasions; the struggle they have to get enough purchasing power in their hands to buy the goods that are being produced, and compare this with what is being put into the hands of the people who carry on this sort of manipulation, then I suggest we have a situation which gives us good reason to pause and reflect.
This type of transaction and all that accompanies it, with all the dangers to the normal functioning of our economy that are inherent in it, cause me at least to remember what happened back in 1929. I am fully aware that people like myself are called prophets of gloom when we suggest anything of this nature could possibly happen again. But, Mr. Chairman, let us remember what took place and realize that it can occur again if this sort of practice becomes even more fashionable, to the point where inflationary pressure on the economy is such that when a crisis occurs the tremendous paper value of these shares suddenly plunges down to less than the real worth of the share certificates. If this happens on a large scale we know it will create a very drastic and sudden fall in the available purchasing power in the country. The result of course would be closed factories and people out of work. The $900 million in our unemployment insurance fund is not going to seem very large if that should happen.
These are some of the things we must think about when we are asked to pass what the sponsor referred to as a simple bill at the time he introduced it for second reading. I would suggest that if in the majority we were not so ready as we apparently are to go along with this sort of thing the Minister of Finance would not be asked questions, as he has been in the last few weeks, concerning the problems people are experiencing in financing their homes. The $457,500 per month these people have to spend is perhaps one of the reasons there are no investment funds available to build houses at reasonable rates of mortgage interest. All these things are tied in together and are matters about which we should be thinking.
As far as I am concerned the evidence that was given to us in the committee has only served to strengthen the conclusions I reached on the basis of the knowledge I had of the matter prior to sitting as a member of that committee; therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge the members of this house not to acquiesce in the continuance of this so-called fashionable trend among companies in this country which, because they have a monopoly at least within their own area of operation, are

able to draw tremendous sums from the people who have to rely on the facilities they provide.
I suggest we should reject this kind of proposal, that we should tell them to get on with the business of transporting oil, and as long as they attend to that business and run it efficiently we are not going to begrudge them some reasonable measure of return on their enterprise as such. But if they are going to come here and suggest that their concern is to create a situation which in the over-all can adversely affect the financial stability of this country, we should tell them to forget about it.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I sat as a member of this committee for the better part of a day trying to make up my mind whether the passing of this bill was in the interests of Canada, and after having listened attentively to the evidence adduced I came to what I felt to be a reasonable and fair decision on it. I concluded that I must oppose the bill.
In the first place, the officials of the company who appeared before the committee gave one reason and one reason only for coming to this House of Commons to have this bill passed. If the reason they gave is the only reason they have for coming before this house, then I must conclude that it is just humbug. I say that after thinking the matter over very seriously. There must be some reason that we were not able to drag out into the light for their coming to parliament at this time, but the only reason given by the officials of the company was that they wanted better public relations.
It is stated in the explanatory note that a relatively high market price discourages investment by the small investor, but I do [DOT]not think they were interested in new investors. Therefore there must be some other reason for them coming before this house.
The only reason they gave was that they wanted to create better public relations. I cannot understand why a company of this size, which is making such good money and which is dealing with only a small group of people, those who are shipping oil in a large way from Alberta to the coast and on down south, would have to have good public relations scattered far and wide. If like the mail order companies they were dealing with people all over Canada then I would admit there was some reason, but they are dealing with only a comparatively small number of people, and for the life of me I cannot see why they should take the trouble to come before this house and take up the time of the house as well as of the committee in presenting their case.
Private Bill
There is no question but that this company is making big money, and I submit it should be declared a common carrier. At the present time there are no restrictions upon the rates it can charge. It can charge as much as the traffic will bear. If it were declared a common carrier the rates could be set by the board of transport commissioners for the protection of the consuming public.
I live close to the province of Alberta, and know that the carriage of oil and gas in large quantities through these pipe lines has made a considerable difference in the price of those products. I submit that this company and any other company that is transporting oil and gas by pipe line should be declared common carriers in order that some supervision may be exercised over the rates they charge. I am opposed to the bill and am going to vote against it. I hope the committee will turn down the bill.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I also am one of the unfortunate members who was not on this committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and therefore have not available the information which was supplied to the members of that committee. As a result I am somewhat handicapped, though I have had the good fortune to have at my disposal during the past hour or so a transcript of what was said in the committee.
At the beginning of my remarks I want to compliment two hon. members of this house who are not members of my political party upon the attitude they took. One is the hon. member for Bow River; the other is the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond asked a large number of pertinent questions, but he did not get answers to very many. They always managed somehow or other to sidetrack them.
In the light of some of the mail I have been getting, this is far from being the simple bill the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., described it as when he first called for second reading. The operation of this pipe line is supposed to be beneficial to the people of Canada, especially the people of western Canada. I have here some figures which indicate what has happened since this pipe line was built. This information was sent to me by a large consumer of oil, Langley Greenhouses Limited. They show that on February 14, 1956, barely a year ago, the price they paid for bunker 46, which I assume is the grade they use, was raised from 8.9 cents to 9.3 cents per gallon. There were other raises in price on March 6, 1956, and November 24, 1956; then finally on January 22, 1957 the price was increased from 10.8 cents to 11.2 cents per gallon. This

Private Bill
was an increase of 2.3 cents, or 25 per cent over the price charged previous to February 14, 1956.
When the working people of this country ask for a wage increase of 20 per cent many people seem ready to hit the roof, yet these companies levy an increase of 25 per cent within 12 months without any hesitation. These people also supplied me with the information that one of the larger shareholders of the company, either directly or indirectly

that is, Imperial Oil Limited-had indicated that its 1956 earnings were 11.3 per cent over its 1955 earnings. I should like to see the day when the old age pensioners, the workers and the farmers could indicate a net growth in their income of 11.3 per cent or 25 per cent.
The construction of this pipe line was supposed to help the consumers of oil, and a lot of people threw out their old heating systems and put in oil heating systems. I have here proof of what I myself have had to pay in British Columbia. On December 7 last I paid 17.9 cents per gallon, and on February 26 of this year that price had gone up to 18.6 cents per gallon. Since I am a member of the House of Commons perhaps I should not worry too much, but here is what Mrs. Anna Larsen, who is 76 years of age and who lives in Burnaby, has to say:
I see the oil company make so much money I would think they could sell us the oil cheaper. Instead of that Feb. 1 they advanced the price from 21.9 to 22.6. I did not know before that the oil from Alberta went through the Suez; it must. It is too hard for us old people to split wood, looks like we will have to.
Before hon. members get too worried over the confidence of the investors of Canada in this company I should like to refer to a letter received from a small investor who lives in Strong Pine, Saskatchewan. He tells me that for some time he has been trying to invest a little bit of money in this type of enterprise but has never been able to get anywhere in obtaining shares at anything near the $10 level at which they were first issued. I suppose the reason is that he is a small investor and is not in on the ground floor with his broker to such an extent as to be regarded as a valuable customer.
The people have been disappointed, and that is to be expected from a sifting of this evidence. As I said before, I have not had time to sift it thoroughly, but it does seem obvious that the owners of the oil, the owners of the pipe line, the owners of the refinery and the owners of the bulk of our filling stations are one and the same group of people. 1 want to sound a word of warning. I do not think any party in this house would like to see the day arrive in Canada

when this vast and mushrooming oil industry became more powerful than the government of Canada itself.
I think it has been mentioned that in British Columbia we have a private company, the British Columbia Electric Company, which makes and unmakes governments at will. Let us beware that such an octopus does not arise on the Canadian national scene which can make and unmake political parties at election time and ensure the election of whatever government it pleases. I am not saying this has happened, but I believe the danger is there. We are expressing our regrets at what we see with respect to the power of the oil monopolies in the life and development of the peoples of the Middle East, and we hope the same thing may not happen to us here.
My main complaint about the proposal is not so much about the money that the company is making but that this oil pipe line has done so little for the development of our Canadian economy. We looked forward to a great expansion in employment on the west coast; we looked forward to the cost of oil being reduced because a cheaper method of transportation had been found. Our contention at that time that the public interest would best be served under public ownership was not acceptable, and it was again turned down by this house this year. However, even under private enterprise some of these purposes could have been served had there been any wish to serve the cause of national development.
One could hardly expect the final owners of this pipe line to be keenly interested in national development when those final owners, despite the evidence to the contrary which was submitted, are not Canadian owners. There was listed before the committee a large number of shares which afe held in Canada as compared with the relatively fewer shares held in the United States. What the witness did not bring out was the fact that these Canadian oil companies owning most of the shares in Canada are only subsidiaries of the larger American oil companies, and therefore the predominating interest of the major oil companies would always take precedence over the interest of the people of Canada as a whole.
The reason advanced for asking permission to split shares is subject to some other grave doubts. When we look at the debate that took place in 1951 it is evident that we have very good cause to question any of the utterances the company makes, and any of the reasons it puts forward to the committee. Almost every pledge that was given in 1951 has been violated, and almost every prediction that was made about the potential

results that would accrue to Canada and Canadians has not come true.
At that time, I notice, an announcement was made to the House of Commons that the B-A Oil Company was about to build a $10 million refinery on the shores of Burrard inlet. That prediction was not fulfilled, and I am very much afraid that if this government remains in office much longer the $18 million refinery now being spoken of will also not be built within Canada. The statistics the witness placed on record before the committee proved that at the present time there is more oil being exported to refineries in the United States than is being refined in Canada, and that is certainly a direct violation of any understanding given to the House of Commons and also to the committee of this house back in 1951.
I notice that in the March 1 issue of the Financial Times-maybe I should not refer to it, because as far as the economic scene in Canada is concerned it is the least reliable newspaper we have-there is an article which contains a long list of projected expansions in refining capacity in the United States; in the state of Washington, in Oregon and in the state of California. I do not see any mention in the article of any proposed expansion in the refining industry in Canada. The companies who own these pipe lines should be made by the parliament of Canada to understand that they have a responsibility to the country which owns these reserves, and especially to the people in the country that owns these reserves.
I notice the company is engaged-and I see this also in the minutes-in an expansion program. An expansion program for what? They say they are able to provide all the needs of the Canadian refineries, and if they are able to supply all those needs that indicates it is the same old story again, that the article in the Financial Times is perfectly accurate; that a huge expansion is planned south of the border, and that the capacity of the pipe line must be increased in order to meet the needs of the expanding oil industry.
I am not opposed to a prosperous United States of America. However, the responsibility of this parliament is, in the first place, to a prosperous Canadian nation. The small investors of Canada have not been given a break in this enterprise. The company is engaged in the export of an irreplaceable natural resource. The company is not helping to provide employment opportunities for Canadians. The company has violated practically every agreement and understanding it has ever made with the Canadian parliament or a committee of the Canadian parliament, and I am indeed surprised that a member such as the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.)
Private Bill
who is, I know, held in such high esteem by the average constituent in the city of Victoria, should even lend his name to this racketeering which is as old as the stock market itself, and have the nerve to try to pilot a bill of this sort through the Canadian House of Commons.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I think it is significant that although this bill has now been under discussion for some little time, not one hon. member on the government side has been able to say a good word for it so far. Even the sponsor will, I am sure, find it very difficult to go back to the voters in British Columbia and explain-


