1957-12-10

[Stage Direction]
queen's printer and controller of stationery OTTAWA, 1958
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 10, 1957


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) asked me what the general plans were with regard to the holiday adjournment. Naturally the desire of the government was to expedite to the limit the business of the house with a view to completion before Christmas, and that was made apparent on a number of occasions. I am not going to enter into the reasons why that now cannot reasonably be anticipated or expected.
Because of that fact, and in order to enable hon. members to make their arrangements accordingly, it is my intention to move that at the conclusion of the day on December 21, at six p.m., the house be adjourned and that it return on Friday, the 3rd day of January, at eleven a.m.
There may be some question raised as to the reason we should not have that entire week, but the position of affairs is such that it will be necessary to move for further interim supply at that time, and any further extension would place the financial situation in a position that is not to be desired. I thought the house should have the information respecting the intention of the government at the earliest possible date, so all members would be able to spend Christmas and New Year's at home.


Righi Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the Prime Minister is having the notice that appeared in Votes and Proceedings of last night corrected?


John George Diefenbaker: I should have explained that. It was originally intended to have the house recalled on January 2, but it was brought to my attention that many hon. members desire to have their New Year's day free for their celebrations. I am speaking of my hon. friends from the province of Quebec in particular, although the practice is carried into western Canada, who set New Year's day aside above many others, and for that reason the alteration is to be made.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I have the privilege of asking the Prime Minister a question arising out of his statement. What consideration has been given to members from British Columbia who, leaving on the day suggested for adjournment, can only get home by Christmas day? Could not the date be advanced in view of the position of those members? If not, will the government make provision that members who five so far away can fly home and have their expenses covered by a vote of the house?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I realized that argument would be advanced and should be met. Provision will be made in a vote to be placed before parliament to cover all proper transportation costs.



AGRICULTURE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to make an announcement in regard to the royal commission on price spreads. With leave of the house I will table the order in council after reading from the appropriate sections.
The chairman will be Dr. Andrew Stewart of Edmonton, president of the University of Alberta, formerly lecturer in agricultural economics at the University of Manitoba and dean of business affairs at the University of Alberta. The other members of the commission will be Mrs. W. R. Walton Jr., of Toronto, a member of the board of directors of the Canadian Association of Consumers since its inception in 1947; Dr. W. M. Drummond of Bristol, Quebec, and Guelph, Ontario, head of the department of agricultural economics of the Ontario Agricultural College; Mr. Howard MacKichan of Halifax, Mr. Romeo Martin of Montreal, Mr. Bernard Couvrette of Montreal and Mr. Cleve Kidd of Toronto.
The commission is appointed under part I of the Inquiries Act, their powers being to inquire into the extent and the causes of the spread between the prices received by producers of food products of agricultural and fisheries origin and the prices paid by consumers therefor; to determine whether or not such price spreads in general or in particular cases are fair and reasonable or are
2124	HOUSE OF
Royal Commission on Price Spreads excessive, in relation to the services rendered, to make such recommendations as they deem appropriate if any such price spreads are found to be excessive, and to examine the adequacy of price information currently available.
I think I should also refer to the other members of the commission whose names I have placed before the house and give something of their background and present occupations. Mr. Romeo Martin of Montreal is a graduate of the Oka Institute and is secretary general of the co-operative federation of Quebec; Mr. Howard MacKichan, general manager of the united maritimes fishermen's co-operative; Mr. Bernard Couvrette, of Montreal, who has his own wholesale grocery firm and is a past president of the Canadian Wholesale Grocers' Association; Mr. Cleve Kidd, Toronto, president of the Ontario federation of labour and formerly general economic adviser of the united steel workers.
I mention the personnel, sir, to indicate the high standard of those who have undertaken, at personal sacrifice, to discharge the important responsibilities which will fall on them.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I gather that the order in council to which the Prime Minister has referred is a short one. Would he give consideration to publishing it in Hansard?


John George Diefenbaker: If that is agreeable to the house, certainly. It is not a long order in council.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that permission be given for this order in council to be printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of order in council, see appendix, page 2171.]


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: According to the Prime Minister's statement this commission has been set up to inquire into the difference between the price levels paid to agricultural producers and those charged to consumers. Does the Prime Minister not believe it would have been more in keeping with this feature to have arranged for some representation for organized agriculture? My question is, is there a representative on this commission representing the main farm organizations of this country?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Drummond is the head of the department of agricultural economics. Another member of the commission is the secretary general of the co-operative federation of Quebec. I am sure my hon. friend will regard both these

men as properly representing agriculture on that commission. Certainly it is impossible to cover every facet.
I must say, in this regard, we have one representative of business, two professors connected with agricultural economics, two who have been concerned with agricultural cooperatives, one representative of labour and one of consumers' organizations. I think it is very comprehensive. I might add, though this is not applicable to the question asked by my hon. friend, there is also the general manager of the maritime fisheries co-operative, who is also a member of the fisheries council of Canada.
I feel sure that each one of these gentlemen will properly represent the views of all. Certainly consideration was given to covering every interest, but that is impossible. I am sure no one will say this commission is one that will not fairly deal with this serious problem.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the Prime Minister say whether or not the farmers' unions and wheat pools were asked to submit the name of a person who might be suitable as a member of this commission?


John George Diefenbaker: My information is that it was not.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Is the Mark Drouin to whom he entrusted the reading of his message at the convention of the young Conservatives in Quebec city on Saturday last, as reported in the press, the same person the Prime Minister recommended to His Excellency the Governor General to be Speaker of the other house? Does the Prime Minister think this action is tantamount to restoring parliament to its former greatness?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think parliament is being restored since the change of government. I see nothing in what my hon. friend has referred to that in any way detracts from the course that is leading to the achievement once more of parliamentary supremacy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a supplementary question addressed to the right hon. gentleman who, by virtue of his office, is the leader of parliament. Does he

think it is the proper thing for the Speaker of either house to take part in a political meeting?


John George Diefenbaker: All I can say to that is that I do not think it was a political meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



REFERENCE TO PUBLICATION &quot;CANADA AND THE UNITED NATIONS, 1956-1957&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister based on a printed note in the document "Canada and the United Nations, 1956-1957", copies of which have just recently been distributed. Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that in this special foreword which is over the signature "J. G. Diefenbaker" there appears this sentence, "I am anxious that this record should be available to Canadians because my government believes firmly-", and so on. Is "my government" the correct usage? Should it not be "the government" or "the government of Canada" or "Her Majesty's Government"?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I must say that I did not notice the exact wording, but my recollection is that it is proper in either alternative. As a matter of fact I might not personally choose one or the other, but I see nothing at all that is necessary to be referred to derogatorily or otherwise or to be answered apologetically in that connection.



REQUEST FOR CORRECTION IN &quot;VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: would request a correction relating to a debate that took place a week ago, at the time the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) moved that the house adjourn to consider a matter of vital importance. On that occasion he forgot to make the motion, as established by the debate reported on pages 1735 to 1737 inclusive of Hansard for December 2. The note in Votes and Proceedings covering that day, December 2, reads in part as follows:


Paul Joseph James Martin: -That the house do now adjourn.
I would request that this note either be deleted or possibly enlarged to indicate what actually happened, and to bring it into line with the Hansard report.
96698-135J
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member suggest what change he would ask the house to approve?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I would suggest that it either be deleted or revised to show what subsequently happened.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of what my hon. friend has pointed out, if a correction is going to be made it should be noted that as a result of the motion which he says was not technically put, the government, four days later, was forced to take some kind of action.


Mr. Speaker:: I consider that last statement to be highly improper, and by leave of the house I would ask that it be expunged from Hansard.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, it is arguable whether or not the observation was in order, but there certainly is no jurisdiction, within that authority exercised by Your Honour, to expunge a remark no matter how valid or invalid it may be. I suggest that Your Honour perhaps is correct in saying I should not have made that observation; but once having made it, it must stay as a matter of record.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree that there is no authority to expunge, except on an order of the house, but my point was that I considered the hon. member's remark quite out of place at that time, because we were discussing an amendment to Votes and Proceedings. He was making an argument or drawing a conclusion to the disadvantage of the government, as I understand it, and it seems to me that the rules of the house should permit a response to be made where something is improperly put on Hansard. Otherwise one side of the argument is presented and, if it is out of order, the other side has no opportunity of correcting the statement. That was the reason I made perhaps the rather hasty suggestion that it might be expunged. But I would ask the hon. member not to indulge in such remarks. Otherwise I shall be obliged to hear correcting remarks on a question of privilege or otherwise.


Mr. Fleming:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say at once that the remark was utterly untrue.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: We now have had two objectionable statements, and I am going to cancel them one against the other and ask hon. members not to pursue the matter further.

Inquiries of the Ministry


William Howell Arthur Thomas: That is my suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
the point of order that was raised by the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas)-


An hon. Member:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; the hon. member for Middlesex West asked that the official record of this house, namely Votes and Proceedings, be corrected. I submit that is asking Your Honour to change the records of the house which are published over your signature.
I would draw your attention to the fact that as reported at page 1726 of Hansard of December 2, 1957, Your Honour asked the house whether the hon. gentleman had leave to put the question and, more than 20 members having risen, Your Honour gave him leave to do so. I submit that this is in keeping with the practice of the house, and that that having been done it is taken as read that the hon. member, having been given leave, has moved the adjournment of the house. I submit that the record in Votes and Proceedings for that date as published over Your Honour's signature is correct.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: If I may, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard both the point of order and the comment on it. As hon. members will recall, the motion was not actually put formally and the debate continued to a point where objection was taken that it had not been put. I ruled that the house had proceeded as though it had been put. In order to keep the record clear there must be some note of what we were discussing; and in order to keep the Speaker honest, we must have a record of what took place indicating that we were discussing some question before the house.
If any hon. member wishes to have it expressed otherwise than as the Clerk has put it and as I have endorsed it, I shall be glad to consider an alternative expression. Otherwise I think we might consider the matter closed.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I would request that an alternative statement be used.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: This is the usual practice of the house. The hon. gentleman is a new member. I think since I have been here I have known of someone to rise and ask permission to move the adjournment of the house and have permission granted; and I do not remember, except on very few occasions, that the member when

he began his speech said, "I move the adjournment of the house". I think this is the usual practice. It may be a rather slipshod practice, but we indulge in it as we do in some other slipshod practices.



LEAD AND ZINC-U.S. TARIFF COMMISSION HEARINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or, in his absence, to the parliamentary assistant. Could the minister tell the house of any developments in the United States tariff commission hearings relative to proposed increases in the tariff on lead and zinc? What official of the department or member of the government, if any, is representing the government at this hearing?


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The United States tariff commission has recently completed its public hearings on lead and zinc. It is understood that when they have completed their studies they will make a report to the President of	the	United States.Representatives of the Canadian mining and smelting industries appeared before the United States tariff commission to present their case. The Canadian government did not take part in the proceedings of the United States tariff commission,	but	makes	its representationsdirectly to the United States government. I understand that	strong	representations	on
this subject were made to the United States government very soon after the present Canadian government assumed office and that the matter was later discussed during the visit of Canadian cabinet ministers to Washington in early October.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I have a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether these governmental negotiations are being carried on at the present	time? Are	they following	the
matter up to the very last in order that this drastic action may not be taken?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have given a considerable amount of detail as to what took place. If the hon. gentleman wishes to carry the matter down to the present moment I think I shall have to take his question as notice and give him further information later.



REPORTED PURCHASES BY ROUMANIAN AGRICULTURAL DELEGATON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of

Trade and Commerce, but in his absence possibly his parliamentary assistant could take it as notice. The question arises out of a news report in the Montreal Gazette of December 9. The article indicates that a Roumanian agricultural delegation held talks with federal authorities last week and announced plans to purchase $500,000 worth of Canadian goods; also that an invitation was extended to Canada to send an agricultural mission to eastern Europe next year.
What Canadian products were purchased, and has the invitation been accepted? If so, what will the mission attempt to buy or sell?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. gentleman repeat his question, please?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Perhaps I should send the
minister notice, Mr. Speaker.



REPORTED EXPANSION OF CANADIAN SALES BY ROLLS-ROYCE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce but in his absence probably I can direct it to my good friend the acting minister, who I am sure needs no notice. It is noted in the Globe and Mail of December 6 that the Rolls-Royce Motor Car Company plans to triple its sales target in Canada in the coming year. Is this a result of the Canadian trade mission to the United Kingdom, at a time when there is much unemployment in the automobile industry in Canada?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am flattered that the hon. member thinks I could answer that question now. I believe I must take it as notice.



MISSION TO UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport concerning the buying mission in Great Britain and the membership of Mr. E. A. Bromley, vice president of purchasing for Canadian National Railways. Can the minister advise the house if it is the intention of the Canadian National to buy rolling stock in Great Britain?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I have no knowledge of any such intention.


William James Henderson: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister have any knowledge as to what the vice president in
Inquiries of the Ministry charge of purchasing for the Canadian National might be buying for the Canadian National in Great Britain?


George Harris Hees: The answer is no.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. McGee (York-Scarborough):: I
should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. I have given the minister verbal notice of my intention to ask this question. Has the minister anything to announce concerning the matter of humane slaughter of animals in abattoirs?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: thank the hon. member for giving me notice. I should say that I also have notice of a somewhat similar question from the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Christian), and I thank that hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question.
As hon. members know, there has been a very considerable agitation in connection with the subject of humane slaughter, and a very understandable one. Shortly after we assumed office we understood that a committee was being formed at the request of the Ontario S.P.C.A. and the meat packers' council to see whether a workable scheme of humane slaughter in the packing houses could be devised. The government made available to that committee, on a continuing basis, the service of some of its experts in the field and, at the request and with the understanding of the committee, the government did not take any further action in this matter because we understood that the committee wished to be left free to pursue its inquiries.
Some three weeks or a month ago, as I recall it, the committee said that it felt its inquiries could not continue to serve any useful purpose and, in effect, referred the matter back to the government. About three weeks ago I met with representatives of that committee and with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), at which time the matter was fully discussed.
I mention that background, Mr. Speaker, because I think it should be clearly understood that any suggestion of delay or lack of action in this matter cannot in any sense be fairly laid at the door of this government. Since that meeting, and since it has become clear that the committee felt it had no final solution to offer, we have been working on

Inquiries of the Ministry "the matter consistently and vigorously, and I hope shortly to be able to recommend certain action to my colleagues.


Hon. James Sinclair (Coasl-Capilano):: I
would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice. Did the minister advise the British Columbia branch of the S.P.C.A. to write to their federal members rather than to their provincial members on the question of humane slaughter of livestock, on the grounds that only the federal government has jurisdiction in the matter?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as far as I
recall I have had no conversations on the subject with any member of the British Columbia S.P.C.A. I am speaking here from recollection, but I have had conversations with the president of the British Columbia humane slaughter society and it was, as I understood it, in that capacity that I was speaking to him.
As I said a moment ago, this question of humane slaughter has been a matter of concern for some time. I have not had a chance to check my personal files, but my recollection is that a year or so ago I was discussing the matter with the president of the British Columbia humane slaughter society. He came down here and discussed with me, as a private member, what steps might be taken to deal with the matter and my recollection is that he asked whether I felt it would be appropriate for him to write to members of parliament. At that time I told him I saw no reason whatsoever why letters, on a matter of this importance, should not be addressed to federal members, private members as well as members of the government.
That was, as I say, according to my recollection about a year ago, and I do not believe I had any further conversations with him until the end of last week, when he again came to Ottawa and visited me in my capacity as Minister of Justice. At that time, as a result of other suggestions and of the public interest in the matter, it was already a fact that private members as well as members of this government were receiving a large volume of correspondence.


James Sinclair: May I ask a further supplementary question. Did the minister on either of these two occasions suggest to him that it was the federal government and not the provincial government which had jurisdiction in this field.


Edmund Davie Fulton: From my recollection of the conversation-and I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that I am bound to report conversations that I had as a private individual-I can say that I indicated that this is another

of those cases in which there is a measure of divided responsibility, which makes the subject a more difficult one to deal with. But that is not to say it is incapable of solution and, as I said a moment ago, I expect to be able to make a specific recommendation to my colleagues in the very near future.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. My question is, could the Minister of Finance, according to existing laws, give instructions for the issuing of bilingual cheques by his department everywhere in Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. The answer to the question would depend upon the interpretation of the statutes and, as I understand the practice of this house, questions involving the giving of a legal opinion are not asked or answered in the house.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I believe he has received notice of my intention to ask it. Has any consideration been given by the government to increasing or restoring the purchasing power of the superannuation allowances granted to civil servants who have been retired on account of ill health? If so, what consideration has been given to this matter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. I draw his attention to the fact that this matter, or the broader matter of all pensions paid to superannuated civil servants, has been the subject of a number of questions which have been asked during this session and answered by the Prime Minister. There is nothing that can now be added to the information which the Prime Minister has given to the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister yet read the representations with regard to this matter submitted to him by the civil service association of Ottawa?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has read a vast quantity of material, and this, together with other information, is being digested and reviewed.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: A supplementary question. Will the minister remember that we will have a resolution on this matter before the house next Monday, when the whole question may be fully discussed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can tell the hon. gentlemen that I doubt whether the material which is being gathered on this subject can be complete before next Monday. Perhaps hon. members do not fully appreciate the amount of work which is being expended in the gathering of statistical material on this subject. It is not ready yet, although a great deal of work is being expended on it.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I like asking him questions because he usually gives sequential answers. Has his attention been drawn to press reports of the antics of a number of so-called Hungarian freedom fighters near Montreal who are in desperate haste to return to tyranny?
Second, can the minister give the house any information on this incident and demonstration of ingratitude in response to Canadian generosity?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thank the hon. gentleman for his kind words, and for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question.
My attention has been drawn, by reports in the press and reports from the department, to the incidents which have been described in such picturesque language by the hon. member in his question. In answer I can only say that it seems to me that the entirely unwarranted and unreasonable conduct of these particular malcontents indicates the soundness of the decision to return this group as soon as possible to the country from which they came.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to supplement with some factual information the answer I gave to the hon. member for Kootenay West, which I overlooked when I was on my feet earlier. I should make it clear that the actions I referred to in my answer a moment ago were the actions of only a portion of the group totalling, I am told, 163 altogether, who have been gathered together in Montreal for the purpose of being returned to Hungary.
This, I am sure the house will agree, is in total a very satisfactorily small percentage of the total number of Hungarian refugees who have come to this country and to whose successful settlement in Canada as future Canadian citizens we look forward. I think in fairness to the total group it should be pointed out that it is a very small percentage who have indicated a desire to return, and an infinitesimally small percentage who behave in this manner.



WATER POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on December 4, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) addressed a question to me and he inquired if the government would direct to the international joint commission the pollution of the waters of lake St. Louis, in the same manner as the complaint concerning lake St. Francis was referred to the commission.
Before I answer, I thank the hon. member for Laurier for having provided clarification of his question, which appeared somewhat obscure to us. I understand now that the real point of his question is that because of lower water levels in lake St. Louis there has been an aggravation of the problem of sewage and waste disposal, and therefore my hon. friend has asked whether the St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers would be asked to inquire into the matter.
In answer may I say that the St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers could only take action, of course, if there were a diminution of the flow of water into lake St. Francis and lake St. Louis in consequence of construction work in the international rapids section. I have now received the monthly return made by the international St. Lawrence river board of control to the international joint commission for the month of November, 1957. It shows the mean monthly discharge at the international rapids section as 218,000

Inquiries of the Ministry cubic feet per second, and further shows that this is identical with the flow to be expected under pre-project conditions.
Accordingly I am informed that the construction work in the international rapids section is not in any way diminishing the levels of water in lake St. Louis.



OTTAWA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Battlefords):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Now that the Prime Minister has listened to the report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to the pollution of the St. Lawrence river, and having himself seen city of Ottawa sewage pipes dumping raw sewage into the Ottawa river, is it his intention to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code which would make it a criminal offence to pollute interprovincial waters?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there have been enough complaints already about the length of the session and the amount of legislation still to be brought before parliament. I think hon. members generally will be satisfied if at this session we cover the items of which notice has already been given. At a subsequent session the matter in question will certainly deserve consideration.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I desire to respond to a question that was addressed to me and accepted by the leader of the house on December 7. The question was asked by the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) and reads in part as follows: . . . whether the government will consider making representations to the Indonesian government, perhaps through diplomatic channels, in regard to the . . . action being taken in Indonesia against Netherlands nationals and Netherlands interests.
In reply, Mr. Speaker, may I say very emphatically that the Canadian government is much disturbed over the actions which are reported as taking place in Indonesia and which might, if they are not checked, disturb the peace and stability of the area. We are deeply conscious of the human problems involved and of the possible unfortunate consequences to all parties concerned. It is our earnest hope that counsels

of moderation will prevail, and that the
Indonesian government will exercise restraint on those extremist elements who seem to have been responsible for the worst excesses and who seem to have got out of hand as far as the Indonesian government is concerned.
The matter is under discussion in the NATO council, and I am also expressing our concern to the Indonesian government through its ambassador here. The house may be assured that we shall do whatever we can to encourage them toward moderate courses in this unhappy instance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether or not he has given special consideration, in view of events in Indonesia, to the appointment of an ambassador at the earliest possible date to replace the ambassador who recently relinquished his duties at Jakarta?


Sidney Earle Smith: That matter is under consideration, and we shall have an ambassador there as soon as possible.


INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION EXTENDING &quot;VICTIMS POLICY&quot; TO REFUGEES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the Prime Minister what consideration, if any, has his government given to passing legislation granting relief from confiscation of the Canadian assets of victims of nazi persecution in Roumania, Hungary, Poland and other countries during world war II by extending the so-called "victims policy" to Roumanians, Hungarians, Poles and others who have escaped from those countries and are now in the free countries of the world and in dire need of financial assistance?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I answer that question very simply and say that as yet no consideration has been given to that matter. The question raised by the hon. gentleman is one that has a natural appeal to those who believe that wherever freedom is upheld the victims of the persecution to which my hon. friend has referred should certainly receive every consideration. I very much appreciate the question and the suggestion of the hon. gentleman.


REPORTED DRAFT FINAL COMMUNIQUE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

Inquiries of the Ministry Is the minister aware of the draft final com- a view to negotiating upon this matter, and munique prepared by the United States for I hope they will reply favourably, the forthcoming NATO meeting, and does
this mean that we can expect failure from	CANADIAN BROADCASTING
this most important meeting?	CORPORATION


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the existence of the draft; therefore I have not seen it.


ALLEGED BREAKING OF CANADIAN DIPLOMATIC CODE BY VENEZUELA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder if the minister is yet in a position to make a report on the alleged breaking of the Canadian diplomatic code by the security police of Venezuela? In other words, has any report been received in response to the request the minister said was sent out a week ago last Friday?


Sidney Earle Smith: We have not yet received any report in the department.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Landry (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister tell the house whether conferences on Canadian-American relations took place in Ottawa at the beginning of December between members of the United States house foreign affairs committee and officials of the Canadian labour department, as was announced in a Washington paper on November 20? If so, will the minister tell the house whether or not the officials attending this meeting discussed the question of a reciprocal agreement on unemployment compensation for our Canadian workers, both in Maine and New Hampshire? Could the minister advise the house of the progress made in this matter?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I have checked with the officials of my department, and neither they nor I are aware of any such conference as that indicated in the question of the hon. member.
As to the progress of this matter, Mr. Speaker, I have been recently in communication with the governors of both states with 96698-136


REPORTED TIGHTER SURVEILLANCE OF PRIVATELY OWNED STATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister aware that according to a report which appeared in this morning's Montreal Gazette the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation plans tighter surveillance of the operators of privately owned radio and television stations? If so, I should like to know whether this is in accordance with the government's policies?


Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to know that the hon. member for Dollard reads the same newspaper each morning that I do, and I hope he profits from his reading. My knowledge of this matter is confined to the story I saw in the Gazette this morning. I have no further knowledge about it other than that which was contained in the news story.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation works within the framework of an act which was passed several years ago. Under that act it has power to make regulations, and it is the policy of this government to allow the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation independent action within the framework of that act and the regulations which were drawn up long ago.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister now received the five-page letter from the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor), proposing immediate action to remedy the serious unemployment in Vancouver? If so, in view of the fact that the hon. member made his letter public, will the Prime Minister also make his reply public so the people of Vancouver will know what action he intends to take on these sensible proposals?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, whatever action is taken or has been taken will be communicated to parliament, and in that way the information will be available to the public.

Inquiries of the Ministry



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Sinclair: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister report any progress on the negotiations for keeping Britannia mines in operation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am not yet in a position to make any statement, beyond saying it has now been arranged that a meeting will take place in my office on Thursday afternoon, at which time we hope a final decision one way or the other will be reached.


James Sinclair: There will be a question Friday morning, then.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, of which I gave him notice yesterday. Will he advise this house whether or not a permit would be issued by his department for a company to proceed with a power development project on the Columbia river in British Columbia before the question of downstream benefits covering this international river has been settled with the United States authorities?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure what the minister thinks about the question, but it seems to me to be hypothetical and one that should not take the time of the house.
ILater:!


George William McLeod: I have now revamped my question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government of British Columbia the right to proceed with a power development project on the Columbia river before the question of downstream benefits has been settled with United States authorities?


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the hon. member is still asking a question which is not permitted by the practice of the house. It seems to me it is a question that asks for a legal opinion, and I do not think a minister can be expected to give a legal opinion to the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to ask a correct supplemental question following the incorrect question put

to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. Is it not in Canada's interests that the question of downstream benefits on the Columbia river be decided before any major construction of dams be permitted on that river?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I would suggest that is a subject on which we all have opinions. In fact I have mine, and they will be made known in due course.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (St. Antoine-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I sent to the Postmaster General a dispatch which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, December 7, concerning the elimination of plate number blocks from postage stamps, or sheets of postage stamps. I should like to ask him whether the reason given in the press for the discontinuance of the rather popular practice of printing the plate number is well founded. In order to make the question clear I should like to read just a very short paragraph.
Reason given for the Post Office Department action was that some postmasters were selling "plate blocks" at over face value to dealers and collectors.
I should like to ask the Postmaster General if that is a correct statement of the attitude adopted by his department with regard to this matter.


Hon. W. M. Hamilfon (Postmaster General):: I thank the hon. member for sending me a copy of this clipping. The house will remember that the particular stamp issue in question was discussed here about 10 days ago, at which time I pointed out that arrangements for this stamp issue had been made by the preceding administration. Having said that, may I say that the motivation of the previous administration in dropping the plate blocks is not completely clear to me. However, in discussing the matter with my departmental officials I find that while no direct charge of selling plate blocks at over face value to dealers and collectors was made, the department has certainly had considerable experience in post offices with difficulty arising from collectors who attempted to obtain these plate blocks over the counter.
Perhaps I should say that departmental instructions do not allow the clerk at the

wicket to extract a special plate block from other than the top sheet. However, collectors would come up to clerks and press them to do so. They would engage in discussion with them, and very often people who were there for the regular purpose of purchasing stamps were caused delay and annoyance by these tactics. Basically the departmental practice of handling issues of stamps has changed somewhat, and that has led to the elimination of the plate blocks.


George Carlyle Marler: I wonder whether the Postmaster General realizes not only that this practice is very popular with collectors, but is universal in countries other than Canada, and that the elimination of these plate numbers would account for a substantial drop in revenue of his philatelic agency?


William McLean Hamilton: have always had tremendous respect for the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount as a philatelic expert. He is renowned in that field and has written books on the subject. Therefore I am surprised to find him referring to the practice of including plate block numbers as being universal, because I think if he will search further he will find it is not universal and that certain other countries have abolished the practice of including plate block numbers. As I say, I am surprised at that lapse.
I feel regret, and I know the officials of the department do also, that we cannot continue this practice, which has provided considerable interest to a small group of collectors. I do want to tell the house that I am very grateful to other important collectors in Canada and officials of some organizations who have gone to the trouble of getting in touch with the department and commending the officials on the action that has been taken.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General, inasmuch as the subject of stamps has been brought up today. Can he say when the department started to use Roman numerals to indicate the month of the year in marking cancellation of stamps instead of a letter abbreviation for the month. For example, they are using "X-II" in making cancellations. I have not sent notice of the question to the Postmaster General.


William McLean Hamilton: The
hon. member did not give me any notice of his question, but I will be delighted to get him this vitally important and interesting information as quickly as possible.
96698-136i
Inquiries of the Ministry CRIMINAL LAW



CAPITAL AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I regret that I have not given him notice, but I feel certain he will know the answer. In view of the fact that no consideration has yet been given by the House of Commons to the report of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on capital punishment, has the Minister of Justice, under whose jurisdiction comes the remission service which reports to the Solicitor General on capital cases, given thought to recommending the commutation of existing death penalties? Can he advise the house when an opportunity is going to be given for consideration of the report of the joint committee and the entire question of capital punishment?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the hon. gentleman's question I should say that the report of the committee has been carefully considered in the department and from time to time comes up for further consideration, but there is no present intention of action along the lines that he has suggested.
With regard to the second part of the question, as to when an opportunity will be given for discussion of that report, I would venture to suggest that the first and most favourable opportunity is in the discussion of the estimates of the department, but just when that will be will be determined largely, I suppose, by the developments of the session and in consultation with the leader of the house.


Harold Edward Winch: I appreciate what the minister has said. Do we have his assurance that when his estimates come up the whole matter can be discussed without any snide remarks or interference by the Minister of Finance, who tries to stop us from doing that sort of thing?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I regret that in the terms in which the question was framed it would be quite improper, as well as unnecessary, for me to answer.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of
2134	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Finance. Was it an oversight that loggers and lumberjacks were not mentioned in his announcement of proposed changes in the Income Tax Act affecting construction workers?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norlhumberland-Miramichi):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a communication from the Newcastle, New Brunswick, board of trade to the effect that a survey shows that local shippers were unanimous in their opinion that the appointment of a port warden for the port of Mira-michi is not necessary, as all duties have been satisfactorily performed in the past by the harbourmasters and wharfingers?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. I did not myself receive such a letter but my department received one from the secretary, Newcastle, New Brunswick, board of trade to the effect that the opinion of several local shippers had been obtained on the proposed tariff of port warden's fees. The local shippers apparently feel that shipmasters are competent to see that loading is carried out in accordance with the Canada Shipping Act, and that this makes the services of a port warden unnecessary.
The secretary stated that the board of trade as a body had arrived at no definite opinion, but submitted the above as the opinion of shippers who had been written to or interviewed.
My department has replied explaining that section 628 of the Canada Shipping Act requires that no officer of customs shall grant a clearance to any ship loaded with concentrates consigned to any place outside of Canada and not being within the limits of an inland voyage unless the master of such ship produces to him a certificate signed by the port warden.
Thus the appointment of a port warden and the establishment of a tariff of fees for his services has been made legally necessary by the shipping of concentrates from Mira-michi bay.


George Roy McWilliam: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the schedule of rates been arrived at as yet?


George Harris Hees: I am not sure whether or not they have, but I shall check on that.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[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 Health and Welfare. I regret that I did not have the opportunity to send him notice. Is it the intention of his department to discontinue present health grants to the provinces when the health plan is set in operation?


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: It is certainly not the intention to discontinue health grants. There may be some overlapping, which would have to be examined and studied.


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of supply.



ATTITUDE OF OFFICIAL OPPOSITION ON SUPPLY MOTIONS

['Dix heures.\nMotion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.\nThe estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:\nDEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration service-\n1.\tDepartmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $628,277.']
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I want-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the right hon. gentleman would permit me to clarify the situation before we proceed. As I understand it, it is with the unanimous consent of the house that we are entering on this debate at this time, and the vote will be taken at ten o'clock tonight.


Mr. Green:: At 8.15.


Mr. Speaker:: At 8.15. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: If there is an amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: On the amendment, if any, at 8.15 and on the final motion at ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick George Hahn: The understanding is that the final vote shall be taken at 8.15 in order to permit grievances to be stated after 8.15.


Mr. Lesage:: No. The vote on the main
motion is at ten o'clock.


Frederick George Hahn: I understand. I am sorry.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the house leader would indicate what the understanding is so we may proceed knowing when we shall have a vote.


Howard Charles Green: It was my understanding that if an amendment is moved it would be voted on at 8.15, and that then we would go on with any individual grievances, and the motion to go into supply would be voted on at ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I want to repeat something about the attitude of the official opposition which I said when the first motion to go into committee of supply was made on November 18. I stated then what would be the attitude of the official opposition on that and the succeeding similar motions that are provided for by the rules of the house. I said we felt that the time of the house, under the rules of the house on motions to go into committee of supply, might in this short session be more profitably used in discussing the individual items in supply than in a general discussion on the motion to go into committee and supply.
For that reason and others which I gave when I spoke on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I said the official opposition did not intend to move any amendment nor to support any amendment that may come from any other quarter of the house. That, of course, was a statement I made for all these motions that might be submitted. At that time I reserved until a later date the right to have one of these motions stand, with one or two departments still to go into committee of supply, so that if anything out of the ordinary required debate on that kind of motion there would be one that would have to be made.
We noted with satisfaction that in announcing last night the business for today and tomorrow the leader of the house mentioned as the item to follow immediately the disposition of this one would be that having to do with the resolution preceding the introduction of the bill to establish a system of guaranteed prices for certain agricultural commodities, which all parties of the house have been pressing to have brought forward at the earliest possible moment.
We feel that at this session it would be difficult, in spite of the arrangement that has been made for the Christmas recess, to dispose after satisfactory consideration of all the important matters that are of interest to the Canadian public. Because of that fact we are prepared to forgo some of the opportunities for general debate on more or less academic questions that might be available to private members, and to give such cooperation as is within our power to bring about consideration of the estimates themselves and these items of legislation which are of interest to the general public.
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines



Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, there are some time-honoured customs in parliament which I think we should very carefully preserve. We have forgone a number of opportunities during this session when hon. members of this house might have raised matters which they consider to be of vital interest, either to their constituents or to the country. I offer no apologies this afternoon, therefore, for moving an amendment to the motion to go into supply. I want to say immediately that it is not an academic problem with which I am going to deal, but a problem which I believe to be of very vital concern to the entire Canadian people and one upon which this house should express its opinion.
Consequently, at the beginning of my remarks I move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That all of the words after the word "That" to the end of the question be struck out and that the following words be substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of taking the necessary steps to bring the trans-Canada natural gas pipe line under public ownership so as to preserve this important public utility for the benefit of the Canadian people and to make sure that the profits from this venture will accrue to the nation as a whole rather than to a few privileged individuals, and further this house Is of the opinion that the government should take the responsibility for recommending policies to parliament regarding Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited instead of evading such responsibility by referring matters in relation thereto to a royal commission.
That is the amendment I wish to move this afternoon and it is one, of course, which implies that the people of Canada expect the government to fulfil the obligations concerning the Trans-Canada pipe line which it definitely undertook when in opposition.
The Conservatives at that time did not suggest that this matter be referred to a royal commission which, so far as I know, has not even yet begun to sit. It may take months to investigate and still more months to make a report, not only on Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, which should be separated from its report of inquiry on the development of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the
house would try to give the hon. member who has the floor an opportunity to be heard.


Major James William Coldwell: I can imagine that my
hon. friends in the Liberal party are disturbed at this matter being raised once again-


Mr. Mcllraiih:: You need not blame it on us.