Francis Thrower Fairey: That will be my trouble, not yours.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You just want to filibuster the bill.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -and explain to them that it would be good for the people.
In 1951 the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines had the original bill before it, and at that time, as found at page 86 of the report of the proceedings of the committee, the following was pointed out:
Our proposal is to build the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line, which Mr. Laing has so thoroughly described lor .you previously. It is a line running Irom Edmonton to Vancouver via the Yellowhead pass. It is an all-Canadian line, of 24 inches in diameter, and approximately 715 miles in length. The line will have an ultimate capacity of the order ol 200,000 barrels a day, and the immediate capacity will be approximately 75,000 barrels a day. If the proposal meets with your agreement and the different regulations are completed at a sufficiently early date, it is proposed to commence the line in July of this year and to complete it by the 31st of December, 1952.
I find, Mr. Chairman, that you were a very alert member of the committee at that particular time. You asked this very appropriate question:
Might I ask, Mr. Chairman, why there is such a difference between the estimated initial capacity and the ultimate expected capacity? Is that due to marketing, or what?
The witness replied:
Actually it is due to the initial demand and the engineering arrangements that are made for that line. When it first goes into operation it will have pumping stations designed to handle the immediate requirements, having regard to the estimated production from Alberta. The ultimate capacity would be obtained by the addition of further pumping stations on the line as the market requirements and production go up.
Then my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay West also had a very pointed question. He asked:
When we were discussing the Trans-Canada Pipe Line Company, the company in question agreed to an amendment of section 6, that it be provided for and stipulated that the main pipe line of the

Private Bill
company would be entirely within Canada. Might 1 ask the witness if he would be willing, when we come to section 6 of this bill, to have a similar amendment inserted at the appropriate place in this bill?
The witness replied:
We would welcome such an amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Then I find that the Deputy Speaker, who was also a member of the committee, asked some very important questions. In the report of the proceedings of the committee I find the following at page 89:
By Mr. Robinson:
Q. Perhaps I can lay the groundwork for it. Mr. Blair, are you familiar with the wording of the amendment which Mr. Herridge mentioned?
A. Yes, I am familiar with the wording as it was stated in the other hearing.
Q. And it is that wording you say you will welcome with open arms?
A. We welcome it for the reason that it in no way conflicts with our intentions. Our intention is to build the line from Edmonton to Vancouver with the terminal there. The pipe line will be entirely in Canada and we will finish it in that manner.
Q. I would just like to get your idea of the effect of the amendment should your intention change in the future. Should your intentions in the future come to be along the line that you would like to extend your pipe line into the States, do you think, or would you consider that you would be bound by that amendment and that you could not do so?
A. I would understand that amendment, sir, as meaning that we were confining our operations to Canada, in accordance with our present plans. We do not visualize any pipe line outside of our own country.
Q. Let me put it this way. Suppose you want to go into the United States, do you think that you would have to come back to parliament and ask to have other powers? I just want to get your idea on how far the amendment would bind you?
A. I do not know that I am in a position to answer that legal question. We are just not planning that sort of development.
Q. Perhaps another witness would answer it for me.


William Alfred Robinson: I still think that the discussion is a little premature and, if you do not mind, we will postpone it until we come to the legal aspects, and until we actually have the suggested amendment.
Apparently without any further reference to parliament it has been possible to extend the line into the United States. In the Financial Times of March 11 I note that there are to be large refinery extensions in the west coast area and, unfortunately, across the line in the state of Washington. The report reads in part as follows:
Richfield Oil Corp. has just taken up a 1,000-acre site at Everett for another major installation. The availability of Canadian oil from nearby Vancouver via tanker and through branch pipe lines is one of the major reasons given for the west coast refinery concentration in the Puget sound area but industry sources state that by no means all the new requirements following upon the completion of the new refineries will be met by imports of Canadian oil.

Texas Co., for instance, has imported oil holdings, through subsidiaries in Sumatra, and is currently bringing about 11,000 barrels daily to its California refineries.
It would appear, Mr. Chairman, that in spite of the assurance given to the appropriate committee at that time the major development is now to take place in the United States. The witnesses who were before us the other day reported that as of January of this year-I am sorry I do not have the official transcript available, but I made these notes at the time-there were 71,150 barrels of oil transported daily through the line for Canadian use, compared with 84,859 barrels for United States use and 33,000 plus for tankers. Apparently a good deal of the tanker oil would make its way to California for the development of industry in the United States.
In February Canadian consumption was 76,000 barrels daily, United States consumption was 74,500, and tanker export was 26,500.	In	March there are to be	78,500barrels daily for Canadian use, 67,000 for the United States and 33,000 for tanker export. However, it would appear that commencing	in	April we are to use	less	of theoil per	day	in Canada than will	be used inthe United States. The estimates are 72,500 barrels in Canada and 76,000 in the United States.	In	May the estimates	are	74,000
barrels for Canadian use and 76,000 for the United States, and the same for June.
I think it was the hon. member for York West, Mr. Chairman, who indicated that if there was any suggestion that the passing of the legislation would build one more mile of pipe line or bring in one more gallon of oil everyone would be in favour of it. But it is significant that the sponsor of the bill and the officials of the company could not say a good word for the proposition except from the point of view of public relations, and when they were cross-examined they indicated that as far as the public are concerned it makes very little difference to John Doe whether there are 500, 5,000 or 5 million people who are interested in this particular proposition. What John Doe is concerned about is whether he is paying too much for petroleum products, and whether this is going to increase or decrease the price of petroleum products. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that every member who votes for the passage of the bill is voting for an additional toll to be placed on the consumers of petroleum products in Canada.
At this point I should like to pay a compliment to the hon. member for Bow River. When this matter was before the house previously he deferred passing judgment. In spite of the representations made by a number of hon. members he said he had

an open mind. He said he would like to have the bill go before the standing committee, and that he would make up his mind after hearing the witnesses. After hearing the witnesses and cross-examining them, the member for Bow River thought there was no good reason why this particular proposition should be accepted by parliament.
Over the week end I did a little research. I was reminded of the problems we had on our doorstep at the time of the investigation into price spreads during the early 1930's. The practice of stock-splitting is not new. We were forced to concede to the officials of this company that if they were operating entirely within a province they would be permitted to engage in this anti-social activity without any restrictions.
But since it is a company that is operating across provincial and international boundaries it must come to parliament for a charter, and must come to parliament to get permission for this stock split.
I was reminded of very disturbing information that was made public back in the thirties. At page 2800 of the proceedings and evidence of a special committee I find a very interesting discussion by one of our former colleagues, Mr. Ilsley. The latter played a very important role in Canada in maintaining price controls and in preventing profiteering and racketeering during the war period. At that time, as reported at page 2800 of this evidence, Mr. Ilsley was crossexamining some of the officers of the Robert Simpson Company. This company had quite a long examination. One of their officers was asked by Mr. Ilsley as follows:
By Mr. Ilsley:
Q. Mr. Adamson, assume the case of a man who got one share in 1902 for which he paid $100. A. Yes.
Q. Assume that the gentleman followed that share through to 1925 when he got his cash, then he had 5 shares? A. Yes.
Q. By 1925? A. Yes.
Q. And for which he got $150 apiece, which made $750? A. Yes.
Q. And he also got 5 other shares which he exchanged for 15 shares? A. Yes.
Q. And those 15 shares he sold in 1929 for $150 apiece which is $2,250; the $2,250 plus the $750 makes $3,000, which he got in 1929 for an original investment of $100 with his cash dividends every year in the meantime? A. Yes.
Q. That is the whole story is it not? A. Yes.
But that was not quite the whole story. Mr. Sommerville, counsel for the committee, wanted to get a little bit more information that he thought should be put on the record. He asked:
Q. Now then, what were the dividends received? A. The dividends received were: . . .
And then a list is given of the percentages. These dividends worked out on quite a generous basis. Starting in 1903 they were
Private Bill
at a rate of 6 per cent. Then they went up to 8 per cent in 1914. In 1917, when young Canadians were fighting for freedom the percentage rate of these dividends went up to 10 per cent. It was 10 per cent in 1918, and went up to 11 per cent in 1919 and to lli per cent in 1920. Then Mr. Sommerville asked this question:
Q. Yes? These were on each share. If the holdings at 1917 were 5 for 1 and the dividend declared was 10 per cent it is equivalent to 50 per cent on the original investment? A. Yes. In addition to that there were the bonds and preferred shares.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that having had a public inquiry back in 1934 in order to try to focus public attention on the very antisocial effect of share-splitting, share-watering and speculation of this sort, the parliament of Canada should be the last organization to put its seal of approval on this particular proposition.
Along with the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill I will admit that there are pipe-line companies which have an even worse record than this one. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, I believe it was two weeks ago today, referred to the Westcoast Transmission Company, where 500,000 shares offered at 5 cents each were picked up, the present value of which is $35 a share; so that for every dollar put into the Westcoast Transmission Company back five years ago there has been a capital gain of $700.
However, I submit that this Trans Mountain company has no mean record as to multiplying the returns to those who get in on the ground floor. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni used the figures that were given to us by the officers last Thursday, I think it was. The officers of the company mentioned the fact that the very interesting discussion we have had in this house with regard to Trans Mountain has probably been a factor in these shares going up in price. In Saturday night's Daily Star I noticed that the high has now been reached of $119. These shares have had a low of $104 in 1957, with a high of $119. If the shares were to be sold now at the prices being offered, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni would have to revise the figures upwards. It would appear to me that the 1,504,928 shares which are outstanding at the present rate of $119 would bring in $179,086,432.
The officers of the company told us that the book value at the present time is about $14 a share. So if you took away the book value of $21,068,992 you would have a capital gain of $158,017,440. I appreciate the fact that if we were to multiply these shares five times, so that instead of having 5 million shares we had 25 million, we muddy the water and make it possible for organizations