Trans-Canada Pipe Lines


Major James William Coldwell: It will be recollected, Mr. Speaker, that on February 27, 1951, which is almost seven years ago, when the incorporation of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was originally introduced in the house by Mr. Decore, the then Liberal member for Vegre-ville, he told us that it was planned to use an all-Canadian route, and with the total amount of gas consumed in Canada complete control would be assured to this country. From the outset we of the C.C.F. wanted this pipe line and other gas and oil lines in Canada to be built under public ownership and control so these great resources, their transportation, and provision for their use, might be entirely under the ownership and control of the people of Canada through this parliament of Canada.
However, the house decided that the bill should go to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and on March 6, 1951, Mr. Frank A. Schultz, representing the company, appeared before the committee. At page 10 of the minutes and proceedings of the committee for that day we find Mr. Schultz said this:
The second consideration was that it should be an all-Canadian project with the total Canadian gas transported over all-Canadian lines and that 100 per cent of the consumption would be in Canadian cities.
He gave other evidence to indicate that the project would run into no difficulties in attaining the necessary finances.
The only two points I make at this juncture are, first, that it was to be all-Canadian; all gas would be available to Canadian consumers, and there would be no difficulty in financing the line. We do not know where the government stands as far as permission to export gas by this company is concerned. The minister of trade and commerce of the day, Right Hon. C. D. Howe, also had no doubt with respect to the financing of the project.
On March 18, 1955, after certain extensions of time had been granted to the company-several extensions having already been granted-he wrote a letter which was tabled in this house, in which he said:
All studies indicate that the line is capable of being financed privately and it has been decided to defer construction for one year and let matters take their course.
In March, 1956, the company was back again, and this time there was under discussion a proposal from the minister of trade and commerce, as hon. members who were here at the time will recollect, for the formation of a crown corporation to build the northern Ontario or unproductive section of an all-Canadian pipe line under terms which he indicated, which would be leased to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited for its sole use.

I say this to the hon. members of the government. That proposal was very severely and very harshly criticized by the then leader of the opposition, Hon. George Drew. He stated, and I am using his own words, that parliament was being asked-
-to set up a crown corporation which will use public funds to assist financial interests in the United States in establishing effective control over one of our major resources. I doubt if there is any precedent for such a proposal.
Now, that was the situation when the pipeline bill was approved later last year and it is the situation today, which the people of Canada believed the Conservative party, if elected to power, would rectify. Giant United States interests were and are behind this particular project. They were put on record by the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Drew, and by others on many occasions during the debates which followed. Those of us who were here will have very vivid recollections of that, and they are still the powers behind Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.
May I remind the government of the words of Sir John A. Macdonald as reported on page 494 of volume 1 of the debates of 1880 to 1881. I am making one change in reading Sir John's words; I shall change the word "railways", as I did two years ago, to the words "gas companies" in this quotation. Otherwise it will be a verbatim statement of Sir John A. Macdonald made in parliament when discussing the building of the transcontinental railway. This is what he said:
I can trust to the intelligence of this house-
I wish, incidentally, that I could do likewise.
I can trust to the intelligence of this house and the patriotism of this country, I can trust not only to the patriotism but to the commonsense of this country to carry out an arrangement which will give us all we want, which will satisfy all the loyal, legitimate aspirations, which will give us a great, a united, a rich, an improving, a developing Canada, instead of making us tributary to American laws, to American "gas companies", to American bondage, to American tolls, to American freights, to all the little tricks and big tricks that American "gas companies" are addicted to.
And who is there among us who has read the record right through from the days of the Teapot Dome scandals right down to the present day who is unaware of the tricks which the American gas and oil companies have been guilty of from time to time?
I think we should still remember those words, because the major interests behind Trans-Canada Pipe Lines are still powerful United States corporations which from time to time have been the subject of criticism and investigation in the United States because of anti-social practices. It was in line with their tradition that the Conservative party

participated in the debates which culminated in the passage, under closure of course, of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines bill in June, 1956. As far as we are concerned, we have been quite consistent throughout, consistent in our demand that this line should be built by the government of Canada, not for the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company but for the people of Canada; not, as is now the case, for the use and benefit, ultimately of a private corporation.
A moment ago I spoke of the traditions of the Conservative party, and I said we expected them to live up to those traditions upon which, in part, their opposition to the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines bill was, as they themselves said, largely based. Sir John A. Macdonald staked his whole public career on the principle of Canadian control of the fundamentals of Canadian economic existence. He fought in season and out of season and often against what seemed to be hopeless odds to prevent United States companies gaining control of our first trans-continental railway. As early as 1871, according to Professor Creighton's very excellent biography, Macdonald wrote, and I quote him again:
Allan has joined himself with a number of American capitalists and they are applying to the Canadian government to be allowed to build our Pacific railway.
I could just change that a bit and say that certain people of Canada have joined themselves to American capitalists to build a pipe line across Canada with the financial support of the Conservative government of Canada. I will go on with the quotation:
The government, of course, is glad to receive all such applications, as they show an interest in the undertaking and indicate its value, but as yet we have come to no conclusion with respect to it.
Then he adds this:
You may depend upon it-we shall see that Canadian interests are sufficiently protected and no America ring will be allowed to get control over it.
Well, now we have another Conservative government in office with power to prevent what they called a nefarious deal in the summer of 1956, with men whom the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself described as "Texan adventurers and buccaneers". But instead of acting as the people of Canada expect them to act, they are shelving the matter by referring it to a royal commission. A royal commission like, sometimes, a committee, is a very convenient way of shelving an awkward problem.


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


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines


Ernest James Broome: What would you do? These shares have changed hands; they have been built up in value-


Major James William Coldwell: Very simple. We know
exactly what it cost to build the pipe line from the Alberta border to Winnipeg; we are building a pipe line across northern Ontario now and we know exactly what it costs and we own it now. We have the legal means, with appropriate compensation, of expropriating that line that we do not now own for the public good.


Ernest James Broome: The people who own these shares are not the original people.


Major James William Coldwell: I have answered the question, that is exactly what I would do, and that is what I think the government should do.
The Conservative party is abdicating both its principles and its responsibility. When buccaneers were raiding their victims in the old days, the ancient authorities did not allow them to plunder their victims in times of peace, but that is exactly what the government of Canada is doing now.
The government has already received a very comprehensive report made for the use of the Borden commission by Mr. John Davis entitled "Canadian Energy Prospects". With this, and the information available to the Department of Trade and Commerce, the government has enough information before it to enable it to act.
A United States commission set up some time ago to lay the basis for the United States federal power commission took four years to make its report. Now, a royal commission may be justifiable in some respects, but longterm energy prospects and control are surely one thing which deserves investigation; but policies with regard to pipe line companies and profiteers are quite another and, again, I may add that it is quite proper to ask the question where Mr. Borden the chairman of the commission is at the present time, and why the commission has not met.
I can also point out that there was no suggestion in the speeches made by members of the Conservative party in 1956 that a royal commission was necessary to review the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines bill. Never at any time was that suggestion made in the hectic and heated debates of May and June, 1956, nor, am I reminded, was any such suggestion made during the entire general election. Powerful United States companies still retain a considerable amount of control over the Trans-Canada pipe line. We do not know what the government's position is now regarding the export of gas as a result of tying Trans-Canada to its associates in the United States. It is likely we shall find the same

Trans-Canada Pipe Lines situation as exists on the Pacific coast, where Westcoast Transmission, which is United States controlled financially, has agreed to sell gas to United States distributors on a 20-year contract at 10 cents per thousand cubic feet less than the price being presently charged to distributors in the province of British Columbia.
Such deals mean that United States industry could grow fat at the expense of Canadian industry with the help of cheaper Canadian gas. The repetition of such agreements would be a sell-out of the Canadian consumer, and label the whole thing as a gigantic give-away of priceless and irreplaceable natural resources. That this may happen is greatly indicated in the Congressional Record of August 27, 1957.
The Congressional Record is, of course, the United States Hansard. I have the record of Tuesday, August 27 before me. Congressman Saylor was speaking. I may say that if you read the whole of this congressman's speech you will find that he has a very excellent grasp of what happened in this country in May and June of 1956. I think he summarizes it well in the speech he made, in the course of which he said this:
Through some strange manoeuvers Midwestern Gas Transmission Company whose application to import Canadian gas in one of the cases is now before the federal power commission, has contracted to pay an average of 27.76 cents per thousand cubic feet for Canadian gas during the 25-year period of its contract.
This is the congressman speaking:
At the same time the Winnipeg and Central Gas Company, which is actually closer to the source of production, would be required to pay 35.68 cents per thousand cubic feet for the same fuel during the period of its contract. These figures are based on the contracted minimum load factors, but even under 100 per cent load factors Midwestern will still have a decided advantage throughout the 25-year period.
Apparently, the government has not yet decided as to what its attitude will be in this regard, but they have already refused to act according to their speeches during the hectic debate of May and June, 1956. Therefore, I think I have the right to express my suspicions and my doubts as to their integrity and sincerity in respect of this policy.
However that may be, it is certain that if the government does not end the agreement which the Minister of Public Works, who I am glad to see in his seat, described as "the greatest betrayal of the Canadian people since confederation", Trans-Canada will be able, when it has collected sufficient funds from the Canadian gas consumers, to purchase the northern Ontario section of the pipe line by paying the cost price plus some interest on the public money advanced.

There is no doubt that at some time it will exercise this option if the deal stands, and at that time the line will be far more valuable than its cost price and Trans-Canada will get another bargain at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian consumer. There is no doubt, too, that if this line which we are now building -and I say "we" advisedly, because it is Canada which is building the line across northern Ontario; it was Canada which put up the money as a loan to the company to build the first leg from the Alberta boundary to Winnipeg-could remain under public ownership and be operated by a crown company as a public utility the construction of the line would be cheaper because the government could raise the capital required at lower interest rates than a private corporation could do, and the public enterprise would be relieved of certain tax burdens, both federal and provincial.
Moreover, instead of the company planning to set aside out of the rates charged against consumers of natural gas an amount sufficient to purchase the line in 20 years the government could amortize the cost of the line over a much longer period, say 40 years instead of 20 years. As a result, the carrying charges would be one-half of what they would be in 20 years. This means, of course, that the Ontario and Quebec consumer would enjoy lower rates and would reap greater benefits, if not at once, in due time.
Now, it will be recalled that in the debate of June 4, 1956, Mr. Drew said that there were three alternatives, but that if the government forced through the bill to provide by way of loans, means for the financing of the first leg of the trans-Canada pipe line, and then undertook to build the line across northern Ontario, the only alternative, if that were done, would be for the government,- and I quote him:-
-build the whole pipe line, and not just part of it, and have control over the whole line.
That was Mr. Drew's statement in this house. Now, may I quote the present Prime Minister again at page 4032 of Hansard of May 17, 1956? It is obvious that both the deal itself and the manner of its making appeared to be repugnant to him. He said;
The perquisites here are that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) should abdicate his belief in democratic principles and deny those in opposition the right to advance their arguments and to educate public opinion or to find out why there is such solicitude on the part of the members of this government. For five long years this pampered pet,-
Said the then member for Prince Albert, now the Prime Minister:
-Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, by deviation, by change of direction, by protestation, by alteration in course,

has postponed that estimable end of securing a market for Alberta gas and the making available to other parts of Canada of that necessary form of energy. I ask the Prime Minister today to tell this house why he is so fearful of the facts; why he was afraid to allow the true facts of this nefarious scheme to be elucidated?
I ask why he found it necessary, and the members of his government found it necessary, to muzzle the representatives of the people in advance of anything in the nature of a filibuster or an interference on the part of the opposition with the policy and program of the government. I ask him to explain that today, for certainly the day of silence is past. Are they afraid of the truth over there?
This is the present Prime Minister speaking.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Oh that
mine enemy would write a book!


Major James William Coldwell: I continue:
Is that why they hide behind the caricature of parliament which they have substituted by the adoption of the parliamentary form of closure in a way that it has never been adopted before?
He called the company a pampered pet of the Liberal party. He accused it of having been devious in its dealings with parliament. He said that in order to put through this nefarious deal, as he called it, they had found it necessary to make a caricature of parliament itself. As for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), I want to remind him just before he leaves the house-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will be back.


Major James William Coldwell: That is fine. I want to remind him of what he said on June 5, 1956. Oh, what wonderful quotations one can dig up from the Minister of Finance if one does not mind taking too much time in reading them back to him. He said this:
Well, sir, it seems now we are narrowed down to a choice between two courses, the government's iniquitous proposal to hand over to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited great sums of public money to help them out and public construction of the entire line.
Then, he called it an iniquitous proposal to hand over great sums of public money to help the company and to provide, as recommended, public construction of the line. Now, the Minister of Finance is in an entirely different position. He is no longer sitting on the opposition side. Now he is an important member of the government because, after all, the Minister of Finance is an important colleague of the Prime Minister at all times and I am quite sure that he will agree with me that he is a very important figure in the government of Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. A very modest one.


Major James William Coldwell: The Minister of Finance is in the position where he himself is proceeding to carry out this iniquitous proposal and is, in effect, handing over great sums of public
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines money for the construction of the entire line, not one part of it. The present Prime Minister asked the government at the time:
What have you been doing for five long years, playing around with this corporation, with these adventurers from Texas and New York, trading away Canada's resources at the expense of the Canadian people?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: And they are doing it.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the Prime Minister a question? What have he and his government been doing during the past six months since they took office? Have they been playing around with these adventurers from Texas and New York in continuing to finance the pipe line proposal? Let them read the words X quoted of Sir John A. Macdonald, whom they like to think of as the founder of the Conservative party in Canada.
I want to say something else to the Prime Minister. He has the reputation of being a successful court lawyer. I think he deserves that reputation. He has won a number of important cases. When he appeared in a jury trial was he not very careful regarding the personnel of the jury to which the case was to be submitted? He has now appointed what is in effect a jury to report, among other things, on the Trans-Canada pipe line deal. Let us look at some of the gentlemen whom he has appointed to that jury or, as we call it, royal commission.
Let me say immediately that I have no doubt that, like some jurymen I am sure my hon. friend has challenged from time to time, every one of these gentlemen is a man of high personal integrity. I do not propose to attack any of them personally but I think I would fail in my duty if I did not point out that some of their associations would lead me to question their ability to achieve complete neutrality in this matter. The chairman of the commission is Mr. Henry Borden, again a very estimable citizen. Who is Mr. Borden? He is chairman of Brazilian Traction, one of the most powerful privately-owned public utilities in the world. In addition to his great electrical and other interests he is engaged in the distribution of gas in Brazil. On occasion he has expressed himself freely as a believer in private enterprise generally and in the private ownership of public utilities. It would, I submit, be unreasonable to expect a gentleman who has been associated throughout a successful career with the ownership of great private utilities to be entirely impartial in his approach to the Trans-Canada pipe line and other aspects of the development of Canadian energy resources concerning which he will be called upon to express an opinion.

Trans-Canada Pipe Lines
Then too, an issue referred to the commission is that of foreign control. I have always understood the government to be very interested in eliminating foreign control over Canadian corporations to the extent that they are able to do so. This gentleman can scarcely disapprove of foreign control in Canada when the companies which it is his duty to safeguard are foreign companies operating in Brazil where, as indicated by a bill we passed a few days ago respecting the transfer of Brazilian utilities to Brazilian statutory control and supervision, public opinion must be very strong against foreign domination.
Then we have Mr. Levesque, another member of the royal commission and probably a very estimable gentleman, but he is president of a company which distributed stock of the Quebec Natural Gas Company. I am informed that he was one of the promoters of Trans-Canada stock in the province of Quebec and was closely associated with the Trans-Canada pipe line deal. I say that when the Prime Minister was appearing in court he made it as abundantly clear as he could that he wanted a jury from which all jurymen regarding whom there might be the remotest suspicion of their being prejudiced would be eliminated. He carefully looked over his jury panel. I say that has not been done in this case.
The government should not abdicate its responsibility by referring the Trans-Canada pipe line matter to a review by any royal commission. Any royal commission established to inquire into the energy resources of Canada generally, and personally I think that is all right, should not be required to make any recommendation regarding the suitability of public or private development. That should be the function of the parliament of Canada because such a question is a political question to be decided by the representatives of the people in their city councils, their legislatures and in this parliament. The royal commission should not be asked to make what is by its very nature a political recommendation. The Prime Minister has a motion on the order paper for the abolition of closure.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman go on and read the name of George Britnell? Does he object to him?


Major James William Coldwell: No.


John George Diefenbaker: He was appointed to a royal commission in Saskatchewan. Gordon Cushing?


Major James William Coldwell: No. I want to tell the Prime Minister that when he looked at a jury he did not object to all the jurymen. He only

objected to the men on the panel who might be prejudiced. That is exactly what I am doing today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Major James William Coldwell: Hon. gentlemen may laugh but you cannot laugh this off. You have loaded this jury.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the old game.


Major James William Coldwell: You know all about this old game anyway.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask my hon. friend this question. In the opinion of the hon. gentleman are the other four members of the commission unprejudiced in every way according to his fine standards?