Private Bill
of this sort to do the sort of thing the Robert Simpson Company did during the period 1902-1929, the period which was under review by a parliamentary committee in 1934.
I think it is still as plain as A, B, C that since we are not making any plans to build any more pipe line as a result of this legislation, and are not making any plans to encourage development or to build refineries, the only justification for taking up the time of parliament is to permit a few speculators to profit, though probably not to go as far as the people in Westcoast Transmission who were, I admit, in much better shape. For every dollar you put into Westcoast Transmission on the basis of 5 cents a share, you now have $700. But here for every dollar you put into Trans Mountain you have only about $12-the cost was $10 and the price is $119-or $11.9.
The officers of this company were able to present quite an interesting story about the success of their operations. They pointed out that in the last year-that is in 1955-their net profit, after paying all taxes, was just over $3 million. In 1956 their net profit they estimate to be a little bit less than $7 million. I was able to do a little calculation over the lunch period at that time, and on the basis of $7 million net which they had last year- and that was earned by operating their line at about 70 per cent capacity, and even without making any allowance for the fact that if you were to operate it at 100 per cent capacity you would not necessarily increase your returns to your directors and your personnel-it would appear that they are almost certain to have a net after all taxes of between $10 million and $11 million this year. It would appear that if they were prepared to declare half this net as a dividend to their shareholders they would be able to pay a return of around 50 per cent per annum to those who put in their $10 per share just a very short time ago.
Now I realize that if instead of paying $5 per share, the company issues five shares for every one that is outstanding and only pays $1.25 per share or $2 per share, they will take the attention of Canadians away from the fact that oil prices in the Vancouver area are going up, allegedly because of the trouble in Suez. Then the Canadian people might not say the reason we are paying more for our petroleum products in the British Columbia area is that Trans Mountain Pipe Line, which should be a public carrier, wants to further split its shares and make it possible for some of its investors to make an almost unlimited profit.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that with a very inflationary situation on our doorstep we cannot afford to set an example here by suggesting it is quite legitimate for people to come to parliament and take the time of the other place and this chamber to get legislation through which they do not attempt to say is going to increase our production, or is going to improve our dollar position, but is merely going to make it possible for those interested in playing the market to make fabulous profits.
I note that this measure received very short treatment in the other place. It was presented on Thursday, January 24, when it was moved by Senator McKeen. After a very brief statement the motion was agreed to, the bill was read a second time and referred to their standing committee on transport and communications. I have made inquiries about getting printed copies of the proceedings of the Senate committee on transport and communications, but I am informed that it is not the practice to publish those minutes.
I would have thought that since their minutes have not been published, and in view of the fact that the hon. member who sponsored this bill intimated that it had received careful consideration in the committee of the other place, when the measure came back to the Senate some of the hon. senators who thought this was a proposition for the public good of Canada would have made some comments about it. However, the Acting Speaker read the report of the committee, and after the report was adopted the hon. senator who sponsored this measure moved third reading of the bill. The whole performance takes less than half a column of Senate Hansard.
1 feel that the members of this chamber must not make the mistake of passing any measure of this sort without some of the government members standing up and offering one good reason as to why in their opinion the members of this house should support it. In my view it is quite significant that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond and the hon. member for Hastings South felt the proposition was such that they could not go back to face their electors without having made some effort to modify this measure. I must confess that the members of our group could not go along with the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. We could not see that his proposal would in any way improve the measure before us. But the fact that these two hon. members-and they were supported by some other members on the government side-did feel that in the committee they should register their protest, makes it apparent that we should have a good look at it.

I admit that the splitting of these shares in itself will not necessarily result in these prices going up, but with an estimated $10 million net clear this year for distribution, coupled with the fact that if this share split goes through we are going to have an increase in the selling price of these shares, it all indicates we should look at the measure carefully. There will be some people who will take their losses. Again, there is no law in Canada that says it is illegal for citizens to play the stock market. But I submit that it certainly is not in the public interest for the parliament of Canada to give its approval to a proposal of this sort without realizing the full implication, that this is a clear invitation to the people of Canada to try to get something for nothing; to get in on what is a very profitable venture before this company is declared a public carrier.
This company are able to take advantage of the fact that there is a crisis in Suez. They are able to use this as an excuse to come to parliament and ask that their shares be split five to one.
May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William Alfred Robinson: Clause 1; shall this clause carry?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, it has been stated in the explanatory note that the purpose of this bill is to provide the greatest possible participation by the public. When the officers of the company appeared before the committee they were unable to give any good reason why they did not allow 5 million people to participate, why 5 million shares were not issued originally. They were unable to offer any good reason why the participation was limited to less than half a million shares which were offered to the public. It is indeed extremely difficult to understand why with just over 1,500,000 shares out of a possible 5 million being offered, this concern now exists about making 25 million shares available.
This company already has a very interesting record-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am extremely
sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him his time has expired. Shall the clause carry?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman, when the bill was before the house for second reading I did not take part in the debate because hon. members of this group who were on the committee which examined the bill were more
Private Bill
familiar with its provisions than I was; but I think there is one thing which is now evident, and it is that the object of the bill as it is explained in the explanatory note is certainly not the object in reality. Considering today's debate on this matter I believe the sponsor of the bill would be well advised to withdraw this legislation and wait until such time as the real intentions of this company are made known.
So far the discussion has proved beyond any doubt that the only possible effect the passage of this bill could have would be to promote inflation or, as far as this house is concerned, to condone gambling. There seems to be no other explanation for it. I think it strikes at a rather basic principle so far as we are concerned, because any legislation that comes before this house, particularly if it deals with private concerns as this does, must be judged first and foremost by the criterion of public interest.
As members of this house and as representatives of the people we cannot be concerned with the financial welfare of any particular firm. We must be concerned with the public interest first of all; and since there is nothing in this bill that commends itself in respect to the public interest then there is in effect no reason at all why this bill should be before the house, and it should therefore be withdrawn.
Certain of the information that has come out in our discussion has changed the minds of at least some hon. members of this house. I recall that not so long ago-as a matter of fact on February 26 of this year-when the hon. member for Bow River spoke on the second reading of this bill he took a very different attitude toward it from that revealed in his speech today. In fact he made certain statements at that time which one could only take as meaning that he was in support of the bill; but having been on the committee and having received certain information which in his own opinion would have been desirable to be made known to all members of this house, he has now entirely changed his view and has attacked the bill in terms which he himself deplored as recently as February 26. I am not saying this to be at all critical of the hon. member, because I think he is to be commended for his change of attitude.
On February 26, when referring to some of the speeches made by my colleagues, the hon. member for Bow River used the following words as reported at page 1679 of Hansard:
There have been a lot of things said in the debate on the bill, particularly since the moving of the amendment, which I personally cannot take to be true.

Private Bill
Today, however, the hon. member confirmed every one of those statements. He followed up the comment I just read by saying:
I am convinced that some of the statements that have been made have been grossly exaggerated.
Yet today he not only confirmed the statements that had been made at that time by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, who has taken an active part in this debate and by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. As a matter of fact he added some of his own comments in condemnation of this bill in much stronger terms than those used on that occasion.
This is a strong indication to me, Mr. Chairman, that those hon. members who had grave doubts about the wisdom of passing this bill have had their views fully confirmed, and those who were not quite sure where they stood with regard to the bill-as far as this side of the house is concerned at least-have now come down on the side opposing the bill. Considering the fact that since this debate commenced today not one member on the government side of the house and not even the sponsor of the bill has seen fit to take the floor to say anything in its favour, it appears to be a clear indication that they have not found very much to say in its favour, and certainly they have not made any attempt whatever to relate this bill to the public interest.
Considering that important fact, and considering that the members of the government themselves have not taken any part-as a matter of fact they appeared quite embarrassed by the whole thing-I think it would be the better part of wisdom for the sponsor to withdraw this bill and serve notice on the company unless they have reasons which can more readily commend themselves to the intelligence of hon. members of the house than the reason they have offered, then they should not be asking this house to condone their speculative manipulations.
I hope the sponsor of the bill or some other member on that side of the house who is anxious to get this bill through will tell us what is the reason that members on the Liberal side are so anxious to see this bill passed.
They have not yet given us any reason other than what is contained in the explanatory note as to why this legislation should be passed by this house. One cannot help but wonder what is the cause of the great anxiety. If there is anything hidden which they have not revealed, this would be the time to reveal it. I think it is due this committee that we should know why the Liberal members have taken it upon themselves and
[Mr. Zaplitny.l
feel it is their responsibility as public representatives to pilot through this house for a private company a bill which can only have the effect of putting that company in a better position to manipulate its stock on the market and make a profit. If there is an explanation they should offer it; otherwise we are going to be fully justified in being highly suspicious of what is behind this whole move.
As a matter of fact, this seems to be a sort of pipe-line year. First the government get tangled up to their ears in a pipe line, and they have scarcely emerged from that when some of the members on the Liberal side have become tied up with a private bill for another pipe line. We are just wondering what is the connection between the Liberal party and these pipe-line systems.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: We stand for progress.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: As a matter of fact, judging from the smell of it I doubt if it is a pipe line; I think it must be a sewer line.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Enfield:: That is a pretty cheap way to make a point.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I think there is an explanation due to this house and this committee by members of the Liberal party, who seem to have more than a common interest in the entire pipe-line issue this year. I am beginning to wonder whether they do not feel that their party coffers may benefit from these special privileges they are prepared to give to one pipe-line company after another down the line.


An hon. Member:: You are playing a broken record.


Mr. Habel:: Your record is one of innuendo.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I should like to hear the unbroken record which the hon. gentleman imagines he could put on, if he will get on his feet and explain what is the connection between these pipe-line companies and the Liberal party treasury. That is what I would like to know.
We should also have explained by the sponsor of this bill why it is that this company by a sort of coincidence happens to be asking for this special privilege when there seems to be some chance of it being declared a common carrier. That is a very interesting angle which enters into the whole price arrangements of this company. So far not one word has been said on this point by the sponsor of this bill or by any of the hon. gentlemen across the way who seem to be most intimate with this company.
Then we come to the explanation given by the company, and that in itself constitutes

a very suspicious situation. They come to this parliament and say the reason they want this bill passed to permit them to split their shares five to one is, to use their own words, so they can effect a wider distribution of their shares. The evidence in the committee, so far as I have been able to find out, was to the effect that they have no intention whatever of placing more of their stock on the market. The two things simply do not go together. If the company was anxious to effect a wider distribution of their stockholdings in the hands of the public they have in their treasury 3,500,000 shares which could be placed on the market today without any legislation whatsoever. That is provided for in their charter. Why are they not doing that? Because, to use their own evidence, they do not require any extra capital. In their own opinion their capital is quite sufficient for their purposes. Certainly the return on that capital in the last couple of years has been very good, and they have no desire to change that situation.
What would be the purpose of splitting the shares other than to inflate the value of the shares to the extent of being able to make a capital gain? I am very doubtful, even if this company were to place extra shares on the market, that that would be such a good thing, because the time might come when the government would want to take over this particular pipe line as a public utility. I realize that is not the present intention, but the time may come.
We have had experience in the past of what can happen when a private company or group of companies operating a public utility reach the stage when they want that utility taken over as a public undertaking. In the meantime they have inflated or watered their stock to such an extent that the stockholdings do not represent the real value. We had that situation develop in this country in connection with our railroads. The Canadian National Railways was a sort of amalgamation or basket deal made up of a number of so-called bankrupt private companies which were taken over by the government after their stock had been inflated to a fantastic degree. As a matter of fact one of the great disabilities of the Canadian National Railways is the enormous amount of interest, amounting to around $20 million, which must be paid by the people of Canada every year on that inflated, valueless, watered stock which was taken over in the formation of the Canadian National Railways.
The same trend is developing with other public utilities, and the time may come when it will be desirable to take this company over as a public utility, and we may then find that 82715-132
Private Bill
the capital stock does not represent its real value. I see no reason from an economic point of view to permit this company to split its shares. There seems to be no reason from the public interest point of view.
There remains only one reason, the reason stated by members of the Social Credit group and by my colleagues. That is that this move is an attempt to put the company into a position where it will be able to make a capital gain at the expense of the consumers of its products or of the public generally who see fit to participate in the stockholdings.
Since that seems to be firmly established, since the sponsor of this bill and those hon. members who are supporting it have not come up with another explanation and certainly have not disproved the one which has been placed before the committee, I cannot imagine that the members of the Liberal party will sit back and use their steamroller majority as an argument - that is all they have used so far; they have not presented any other argument whatever during this debate-or sit back and act as a number of rubber stamps in order to do something to the advantage of a private company, which is not in the public interest. If they have anything to present I shall be glad to listen to it. In the meantime I feel it is the duty of our colleagues and of all members on the opposition side-I invite my good friends to the right to participate- to oppose this bill until we get a satisfactory explanation.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to take part in this debate because I feel I did my work in the committee, but I must say that I cannot and will not take the insinuations of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. For him to say that we are voting for this bill because our treasury is getting some cash out of it is, I would say, to show that he does not know what he is talking about. He is just making a plain fool of himself.
I did not get up in order to carry on this filibuster, because I think this committee is an honourable committee of the house. We decided this in committee. There were more than Liberals who voted for this bill. I think the hon. member will regret the speech he has just made.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I did not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman while he has speaking, but he has attributed to me a statement which I did not make. He stated that I said the reason Liberal members are voting for this bill is that they expect some money out of it.