Major James William Coldwell: I have answered that quite fully. As far as I know, the other four gentlemen are. But I say to my hon. friend that when he chose a panel of jurymen he saw to it that not one of the twelve he chose would be prejudiced against his side if he could eliminate him from that jury. I say that in this case he has appointed a jury, the chairman of which is a very estimable gentleman but who, from his very nature, experience and economic associations, must be prejudiced in favour of one side in this particular matter. I was just going to say that the Prime Minister has on the order paper a motion for the abolition of closure. I am not going to discuss that now except to say that we criticized the former government's abuse of it, for such it was, as vehemently as did the Conservative party. It was noteworthy that the Prime Minister denounced closure from Halifax to Vancouver in his election speeches. We did too, but we did more than that. We denounced what in this house the Prime Minister called buccaneers and their piratical profits made, as he said, by adventurers from New York and Texas.
To abolish closure is one thing but it will not restore any of the buccaneers'-the Prime Minister's own description-loot to the people of Canada. I do not know what the reason for this is. I am going to ask a question. Can it be that the Conservative party's wealthy backers want the Prime Minister and his government to forget their gains? Do they want him to bury the matter in a royal commission of inquiry lasting a year or two so that by the end of that time the Canadian people may perhaps forget or, what is more, forget it during the election campaign which the Prime Minister says is coming pretty soon?
Oh, it is before a royal commission. What other people say, of course, does not matter;

the royal commission will judge. It is out of the campaign, although we do not intend that it should be kept out of the campaign when that campaign comes. Could it be, as we suggested, that the Conservative party criticism of one group of promoters was merely because they favoured another group headed by a gentleman named Mr. McMahon? Mr. McMahon is undoubtedly associated with another group of powerful United States oil and gas companies. His operations in West-coast Transmission do not differ from the operation of Messrs. Tanner and Coates in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. Tanner and Coates got options below the cost of their sales to Canadian investors and made hundreds of thousands of dollars. So did Mr. McMahon.
Perhaps I should make a distinction. Tanner and Coates made hundreds of thousands of dollars and McMahon made millions. He did better than Messrs. Tanner and Coates. Before I say anything about that, let us take a look at the profits that have been made by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines promoters because this parliament put up the money to build the first leg of the line from Alberta to Winnipeg and pledged our money to build the northern Ontario leg. How did they fare? Well, of course, in July when stock prices were very much higher than today, the capital gains they would have made between February and September upon any of the stock that they sold on the open market would have been higher than the gains they would make if they held their options and marketed them yesterday at the comparatively low present market price on December 9. Trans-Canada stock yesterday was worth $22.50, and in July it was worth over $31.
Now, I am going to take a look at the operation. Supposing that these gentlemen kept all their options until yesterday when they might have unloaded them. Mr. Tanner, and his United States colleague Mr. Coates could, of course, have made a real killing even yesterday. Mr. Tanner was given 60,000 options at $8 and if he had sold them yesterday at $22.50 he could have made a gain of $870,000. Mr. Coates had 50,000 which he was allowed to get at $8, and his capital gain yesterday would have been $725,000. Other options, also at $8, were given to directors, 25,000 of them, and their capital gain would be $360,000. On the stock issued to the public in February of 3,760,000 shares, for which the public paid not $8 but $10, the capital gain would be $47 million, at least that is what a quick calculation seems to give.
Amongst the companies holding shares recorded as of May, 1956, the original shareholders, we find Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company Limited, a company with a good Canadian name but a very large amount of United States interest and control in it. They got 327,789 shares, at $8 per share and their capital gain at yesterday's prices would be $4,750,000. Then, there is Canadian Gulf Oil Company, with 327,790 shares, and their capital gain would be the same, $4,750,000. Then Tennessee Gas Transmission had the same number of shares and therefore the same capital gain, $4,750,000. The Canadian Delhi Oil Company had 497,000 shares and their capital gain would be $7,200,000. Other original shareholders held shares amounting to 447,774 and their capital gain would be $4,700,000. The gains of these companies together would be $26,150,000. Taking all these shares together, the capital gains would have amounted in total, at yesterday's prices, to $75,105,000.
Let me repeat that many of these shares changed hands at very much higher prices than yesterday's prices and therefore, in reality, the capital gains probably were much higher than those I have outlined. Now these gains, of course, are free from taxes and illustrate why we have said over and over again that our government should introduce an amendment to provide for a capital gains tax to recover something, at least, for the people of Canada. A month ago the Hamilton Spectator carried a very interesting article regarding one of the original shareholders in Trans-Canada. I would like to read the newspaper report which is dated October 16, 1957:
When the royal commission on energy gets down to studying stock options, it will hear some interesting evidence on how million dollar profits are made.
Just a week ago, hearings before the U.S. federal power commission in Washington established that Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, one of the principal shareholders in the Trans-Canada Pipelines, recouped most of its investment in Trans-Canada by selling off a chunk of its Trans-Canada stock.
I believe it was sold to Home Oil, but I am not sure of that.
The evidence showed that Tennessee had made more than $2 million profit on 100,000 shares of Trans-Canada which it bought at the pre-issue price of $8 and sold last July at $31.71.
This profit was almost sufficient to pay the original cost of Tennessee's entire investment in Trans-Canada, given as 327,790 shares of common stock bought for $2,625,213.
The Washington hearing also referred to 38,563 shares granted under option to unnamed persons. The witness for Tennessee did not know to whom this option was granted or the price at which it could be exercised.
That is an article from the Hamilton Spectator dated October 16 of this year. I have looked at Mr. Coates and Mr. Tanner for a moment and some of their associates, so let us look at Mr. McMahon for a moment.

Trans-Canada Pipe Lines He seems to have been the chosen instrument of the Conservative party when they were participating in the pipe line debate of last year. He was put forward by the Conservatives in this house as a suitable person to whom the building of the trans-Canada pipe line project might be entrusted.
Mr. McMahon, as an insider in the West-coast Transmission Company, was able to obtain stock in this company at a price of only 5 cents a share for stock that was offered to the public at $5 a share and which today is selling at around $27 per share. For every dollar Mr. McMahon put in he was assured of more than $500. Does the general public benefit from this? It does not benefit at all. It is an exploitation of the consumers of natural gas, and the producers of natural gas, and a practice that should no longer be tolerated. Mr. McMahon bought 155,000 shares at that price, namely 5 cents, and they cost him about $7,700. He acquired for that $7,700 an equity of over $4 million, a fantastic and amazing figure. These facts do not come out of my own imagination. They are from the prospectus of the company itself filed here in Ottawa with the Department of the Secretary of State.
But that is not all. The same gentleman was granted an option to buy 200,000 additional shares at a special price-a higher price it is true, but still a special price-so that today while the small investor would have to pay $27.50 for West Coast Transmission Company shares, Mr. McMahon, if he has held those 200,000 shares, would need to pay only $6 for them. In other words, if he exercised his option, he could make another $4 million at the public's expense, making a total to this one man of $8 million in capital gains that have come from no other source than eventually from the consumers of natural gas, and that means the people in every part of Canada where this gas will be distributed, particularly in the province of British Columbia, among whom will be workers, old age pensioners, unemployed and so on having to pay higher rates so that this gentleman may make $500 for every $1 he initially put into Westcoast Transmission Company.
I have singled out this one man purely as an example, purely as an instance of what is going on. Let me say he is doing nothing illegal. He is doing something widely approved by large corporations, particularly in the pipe line field. But I want to say that it is wrong and I think that most people would agree it is wrong and that it is time to bring this kind of thing, legal or otherwise, to an end. For example, a corporation shareholder in the same company, namely
[Mr. Coldwell.l
the Westcoast Transmission Company, a huge United States pipe line company, was able to realize a tax-free capital gain of over $25 million. Hence this is not an academic matter, Mr. Speaker. This is not a small matter. This is not a hypothetical case.
It is a real problem which this government in 1956 gave the people of Canada the opinion that it would face courageously if it were elected. Today they are in power; they have been in power for six months, and they have done nothing except to set up a royal commission which has not yet met and which, as I said this afternoon, I think is open to criticism because of some of the personnel.
I say that it is not a small matter. It is a question that is at the core of Canadian government policy with regard to the development of our natural resources and our utilities. There can be no adequate national development policy as long as our government permits these-and again I use the Prime Minister's own words-nefarious practices to continue.
We are urging the necessity for the public development of the great trans-Canada pipe line project. We are urging the necessity for a capital gains tax on huge speculative profits. We are urging the need for protection of the people generally from those whom the Prime Minister described as buccaneers while he was in opposition; those who, as he said, reaped piratical profits without any danger to themselves. These are words we who have been in the house for several years heard echoed and re-echoed up and down this chamber less than two years ago.
We believe, of course, that there should be a policy of national development for Canada. We believe that policy should be a planned development, a development planned by and through the elected representatives of the people, controlled by this parliament and developed in the interests of the people of Canada as we may well develop those resources under such a plan.
We say that the government has all the power necessary to restore to the Canadian people the ownership of the entire line from Alberta to northern Ontario which the people of Canada have almost entirely financed. As a matter of fact, as to the line across northern Ontario that is being built, the government provided the funds for the crown company that has built it not for the people of Canada but for the Trans-Canada Pipe Line Company. As was said by Hon. George Drew, echoed by the Minister of Finance, the Canadian people should own the entire line. That is what we are putting before the house today.
Oh, yes; we have done it previously. We did it seven years ago when the proposal

first came before this parliament. We did it again and again when the pipe line bills came before this house. We are doing it again today. In 1956 when I made a speech like the one I made this afternoon there was thunderous applause not only from my own friends around me but from the hon. gentlemen who today sit opposite me. Today their silence speaks louder than their words.
I want to say that if the government fails to carry out in a practical way the sentiments which the Conservative party when in opposition expressed, that will be, in the words of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), the greatest betrayal of the Canadian people since confederation. What disturbs me even more is that the governments failure to act undermines once more the faith of the people of Canada in this parliamentary institution which, in my opinion, is the best instrument man has yet devised for expressing himself collectively and for governing himself. Every time a government takes office, having before they took office expressed an opinion along certain lines, and then when they get into office do quite the opposite of what they were expected to do from the prior sentiments they expressed, parliament is undermined.
This parliamentary institution has enough critics and enough enemies today. When I remember the words of the Prime Minister in this house and across the country, that the supremacy of parliament must be restored, that the Liberals have made this house a caricature of parliament, I tell him today that if he fails to do the things he should do, he will not only be making a caricature of this parliament, he will not only be denying the supremacy of this parliament, he will be undermining it in a manner in which no other prime minister or government has undermined this institution since confederation.


Howard Charles Green: The amendment before the house today, Mr. Speaker, and the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) illustrate clearly two of the methods of approach of the C.C.F. party which he leads in Canada today. The first is that this amendment advocates outright socialism.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister but the other day I made an error which I do not want to repeat today in not reading the motion so that we had it properly before the house. I should now like to put the motion. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), seconded
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), moves an amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply as follows:
That all of the words after the word "That" to the end of the question be struck out and that the following words be substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of taking the necessary steps to bring the trans-Canada natural gas pipe-line under public ownership so as to preserve this important public utility for the benefit of the Canadian people and to make sure that the profits from this venture will accrue to the . nation as a whole rather than to a few privileged individuals, and further this house is of the opinion that the government should take the responsibility for recommending policies to parliament regarding Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited instead of evading such responsibility by referring matters in relation thereto to a royal commission."
I am sorry to have had to interrupt the hon. minister.


Howard Charles Green: As I had begun to point out, Mr. Speaker, this amendment today before the house and the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar illustrate two of the basic approaches of the C.C.F. party to the problems which face the Canadian people. The first approach is socialism; this amendment calls for outright socialism.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: They may deny it, but they are socialist in one place, half socialist in another and quarter socialist in a third. I find that fundamentally-and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), confirmed this at one of these big celebrations last week end-the main policy of the C.C.F. party still remains socialism as it appears today in this amendment and in the remarks made by the leader of that party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was
Mr. Drew a socialist?


Howard Charles Green: Well the cold hard fact is this: the Canadian people do not believe in socialism. This country of all countries is one which has been developed by the initiative of the individual. Canada would not be what she is today if she had had a system of socialism since the year 1867 with everything being directed by a group of politicians sitting here in Ottawa and with all the business undergoing state direction.


An hon. Member:: It would be way ahead.


Howard Charles Green: This is a nation and the Canadians are people who believe in free enterprise and in the initiative of the individual and, above all groups in the country, the group to whom that means the most is organized labour. Where would they be under a system of state direction?

Trans-Canada Pipe Lines


An hon. Member:: They would not be unemployed.


Howard Charles Green: I do not wonder that the hon. members in the C.C.F. party try to push their socialistic ideas under the rug when it is a little inconvenient to express them but nevertheless there they remain and that is one of the reasons why over the last 25 years they have never made any progress in Canada. Just last week they had, what was it-10 per cent of the popular vote across the country? So much for the first approach. I do not think there is any need for me to deal with it any further, but the second approach is a far more serious one.
This party down in the corner to your left, Mr. Speaker, time and time again have used a smear campaign as an approach. And we have seen that approach today in all its venom. We have heard charges that the members of the government are insincere, very suspicious and so on. We have heard the statement that their silence speaks louder than words and we have heard attacks on men like Henry Borden. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said he did not intend to attack anybody and that these men were all estimable men but he then went on to drop a few atom bombs on Henry Borden and Mr. Levesque and Frank McMahon. He tried to get the government all involved with Frank McMahon; he said this man was one whom the Conservatives, when in opposition, wanted to have take over the trans-Canada pipe lines.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did
you not?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member knows or should know that what we said in this house to the government of the day was "Why do you not consider the plan that Mr. McMahon is proposing; why do you restrict your dealings to the one group?" There was not the slightest justification for his insinuation today that we were aiming to get McMahon into this trans-Canada pipe line affair. These are smears unworthy of the hon. gentleman and I am amazed that he would use them today.
Then he charged we were not true to the policies of Sir John A. Macdonald and that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and all his supporters were a type of renegade Conservative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the hon. member's supporters laugh and jeer and bang their desks now when I make that statement and they have been doing that kind of thing on platforms all over Canada for many years past.

It is just the smear approach. It always reminds me of a hound dog baying at the moon-completely impractical. They forget anything that has to do with the working out of this policy; that is no concern of theirs. They just make one big jump from here to there and leave out all the details of how you are going to get from one place to another. I do not suppose there has ever been a more impractical group of politicians under one flag than Canada has in the C.C.F. party.
In 1956 when we were having the pipe line debate there was a situation existing at that time, but my hon. friend from Rosetown-Biggar just ignores that situation; he ignores everything that has happened in the meantime and comes right down to today and accuses us of breaking faith and changing our policy and all this sort of nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you not?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is a great deal worse than the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I express my thanks to the hon. minister. That is the finest compliment that has ever been paid to me in this house.


Howard Charles Green: We will hear plenty from the the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre between now and the end of the session, just as we have between now and the start of the session.


John George Diefenbaker: He has more lines in Hansard than any other one member.


Howard Charles Green: When this question of pipe lines first came up way back in 1949, it was the Conservative party or the Conservative members in this house who, true to the policies of Sir John A. Macdonald and the founders of this nation, advocated in season and out of season "a Canada first" policy; that Canadians should have the first opportunity to use their own Canadian gas and oil. That was our stand from the beginning; it has been our stand all the way through and it is our stand today.
When the debate took place in 1956 we criticized the government primarily because of that belief. We have always thought that Canadians should have the first opportunity to use their resources. The C.C.F. group criticized the proposal primarily because they wanted state ownership.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has on more than one occasion in this house quoted the last paragraph of a speech I made on May 15, 1956 and I believe he has also

quoted it over the air. I told the government of that day and I repeat it now: I believe that this measure now proposed by the government is the greatest betrayal of the Canadian people since confederation. If the hon. member had taken the trouble to read my speech-


Major James William Coldwell: I did.


Howard Charles Green: -then he should in fairness have given the basis for that remark, and the basis was this: in the spring of 1956 the Liberal government came to parliament and asked for authority to lend $80 million to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to enable them to build a line from Alberta to Winnipeg, or it may have been to the Ontario border. I think it was to Winnipeg. At that time we believed-and I still believe this was the case-that the whole plan was a plan of the Tennessee Gas Transmission Company. What they wanted was to get a pipe line from Alberta down to the United States, down into Minneapolis and St. Paul and into Chicago, and then they had another branch coming into Canada at Niagara. The plan was not designed for Canada first; it was designed for the benefit of the Tennessee Gas Transmission Company first. I went on to point that out in my speech, and it was on this basis that I made the charge contained in the last paragraph of my remarks. Similar attacks were made by other members of this party based fundamentally on the same complaint.
What has happened in the meantime? The company has not yet got permission to export gas to the United States. Work went on last year-and the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar completely ignores these facts- work went on last summer, but at the time this debate took place in May, 1956, the pipe line had not been started. It started last summer and now I believe it is being laid from Winnipeg to the Ontario border.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With explosions every day or so.


Howard Charles Green: Well, we have explosions here every day or so from some hon. members in that quarter of the house. Here in the east the project is now drawing near completion, and that is the situation today; that was the situation which the new government faced when it took over in June. Furthermore, there had been a crown corporation set up by the statute which was passed in June of 1946. The province of Ontario was a partner of the federal government in that crown corporation, and the crown corporation was actually at work laying the pipe line in northern Ontario.
Now it is all very well for the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to say he would at once
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines have taken over the whole pipe line. He may or may not be wrong in adopting a policy of that kind, but surely he cannot accuse the present government of insincerity, or of bad faith, or of all those crimes of which he thinks we have been guilty. Surely he is going much too far in making accusations of that kind in the circumstances.
Once we took over we began a study of the situation, and the picture is a very complicated one. There are many different questions to be settled. The hon. member says very lightly today: you should have moved at once. He says in this amendment that instead of evading responsibility by referring these matters to a royal commission we should have taken more immediate action. But it would be interesting to see the C.C.F. group in power here just to see how quickly they would have changed their tune, just as they have changed a lot of tunes since they took power in Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar should give some consideration to the duties placed on this commission. I am going to read them to the house this afternoon. These are the things into which the commission is to look and upon which it is to make recommendations:
(a)	The policies which will best serve the national interest in relation to the export of energy and sources of energy from Canada.
Within the last few years this whole question of Canada's energy sources and what is to be done with them has become one of the most important problems before the country, and it is also one of the most difficult. It involves not only gas and oil but also power and uranium; all of those energy sources. No government is in position to adopt a long-range policy without having made a thorough investigation of the whole situation. I submit with all deference to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that we had a perfectly good and honest reason for setting up a commission of investigation with regard to this particular matter.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not want to be misunderstood. I actually said that there were some things which should be referred to a royal commission, but I added that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was not one of them.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the hon. member apparently admits that clause (a) of the instructions to the royal commission is all right. Now I will ask him to listen to clause (b) and see what he thinks of that.
(b)	the problems involved in, and the policies which ought to be applied to. the regulation of the transmission of oil and natural gas between provinces or from Canada to another country, including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the regulation of prices or rates to be charged or paid, the financial structure and control of pipe

Trans-Canada Pipe Lines
line corporations in relation to the setting of proper prices or charges, and all such other matters as it is necessary to enquire into and report upon, in order to ensure the efficient and economical operation of pipe lines in the national interest.
The hon. gentleman nods his head. I am sure he agrees we had perfectly good justification for asking that this commission investigate the matters referred to in paragraph Cb).


Major James William Coldwell: I am not disputing that. What I am disputing is the propriety of the government to refer Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, about which they held such definite opinions, to this royal commission.