Pierre Gauthier: That is what you said.

Private Bill


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I did not say any such thing. I asked hon. members who are supporting this bill to explain their stand and tell us if there is any connection between this company and the Liberal party. I was not referring to members of this house, and I was making no insinuation with reference to any hon. member of this house. The remarks of the hon. member for Fort William are a long way from what I actually did say.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: The hon. member may not have used the word "cash" in the way I used it, but he said there would be some benefit to the treasury of the Liberal party, and he also suggested we were rubber stamps.


An hon. Member:: You cannot deny that one.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I do not want to tell him what I think about it, but I would like to prove to him that I am no rubber stamp.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Chairman, the little exchange we have just heard would tend to create in the minds of many people a question as to where the Liberal party obtains its campaign funds. I think generally speaking people have a right to speculate, because we know vast sums of money are spent at election time by the Liberal party. We know that money must be coming from some source, and I think we are quite within our rights in wondering, perhaps, just whether there is any tie-up between that and the feverish demand on the part of Liberal members of this house to push through legislation of this type. I would simply draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, the fact that we have had no explanation by the sponsor of this bill, nor by any other hon. member of the house who is supporting this measure, as to why this legislation is important or why it should be passed at the present time. We know that when this legislation came before the Senate there was an explanation of sorts. The hon. senator introducing this legislation referred to it as a very simple bill.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member will not, of course, refer to the debate in the other place.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could draw your attention, then, to the evidence given last Thursday in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines dealing with this legislation, when the sponsor of the bill explained in his own words the reasons, or supposed reasons, why this measure should be passed. He said on that occasion:
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to present to you this amending bill respecting Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company. The purpose of the bill is to change the stock structure.
[Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf) .1
When the company was organized in 1951 it was authorized to issue five million shares without nominal or par value. Because of the success of the company the officers felt it necessary and wise to change that structure. They are seeking authority to change it to this effect: that instead of issuing five million shares without nominal or par value they should be allowed to subdivide the shares so that there will be 25 millions without nominal or par value. The purpose is to make the shares more readily available to the investing public. It is felt that because the price of the shares on the market has risen so greatly, the small investor would be more inclined to purchase shares if they were reduced in price.
That was, in essence, the argument presented when this bill came before that committee. A great deal has been said about that reason, or the absurdity of that reason; yet no one on the government side of the house has yet made any effort whatsoever to explain or defend in any way a statement such as the one I have just placed on the record.
Now, it seems rather strange that this company should be showing so much concern about the small investor when the same company, as a matter of deliberate policy, sought to exclude the general public from ownership and control of the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company. We know from page 91 of the committee report of March 19, 1951, when Mr. R. L. Bridges, a director of the Bechtel Corporation of the United States outlined to the committee the proposed capital structure of the new company, what the situation was. It is important to bear these facts in mind when we hear these rather naive statements that the company's main concern is to provide for greater public participation in its financing.
At that time, in 1951, Mr. Bridges pointed out that the total cost of the line was set at approximately $86,700,000 and the distribution of this amount among common shares, bonds, and debentures was in the following order: $30 million of first mortgage bonds to be sold to institutional investors in Canada; some $36 million, in United States dollars, first mortgage bonds to be sold to institutional investors in the United States; and approximately $14 million worth of debentures and $7 million worth of common stock.
So here is a company which arranges its financing, when it builds a pipe line with borrowed money, so that the general public will not have any opportunity whatsoever of playing a real part in this venture because, of course, by this arrangement they exclude those who are putting up the money from having any share in the control or management of the company. And here is a company which deliberately sets out to exclude the general public, and to confine equity

capital to some 8 per cent, the balance being money borrowed. In this situation, Mr. Chairman, it seems rather strange that now we should be told that this company is so much concerned about permitting people generally to participate in its affairs. We know more than that-


Mr. Lennard:: You know nothing.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The hon. member to my right will have his opportunity to express his opinion on this matter. I was rather under the impression that members of his party were not too enamoured of this particular legislation. However, if he is in favour of it I think we would welcome an opportunity of hearing what he has to say.
There is a great deal of information in the evidence before the committee, and I think that should be borne in mind in relation to the discussion earlier this afternoon regarding the question of supplying members of this house with copies of the proceedings. I have here one copy of the evidence that is available to two members of the house. There is much in this evidence which, in my view, would indicate the need for extreme care in dealing with this legislation. I note, for example, that in the report at page E5 the question arose as to why, if the company was so anxious to provide for widespread public participation, it did not make all the shares available to the general public.
The question was asked, what was the purpose of the company holding more than 3 million shares, rather than putting them on the market at a time when the price was down to $10, or had increased to $15. To that the officer of the company replied:
That is a matter of the over-all financing of the company.
A question then asked was:
I think that is one of the main issues at stake?
The answer was:
I don't think it has anything to do with the actual splitting of the stock. It is the opinion of our financial advisers that if they were at about one-fifth of their value they would have a wider distribution.
Mr. McQuarrie quoted a story that his secretary would love to buy some of the stock in Trans Mountain, but that at $100 a share she could not do so. If the price were to be cut, though, people would be willing to buy 20 shares at $10, or $15, or $20.
If the company were really so solicitous about the welfare of this secretary they could have arranged to provide her and other members of the general public with shares at the time the company's shares were first on 82715-132i
Private Bill
the market; but, as I suggested earlier, as a matter of deliberate policy they prevented members of the general public from participating in the affairs of the company.
The continued line of questioning will indicate some of the factors which were brought out before the committee, and these are matters which I think every member of this house should seriously consider before passing judgment on this legislation.
Q. If you obtain permission to divide these shares, that would mean that the three million-odd shares held by the company would be multiplied by five?
Now those are held solely by the company and when those are put on the market the value will increase to some extent. What position does that leave the company in financially?
A. We do not know if they will ever be put on the market.
Q. If you are going to have 15 million held by the company surely you would put some of those on the market?
A. Not necessarily.
Just reflect for a moment. Here is a company which professes to be concerned about the right of the general public to buy shares in the company; yet its officers say that after the stock split the shares now held by the company are not necessarily going to be put on the market. Then what is the objective behind this legislation? It certainly cannot involve any benefit to the general public.
The evidence I have placed on the record indicates one of the reasons why members of the house are not prepared to pass judgment on the legislation until such time as they have been able to examine that evidence very carefully. We have heard repeated statements that this is a very simple bill, that the only reason the company is coming before parliament and asking for this amendment is that it wants to split its shares to enable the general public to reap some benefit. But there has never been any evidence given in the house or any evidence given in the committee to indicate that there is any validity in the argument put forward by the company or the sponsors of the bill.
These rather bland assurances are not borne out by the facts. I do not think anyone is going to be so naive as to think this company or any other company is going to allow its over-all policies to be guided by the desire to do something in the general good. Private companies are in business to make money. The directors of those companies are there to produce the maximum by way of return to the shareholders, and they will tell you that if they do not do the job they are not going to remain as directors. But to ex-' pect us to believe thht the only reason this company is coming before parliament is its desire to help the general public is a lot of nonsense.

Private Bill
It is quite obvious that the motive behind the stock split is to enable the company to realize additional capital gains. They know, and I think it is generally accepted, that when shares go beyond $100 they do not trade as freely on the market. There is less buying and selling and, of course, when you reduce the amount of buying and selling you reduce the opportunities for making capital gains. The company realizes that through a stock split and through a greater movement of company shares those who hold shares are going to be in a better position to gain financially.
We know that if in a year or so from now the company under its present capital structure is making, shall we say, $5 on an original $10 share, naturally it will look like a very substantial profit; but if they can split the shares into five and make it appear as though they are only making $1 a share, then the general public will be free to believe that the company is not making as much money as it actually is. It is simply a question of trying to hoodwink the public, to create the illusion that the company is not making as much money out of the general public as the facts show.
It is quite obvious that any company which undertakes to split its stock on this basis is doing so because it feels it to be in the interests of the financial position of the company, and that is the only reason. Therefore when we have a company like Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company coming before parliament and asking that parliament amend its original charter, I think we have to ask ourselves whether parliament exists in order to provide opportunities for private companies to make money at the expense of the general public.
When the company came before parliament to get its original charter its officers made certain commitments. I understand that the hon. member for Bumaby-Richmond made some reference to a speech he made when the legislation first came before the house. I am sure that he and other members from British Columbia were under the impression that the company was going to do a great service to the people of the lower mainland. It was going to build a pipe line and provide increased employment in that part of Canada, and it was going to result in a tremendous enlargement of refining capacity. Of course it is the old, old story. While there has perhaps been an increase in the refining capacity, that may not be due to the pipe line itself.
In my own province we have enjoyed a great increase in refining capacity, more than double, in the years since 1951, because of the increased consumption of gasoline and other

oil products, but we have to be very careful in considering this bill dealing with a pipe line because we have had our fingers burned too often. We have accepted assurances from these people. They have come before parliament and have appeared before the committee. They have made certain commitments and promises, yet their promises are seldom if ever fulfilled. Surely we ought to profit from our experience with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, a company which also came to parliament with all sorts of commitments and raring to go. They could get all kinds of capital. All they wanted was a charter and the O.K, of the board of transport commissioners, and they were all set to build a pipe line. We know the sordid story there. It well behooves members of the house to look very carefully at pipeline legislation brought before the house.
I ask all members before passing judgment on the legislation to ask themselves whether the objective behind the bill is a worthy and sound one, whether it is a question of satisfying the interests of the Canadian people as a whole or whether it is simply a question of facilitating the ability of a particular company to split its stock with the hope of making more money in the years that lie ahead. We know this company has certainly made a considerable amount of money since it was formed. I think it was admitted by the officers of the company in the committee that their profits for the last year were just under $7 million, and it is likely that their profits will be much higher in the next year when the figures are announced.
It is a very lucrative company, and it is quite evident under the circumstances that a stock split is going to redound to the advantage of the shareholders and directors of the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company. Is it not rather significant that the time the company declares its first dividend of $1 a share is precisely the time it decides it wants to split its stock? The officers of the company know that with the split in the stock and with increased dividends, the price of the stock is going to go up. Therefore it is to the advantage of those who now hold stock in the company to push for this split in the stock, because they tend to gain a great deal in the form of capital gains. I think it is pure, simple economics and you have to consider the situation from that standpoint.


Frank A. Enfield: You have not considered anything.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The hon. member for York-Scarborough has made a timely interjection. He is entitled to his opinion but I would

hope-in fact, I invite him to do so-that he would join the debate-


Frank A. Enfield: Join the filibuster.


Alfred Claude Ellis: -and express his opinions on this matter because I think it is a very serious one. I feel sorry for the sponsor of the bill, because he has been left high and dry. He has been deserted by his colleagues. He is so far out on a limb that he cannot crawl back off. There is not one of his colleagues who has the decency to get up and go to bat for him.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Give us a chance and we will get up and vote.


Alfred Claude Ellis: We have had some interjections, Mr. Chairman, but we have not had one member on the other side of the house who will dare to get up and defend this company. There is not one member on the opposite side of the house who will get up and tell us the real reason this company wants this stock split. Surely they do not expect that we are going to believe the type of fatuous nonsense expressed by the sponsor of the bill in the other place, and which was perhaps paraphrased a little better by the sponsor of the bill in the House of Commons. I think the members on the other side of the house have a duty to their colleague, who is shouldering the burden of trying to put this distasteful bill through the house, to inform members of the house as to why they are supporting the legislation. They did not want us to read the evidence of the committee. They wanted us to vote on this important matter without ever having had the opportunity of investigating and studying the questions asked and the replies given by the officers of this particular company.
It is an old story as far as the pipe-line companies are concerned. The people on the lower mainland of British Columbia had visions of lower costs for gasoline and fuel oil. My colleague the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and a number of others in this group have put information on the record with regard to the great disappointment of business people on the lower mainland because the cost of fuel oil and the cost of gasoline did not go down as a result of the building of that pipe line.
So while the pipe-line company has been increasing its profits, what do we find? As I say, the profits earned by that company have increased to an alarming degree, actually the profit of $2,045,924 for the year 1954-55, as I suggested earlier, according to the evidence given to the committee has now risen to just under $7 million, with a strong likelihood of that profit going up to perhaps $10 million or $11 million next year. So at a time when this
Private Bill
pipe-line company are increasing their profits, at a time when they are trying to get parliament to permit them to split this stock, at the same time the consumers of fuel oil and the consumers of gasoline in the province of British Columbia are paying higher and higher rates for those commodities.
That is the situation as I see it, Mr. Chairman. I did not participate in this debate on second reading. I felt that after having had an opportunity of looking at this legislation in the light of the evidence presented before the committee, perhaps the sponsor of this bill would have given the matter sober second consideration and might see fit to ask that the bill be withdrawn. Certainly there can be no valid logical case presented at this time as to why this house should support the legislation in its present form.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to all the debate on this bill, because it has to do with a company that is connected with the oil business and because the exact effect of the bill now before us is to ask the authority of parliament to split shares. That most certainly takes my memory back to October 21, 1936, Mr. Chairman; because at that time not only the people but the government of British Columbia were greatly concerned about the petroleum industry, as to the cost of gasoline and all petroleum products. They were concerned not only about the price to the consumers but about the profits of the suppliers. Therefore the Liberal government of that day in British Columbia appointed a royal commission, a single commissioner. That commissioner at one time was a Liberal cabinet minister in British Columbia and a Liberal member for a longer period. He was a learned counsel of our province on the Pacific coast, and for many years was an esteemed member of the judiciary.
I am not quite certain, but I think it was for about three years that Mr. Justice M. A. Macdonald investigated the petroleum industry in British Columbia in all its ramifications. On October 31, 1936, he filed his report. I have it here. I was a member of the British Columbia house at that time and, if my memory serves me correctly, I spoke for several hours on that report.


An hon. Member:: Without saying anything.


Harold Edward Winch: Before you nincompoops start interjecting, may I say that the government introduced a bill because of my speech. It is now my hope that you will take one out because of this speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How many hours this time?

Private Bill


Harold Edward Winch: I want to say most sincerely that, because this bill deals with a facet of the petroleum industry and since the actual purport of the bill is stock-splitting, I believe it is only reasonable and logical to ask hon. members to go back and read the report of the royal commission on the petroleum industry in British Columbia, made by a Liberal and dealing in particular with the splitting of shares; to read what he had to say about that matter and what it meant to the consumer in prices and to the oil companies in profits. This is a very interesting report. I am not going to read all of it.


Mr. Caslleden:: You will not have time.


Harold Edward Winch: However, I am going to quote a little bit of it; not that there was any Trans Mountain company in those days but because it deals with how oil companies made their money and how the consumers had to pay for it. Commissioner M. A. Macdonald made it very clear, after his exhaustive studies, that although it appeared on the surface that there were different companies, actually the control existed in the hands of one. In particular he had this to say;
The capital structures of the oil companies give an indication of profits in many forms and reserves accumulated throughout the years. Comparing subscribed capital with their present investments, the oil companies have made huge profits in the past 20 years. The dividend ratio over a period of years is not an indication of the profits actually made.
In order to make it clear as to what he meant, he analysed the capital structure of the oil companies in British Columbia and in Canada; but although he analysed them all, he made special reference to one because of share-splitting.
I feel therefore, Mr. Chairman, that I am completely in order. Just as an illustration of this vicious practice in so far as the consumer is concerned, and of the wonderful thing it is to the profit-taker, I want to read that section of the report dealing with sharesplitting. The commissioner stated:
It Is profitable to inquire what amount of the present capital assets have sprung out of subscribed capital as distinct from accumulated or paid out profits.
Now, just think that over when you are considering this bill. I am going to repeat that sentence.
It is profitable to inquire what amount of the present capital assets have sprung out of subscribed capital as distinct from accumulated or paid out profits.
. . . The Imperial Oil presents the best study available of what has been accomplished over a period of years.
The following analysis of the capital structure of Imperial Oil Limited, is given to show the tremendous profits that have been made in the oil industry in Canada.

Now I want to show you, on a share-splitting basis, what happened to an oil company, just one. If my hon. friend wants more analyses I have them all here. The company was incorporated in the year 1880 with a capital of $500,000, 5,000 shares at $100 each. In 1898 the capital was increased to $1 million, 10,000 shares of $100 each. In 1907 the capital was increased to $6 million, 60,000 shares at $100 each. In 1913 the capital was increased to $15 million, 150,000 shares at $100 each. In 1919 the same capital was changed into 2 million shares at $25 each. Does that remind you of something? It reminds me of the bill before us, right down to the figures. Read history.
In 1925 the same capital was changed to 8 million shares of no par value. Now, remember this. In 1919 there were 2 million shares at $25 each; in 1925, 8 million shares of no par value; and in 1929, with the same capital, 32 million shares of no par value had a stock market valuation then of $139,119,200. What did this Liberal royal commissioner, this esteemed cabinet minister in British Columbia and one-time member of the bench say about the splitting of shares? Listen to it:
The capital was increased in 16 years from $6 million to the equivalent of $139,119,200.
A $100 share in 1919 developed into 64 shares of no par value in 1929. (The said $100 share represented a market value accordingly of $1,216 in July, 1935).


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with
that?


Harold Edward Winch: My friend says there is nothing wrong with that, Mr. Chairman. There was an oil company in which a share had a par value of $100 when it started, and by 1929 this share became 64 shares of no par value with a market value of $1,216. No extra money was put into the company, but a lot was taken out of the economy of Canada and a lot was taken out in exorbitant profits by the company. It was done by the subterfuge of splitting shares. You say this split is only five for one. In 1919 when the Imperial Oil Company split shares it was on the basis of four for one, but 10 years later it was 64 to one. This may be good morality and good business under free enterprise, but it is not decency to the public and it is not fairness to the consumer.
Every member of this house from British Columbia can tell you that prior to the pipe-line construction the people of British Columbia were given to understand that the construction of the pipe line would mean a reduction in consumer costs at the coast, the establishment of new refineries and the opening up of new jobs. Today, when we are being asked to put our blessing

on the splitting of this stock, prices are higher to the consumer and a great deal of the oil, instead of being processed in British Columbia, is being shipped across the line to the United States. It is not only being shipped to the United States for new industries and to give employment there, but the people of British Columbia are subsidizing it by the increased cost of our petroleum products in British Columbia. The company, not satisfied with its present return and recognizing that	it might	make still
more but having a little bit of shame somewhere, wants the profits divided among four shares instead of one so it will not look so bad.
I do not know whom the company thinks it is kidding or whom those who support this bill think they are kidding, but I think, basically and honestly, you all know that this is not going to mean a straight split of five for one in the value of the shares. The same thing is going to happen as Commissioner M. A. Macdonald proved happened with the oil companies in British Columbia. There will be an increased cost to the consumer and an increased profit to the producer, hidden by a splitting of the shares, at the present time on the basis of five for one.
We could go on for a long time, but what is the use? There is the record of the royal commission as to the fundamental principle and purpose of the splitting of shares. At this period when we hear so much talk about the tight money market, when we recognize the need for a dollar to have the value of a dollar, I say this is not the time to make the situation in this country worse by parliament putting its stamp of approval on those who made millions now having the right to make more millions in the future, not only on a profit basis but also on the stock market basis by being able to sell four shares instead of one.
We just ask, Mr. Chairman, that the members look at this thing realistically, and not from the point of view that the more profit you can make the more successful you are. Look at it from the point of view of what is in the best interests of the economy of Canada, what is in the best interests of all the people of Canada, and give the stamp of endorsation if you must-and I will agree to it-to a fair profit. Stop this racketeering and buccaneering, because that will have to be done eventually. Let them do it on their own, but do not give it the approval of the House of Commons.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, this bill,
as has been pointed out, is placed before the house by a private member and asks for the splitting of the shares of Trans
Private Bill
Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company on the basis of five for one. Reading the explanatory notes appended to this bill we find the following:
Section 3 of chapter 93 of the statutes of 1951 provides as follows:
The capital stock of the company shall consist of five million shares without nominal or par value.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You have to find something newer than that.


George Hugh Castleden: That is right. I continue:
The purpose of this bill is to subdivide each of the shares without nominal or par value into five shares without nominal or par value.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: We all have a copy of the bill.


George Hugh Castleden: Yes, but we do not have a copy of the minutes. I should like to read from the minutes. I proceed:
The reason for the proposed subdivision is that the company wishes to achieve a wide distribution of its stock among investors in Canada.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That means the poor people and not the C.C.F.