Howard Charles Green: I want to find out how much of this the hon. member agrees with and how much he does not. He has agreed to paragraphs (a) and (b). I am going to read each one because they are important. It just is not good enough to pick out one or two and proceed to belabour us about one of them and leave the inference that the whole commission is just eye-wash and that is what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did. I read paragraph (c):
The extent of authority that might best be conferred on a national energy board to administer, subject to the control and authority of parliament, such aspects of energy policy coming within the jurisdiction of parliament as it may be desirable to entrust to such a board, together with the character of administration and procedure that might best be established for such a board.
Now, the hon. gentleman apparently agrees with that function of the commission. May I point out to him that the present Prime Minister, other members of the Conservative party and myself, when in opposition, had advocated the setting up of a national energy board and we are very much in earnest about getting ahead with that policy. Surely, the practical way of doing it is to have an investigation made of the type which this commission is authorized to make. I now come to paragraph (d), and here I suppose is where the hon. member dissents. It reads:
Whether, in view of its special relationship to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation and the nature of its financing and control, any special measures need to be taken in relation to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in order to safeguard the interests of Canadian producers or consumers of gas.
In his remarks the hon. member raved away about what we should be doing with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. He referred to Mr. Tanner and Mr. Coates, and what I am wondering is what he would have done to Mr. Tanner and Mr. Coates. Would he have put them in jail, or tried to put them in jail, without any evidence at all? Would he simply bring them before the bar of the house and then throw them into the basement?


The hon. member shakes his head. It is one thing to malign men like Tanner and Coates in this house and it is another thing-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Who called them buccaneers?


Major James William Coldwell: That was not my word. I did not malign them. The Prime Minister called them buccaneers.


Howard Charles Green: What we are asking this commission to do in paragraph (d) is to go into the whole question of the relationship of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation and, further, to go into the nature of the financing and control of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and into the question of whether there are any measures which should be taken by the government in order to safeguard the interests of Canadian producers or consumers of gas.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And make a report after the next election?


Howard Charles Green: Oh, the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre just lives on and breathes suspicion. I sometimes wonder whether he has not got himself worked into the frame of mind where he believes that the only honest people in Canada are members of the C.C.F. party.


Major James William Coldwell: Nonsense.


Howard Charles Green: These people down in the left-hand corner, Mr. Speaker, seem to believe that nobody in this house is trying to do anything for Canada but themselves. I am surprised that after 25 years down in that corner they have not learned that that is all completely wrong; that members here of all parties are trying to benefit the Canadian people in the way which seems to them to be the best way to do it.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says that this commission is just to get the Tories over the next election. May I point out to him that the Tories expect to be on the right side of the house for a long, long time.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Wishful thinking.


Howard Charles Green: We have set up this commission to help us solve these very difficult problems.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I thought you had them all solved.


Howard Charles Green: They can accuse us all they like of just trying to shelve the problem. That has not been our record since this house began. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) rose in his place the other day and said that never had a government moved so

fast as the present government to deal with problems and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), the leader of the Social Credit party, went out west and when he had a lot of good fresh western air in his lungs- I wish I had some now, Mr. Speaker-said that this Conservative government is doing things; there has never been a better government in Canada.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the leader of the Social Credit party never said any such thing. What he did say was that was what parliament did, and that is a different thing from saying it was the government that did it.


Howard Charles Green: Well, I am sure the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) never said any such thing, and I would not expect him to. He says a lot but he would not say anything like that.
This government, Mr. Speaker, has moved to deal with this question. A commission has been set up in good faith. The terms of the commission have been approved today by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, with the exception of this one reference to the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. The personnel of the commission could not be improved upon, in spite of the slurring remarks he made about the chairman.


Major James William Coldwell: I made no slurring remarks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course not.


Major James William Coldwell: I said they were estimable gentlemen whose ideas, perhaps, might be influenced by their associations.


Howard Charles Green: Well, I am glad the hon. member is admitting that his party now believes in guilt by association.


Major James William Coldwell: No, I did not say that.


Howard Charles Green: Certainly, he had no right to attack these men.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not. I rise on a question of privilege. I attacked no one this afternoon. I simply said what their business connections were. When men have business connections they often influence their judgment in business matters and surely that is not an aspersion on a man's character. Is the hon. gentleman trying to make a fool of himself?


Howard Charles Green: What the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is insinuating, Mr. Speaker, is that Henry Borden cannot give an honest opinion on these questions. I leave that to the judgment of the house. He was very wise to stop when he did in reading the list of men who are to constitute this commission. I am sure he would not question Professor
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Britnell of Saskatchewan, or Gordon G. Cushing, one of the vice-presidents of the Canadian Labour Congress, or other members who are named on the commission.
We have set up a commission that will be holding its first meeting next week and I believe that these men will do a splendid job for Canada. But it is not very much help to them as they face these difficult problems to be attacked as they have been attacked in the House of Commons this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: Surely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will he say that he was smearing Mr. Tanner and Mr. Coates when in this house on February 25, 1957, as found at page 1617 of Hansard, he attacked them because of the profits they made out of the trans-Canada pipe line deal?


Howard Charles Green: If I made an attack such as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made this afternoon, then I was wrong.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister attacked Mr. Murchison, too.


Howard Charles Green: But here we have this commission set up to do a job for Canada and the members are attacked on the floor of the House of Commons. Naturally the government cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. We think it is not only unwise but also-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Embarrassing.


Howard Charles Green: -very unfair. Oh, we are not embarrassed by anything the C.C.F. party does in this parliament. They are such big, brave fellows when they know that the Liberals are not going to vote with them. If the C.C.F. thought for one minute that when they moved an amendment it might be carried they would not do half as much barking as they have been doing since the house opened. Finally, may I simply say that I am sure that not only the members on the government side of the house but also the members of the official opposition and the members of the Social Credit party on our right realize exactly what kind of amendment this is and will not hesitate to vote against it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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

Trans-Canada Pipe Lines


Mr. A. B. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a tew words. It is a little bit difficult to speak on the resolution because of the very excellent, powerful and all-comprehensive remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I do not think that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), the house leader, seriously attempted to come to grips with the case presented. He used a great deal of his time on matters which indicated that he was not too keen to come to grips with the real question. He said that this amendment was socialism. If this is socialism, I suppose the public ownership of Canadian National Railways is socialism; I suppose the public ownership of Trans-Canada Air Lines is socialism and that the proposition put forward by his former leader, then leader of the opposition, for public ownership of the trans-Canada natural gas pipe lines was socialism. I do not think that argument can be treated seriously.
Whatever the long-term merits of socialism may be, they do not arise here any more than they arise in connection with some public project like the Ontario hydro where the Canadian people have been at pains to use social ownership as a means of controlling and keeping control of the vital lifelines of public existence. Undoubtedly gas pipe lines are just something else of the same nature. The government, by refusing to accept its responsibility to govern, is selling out the people of Canada. That is a strong statement but I want to show what I mean.
In the province of British Columbia one natural gas pipe line company, Westcoast Transmission, has piled up stock option profits amounting to $69 million already. The special tax free capital gains out of that company alone amounted to $69 million before the pipe line was opened. That company too, which is United States controlled, has turned around and under the control of its United States parents is selling gas to United States distributors for 10 cents less than the price to distributors in British Columbia. Westcoast Transmission Company is controlled by Sun-ray Midwestern Oil in the United States.
This is going on at the present time. There is no academic question here. That company has a 20-year contract to sell its gas to United States distributors at 22 cents per thousand cubic feet while at the present time it is charging Canadian industry and Canadian consumers in British Columbia 32 cents per thousand feet. What does that mean? It not only means that the Canadian consumer is being milked for these stock option gains
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.!
-he is the one who will have to pay them off-it not only means he has to pay a higher price for his own gas than the United States consumer but it means that this is a sell-out of Canadian industry. United States industry using cheaper gas can compete very much better with Canadian industry.


Charles Edward Johnston: What is the price to the people of Rosetown-Biggar?


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: I
do not know that. I cannot answer that question.


Mr. Ellis:: Tell us the price in Winnipeg.


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: My
hon. friend may want to change the subject, but here is a case where Canadian consumers and Canadian industry are being sold down the river at the present time and the government, instead of proposing action to preserve vital Canadian interests, has proposed a royal commission which will certainly last for one year, two years, who knows how long?


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: Because I know how long it took a similar commission on long-term energy prospects in the United States. I note that the commission set up by the government, and about which they were so serious, has not met and will not meet until next week although it was appointed some time early in October. Why this long delay when Canadian interests are being sold out by the supplying of our own gas to the United States at a cheaper rate?


Ernest James Broome: I suppose you like the way the Indonesian government has just grabbed hold of everything.


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: That may be Conservative policy. It is not ours.


Alfred Claude Ellis: A bright question.


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: There is another point that parliament should consider about this matter. Since the 14th of October when parliament opened we have been trying to do something for the retired citizens of our country, the disabled, the blind, our veterans. Think of how much we have provided for these people and how much has been reaped by a small band of speculators in our natural gas pipe lines, $69 million in British Columbia alone and, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said, $75 million in connection with Trans-Canada. Then there is Quebec Natural Gas and the Northern Ontario pipe line. While we talk about setting up a commission to discuss the question, all that money is going tax free into the

hands of a small band of speculators and it is more than parliament voted by way of increase for the senior citizens of the country. Yet the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), when he brought down his tax proposals the other night, continued to show that tender solicitude towards these interests in his policy of refusing to consider a capital gains tax. This parliament is not ready yet to tax these gains. Surely, that is not acting in the interests of those we were called together to help the old people, the blind, the disabled, the veterans, the people who have built up this country and made the wealth of this country as we know it today.
Nothing personal was said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar about the chairman of the commission that the government proposes to set up. The hon. member showed that the chairman's interests absolutely committed him to take a line that was contrary to the policy adopted by the Conservative party in the debates of June, 1956. Mr. Borden is not just the president of Brazilian Traction, he is president of two subsidiary gas companies of Brazilian Traction. Here he is, the president of two gas companies in Brazil, committed by his life, his actions and his work to the defence of those interests. How would it appear if he decided that it was in the public interest in Canada that Trans-Canada should be a public utility, publicly-owned? Would that not redound immediately against the interests of his companies in Brazil? Of course it would. We know the pressure there is against foreign domination of the economy of Brazil, and such a finding would immediately become news in Brazil. How could Mr. Borden, the chairman, the most important man on the commission the government proposes to set up, take a position against foreign domination of this Canadian life line? Does he not have to make a case in Brazil for foreign ownership and control of Brazilian natural gas companies? Could he be expected to take the other side of the question here? The chairman of the commission is necessarily committed by his business connections to a policy which will not safeguard Canadian natural gas from foreign domination, a policy which cannot conceivably give to the consumers, the people of Canada generally, public ownership of that natural gas company.
In making his case, the Minister of Public Works was in error in suggesting that it was a personal thing. However, it is such a powerful case that the hon. member has made that even if the government has to continue this commission to investigate the long-term uses
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines of energy in Canada and the ultimate regulation of those energies, gas, electricity, uranium and so forth, it should reconstitute that commission to make sure that none of the members, especially the chairman, is committed by business connections to taking a position which would not be in the interests of the Canadian people.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think it is well that at this time some of us who have been interested in this question of gas and oil production in Canada for a long time should lay some of the facts before this house that will enable us all to see this thing in proper perspective. I might say, in my own case, that long before we heard from many people in this house about this question of the exploitation of producers and consumers there were voices raised in western Canada pointing out these facts. These facts are on the records of newspapers in western Canada and were there long before we heard from any of our friends who sit in one corner of this house.
Today I heard remarks passed about the sincerity of this government. I think before we measure this sincerity we had better learn to take a good look at ourselves. I refer particularly to a little episode in Saskatchewan which occurred not so long ago known to the Saskatchewan people as the Regina outdoor theatre. There were four men in that province, the Hon. Mr. Fines, the Hon. Mr. T. C. Douglas, a Mr. Bodneft and a Mr. Shumiatcher, who entered into association, and who put up approximately $4,000 in capital for equity shares in a theatre worth $150,000. Here we have an identical case to what has been happening in connection with this oil business. Here we have a group of men visualizing the possibility of capital gains. They have invested $4,000 in equity stock and then they go out and borrow $90,000 on debentures, allowing the profits to pay off their debentures. Then when they sold the theatre it would be worth the market value which, at one time, was approximately $150,000.
I was not one of those people in Saskatchewan who condemned these four men for doing what they did because that was one of the techniques used by businessmen to try to avoid paying income tax, to get a capital gain. I maintain that in any kind of transaction such as this, where we condemn one group of men for doing something, we should be equally fair and condemn other groups for doing the same thing. I think these facts put a different light on the words spoken by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well). Where was he or any other member of his party in Saskatchewan when this matter

Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was before the public of that province? Not one of them raised their voices but let the thing disappear from public interest gradually. Eventually these men sold out. As leader of my party in that province I took part in the discussion, but not in connection with this question of capital gain or this question of using equity stock to avoid paying income tax. I raised the essentially democratic issue of the right of two ministers of the crown to be associated in business with two other men doing business with the crown. It was on that point I raised my voice in Saskatchewan, but it was not heard.
I want to point out to this house that this is a case of record. The facts are there for the public to see. When people talk about sincerity I like to see that they apply the same rules of judgment in one case as they apply in another. I am not finished with this matter entirely, Mr. Speaker. I have to make some quotations from memory, but I challenge anybody in the house to question these quotations. We had the question of the development of oil and gas in our province under discussion. There was hesitation about accepting any investment from risk capital in our province. The province of Alberta began to move forward in oil and gas development. I was one of those in Saskatchewan who held that we should encourage these large investments of risk capital in our province. I was not the only one. Here is a statement from the provincial treasurer of the province of Saskatchewan, Mr. Fines. This is just a rough statement corresponding to what he said, but I challenge any person in this house to question the accuracy of it.
He said that the government should not be engaged in risky natural resource development projects. He was backed up by a person called the premier of the province, Mr. T. C. Douglas, who made a statement along this line, that no government led by him would expropriate or take over gas and oil companies engaged in development of resources. These statements appeared in the oil magazines in western Canada as a guarantee of the leader of our government in Saskatchewan that, in these great risk enterprises for the development of our natural resources, there would be no interference, no socialism, no expropriation.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Is it not a fact that all the pipe lines in Saskatchewan are publicly owned?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is a very profound observation from the hon. member for Regina City.
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1


Alfred Claude Ellis: I was just wondering if you knew about it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am just simply putting on the record the statements by the leaders of the government of that province. Now we have a repudiation of the leaders of that province in this house by the members of the C.C.F. They are advocating a policy here which in effect is expropriation of a company.


Major James William Coldwell: For which we paid; we put up all the money.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: For which this parliament did contribute when it started. Now I want to lead on to this next point. We have found in Saskatchewan that we have to co-operate with the people who bring in risk capital. We have found it to be good business. The province of Alberta at the present time receives over 60 per cent of every dollar received from the oil and gas business. In the public documents of that province of Saskatchewan, you will find a statement that between 40 per cent and 60 per cent of every dollar coming from the oil and gas business in Saskatchewan will go into the treasury of the province of Saskatchewan. We in the west know that in this great oil and gas industry the people of Canada are the persons who will get the greater share and we will do all we can to let the thing develop on a sound economic basis.
This brings me to the question of the royal commission and the speeches made here today and this lack of dealing with the fundamental issue that is raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Macdonald). If you read this section (d) which is under dispute, you will find it states:
(d) whether, in view of its special relationship to the Northern Ontario Pipeline Crown Corporation and the nature of its financing and control, any special measures need be taken in relation to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, Limited, in order to safeguard the interests of Canadian producers or consumers of gas;
Long ago it became clear in western Canada that there was a great pressure play being put on the producers of gas in our western provinces, particularly in Alberta. We heard of a company coming out there called Trans-Canada Pipe Lines offering our producers 10 cents a thousand in the centre of the field. My voice was raised in western Canada long before the voices of any members of the C.C.F. party were ever raised in this matter. For the last seven years I have tried to keep the public of Saskatchewan informed on our participation in the risks of this type of pressure being put on these producers because I knew the producers of gas and oil in the west were ourselves. We own from 40 per

cent to 60 per cent of it. In their defence I fought steadily for the right to set up some form of regulatory body in Canada that would control the rates paid, and have some say in the rates paid to the producers and the rates charged by pipe lines carrying this product through the pipe lines to the consumers. In that particular industry it so happens that there is a community of interest between the producers of western Canada and the consumers of eastern Canada because gas is a fixed cost industry. If we can get firm sales in eastern Canada we can reduce the price to consumers and at the same time give more to the producers.
The very rightness of my judgment on this question of price is now borne out today by the fact that Trans-Canada cannot get new contracts signed at an increased price of 12 cents because anyone who knows economics and knows the situation in western Canada knows that the production cost is some place between 14 cents and 18 cents in the centre of the field.
What has this all got to do with this question we are debating here today? We have not in Canada today any body qualified to judge how much surplus gas we have, or the rates that should be paid to any transportation company carrying that gas from one part of Canada to the other; and certainly we have not any body qualified to judge on this very difficult matter of price structure.
I do not think there are too many members on the opposition side of the house who are at all qualified to stand up and say that we can act like the federal power commission in the United States with years of experience behind them. The great thing to remember is this. The action that this government has taken should have been taken five years ago. We are going to be in serious trouble for many months to come. We have on the statute books of this country an act called the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act. As all hon. members know, this statute says that no gas can be exported until there is a surplus of gas declared in Canada. What is the body that declares that surplus? In Alberta they have a conservation board which has done wonderful work in trying to establish the presently known gas reserves, the potential reserves and the probable reserves. We have nothing like that in Saskatchewan. We have nothing like that yet in British Columbia and I do not think they have yet got to that stage in Manitoba. How any person can stand up in this house and say that this can be followed through when there is no competent body of belief or opinion as to that question of conservation, I do not know. I think that
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines person is evading the essential issue in our problem in Canada here today.
In that act there is also a regulation which says that no gas shall be exported out of Canada unless it is at a comparable price for the same kind of fuel in the country to which the gas is going. It is on this question that many of us in all sincerity wonder if the laws of Canada are being obeyed today. This is a question for judges to decide, people of judicial temperament. That is the place of this royal commission. We did our level best to try to get a group of people not directly connected with the oil and gas business in Canada to act as a body that would give us this judgment. That was one of the reasons why it was almost impossible to get a person in the business to go on that royal commission, because of their direct connections with and direct interest in it. It is almost impossible in the whole of Canada to get people who are not in some way indirectly connected with the oil and gas business.
I therefore point out, in concluding my remarks, that this royal commission was set up on October 15. The two secretaries have been working collecting information and I have been doing what I can in my own department, as a matter of fact, having my own department find all that we can. I do not know whether or not the royal commission will ask me for that information. But it just strikes me that if all these people who have been talking about this whole matter of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and Westcoast Transmission-and I am one of them-are sincere in what we have said, it is our duty to make sure that we have witnesses ready to go before that royal commission in order to present the viewpoint that we have. I am prepared to do my part and I trust that the hon. gentlemen who have spoken so much across the chamber will do the same. I cannot support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It had not
been my intention, Mr. Speaker, to say anything on this amendment but the remarks just made by the minister from my own province rather intrigued me. I was quite surprised at his admission that what he was going to read were, I believe he said, rough quotations of something that certain other gentlemen were supposed to have said in the province of Saskatchewan. I think perhaps the validity of the hon. member's statement can be judged from an instance of what occurred in the house on November 27 when, on the question of privilege, my colleague the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Johnson) referred to a statement by the minister which had been reported in the
2152	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines press in Saskatchewan and to which the minister took some exception. The minister at that time made this statement:
C.C.F. members oppose the move as useless, although it was supported by farm organizations.
Then he went on to point out that one member had argued against the cash advances resolution. He was asked who it was, when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said:
Might I ask who was the hon. member concerned, because I have no recollection of this.
The minister replied:
I said one member, in his remarks in this house, had described it as useless.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, who was that? I have no recollection.
There was no answer. So on that occasion the minister was making reference to something which had gone on in this house, but he could not even give us the name of the individual who was supposed to have made this statement.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I ask a
question of the hon. member?


Alfred Claude Ellis: Certainly.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Do you honestly want to know who the member was to whom I was referring?


Alfred Claude Ellis: You know now. You did not know then.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I knew then because I quoted from his remarks from page 517 of Hansard. When a member stands up in this house and says that a proposal is too little and too late and not only is inadequate but stupid I would assume that is somewhat comparable to the word "useless" and that he is opposed to the legislation.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure we are all pleased that the minister in the interim has discovered who was the member concerned, because certainly at page 1555 of Hansard on November 27 he did not know.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member that 1 knew exactly at that time who was the person. I quoted from his remarks in Hansard and all I was doing at that time was avoiding the embarrassment of the member in front of his colleagues.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I suggest the hon. member would have preferred being named because I am sure that having made the statement he would be quite capable of backing it up.
Some reference was made in the earlier part of the minister's remarks to private business in my own home city of Regina and,


in some obscure manner, the minister tried to tie this in with the question of pipe lines. I think when the hon. member from Saskatchewan, who should know better and has listened over the years as I have listened to the type of remarks made by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) and other members of the Liberal party from Saskatchewan and who realizes how utterly ridiculous were those charges, should know better than to repeat this nonsense on the floor of the House of Commons.
I suggest to him that if he feels that every small business should be investigated and if he is opposed to the manner in which business is carried on in the country, that is his privilege but when we are dealing with pipe lines we are dealing first with a monopoly. A pipe line by its very nature is a monopoly. Furthermore, when we are dealing with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines we are dealing with a monopoly created through the use of public funds and I suggest there is absolutely no parallel between an ordinary business-whether it be a theatre or a grocery store or any other type of small business -and a public monopoly or a monopoly created out of the use of public funds.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would the hon. member permit a question. Does the hon. member want to tell this house that a $150,000 business-either a theatre or a grocery store-is a small proposition?


Alfred Claude Ellis: I do not think the minister really expects that hon. members in this house are going to become exercised over what they know to be a normal business procedure in all of the businesses in this country and I would think that, as a defender of free enterprise, he would be the last one in the world to allege that a businessman in the entertainment field or in business generally could in any way be compared to Mr. Tanner, Mr. Coates, Mr. Murchison, Mr. McMahon and others who were described by his own leader as buccaneers.
I would suggest that when reference is made to a smear attack on the personnel of the royal commission, as was made earlier, members on the government side should explain the evidence upon which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in 1956 called Mr. Tanner and Mr. Coates buccaneers.
Apparently the hon. gentleman had sufficient evidence in his possession upon which to formulate his judgment and I suggest that because the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) places on the record of this house the business connections of certain gentlemen it does not constitute an attack or a smear. Now if the hon. gentlemen opposite want to consider that the

placing on the record of a man's business connection constitutes a smear, then I suggest that is a very grave reflection upon the businessmen of this country. I say this because all the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did was to outline the business connections of these two gentlemen in order to indicate their difficulties in exercising impartial judgment.
Now I mentioned a moment ago the reference made by the minister in respect to my own province in connection with pipe lines and I asked the minister whether it was not a fact apart from Trans-Canada Pipe Lines of course which is interprovincial, the construction of all pipe lines in the province of Saskatchewan-outside of the main trunk line-is under the auspices of the Saskatchewan power corporation and that we in Saskatchewan are doing precisely what we want the government of Canada to do.
In Saskatchewan we are developing our gas pipe lines as a public utility in order that natural gas may be brought to the hon. member's home city of Saskatoon. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has natural gas in his home in Saskatoon but I know there are thousands of people in that city, as there are thousands of people in my own city, who are now benefiting as a result of the development of our resources and through the transmission of natural gas by the Saskatchewan power corporation into the cities, towns and villages of the province of Saskatchewan.
The hon. gentleman said something about risk capital. I think he ought to bear in mind that there is a distinct difference between capital invested in oil exploration and the building of a pipe line. Where, might I ask, is there any risk involved in the building of a pipe line? There has not been a pipe line built in North America which has not produced sizeable profits for its owners and there has not been a pipe line built in North America which has failed. Therefore, for the hon. gentleman to suggest there is any similarity between the risk capital involved in exploration for oil and the building of a pipe line to transport the gas resources in being from the producer to the consumer is, of course, to beg the question. I suggest that we in the C.C.F. have been thoroughly consistent in that over the years we have stated in this house that we believe the Canadian people will enjoy the greatest benefit from the natural resources of this country through the building of pipe lines by the government.
We have proven this to be the case in the province of Saskatchewan. We used to hear all sorts of references to gas prices; we do not hear them any more. As a matter of
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines fact the right hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner), last year or two years ago, had a great deal to say about gas prices and prospective gas prices in Regina. We do not hear those comments any more because, as my hon. colleagues from Winnipeg will confirm, there has been a tremendous struggle going on in the city of Winnipeg over this matter and it has been proven that after making allowances for the extra distance involved in the pipe line between Regina and the city of Winnipeg, the people of Winnipeg, who are not getting the benefits of a publicly owned pipe line, are going to pay I believe 25 or 26 cents more per thousand cubic feet for gas than are the consumers in my own city of Regina. That, I think, illustrates the benefits which accrue to the gas consumers in this country through a policy of public ownership of pipe lines.
Hence the suggestions which we have made during the course of this and previous debates have been substantiated through actual performance in my own province. I suggest that what is being done there can be done with equal benefit to the people of this country through the adoption by this government of public construction and ownership of pipe lines.
Now some reference was also made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) to socialism. Well, it was rather strange that in 1956-read reports from the province of Ontario of speeches made by the then leader of the opposition-Mr. Drew suggested public ownership. Did that make Mr. Drew a socialist? Were the Tories who suggested that also socialists and are the supporters of the Ontario hydro socialists? The minister spoke also with respect to free enterprise and the fact that this country had been built by free enterprise. Might I ask whether the amendments to the National Housing Act were not brought about because of the failure of private enterprise to come up with some solution of our housing problem?
Time after time this parliament has had to bail out private enterprise and make use of public funds to cover up the failure of private enterprise through its failure to solve many of our major problems. Here is an instance with regard to which the Conservative party made a strong case in 1956, even going so far as to suggest public ownership, where the government is under a moral obligation to the people of this country who expected that as the result of the election there would be a reversal of the policy adopted by the previous government. The people of Canada have the right to expect that the government should take hold of the situation now, not refer it to a royal commission, and that it

Trans-Canada Pipe Lines should take steps at once to bring Trans-Canada Pipe Lines under public ownership.


Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, one of the disadvantages in trying to attend both meetings of committees and the sittings of this house is the difficulty one is bound to experience in picking up the threads of a debate on a subject as complex and as broad as this, a debate which has brought out a somewhat tired skeleton from the closet for further examination.
In tho very few minutes during which I propose to take part in this debate I do not intend to become any further involved in any discussion of the conflicting ideologies of private enterprise and socialism. This has been a source of disagreement for many years past and it will undoubtedly continue to be so in other centuries than this. But reference has been made to insincerity with regard to the establishment of a royal commission, and speaking only for myself and as someone who has made a living in this industry for some time I wish to make one point abundantly clear. I would be less than honest if I did not say that, naturally, the producers of this product would be somewhat concerned over any lengthy delay such as could result from protracted hearings before a royal commission, but having said that let me say with equal sincerity that the establishment of a body for the orderly regulation of the oil and gas industry, is something which not only consumers but producers also have been advocating for the past 20 years or so. Yes, the first request of this kind goes back to the days when the industry, in its infancy at that time, recommended that authority should be assumed by a federal board somewhat similar in constitution to what we know today as the federal power commission of the United States.
What could such a commission as is now being set up accomplish? The Minister for Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) has explained that one result could be an energy board which could clarify and determine the future course of the oil and gas industry as it is related not only to the producer but also to that equally important person in Canada, the consumer. If a question of sincerity is involved, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this was the first and prime objective in setting up the commission. This will unquestionably be accomplished if we can be patient enough to await the outcome.
But I should like to suggest to hon. members of this house that consideration of these matters by the commission will inevitably delay the growth of this industry whether the


gas goes into the domestic market or into the foreign market, with serious effects upon a source of wealth which is as important to Canada as is the oil and gas industry. It is wrong for any member of this house to assume that it is possible to keep the product in the ground and have it available, as if by turning on a tap, when it is required for consumers in Canada alone. It is important to bear in mind that the known reserves of gas in Canada today amount to about 24 trillion cubic feet, and also to bear in mind that we are discovering new reserves at the rate of approximately two trillion feet per year, so that in the course of the next 25 years we may expect to have something like 74 trillion cubic feet of reserve capacity. With these figures in mind it is obvious that we as Canadians need have no concern that the domestic needs of this country, present and future cannot be met.
One result of the energy commission which could follow the setting up of this royal commission would be the determination of how best these reserves of gas could be used and for what purpose. As I have pointed out, even on the basis of the gas known to be available in Canada today we have a reserve capacity far greater than the Canadian demand. Therefore, in considering this question, which is so important to the economy of Alberta and Saskatchewan, it stands to reason that regardless of whether a pipe line is to be owned by individuals or publicly we must look to the export of natural gas. Now to take this one step further: what is the best procedure with regard to the export of this gas?
There are, admittedly, a few limited regulatory bodies in Canada. We have a lesson to be learned from the Alberta gas conservation board which is practising a philosophy generally accepted by both producers and consumers. We have a minister's conference which deals with these matters purely on an annual basis, and we have certain regulations in the three provinces. I believe that if this energy commission were to examine the history of this group of organizations together with representations made by consumer groups it could put together an interim study in the interest of both producers and consumers. The report which would then come forward would represent the first oil and gas policy for Canada.
I suggest that as it is now six o'clock we should adjourn at this point.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Arthur Smith: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks before the adjournment I endeavoured to trace some of the history of the gas industry and the implications of that history in relation to export. I said it was not my intention to try to separate the longstanding differences which will continue to exist between the principles of free enterprise and socialism. Then I discussed the need as I saw it as an individual for a royal commission which could produce desirable results from the standpoint of both the consumer and the producer.
Following that I placed myself on record as best I could in recognizing the need of the export of this surplus gas reserve of our country. You may recall that I said a conservative-and for the record I might point out that I mean conservative with a small "c"-estimate of our reserves of natural gas has been placed at approximately 24 trillion cubic feet. I then went on to say that the estimated domestic demand for the next 25 years is something in the neighbourhood of 17 trillion cubic feet and that the estimated natural annual increase in the commodity based purely on present indications as a result of exploration is in excess of 2 trillion cubic feet.
I am not a mathematician but from those figures it will be clearly understood that taking into consideration our reserves of natural gas and the anticipated demand which has been arrived at at a number of hearings concerning domestic consumption, and also taking into consideration all the proposed plans for export, it is estimated that we will have a surplus based on present exploration and present rate of growth of over 47 trillion cubic feet. Therefore, I think that any of us regardless of where we may sit in this house can reach the conclusion that we are indeed blessed by nature in having vast quantities of this valuable commodity surplus to the requirements of the country.
It would seem, then, that a commission on energy which I had hoped would be established as a result of the resolution calling for the setting up of a royal commission would be faced with the problem of finding the best policy to follow in the exploitation of this commodity to the advantage of both the consumer and the producer. It was really on that point that I concluded when I said it is apparent to me that the request for the establishment of a royal commission has been made in all seriousness and sincerity because of the existence of a problem which hither-tofore we have not had to face, and also in 96698-137
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines recognition of the growing surplus of only one of Canada's many natural resources.
I am now going to go one step farther in stating that perhaps the first responsibility of this commission is to determine whether or not a delay in the development of this commodity would work to the detriment of the economy of Canada or, perhaps if we could forecast a conclusion which I assume would not be in order in this house, decide whether or not retaining the reserves of this commodity within Canada would be in the best interests of this nation.
As I said at the beginning the commission must face the question as to whether or not a delay in reaching a decision would in itself be desirable. In dealing with this question I do not intend to review it from the standpoint of the producer alone but I will also consider the position of the consumer in this regard. If I were a witness antagonistic as a consumer to the proposition of the export of natural gas I would say what is perhaps on the lips of every hon. member of this house that to export natural gas means to increase the price of that gas to the consumer. I do not intend to deny that fact, but having said that I would hasten to say that whether gas is used solely for the domestic market or exported the increase in demand will affect the cost of the gas to the consumer.
There is a serious dispute in my own city today as to whether or not gas prices in that city will be increased based on the export of this product. Those who must consider that problem will doubtless have to face the argument that whether or not it is used in the domestic or imported market, or whether it is kept in Canada or sold abroad, the cost of gas will be increased by general demand over the depressed price at which gas has sold during the past 20 years. I say that with the following in mind. When you look at those areas which have enjoyed the use of this resource for many years and obtained it when there was no other market for it due to the fact that there was no transmission system which could carry it from one place to another you will find that those communities had the privilege of enjoying the use of this excellent commodity at an extremely low rate. However, I am not going to limit myself purely to local areas of Canada.
Let us move on to a second question: what will the export of natural gas mean to the consumer? As I have said, when this royal commission sits they will first have to consider the problem of immediate concern as to whether or not to delay the use of that gas either on a domestic or import basis. Another consideration that will be placed

Trans-Canada Pipe Lines before the commission will be the question of the effect on eastern Canada as a result of the export of gas into the United States.
I subscribe to the idea that the presently existing Trans-Canada pipe line will find itself in the position, on the basis of the estimated demand for gas in eastern Canada, of concluding that the domestic transmission of gas will be theoretically sound economically speaking. That is based on their first application to the Alberta conservation board when they asked for a limited supply and, of course, it is not necessary to quote that figure in this house. I think you will agree that finding themselves in that position they will likely have to go back and make application for an additional volume of gas if export is granted. What does that mean to the eastern market in this country?
I suggest it may mean anywhere from 5 cents to 7 cents per thousand cubic feet based on the fact that the reduced sale at a lower contract wholesale price on an uninterruptible basis will, as it has done in past years, produce a lower price at the gates of Toronto or at other eastern points. That is the consideration with which the consumer is concerned.
In the early part of the debate one of our members came to me and said, "Well, what is the position of Canada and its future needs?" I have already stated that based on present reserves of gas, based on domestic requirements and based on the proposed export of gas into other areas of this continent, we still have for the next 25 years a reserve of 47 trillion cubic feet. But what I did not say, sir, is that we have not begun to search for gas in western Canada because until recently we have had no market for it. I am speaking, of course, of the relative situation up to the present time.
In actual fact the discovery rate of gas in relation to oil wells has been about eight to seven, and therefore I am certain it would be assumed by hon. members that if you found a gas well when you were looking for oil or conversely you would actually receive a bonus. The fact of the matter is that that has not been the case. If you drill an oil well that produces 10 barrels a day and a well that produces five barrels of oil and a relative amount of gas you will naturally receive less than half the price that the oil marketer has had in the past because of the lack of a market for our natural gas. The discovery of gas related to cost of discovery has in its very nature been a deterrent to the development of the petroleum industry in western Canada.
The next question would be this. That being the case, does it not mean that you can
keep that supply in the ground and use it for some future need in the development of Canada? I think this is really the critical point where perhaps some of us may disagree. I suggest first of all that this house does not have any understanding of what our reserves are. I suggest also that in the orderly development of the reserves of resources in Canada you cannot turn the tap on or turn it off to suit conditions and orderly development must depend on exploration.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 8.15 p.m., it is my
duty, in accordance with the arrangement reached between all parties, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on any amendment before the house.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, the grievance I have this evening comes more directly under the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport. The question has to do with the job that was begun by the former Liberal administration some years ago and today remains an eyesore to the people of my constituency. It is a local problem, namely the breakwater at White Rock and a seawall in parts of Boundary Bay and Beach Grove. In order to give the house a complete picture 96698-137J
Harbour Works-British Columbia of this problem I think it is necessary that we have the story of the geographical outline. We have the city of White Rock which is just north of the international boundary on the lower mainland of British Columbia. The geographic position of the city of White Rock-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Look up.