George Hugh Castleden: Yes, that is right. I continue:
At January 8, 1957, the shares of the company had a market value of approximately $115 each.
Did you have any of those?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: No, sir, sorry. I wish I had.


George Hugh Castleden: What did you buy those at? I continue:
This relatively high market price discourages investment by small investors.
As nearly as I have been able to learn from the evidence given before the committee, the company has not sold all the shares it has. It still holds about 3J million which it has not disposed of even yet. They went on the market at a rather low price, and as it is pointed out in the explanatory note they were worth $115 on January 8.
One of my reasons for speaking tonight in objection to this bill is that it is not often hon. members of this house are asked to debate and vote on a bill the subject matter of which has been sent to a committee of this house and although witnesses appeared before the committee and gave evidence and outlined the history of the company and answered or failed to answer a great many questions, hon. members of this house have had no opportunity to read the evidence. Then this afternoon when we asked-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Order.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I think the hon. member can make his point without reflecting on a decision already taken by the house. There are a great many authorities

Private Bill
on the subject. I shall read the shortest one, citation 244 of Beauchesne's third edition, which reads as follows:
A member may not speak against or reflect upon any determination ot the house, unless he intends to conclude with a motion for rescinding it.
In committee we could not rescind a determination of the house, so perhaps the hon. member could make his point without that reference.


George Hugh Castleden: I assume I am out of order in this regard, because I have no intention of making a motion to rescind; but before I am through I will probably make clear what I am objecting to without speaking further concerning the decision made this afternoon.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Order.


George Hugh Castleden: Perhaps I could make my point clearer if I were to read from the evidence of the committee that dealt with the bill.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The evidence is before you on your desk.


George Hugh Castleden: Part of the evidence that was given before the committee was to the effect, that in 1951, when the charter was granted to this company by parliament, the impression of the House of Commons at the time the bill was passed was that this was to be an all-Canadian pipe line. A 24-inch oil pipe line was to be constructed from Edmonton, Alberta down the Thompson river through to the coast and into Vancouver. All the gasoline that was not used in the province of British Columbia was supposed to be exported by tanker. However, a few years after the start of this company we find that it has a spur line running from Sumas, British Columbia down into the northwestern part of the United States.
I would like the sponsor of the bill to inform the house how the company received permission to build this spur line into the United States. The company certainly nqyer came back to parliament to obtain permission, and it was this house which granted permission to the company to build the line in the first place.
The history of this bill is parallel to a bill brought in in 1951, when this house granted permission for the building of a trans-Canada pipe line on the condition that it would be an all-Canadian pipe line. You will probably remember that during the debate we had last year in this house we discovered the intention of the company was to build a pipe line from Winnipeg south through Emerson. It was debated in this house with some heat, and all hon. members remember that debate quite well.
fThe Deputy Chairman.!
Mr. Chairman, recent events in Canada have shown what can happen in the way of increased stock values and capital gains. One of the things which make this party very strong in its objection to these bills is the fact that these unearned capital gains are not taxable for income tax purposes.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Order.


George Hugh Castleden: For that reason we oppose bills of this nature which make it possible for private concerns to accumulate vast amounts of money which are not taxable. Here we have a company with enormous unearned capital gain. The stock was bought at a very low price. The explanatory note to the bill reveals that in January the shares were worth $115 each. The profits made on that increased price are not taxable. This appears most unfair, and it is certainly the worst kind of discrimination when the Canadian people as a whole who work hard to earn a few dollars to maintain their homes and families-and it is extremely difficult with inflation and the increasing cost of living-are required to pay income tax when they make a dollar or two over the maximum set by this government.
The Canadian people pay income tax on the money which they work hard to earn, but in this case persons are allowed to make millions of dollars which they have done absolutely nothing to earn except invest some of their capital. The rewards to capital can be doubled and trebled and multiplied 20 times, as in this case, but these capital gains are not taxable under the present taxation policy of the government. That is discrimination, and that is one reason we object to this type of transaction.
It is for this reason we object to profits being extracted from the Canadian people. Monopolies take over some kind of industry wherein they can charge whatever they like, and the public pay through higher prices while these big fellows clean up their millions of dollars of unearned money and are allowed to go tax free. We object to this because the little fellow feels it financially, and I hope by the time the election rolls around all the little fellows in Canada will let their answer be known to the government which treats the people this way and grants special privileges to those in high places and those with large amounts of capital. The reward to capital comes first and the reward to labour can take its place. It is this kind of thing which is happening in high places that we object to.
I should like to have from the sponsor of this bill an explanation concerning how this company came to build a spur line from the

main pipe line running down into the northwestern United States, and how they came to reap such great profits. We have here a valuable Canadian commodity, a service that transports oil to the market. Here is an opportunity for private enterprise-or, if you like, monopoly enterprise-to get hold of this commodity and service and extract millions of dollars on overcapitalized stock, and the little fellow has to pay for it. Who reaps the profit? We find that most of it goes to people who are high up in the big monopolies, and this company is no exception.
The evidence given before the committee on this bill revealed the fact that the directors of this company were tied up with Imperial Oil of America, Shell Oil of Canada and another company in California the name of which eludes me now.
These people have a world-wide monopoly; they control oil in large quantities throughout the world, and that is one reason a company like this should be a crown corporation. It should be owned and controlled by the Canadian people, so that any profits accruing would not go into the pockets of these people but would accrue to the benefit of the consumer and the government of this country, and come back to the people in the form of reduced taxes.
For this reason we object in principle to the kind of thing being asked for by this bill. The company appeared before the committee but could not give a satisfactory explanation for this split in their shares. It was said to be in the public interest, but it was not in the public interest because the public interest was never considered. There was only one interest considered, the interest of the company, the profits they could make and the profits that would be made by those who had got in on the ground floor and would thus clean up a little bit more.
I wish there were more people who could read the evidence given before this committee and thus know exactly what was going on. They should be able to understand thoroughly what went on in the case of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and what is still going on as that company builds its line to eastern Canada during this summer and next. They should realize the kind of thing that is going on in this house. An opportunity should be given to hon. members to read this evidence.
There is one bit in here which I think is worthy of attention and which should be placed on the record. The hon. member for Bow River was asking the company why they wanted to split their shares and was suggesting a reason for their doing so. He is a free enterpriser who believes in this kind of thing, who thinks a profit is all right, but he 82715-133
Private Bill
was objecting to the way this was being done. I should like to quote from page CC-8 of the transcript of evidence given before the committee, as follows:
Q. I have a question I would like to ask. When it comes to a consideration of public relations, somebody this morning mentioned the fact that the shares of the stock of the chartered banks had been watered on occasions. If I remember rightly, and I am only speaking from memory of the Royal Bank report, if they had issued their profits on the original capital basis, it would have been somewhere around about 23 per cent but, because they split the shares, they were able to issue them at about 33 or 3J. Now, I suggest in that case, that the public relations, which existed, were much better, when there was a 31 or 33 per cent than they were when it was showing 23 per cent.
I am going to make this suggestion: When we split these shares, say five to one, and the condition would be exaggerated to the same extent if we issued them at ten to one, then the position would be this:	When you declared your last
dividend, you declared it on a dollar per share basis, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. That was based on $1 a share, which was given to every shareholder who had shares in the company. Your company is now doing very well, and I congratulate you on that, because I am a free enterpriser, and I want to see the thing go, particularly since I am interested in Alberta, and want to see the development of the oil resources carried out. But, if the company goes ahead and prospers at the same rate as it has, so that your profit per share comes back up to around $1.50, and I do not think I am exaggerating too much when I say that. Then, it is beginning to climb up pretty fast. But, if you split those shares on a five to one basis, then your profit per year would only show about 20 cents. That would be fairly good public relations. Now, I come to this:	If
you show an increased profit per share, on your present basis-and you showed $1 last year for every share that was held-if this coming year you have to show a $1.50, and the next year you have to show probably $2, or $2.50, there is going to be the question arise in the public's mind that, if an oil company can transport gas and oil, and show a continuous rise in profit, probably the thing that is wrong is, there is too much of a charge for the transporting of oil, and there should be a lowering in the price. That would definitely have an effect on public relations. The real reason, that you want to split these shares now, is so-you will correct me if I am wrong but, the real reason is, that you do not want to show such a large profit on each share, because it will get to the point where the public will be saying that there is just too much money made in the transporting of oil, and that you should be transporting this oil at a lower cost. There will be a continuous cry for the lowering in prices of gasoline. I run a car, and I would like to see the price of gasoline go down a little bit, especially in Ontario. The price here is nearly 50 cents per gallon, and after I have filled my tank once and used it, then I walk for the rest of the week. I am suggesting that that is the reason behind this. If you mean public relations being a condition such as I have described to you, I think there should be some further argument in that respect. But, I just cannot see, at the moment, why we should split the shares five to one, let alone ten to one. I think that is going to aggravate the condition, in order to cover up, and I am going to use this word advisedly, an excess profit. Now, maybe I am wrong in this and maybe that is not what you have in mind when you speak of good public relations.

Private Bill
and when you speak of dividing these shares. But, in my view, it seems to me that that must be your considered opinion, because I cannot see any other way by which you would acquire greater public relations. Maybe the president can comment on that.
A. No, I am afraid I cannot help you.
Q. Is that not the effect of it?
A. That is just your opinion.
Q. You do not think that would result after the splitting of these shares?
A. I have no comment whatsoever. You have been telling us what you think has happened.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, do you not think it is time the hon. member made his own speech instead of reading the speech of another hon. member?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member is perfectly in order in quoting from the minutes of the committee.


George Hugh Castleden: My hon. friend would not have a copy of this because I have the only copy available. Then the hon. member for Nanaimo started inquiring about profits, and I quote:
Q. Can we ask it in the form of a question? Do you consider that the public relations of your company would be improved if, in your next balance sheet, you were able to show that instead of earning, as you did this last year, $4.75 per share, you earned about 95 cents per share?
A. I do not know.


Mr. Taylor:: 
William Horace Taylor: Answering your question, I may say that our overhead will go up quite a bit when we have more equipment, more pipe, more people, and more borrowed money; so you can expect that our overhead will not remain constant. I think if we could say 200,000 barrels a day in 1957 day in and day out on the average throughout the year, it would be fine. We would have a profit after taxes of a little over $10 million. That, of course, is just an estimate because there are all sorts of things that happen to estimates.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes. As I said, I did a little
calculating and I found that it would probably be around $11 million on the basis of net profit of $7 million, or somewhere between $10 million and $11 million.