Frederick George Hahn: Yes. I will look at the C.C.F. As I say, the geographic position of the city of White Rock is just north of the international boundary on the lower mainland of British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: How are you doing?


Frederick George Hahn: I am doing very well. I am getting a lot of enthusiastic help from the socialists over there who think there is only one problem in the country today.


An hon. Member:: Get the breakwater in.


Frederick George Hahn: I will get it in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
are just feeling good because you had the Tories voting with you.


Frederick George Hahn: Yes; I think we have a lot of sense. I think the pipeline case should have gone to the divorce court in the Senate possibly. May I say that this breakwater in White Rock, a city which is just north of the international boundary, has been an eyesore to the community for a number of years. Just prior to the election in 1953 a promise was apparently made by the former member to the effect that a breakwater would be given to them for the purpose of housing small boats and preventing their breakup in the event of high seas. The government kept that promise but the breakwater is of very little use. It is much too small and it is too short. The actual expenditure on the breakwater was something like $150,000.
The suggestion has been made by the department that it is not in the habit of spending money on creating a boat haven or a breakwater for small boats or river craft. In this instance I should like to point out that the city of White Rock itself is a summer resort. It is the best known summer resort on the lower mainland of British Columbia, in fact. There are some 7,000 or 8,000 people resident in the city and on a Sunday it is not at all uncommon to have as many as 30,000 people there. There is a continuous line of traffic from Vancouver, New Westminster and Burnaby into the region. A good number of these people naturally enough own boats. Those boats should be berthed at White Rock which is the natural area in which to spend

Harbour Works-British Columbia summer vacations and Sundays. The fact that the former government recognized the need for and built a breakwater is an important factor. It is not an individual case of such action having been taken.
I understand that similar undertakings were to be carried out at Kelowna, Naramata and Penticton, so the residents of that city saw no reason why in this instance the government should have expended over $150,000 on a project which is proving rather worthless and they asked that they be given a proper boating basin. It might require the extension of the present one, or, on the other hand, it might be wise to build a complete new one. That of course would be the desirable thing because there is another location where a more appropriate boat basin could be constructed.
The boat owners in the area today have to harbour their craft across the international boundary at Blaine. Now the present government has indicated it wishes to have Canadians buy less from the United States. I know that the Minister of Public Works has many times suggested in this house that we are spending too many dollars in that country. This government, by continuing the policies as presented by the former government, is nevertheless forcing the people in my area to go to the United States to store their boats at this point and thereby making them partially resident of that area. They leave their cars in Blaine, they will then buy the materials they require for their boats, naturally enough, in that city and we are in fact doing the very thing to which the government of today is opposed.
It is quite understandable that the merchants of White Rock, the board of trade and other representatives of the area are very disturbed at the continuation of this policy. Other members from the lower mainland of British Columbia, particularly those members for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) and Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Irwin), are, I am sure, fully aware of the position in which the merchants in my area of White Rock find themselves today. They do find many and many a Canadian dollar being spent in the United States which they feel would be much better spent in the White Rock region. It angers the citizens of White Rock to find each morning, when looking out to sea, a fine seagull's roost-in fact a $150,000 one- and it is quite understandable that they would take a dim view of any suggestion that this money was well spent unless something is done to assist them or unless the government sees fit to make a better berth out of the present one. The fact is that the former government only three years ago

recognized the need of the citizens of that area by replanking the pier and of course they had previously built the present White Rock breakwater.
Now these United States cousins of ours see the value of a breakwater. The Americans are shrewd businessmen. I very often find myself thinking that responsible individuals in this house are prone to criticize people who are in business and who do a good job of it by reason of the fact that they themselves are not capable or are not taking advantage of what we might term good business practices. We blame the Americans for seeing there is a need of good boating facilities in that section of the United States and Canada.
Might I say it has been drawn to my attention just exactly how forward-thinking are these Americans in respect to this matter; they are fully cognizant of the fact that tourists spend dollars and they only require one facility that is for boating purposes. They do not require schools; they do not require sewers, watermains or any of the other public utilities which we require in our municipalities. Therefore every tourist dollar spent on the United States side is just that much money in the pocket of the astute merchants there.
The merchants of Blaine and the government of the United States are fully aware of this situation, as I have already indicated, and I find in the Blaine Journal dated February 28, 1957 an article headed "Blaine Boat Haven Expansion to Begin About April 1 by Port". It goes on to say that the United States army engineers would open bids about May 8 for their part of the program and they would extend the existing rock breakwater 1,000 feet southeasterly from the end of the existing breakwater to a point 1,300 feet south of East street. It then goes on to explain about the sharing of these particular costs and just a few weeks later in the April 18 edition of the same publication I find another item entitled "Progress Being Made at Blaine Harbour". One of the important parts of that particular article has this to say:
The date for opening bids for the federal government's part of the project at an estimated cost of $477,000 has been set for May 8, at 2.00 p.m. by Colonel R. J. B. Page, Seattle district engineer, corps of engineers.
The work consists of 480,000 cubic yards of dredging for a small boat harbour; salvaging and reusing approximately 1,100 cubic yards of rock from the existing breakwater; reinforcement of timber and rock breakwater; and construction of 975 feet new breakwater easterly of the existing rock breakwater.
When contract is awarded, contractor will have 150 calendar days to complete work.
This is a serious problem in the lower mainland of British Columbia; it is a problem

of which the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) should be fully aware. It is a problem which I know full well is probably also to some extent the responsibility of the people of the area. However, I would draw to the attention of the minister the following fact: this government has so frequently told us-I have always thought with sincerity, which is probably the case-that we should not spend too many dollars in the United States because every dollar so spent causes that much greater imbalance of trade between our two countries. I say if this government is completely sincere then it will see to it that we have the works in our own area to make it possible for the Canadian boat owners, pleasure craft owners and others to spend their money on the Canadian side. It is not merely that the people of White Rock are asking for something unusual-the	former government
recognized the need four or five years ago when they began the construction of the present breakwater.
It is a matter of fact, though, that this government is carrying out the same policy as the former administration carried on, and the people in my area feel, and rightly, that there is some insincerity here on the part of the present administration.
On the other side of the bay we have the Beach Grove area which is another area, used as a summer resort, and with all the facilities of such a resort, but requiring a seawall of some kind. Our American cousins, again, have recognized the need by building a sea wall on the Point Roberts side, but it is interesting to note that when you come from the United States at Point Roberts and wander up the beach you can find a line which marks specifically the point at which the Americans have quit work on the seawall. It is a wooden wall, but on the Canadian side we have the remnants of a wall, built some 50 years ago, which is quite useless. The swell of the sea sweeps across the vast sandy beach on to the lawns and into the new homes which have been built in that area. I sincerely ask the minister to have his departmental officials look once again into this question to discover whether it would be possible to do something to stop these homes being broken and to save the lawns and the fine shrubs in that district as well.
In so far as the breakwater is concerned there is in White Rock itself south of the Semiamhoo park a small stream, the Campbell river which lends itself beautifully to use as a boat haven. In fact, not so many years ago a private concern thought of building such a haven. All it requires today is a
Pension Rights
bit of dredging, some rock in the form of a breakwater and a float. It is not too much to ask that this government should see that something is done along these lines.


Mr. T. J. Irwin (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of breakwaters I should like to indicate my interest in what the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) has said. It is true my home is in White Rock but I represent Burnaby-Richmond, and in the Richmond section of my constituency, a breakwater was built some two or three years ago, at Steveston to form a fishing boat basin. When that was done it was said that this breakwater would be continued for at least another 200 feet to afford full protection to the basin. But that was never done, and the basin today is open to the full sea striking from the gulf of Georgia. This means that the boat basin at the present time is not giving the protection to fishing craft that it should, besides which the situation leads to a great deal of overcrowding of boats in that area. This makes it very difficult for the fishermen to move in and out at times. I would impress on the Minister for Public Works (Mr. Green) the necessity for finishing the job that was started some two or three years ago and giving the fishermen of that area a sufficient space in which to moor their boats for weekends and during the winter season.
This matter has now been outstanding for some time; a breakwater was not constructed until a long time after it was thought necessary, and now that it has been built it is essential that it be completed and that it should afford fishermen a reasonable chance to pursue their vocation and enjoy the protection they should have.
A great many fishermen there are not able to go to their homes at weekends and at various times merely because there is not sufficient space in the harbour and I therefore urge on the Minister of Public Works the importance of completing this work.


PENSIONS
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, the other day the house kindly gave consent to have the resolution No. 8 in my name removed from the order paper. I said then that I wanted to bring up at an earlier date the subject of the vesting of pension rights, and if it was on the order paper I might not be able to do so at this time.
I had in mind that most employees do not, in most cases, receive any vesting in their pension rights until they have been in employment with one company for a certain fixed number of years. This generally comes

Pension Rights
at retirement age. Most industrial pension plans in force in Canada are either non-contributory or are contributory in part, on the part of the employees.
I realize that in most cases the employee can recover his own contributions on the termination of his service with a company, but this does not in the main apply to the contributions paid into the pension fund on his behalf by his employer until his pension plan has reached maturity. Sometimes there are very definite hardships to be met by the employee in order to qualify to a certain rigid retirement age. Often it is impossible for him to work until that time.
The federal government has a very real stake in these pension funds, in that it foregoes the collection of any income tax on contributions paid into these funds. In recent years the income tax on corporations with net incomes over $20,000 has been in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent. This means that the federal government has an interest of almost 50 per cent in the corporations' contributions, and they have a lesser interest in the employees' contributions. The government would have no control over earlier vesting of pension rights except by disallowing, in whole or in part, the employers' right to deduct their contributions to pension plans under the Income Tax Act, where earlier vesting was not allowed.
I am concerned about those Canadians who by their work have built up an equity for later payment to themselves, and who are unable to meet the number of years of service required, or are unable to work to a certain chronological retiring age. I realize that pension plans were started by companies to provide an incentive for employees to remain in their employment for a number of years, and to reward them for a life time of service. Quite large sums of money are involved in all pension plans that mature.
As an example, a fully paid up pension of $100 a month for an employee at 65 years of age has a capitalized value of about $13,000. If an employee just misses or falls short of qualifying for this pension under a non-contributory plan he misses out on $13,000. If he is in a contributory plan he misses out on $13,000 less the amount that he can recover in respect of his own contributions.
I realize that the terms of many of these plans are definitely set out in contracts between management and labour but in other cases men are hired in a plant and they know simply that there is a pension scheme in force there. They are merely advised that they will have a pension in 20 years and

often the unions know nothing about the terms of maturity of these plans.
There are various reasons why a workman might not be able to complete his service up to retirement age and thus qualify for a pension. I can think of various medical reasons why this might be so. First, coronary insufficiency of the heart which is quite common. I have seen many cases where a man with this condition might be able to continue at work for a number of years if he is assigned light work, but if he has to continue in a job that requires sudden expenditures of energy or rushing about it might bring on coronary pain and could even cause death. Unless he can obtain light work in the plant where he is employed such an employee has to give up work and forfeit any pension that has accrued in respect of his services.
I have seen cases of respiratory allergies develop in men working in plants where chemicals are used and where certain gases escape into the air. Often these allergies do not develop until after some years of employment or until new chemicals and gases are utilized in the plant production. Men so affected are often not actually sick but are too miserable while working in such surroundings to continue at work.
The personal element also might be a big factor in deciding whether an employee can continue working. He might have an altercation with his boss, for instance, and the events that ensue from the flare-up of tempers often result in discharge of the employee. Then, again, an employee might be free of asthma in another part of the country. Some of these reasons for termination of employment are beyond anything a workman may do. In other cases, it would be a distinct advantage to an employee to move to another location and follow similar work for personal, family or other reasons. For example, by a change in location he might be better able to give his family a more adequate education.
The government of Canada should, I feel, see to it that pension plans are put to the best possible use for all Canadians generally. Practically all the companies I know are generous with their employees in respect of the difficulties I have enumerated but the smaller companies that have pension plans cannot always be so generous because the jobs available are not sufficiently diversified to provide men who have certain disabilities with light work up to pensionable retiring age. If the government itself could handle these plans or enact some enabling legislation I feel it could accomplish three things. It could provide that in the event of the bankruptcy of a company pension funds would not be considered in the assets of the company. It could also provide that the employee would take

his pension plan with him on changing his employment if he had adequate reason for doing so. Many of these terminations of employment come after the age of 45 and then it is generally too late for a man to secure other insurable employment. As a matter of fact, it is difficult for a man of 40 to find a job under present-day conditions. I think the pension plans themselves militate against a man of that age securing employment. Anything the government might do to remedy this condition would add to the economy of our country.
A third result of government action in this regard could be that some fractional interest in a pension plan might be made to accrue to an employee who is idle because of illness or other reasons after, let us say, 10 years of service and his equity in the plan would build up year by year until maturity.
I may say that I brought this matter up a year ago and many hon. members of this house entered into the discussion on that occasion. At that time the then minister of finance, Mr. Harris, as reported at page 6774 of Hansard, said that the government was looking forward to the general revision of the Income Tax Act and that the government would continue to study the pension side of that act particularly having in mind the booklet and the desire on the part of the government of that day to encourage employers and employees to get together on a pension plan for the benefit of both employees and employers.
I believe the department has prepared a new departmental booklet on this subject but I think there is some need for beneficial legislation and that is the reason why I brought this matter to the attention of the house. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) will give this matter favourable consideration when he considers revisions in the Income Tax Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Does any hon. member wish to continue the discussion of the grievance raised by the hon. member for Welland?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for about a minute and a half on the same subject. I support the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) as one who has brought this matter up in the house on several occasions because it is a subject which is of considerable interest to my constituents, particularly to those employed by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and by various lumber companies throughout the district, that is the question of establishing vesting rights with respect to pension plans which
Pension Rights
most employees working for these large corporations do not enjoy at the present time, not even by agreement.
Fortunately, so far as the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company is concerned its employees are in a somewhat preferred position because they enjoy a measure of vesting rights in their pension plan as a result of an agreement between the union and the company. While they appreciate that and it does give them a measure of stability that they did not enjoy with respect to pension rights prior to this arrangement there is a general feeling that all persons who come under industrial pension plans should enjoy vesting rights as outlined by the hon. member for Welland by law and by regulations flowing from the law.
There was a considerable demand for the previous government to deal with this question. The former minister of national revenue was questioned on a number of occasions and many speeches have been made on the subject but thus far without result. Also so far as I can see we have not had much success to date with the present government, because that famous blue book, the work of the previous minister of national revenue which he withdrew as improper reading for employees working for large corporations, has not been reproduced in any other form. We are expecting a new edition of that book which provides some form of vesting right. However, that is only a step in the direction of improving industrial pension plans in this country. So far as we in this group are concerned we believe that while vesting is a step that has to be taken to improve the present situation we really need some form of national contributory pension plan on a general basis so that from an early earning age until time of retirement people can look forward to a decent income during their retirement years. The difficulties I have mentioned demonstrate the need for a national contributory pension plan. I think that is necessary if we are going to provide the people of Canada, particularly industrial workers in the first instance, with the security, stability and mobility of employment to which they are entitled at this time.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a great need for the government to take part in an industrial pension scheme. As we know, there are a number of pension plans. Some of them that have been discussed previously are in effect today and they are not serving the need of the people for whom they were implemented. I suggest that some portion of the investment

Pension Rights
in such pension plans should be the responsibility ol the federal government. In a number of industrial fields, particularly the mining and forest industries, there are a number of people who have no possibility of ever working for one company for the length of time necessary to establish a normal pension. For such people a pension plan should be put into effect on a compulsory, contributory basis whereby the employee and the employer would be compelled to contribute to a fund which would be administered by the federal government in a manner not inconsistent with the method used in dealing with unemployment insurance.
In the mining industry there is a great need for mobility. The needs of the Canadian people for metals vary from time to time and the worth of a particular type of metal changes. We have seen this happen in the case of silver, cobalt, gold, asbestos and iron. In these cases when certain developments take place miners have to leave an area and a particular company. If there is a pension plan in effect they lose all their rights under that plan when they leave.
Many companies in the lumbering and mining industries in my area do not last for 20 years which is considered to be the average length of time required for a pension plan to operate properly. I think it is time that these companies should not be allowed to hide behind the fact that they have a tendency to have a limited life. Companies may move into a bush area and only last for five, six or ten years with the result that a great deal of the pressure that would be brought to bear on them to put a pension plan into effect is eliminated.
In the pulpwood industry particularly we have in the north a great number of people who move from place to place continually. They move not only from one company to another but from one camp to another. They have been trying for some time to establish a satisfactory pension plan. I suggest it is time that the federal government took a look at the situation. We find it more and more difficult to look after our older people. As the cost of living continues to rise there will come a time when we will not be able to provide these people with a proper standard of living following the methods being used now. It seems reasonable to me and I think it seems reasonable to those people who would have to make payments that they should be making contributions over the years they are working towards a pension plan which will go with them, not only from bush camp to another bush camp, from one company to another or from one mine to another but from one industry to another

during their working years. Then at the end of 20 years, if they have worked in six or seven different areas or even in different provinces, they will have a pension contribution book provided by the federal government under a plan supported and financed in some degree by the government. They will have this record of the contributions they have made during their lifetime while working in industry and they will be able to retire knowing that they have a vested interest in a pension and that that interest is being looked after by the federal government.
I suggest that the government should take a close look at the situation as it affects industry today. I am sure we will find that there are a great number of people who have been in a particular industry for some time. Automation may change that industry and their contribution would be much greater if they could move to some place where better use would be made of their talents and experience in the interest of the Canadian economy. I suggest that if the government would instigate a transferable industrial pension plan and administer such a plan great benefits would accrue to Canadian workers and also to the Canadian people as a whole.
(Translation):


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, before voicing my grievance to the house this evening, I want to congratulate your honour for the gentlemanly courtesy and ability you have shown in directing the debates in this house.
Having said this, I would like to take the opportunity afforded by the motion to go into committee of supply to express a grievance I am holding since June last, i.e. that we have a Progressive Conservative government in this country. I am sorry to have to voice this criticism, but my conscience would trouble me if I did not tell this house how concerned I am to see this country ruled by a minority government elected under false pretences and inconsiderate promises. Though aware that his party was a minority group in this house, the leader of the Progressive Conservatives, Mr. Diefenbaker did not hesitate to accept the offer of forming a government made to him in June, and so to become the Prime Minister of a minority government.
Having read the various speeches made in the House of Commons during the last parliament, I was very much surprised to see the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) accept the post of Minister of Finance in the Diefenbaker cabinet, after having said what he did say in this house on June 4, 1954. The estimates for the C.B.C. were being dis-

cussed, and, at some point during the debate, the hon. member who was then minister of national revenue (Mr. McCann) said this to the hon. member for Eglinton,-and I am quoting Hansard of 1953-54, volume V, page 5520:
You would want the minority to rule.
And the hon. representative for Eglinton, who is now Minister of Finance replied:
No, I have never advocated that the minority should rule. That is one reason X have said repeatedly that this government does not have any right to rule in the way it does because it does not represent a majority of the Canadian people. It was elected with 48 per cent of the votes of the Canadian people.
What are we to think of a man like the present Minister of Finance who used those words in 1954, and who today agrees to be part of a minority government which in the last election secured but about 41 per cent of the votes, while the Liberal party got about 45 per cent. And it is this man who is now Minister of Finance and who, in introducing changes in our tax structure, resorts to unusual means, to say the least.
After having heard, during the first two months of this session, the ministers contradict themselves, I am not surprised to see the hon. Minister of Finance contradicting himself before the whole nation in accepting a post in a minority cabinet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member should present a specific complaint. He is now referring to policy in general. He should express a specific complaint.