William Horace Taylor: Yes.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It would appear to me that you might, in the foreseeable future, be able to pay a profit of probably $10 per share if you continued to improve your position in the next few years as much as you have done in the past few years. But even on the basis of the figures you have given, a net profit of $10 million on $1,500,000 would appear to be an embarrassing dividend to be reporting to the public. I think this matter of public relations will be involved in the fact that for every $10 share which the shareholder takes in 1959 there is to be a dividend of $10 per year, so it would appear to me.
And so the evidence comes out, Mr. Chairman, that the company itself cannot refute the argument that the possibility of their making tremendous profits is a real one. The purpose of this bill is to hand over to the company an opportunity to amass capital gains, the ultimate end of which will be that people are going to get something for nothing; and since this is of course impossible the public will have to pay. As long as capitalism is allowed to go on with this kind of thing the public is going to pay through the nose until some day the situation, with all its inflation, will bring its reward to the Canadian people. If this continues, then ultimately it will break. What we have been saying here today will come true, and the wrongs that have been perpetrated in this house will reap their reward.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, since I began following this discussion this afternoon, a very interesting document has come into my hands, as I believe it has come into the hands of other hon. members of the house. I refer to the annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada to the Minister of Finance for the year 1956. Some of the statements in this report seem to me quite relevant to the situation we now have under discussion.

As hon. members will recall, this afternoon I had some remarks to make on what relation this proposal before us has to the present inflationary pressures within our economy, and as hon. members who have looked at this report at all will realize, considerable reference is made to that subject by the governor of the Bank of Canada. I think this report is of some interest because, among other things, it sets forth on one of its pages the preamble to the Bank of Canada Act, and if we were to judge the views that are held by hon. members opposite, in spite of their silence as far as formal speeches are concerned, by a number of the interjections which have been made, one could conceive that this bill had as its purpose something that I will attempt to set forth by a rather free quotation from this preamble to the Bank of Canada Act.
I think if we were to take the bill we have before us and relate it to that preamble it might go something like this, according to views of Liberal members opposite who seem prepared to support the bill:
Whereas it is desirable ... to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the national monetary unit, and to mitigate by its influence fluctuations in the general level of production, trade, prices and employment . . . and generally promote the economic and financial welfare of the dominion: Therefore-
And I move to the bill:
Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada enacts as follows:
Each of the five million shares without nominal or par value constituting the capital stock of Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company, whether such share is issued or unissued, is hereby subdivided into five shares . . .
And so on. As far as I have been able to deduce the attitude of hon. members who are prepared to support this bill, that appears to be the appreciation they have of the purposes of the sort of proposal we have before us. If any of those hon. members feel that this is not a fair summary of their views on the value of this sort of bill, I hope they will get up and correct me; because the question of whether or not this bill is in the general interests of the people of Canada is, as some of my colleagues have suggested, the question that should be paramount in our minds when we come to consider approving or disapproving it.
As far as I am concerned I think one or two of the statements in the report by the governor of the Bank of Canada have a direct bearing on the situation as I understand it and as I attempted to outline it earlier this afternoon. On page 22 of the report, for example, I find this:
82715-133J
Private Bill
Money and credit not based on real savings have no real value for the community as a whole, and since one unit of money in one man's hands or bank account is indistinguishable from another unit of money in another man's hands or bank account, the worthless element in an excessive supply of money or credit dilutes the real value of money in everyone's hands and bank accounts, and of all money payments to be received in the future.
I submit Mr. Chairman, that the opinion expressed by the governor of the Bank of Canada certainly bears out the argument I was attempting to advance this afternoon, when I was pointing out that the tremendously inflated value of the stock of this company over its real value has created what to my mind is worthless purchasing power. In other words it does not represent any real increase in the wealth of this country; and for that reason, as is suggested in this report, it does dilute the money of all the rest of us, and it puts those of us who have to depend on money we earn to buy the things we need in the position of competing with those who have these worthless dollars; worthless, at least, in the real sense of the word but which have, as the governor points out, just as much purchasing power as the dollars a man gets in his pay cheque at the end of the week after working in a mine in the constituency of the hon. member for Kootenay East.


Mr, Byrne:: I did not follow that. I am
sorry.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Perhaps the hon. member will take the trouble to read my speech at his leisure later.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If it is not any clearer than what you are saying it will not be worth while.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: It is just for intelligent people. You could not follow it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If these excess dollars have been created by the inflationary process and the rise in the price of this stock, and we are then asked to accede to a further step which will increase that inflationary process, we will be aiding and abetting the very problem that is outlined by the governor of the Bank of Canada in his annual report this year. He says, as found at page 13 of the report:
During 1956 the Canadian economy was subject to serious inflationary pressures. While physical output expanded by the unusually large increment of 7 per cent over 1955, the money value of expenditures on goods and services grew even more rapidly.
I submit that one of the reasons the money value of goods and services grew more rapidly than the physical output is that the people who own these pipe-line companies, among a great many others, are allowed to go on with this process of filching unearned dollars from

Private Bill
the Canadian economy. I submit that when the governor of the Bank of Canada draws to our attention, as he does in this report, the problem which has been created by the rapid expansion in consumer credit through the finance companies he is confirming what I attempted to suggest briefly this afternoon. He is confirming that because the working people generally in this country are not receiving in real value a return for their work, and are forced to go in increasing measure to the finance companies to purchase the goods they consider they need, we are now faced with the problem outlined by the governor of the Bank of Canada, and everything I attempted to argue earlier to the effect that the kind of action contemplated by this company is adding to this problem is borne out in the report which we received this afternoon.
As I said earlier, there is no guarantee that after this stock split is approved, if the house persists in approving it, the split shares will continue to rise in the stock market. However, in view of the evidence presented to us earlier by the hon. member for Vancouver East as to what happened in the past and what had been discovered on the basis of a very serious and detailed investigation of the situation, in my opinion those of us who suggest that the past history of oil companies will likely be repeated in the case of this oil company are not very far from the mark.
Granted that the present physical expansion of industrial capacity continues at the rate suggested by the governor of the Bank of Canada, we can reasonably expect that the predictions made in the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines by the officers of the company as to the anticipated output of the pipe line, or perhaps I should say throughput, will come true and that the growing profit position which they suggested they expect will in fact come about. That being the case, the trading that will go on after these shares are split will result in a continued rise in their value on the stock market.
I am not sure that the figures with respect to the increase in the number of barrels of oil carried by the line have been set forth yet, and I think they might be of interest to members of the house generally who were not on the committee in order that they may have some idea of just what is happening. We had outlined to us the number of barrels put through the line destined for Canadian refineries on the coast of British Columbia, the number of barrels going to United States refineries through the so-called spur line, and some figures as to the oil loaded on tankers for shipment overseas or down the California coast.

In 1953 the company put through the line 16,739 barrels per day, all to Canadian refineries. That was for only part of the year. In 1954 the figure rose to 37,296 barrels per day, all to British Columbia refineries. In 1955 they put through 52,902 barrels per day to Canadian refineries and 31,080 barrels per day to the United States. In 1956 they put through 59,590 barrels per day to Canadian refineries, 52,490 barrels per day to the United States and 17,023 barrels were loaded on tankers for shipment offshore. We were informed that most of the last amount went to California.
In the year 1956 we find that 46.1 per cent of the oil going through the line went to refineries in British Columbia, 40.7 per cent to refineries in the United States just over the Canadian border, and 13.2 per cent of the oil was shipped by tanker, most of it to California.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: So we made most of our money from the Americans.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Some tankers went to Japan and one to France, I believe. Then we come to the oil movement during 1957. In January of this year the figure was 71,150 barrels per day to Canadian refineries, 84,859 barrels per day to United States refineries, and 33,368 barrels loaded in tankers. So we can see that the plan they have, on the basis of orders for the transportation of oil from the oil companies, indicates that the capacity is growing and also that the percentage of oil that is being shipped across the line to the United States in raw form is also increasing so that it becomes well over 50 per cent of the total in the current year.
One reason I have set forth these figures, Mr. Chairman, is that they bear out what some of us, before we went into the committee, had heard was likely to take place, namely that some expansion and doubling of the capacity of this line was contemplated by the company. That fact was borne out in the evidence given to us in the committee by the officers of the company. They pointed out that their plans called for a process of what they call looping-I believe that is the term- so that for certain sections between certain pumping stations they will have actually two lines, and with increased pumping capacity in the pumping stations they will be able to increase the amount of oil flowing through the line.
That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I must say that when we got into the standing committee on this bill and had an opportunity of discussing this question in detail with the officers of the company, I fully and honestly expected they would tell the committee that the real reason behind their request for this

splitting of shares and their claim that they wanted to distribute the stock more widely was that they expected to have large capital expenditures in the expansion of the line, and that therefore they wanted to be in a position to put more of their stock from the treasury of the company before the public.
If that had been the case, then I would say the argument that the present market price of the shares of $117 is a little high for them to be easily traded on the market might have had some real validity. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I was really shocked when we got into the committee to discover that the officers of the company categorically denied that they had any intention, as far as they knew at the present time or as far as any plans they had at the present time were concerned, of putting any of the shares from the treasury on the market. They informed us that all their current financing program for capital expansion had been raised very nicely, thank you, through the sale of fixed-interest securities; that they had no desire to offer or any intention of offering any shares from the treasury to the public; that as far as they could see they were not going to need to offer the shares to the public; and that as long as their present successful operation continued they expected to be able to do any financing they might require by the sale of debenture securities.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that if before we got into the committee I had-as I did have-grave doubts about the wisdom of this measure being brought before parliament, those doubts were certainly multiplied a hundredfold when we were confronted with that bald admission from the officers of the company that as far as the company itself was concerned they had no requirement whatever for this stock-splitting move. As was suggested in some of the evidence that was placed in detail before the committee by the hon. member for Yorkton, it reached the point where the officers of the company in effect were telling the committee that they "didn't know nuttin' from nuttin' ". They refused categorically to agree that any of the possible explanations that members of the committee offered for their actions were correct; but on the other hand they were extremely careful not to deny that some of our deductions were correct.
In the end we were left with the rather surprising announcement that was made to us early in the proceedings, namely that the real purpose of this was simply a matter of their public relations. Yet they would not even admit for whom those public relations were designed. I think any member who, when he has the opportunity, will carefully read through the minutes of proceedings and
Private Bill
evidence of those two sittings of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-


Frank A. Enfield: Ten minutes to go.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -if he will approach the matter with an open mind, as I am sure the hon. member for York-Scarborough will, will be driven to the conclusion that what companies like the Trans Mountain Oil PipeLine Company call public relations is simply a successful camouflaging from the general public of the profits they are making, and a successful attempt to create in the minds-of the public of Canada the idea that somehow or other they are shareholders and participators in what they call this great free enterprise system.
This company has also followed a dodge that a number of corporations follow today, namely making it possible for a few of their employees to have a certain nominal interest in the shares of the company. This is a part of public relations. As a matter of fact, if the hon. member for York-Scarborough would really like to learn something about public relations, particularly in the political field, in view of what may take place before too long, I would suggest that he read a book called "The Golden Kazoo" which gives quite a little sermon on the matter of public relations, particularly in the political field in which, of course, he has some small interest.


Frank A. Enfield: Why not quote "Salvation Island"?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It sets forth rather neatly the modem technique of so-called public relations which has been employed with some considerable degree of success by companies like Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company and which apparently is going to be developed and expanded for the benefit of some of the entrenched political pipe-line companies that we have in the country.
So, as I say, I hope hon. members will read the minutes of the committee. Some of us have attempted, as far as we have been able to do so, to bring to light what took place there; to bring to light the fact that the proceedings of that committee verified and jusified the opposition that we in this group had to this bill at second reading; justified our suggestion that the subject matter of this bill should have been referred to the committee for study before it was approved in principle; and justified our suggestion now that this bill should never get beyond this committee of the whole to the house with the Speaker in the chair.
I hope something may come out of this debate, even though it may appear to have

Private Bill
been a little one-sided. It is rather difficult, you know, to get into full swing of debate when the only * thing one has to debate is the odd interjection by a member like the hon. member for Kootenay East, who simply says he cannot follow one's argument but makes no attempt to get up and put forward an argument of his own.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I would not join the filibuster.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Perhaps we can assume this silence means that we are making some impression upon some minds.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: None whatever.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Wholly soporific.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It is just old socialism.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am not going to suggest it would be within my powers to make an impression on what the hon. member for Kootenay East calls his mind, but I would suggest to him that there are some of his colleagues who may perhaps be better able to follow some of the arguments, feeble though they are, than he is able to do.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It is as clear as mud.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I can see by the expression on the face of the hon. member for York-Scarborough that at least some of my arguments have penetrated his understanding a little. I am sure he at least, when the time comes to make a decision upon this matter, will let his better judgment prevail.


Colin Cameron: As my colleague the hon. member for Comox-Alberni pointed out just now, since this debate started this afternoon every member of the house has received a very important document. I am not very optimistic that this document or the message it brings to Canadian parliamentarians will have any great effect on the government benches. I may say I am completely without any optimism that it will have any effect on those in this house who support the government.


An hon. Member:: To what one are you referring, "Salvation Island"?


Colin Cameron: No, I am not
referring to "Salvation Island", but perhaps that is the literary level of the hon. member for Kootenay East. I can quite understand that an erudite document prepared by an extremely able public servant would be beyond his powers of comprehension, but there are members in this house who, I think, could learn from this statement of Mr. J. E. Coyne which has been presented to us today. If they are not able to digest it in the form in which it has been presented to

parliament, perhaps they could take some advantage of a few items from the report that appeared in tonight's Ottawa Journal.
This brings before us, in connection with this bill, a condition that is possibly as grave as has been faced in the Canadian economy in the last 20 years. It is not for nothing that a public servant of Mr. Coyne's calibre suggests nothing less than reorganization of the character of Canada's banking system in order to cope with the still unsolved problem of growing inflation in this country. Mr. Coyne has considered it necessary to warn us that we have not yet coped with the dangerous inflationary situation which existed during 1956.
In that connection, sir, I consider that this bill should receive very serious and grave consideration by the members of this house, not the rather light-hearted and flippant attitude we have been observing the last few hours. There can be no doubt about it; if this company and similar companies in the country are permitted to carry out these stock market manoeuvres such as are envisaged in this bill, then they will contribute to the situation that is causing so much concern to Mr. Coyne and his economic experts. He mentions in this report on page 31 the very serious competition for money and resources that has been going on in Canada for the last two years. He says:
In any condition of an excess of physical demand over physical supply, some elements of demand must of necessity give way, lose out to others. Competition for money with higher interest rates produces fewer casualties and less social stress than unrestricted competition for goods with higher prices. Better a rise in the price of borrowed money (and so a stimulus to those who save) than a very great rise in the price of goods and housing, in the cost of schools and hospitals and public utilities, and in the cost of production of exporting and all other industries throughout the nation-
Now, if there is any measure that has come before us, Mr. Chairman, which is designed to raise the cost of goods, to raise the cost of production of all other industries, it is this measure that is before us today. We have heard from the officers of the company that the book value of the shares now outstanding is some $21 million; the present market value is in the neighbourhood of $175 million, rather in excess of $175 million. This inflation of values, sir, has been caused by the inordinate profit rate obtained by this company during the last two years and the expectation of still more inordinate profits in the future.
In order that these profits may escape unnoticed by the general public, and in particular by the growing number of Canadians

who depend on crude oil products for heating, cooking and other domestic activities, and the growing number of industries that are dependent upon oil products as a source of energy, the company is requesting this stock split. The whole effect of this bill will be to cause inflation of consumer costs and to contribute to the inflationary situation that now afflicts us.
I think we have to bear in mind that this is an inflated value, and it is caused entirely by the tremendous profit situation of this company and its expectation of even greater profits in the future. We must dismiss, Mr. Chairman, if we lay any claim whatever to intelligence, as sheer nonsense the proposals put forward by the officers of this company suggesting that they are concerned with public relations; that they are concerned to have a wide distribution of their stock. This is a piece of arrant nonsense which will not stand
Business of the House
investigation, because they give us no evidence whatever that the existing stock is going to go on the market.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take up the motion to set up the committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government; then the resolution regarding the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act; then the second reading of the Canada Shipping Act; then second reading of the Eastern Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation Act; then second reading of the Territorial Lands Act, and after that any other item on government orders.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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

Mr. Harkness: 1.	(a) How many persons, descendants of people of predominantly Indian blood, and certainly Indians under the treaty statement "those who follow the Indian way of life", have been removed from Indian reserves during the past twelve years? (b) How many of these cases were appealed to the district, or corresponding, court? (c) How many of these appeals were decided in favour of the expelled persons? (d) How many of these Indians were reinstated on the reserves? (e) Were reinstated Indians given full back pay (i.e. treaty money, Interest payments, etc.)? If these Indians were not given the full payments they would have received had they not been expelled from the reserve, why was this not done?
2.	What means has the Indian affairs registrar of determining whether or not illegitimate children of Indian women have non-Indian fathers?
3.	(a) Out of what votes have the costs of investigations carried on under section 9 of the Indian Act been paid? (b) What have these costs been, by years, since 1950, including the salaries of commissioners, stenographers, etc., and their travelling and other expenses?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minisier
of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	(a) Not including the members of the Samson band, the names of 45 persons have been removed from membership in Indian bands located in the province of Alberta during the past 12 years.
(b)	Not including the recent Samson case there were no appeals in Alberta.
(c)	, (d) and (e) Do not apply.
2.	Declaration of either mother or father or court order.
3.	(a) Appropriation-Indian affairs branch -reserves and trusts-operation and maintenance.
(b) Fiscal Year	Amount
1950- 51	 Nil
1951- 52	 Nil
1952- 53	 $ 1H.30
1953-	54	
14,985.461954-	55	
16,867.891955-	56	
17,023.701956-	57	
1,168.02
CIVIL servants' pensions

Question No. 40-Mr. Knowles:
1. How many retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets: (a) less than $20 per month; (b) $20 to $29.99 per month; (c) $30 to $39.99 per month; (d) $40 to $49.99 per month; (e) $50 to $59.99 per month; (f) $60 to $69.99 per month; (g) $70 to $79.99 per month; (h) $80 to $89.99 per month; (i) $90 to $99.99 per month; (j) $100 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired federal civil
servants and also the number of widows		of retired
federal civil servants presently residing		in each
province?		
Answer by: Hon. W.	E. Harris (Minister of	
Finance):		
1 and 2. Number oi	retired civil	servants
and widows receiving	superannuation allow-	
ances of amounts within each of the		following brackets:		
	Retired	
	civil	
	servants	Widows
(a) less than $20.00 per month 393		1,248
(b) $20.00 to $29.99 "	" 838	1,171(c) $30.00 to $39.99 "	" 926	1,068(d) $40.00 to $49.99 "	" 1,013	914(e) $50.00 to $59.99 "	" 923	744(f) $60.00 to $69.99 "	" 912	499(g) $70.00 to $79.99 "	" 949	376(h) $80.00 to $89.99 "	" 967	253(i) $90.00 to $99.99 "	" 894	174(j) $100 or over "	" 6,678	41714,493	6,8643. Number of retired civil servants and	widows residing in each province:	Retired	civil	servants	WidowsNewfoundland 	. 101	37Nova Scotia 	. 548	270Prince Edward Island	. 70	41New Brunswick 	. 365	214Quebec 	. 2,522	1,435Ontario 	. 6,482	3,159Manitoba 	. 677	305Saskatchewan	. 384	134Alberta 	. 693	288British Columbia	. 2,356	790Elsewhere 	. 295	19114,493	6,864PRODUCTION STATISTICS, KENT AND	ESSEXCOUNTIES, ONT.	
Question No. 104-Mr.	Brown (Essex West):	
What is the value in dollars of the production in		
(a) the county of Kent;	(b) the county	of Essex,
both in the province of	Ontario, in each of the	
years 1952 to 1956 inclusive, of (1) pharmaceuticals; (2) automobiles; (3) automobile parts; (4) tobacco; (5) salt; (6) canned vegetables or fruits; (7) bottled vegetables or vegetable products or fruits; (8) frozen vegetables or fruits; (9) dried vegetables or fruits; (10) alcoholic beverages; (11) playing cards; (12) manufactured goods other than automobiles?

Answer by: Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and
Commerce:
Under the terms of section 15 of the Statistics Act this information cannot be released.
The following table shows the latest available information on total selling value of factory shipments for the county of Kent and the county of Essex, province of Ontario:
Total selling value of factory shipments County 1952	1953	1954

Kent ...134,172,567	135,813,826	121,273,639Essex ..724,814,976	756,836,929	550,513,764


LOW RENTAL HOUSING UNITS, NOVA SCOTIA   FEDERAL CO-OPERATION
Mr. Balcom: 1.	Does the federal government co-operate with the city of Halifax or any other Nova Scotia municipality in slum clearance and in building units for cheap ($25 to $35) rental?
2.	If so, to what degree?
Answer by: Hon. Roberi H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):
The federal government in 1952 entered into an agreement with the province of Nova Scotia and the city of Halifax for the purpose of constructing 161 low rental housing units in Halifax under section 36 of the National Housing Act. Pursuant to this section the federal government assumed 75 per cent of the capital cost of the project and undertook to bear a like share of operating deficits. This project was completed and fully occupied by the end of 1953. The units are rented to
Questions
families having an annual income of not less than $1,500 and not more than $3,240. Rents are graded in accordance with the size and income of the tenant families and, on the average, families pay rents approximating 20 per cent of their income.
The federal government by agreement with the province of Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia housing commission has provided financial assistance under section 36 of the act to co-operative organizations throughout the province for the construction of 240 units of home-ownership housing in the municipalities of Amherst, Antigonish, Halifax, North Sydney, Sydney, Trenton, Wolfville and Yarmouth.
On June 7, 1956, an order in council was passed authorizing Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make a grant to the city of Halifax under section 33 of the National Housing Act, amounting to $12,000. This grant was intended to cover three-quarters of the cost of an urban renewal study to be carried out by the city.


SERVICE, FINANCING OR PROCESSING CHARGES ON CREDIT SALES
Mr. Fraser (Peterborough): 1.	Does the federal government impose any limit on the service charges, financing charges or processing charges on manufactured goods purchased on credit in Canada?
2.	If so, what is the limit allowed?
Answer by: Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.

Tuesday, March 12, 1957