Guy Rouleau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a representative of the constituency of Dollard, I have always abided by the rules of the house, and I shall limit my remarks to a specific complaint. I should like to refer particularly to the policy of the C.B.C. Besides, I was about to return to the subject, but I could not help coming back on a matter which is dear to me, since it is of interest to the whole Canadian people.
To come back to the matter I just mentioned, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity, in the last parliament to deliver in the house, on January 28, 1955, a speech about the policy of the C.B.C.
I said then:
During the parliamentary recess I was often asked another question with regard to restrictions imposed by the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on privately-owned radio and television stations. Most of my fellow citizens whom I have met, not only in Dollard riding but also in Montreal and elsewhere in Canada, are opposed to the fact that this organization which competes directly with private enterprise should be at the same time the organization that controls and grants permits to private stations.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation We know that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation through its radio and television networks renders a great service to our country, but we would prefer that it be treated on an equal footing, or nearly so, with stations belonging to private enterprise. Such a practice would be more consistent with the democratic principles of Liberalism, and furthermore it would comply with the resolutions passed by the advisory council of the national Liberal federation at its meeting held in Ottawa on the 27th and 28th of October, 1952, and also by the federaton of young Liberals of Canada during their bi-annual convention held in May, 1954.
As I was speaking, the Conservatives who at that time were sitting on this side of the house loudly applauded the former president of the young Liberals federation of Canada.
I wonder, now that they are sitting on the other side of the house if, having heard the answers given by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) to the questions I put to him on the C.B.C., they would be as ready to applaud the statements I am making today.
Mr. Speaker, I still am of the opinion the government should establish an agency to control broadcasting in all its forms in Canada, whether public or private. This point of view is by all means consonant with the views expressed on many occasions by the hon. member for Eglinton.
I do not wish to criticize the C.B.C. board of governors which has done an excellent job as far as the government radio service is concerned. But I am opposed to the principle of the thing and I have voiced my opposition on several occasions in this house. I have no use for a crown corporation monopoly on private enterprise. At this time we have C.B.C. television in Montreal, but the metropolis of Canada, a city like Montreal, could also have one or two private stations to compete with the C.B.C. This would provide an opportunity for the development of our own Canadian talent. At this stage Mr. Speaker, and in passing, I would like to point out that certain newspapers of Montreal and of the province of Quebec have claimed that there is discrimination within the C.B.C. The government might establish a commission of inquiry to determine the truth of the criticisms made by the newspapers of the city of Montreal and of the province. If such criticisms are found to be justified, it might then be advisable to remedy the situation and if they are not justified, the people will then know what to think of them and this would be in the greatest interest of the C.B.C.
As I said a while ago, the present Minister of Finance often requested the creation of the agency I just mentioned and I earnestly hope that the government will show its good faith in creating this agency. If it does not, the Liberal party, under whose banner I have

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation been elected member for Dollard, could very well, following representations made by various Liberal associations, propose the creation of such an agency in the resolutions of its platform to be worked out at the coming January convention. If the national Liberal convention approves such a resolution, I am convinced that, as in the past, the Liberal party will fulfil its promises completely and not only in part as the Progressive Conservative government did in connection with the excise tax on automobiles.
The present Progressive Conservative government does not fulfil its promises. It merely indulges in window dressing and this reminds me of a report which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of Tuesday, December 3, 1957, which was signed by Mr. Stewart Alsop and read as follows:
(Text):
But ttiere are, essentially, two kinds of politicians.
The first kind of politician sees the purpose of politics as getting elected, by promising the voters anything they seem to want, and by using any means at hand to destroy the opposition.
(Translation):
That is precisely what we have at the present time, Mr. Speaker. As regards the second type of politicians, I quote again from the same report:
(Text):
The second kind of politician sees effective government, responsive to the realities of the domestic and world situation, as the best kind of politics in the long run.
(Translation):
Well, Mr. Speaker, it took people 22 years to come to think that the time had come for a change from the Liberal administration. Now the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) said the other day in this house that it was probably a change for the worse. Well, the present government has been in power for only six months, but the people of Canada already feel that it is again time for a change. Well, it will not be long before we do have a change, and I can assure the hon. member for Peace River that this time it will be for the better.


Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) wish to speak on the same question, that is on the C.B.C.?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has given rise to numerous requests from our people as well as to complaints of all sorts. I want therefore to
deal with this question and to refute some of the arguments of my hon. friend from Dollard (Mr. Rouleau).
In the speech he has just delivered, he said that 45 per cent of the people were behind the Liberal party while the proportion favouring the Conservative party was but 41 per cent. However, a survey, made only a short time ago, shows that the Conservative party could now count upon 50 per cent of the votes, while the Liberal party has the support of 33 per cent only of our people.
Nothing is so remote from the truth in my opinion, as to assert that the Conservative party, which is now in office, is leading the nation to anarchy and disaster.


Lionel Chevrier: To unemployment!


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: To hard times. As I have said, the Conservative party has been entrusted with the administration of this nation in a difficult situation; and, again in 1957, the same thing happens. We all realize that the nation is more or less distressed by the deeds of the Liberal party which formed the previous administration. The Conservative party has now been requested to administer the affairs of this country because our Liberal friends have failed to take the necessary steps to save our working and agricultural classes.
Within the next few days, the Conservative government will introduce measures which the house will have to pass. They will be up to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must raise a specific grievance. I cannot allow him to discuss general politics.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Then, Mr. Speaker, I will just say that the grievance brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Dollard will be corrected very shortly by the Conservative party, because this party knows how to keep up with the people.
(Text):


BASE METALS, BRITISH COLUMBIA    REQUEST FOR PROTECTION OF INDUSTRY
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, while I do not intend to speak on pensions, the matter I have in mind is much more important, namely the spectre of unemployment that is hanging over the base metal industry. While it is not related to pensions directly, it certainly is related in one way, in that if we do not have jobs, we do not have pensions. The matter that I have in mind is, in my opinion, of such urgency that it should be discussed this evening.

The government, in my opinion, is not doing enough to bring before the authorities in the United States the serious situation that will develop in the base metal industry if they are to go forward with their plans; and from reports that I have received from Washington it appears that the United States tariff commission, when it has heard the evidence, is in all probability going to recommend to the president that the proposed tariffs be imposed. I know that there are other important matters to be dealt with such as the bill to provide for guaranteed prices for farm goods. But in my area alone, in Kootenay East and Kootenay West, if this proposed tariff goes on, the market for the farm produce in that area is going to be seriously affected. There is going to be a lay-off of perhaps one third of the employees in the base metal industry. That is a dire possibility and I think that it should be discussed here tonight.
The government should point out to the United States authorities that the lead and zinc industry is of major importance, that zinc production in Canada ranks second only to that of the United States and that in Canada lead production is fourth only to that of the U.S.S.R. Of the imports of lead and zinc to the United States, Canada supplies 25 per cent. The United States authorities do not dispute the fact that they must depend on our base metal industry for their industrial survival. Yet if this tariff is imposed they expect to keep us on a string and to have our mines shut down and be reopened when their necessity arises. The flow of base metals cannot be turned on and off like a tap. They are strategic metals and there must be assurance that there shall be no interruption in their production. This should be pointed out by representatives going to Washington at this time.
It should be pointed out that it is not only the base metal industry in the United States that is suffering under adverse prices at the present time. The prices of base metals are low all over the world and there has been a general reduction in the production throughout the world. The United States producers in many cases are operating uneconomic mines with low grade ores and in many cases inefficient mines. It must be pointed out that the Canadian industry should not be expected to subsidize them. In 1954 President Eisenhower decided to forgo an increase in customs duties and asked instead that the foreign suppliers of United States 96698-1381
Base Metals Industry
markets make an effort to reduce their production. Canada co-operated in every respect. I have here a submission by the Canadian Metal Mining Association to the United States tariff commission. At that time, when they appeared before the commission they pointed out:
(2)	Canada's exports of lead to the United States have been cut in half since 1953.
(3)	Canada's exports of zinc to the United States have remained reasonably steady and show a very slight increase from 1953 to 1956. The reason for this is two-fold. First, a substantial quantity of Canada's zinc exports to the United States is in the form of concentrates on which certain United States smelters are entirely dependent as the indispensable feed for their operations. Secondly, refined zinc is equally required to fill the demands of the United States market.
As I have pointed out, Canadian producers have curtailed their production. There has been a curtailment in the production of zinc of about 86,000 tons annually and in the production of lead of about 9,950 tons annually, or a 21 per cent reduction in the production of zinc and about a 5 per cent reduction in the production of lead.
What is the picture having regard to the employment question? The present closures have resulted in the layoff of 818 employees. The anticipated closures, should this measure be adopted in the United States, would result in the layoff of another 1,440 employees. I need not say that Kootenay East and Kootenay West, the largest producers of lead and zinc in Canada, would certainly be adversely affected. It has been said by some of the members of the industry in the United States that these imports are coming from countries with a low wage scale and for that reason result in unfair competition in their market. I should like to quote again from the brief presented by the mining industry. They have this to say with regard to wages:
As regards wage rates we record that our principal Canadian producers pay miners $2.45 (Can.) per hour and smelter workers $2.12 (Can.) per hour. Each of these figures represents average gross earnings from January to June, 1957, excluding all fringe benefits. We understand that an average figure for miners in the lead and zinc industry in the United States is $2.30 (U.S.).
Now of course the Canadian figures include the fringe benefits and bonuses paid to miners. Nevertheless there is conclusive evidence that there is no question of low rates of pay having an unfair advantage over the United States system. Now the United States metal industry have requested the maximum tariff allowable under the president's orders and
216S


INCOME TAX
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I have a grievance which has to do with the position of our lumberjacks or woodworkers in relation to the Income Tax Act and expense allowances allowed for living away from home. My reason for raising this grievance at this particular time is that there has been a certain anticipation of amendments and changes in the Income Tax Act which would extend these expense allowances to woodworkers, but we now know, as a result of the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and as a result of the draft bill, that the only extension will be that to construction workers.
Now, to appreciate the position in which the lumberjack finds himself and its comparison to the position of the construction worker, one needs to go into the economic setup of the pulp and paper industry of Ontario. This is a problem which of course extends to many parts of Canada but I can speak only for the pulp and paper regions of Ontario. It is worth remarking at this time that the pulp and paper industry is the most important industry, in terms of revenue, in the province of Ontario.
Pulp and paper companies are now operating on what might be called a very longterm scale. They have limits ranging up to
4,000	and 5,000 square miles in area and they are required to operate them under provincial law according to a kind of treble planning; a 5-year, 10-year and even a 50-year plan. Now with that type of planning you get a production and a location of the camps projected far into the future. For example, you can go to the limits of the Kimberley-Clark Corporation up at the Long Lac area and see camps designed to look after the board and room of the men for the next 50 years. In other words the industry has acquired a stability as a result of this longterm operation.
However, we must look at the sociological situation which is ahead of us in the bush

country. We are not going to have what is considered the ideal social situation in that country, which is a genuine community where men and women and children have a chance to work and to lead a community life. Many of the companies, especially the Marathon Corporation and Ontario-Minnesota Paper Company, have made earnest efforts to provide family facilities in their camps but at the present time these efforts cover only a very small portion of the working force and the fact remains that now, and for many years to come, the man who cuts the pulp, which is the basis of our main industry, is going to be separated from his family. The families will live in the cities and towns of the areas and at the moment the scope of the pulp and paper operation is so large that it is inconceivable that men could get home regularly, except for perhaps the odd weekend.
I think of the Port Arthur community where the nearest large pulp and paper camps are anywhere from 40 to 75 miles away.
Now with this situation you can be sure that we are going to have married men working in our camps, enabling many companies to operate, but which companies cannot provide them with the facilities and they cannot provide themselves with the facilities to bring their families to live with them. So they are in the position of having to keep a household going in a city or in a town and also look after their own expenses. I would suggest that they are in an even more awkward position than the construction worker, because construction work by its very nature is much more shifting and there are opportunities for the construction worker to work, at least occasionally, near his home. But this very rarely happens to pulp and paper workers in northern Ontario.
In addition one has to look at the working force in the industry and realize that the backbone of the pulp and paper industry, in terms of national background, are Finnish and French speaking Canadians, both having devotion to bush work which shows itself in the way in which they head for work in these camps where they make the best of employees. And while they are doing this work in the bush they are supporting their families in the towns and cities of the area. Their numbers are fairly large. The largest local of the lumber and sawmill union is in northern Ontario and has over 9,000 members, that is, there are 9,000 bush workers in the camps west and east of Port Arthur.
Income Tax Deductions Of that 9,000, the estimate I have been given by the union is that about 1,500 are married men who must keep their families in the towns.
Now the working force engaged in this long-term operation is becoming more and more stable, exceptionally stable in comparison with the position a number of years ago when the pattern was that there would be a winter cut, a spring drive and then a spring booze-up in the town, after which the lumberjacks would be on the streets for a while until things got going again in the fall. That kind of pattern is gradually changing in many ways, attributable to the mechanised revolution which has taken place in the pulp and paper industry. It is no longer feasible to keep a lumberjack on just for a short time and then let him go back to the city while these companies have so much money tied up in high-priced equipment. We can now see the type of situation which is likely to exist in the camps for the next 20 or 30 years at least. We can see that there is going to be a proportion of men in these camps who must keep a family in the cities and we feel, as they feel and as they have informed me through the representatives of their trade unions, that the present section 5 of the Income Tax Act is not fair to them. We see no reason at all why the amendments which are going to be of advantage to the construction workers should not be applied to them.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) is back in the house and I am also glad to find that I have an ally in the new hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) with regard to a matter I have been attempting to bring in in this house for several years. I completely fail to understand why the Minister of Finance, if he is going to introduce an amendment to section 5 of the Income Tax Act, should have seen fit to do it in the rather slaphappy fashion which apparently he has in mind.
This is a matter which I know has received considerable attention in his department over the past year. This was certainly indicated by the previous minister of finance shortly before the end of the last session, and I am very glad to support the representations made by the hon. member for Port Arthur who has outlined the pattern of activity in the pulp and paper industry in northern Ontario. This is very similar to the situation in the logging industry in British Columbia, as it has existed for a good many years, and I hope the Minister of Finance will give very careful consideration before the measure with which he

Income Tax Deductions proposes to proceed has advanced to any further stage to introducing an amendment which will be all-inclusive and non-discriminatory in its application to the working people of Canada. I think that if the minister fails to do that he will have quite a battle on his hands in this house. As far as I am concerned he will then be giving an indication to us that the government of which he is a member is prepared only to take up what it considers to be the odd popular issue here and there without giving any real consideration to amending acts which would apply in a non-discriminatory way to all the working people of this country who are affected by taxation provisions.


An hon. Member:: Dix heures.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration service-
1.	Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $628,277.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
[Stage Direction]
185. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $787,053.

[Stage Direction]
249. Departmental administration, $1,303,859.
Proceedings reported.

Lionel Chevrier: Would the leader of the house please tell us the business for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we will begin with item No. 14 on the day's order paper which is the resolution preceding the introduction of a bill to establish a system of guaranteed prices for agricultural commodities. Then item No. 1, the house in committee on an act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. After this, item No. 12, second reading of Bill No. 231, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act; then item No. 13, second reading of an act to amend the Income Tax Act; and item No. 17, a resolution concerning a measure to authorize loans to the government of New Brunswick.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if the leader of the house could give us some indication as to what is likely to happen on the succeeding days, Thursday, Friday and Saturday?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot give that information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the minister say whether the resolution regarding the agricultural matter will be continued until it is completed, if it should have to go over until Thursday?


Howard Charles Green: No, I am afraid I cannot say that. I would hope that the resolution could go through tomorrow, and then the bill would be available for study by hon. members.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on December 2, 1957.

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. Dechene: 1.	Has the government taken steps to provide greatly needed all-weather landing facilities for airplanes, at Fort Chipewyan?
2.	Has agreement been entered into with the provincial authorities to secure the best available site, and for the maintenance of a road in fair condition between the said landing strip or field and the townsite of Fort Chipewyan?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1 and 2. Yes. Following negotiations, the provincial government has indicated willingness to provide the necessary land and to be responsible for the maintenance of the airport, and to consider maintaining the access road from the village to the airport. Negotiations with the province are continuing and, if concluded successfully, the federal government would be prepared to assist in the provision of the strip.


NON-PERMANENT REGIMENTS BEARING TITLE &quot;ROYAL&quot;
Mr. Hahn: 1.	What is the location and name of each of the Canadian regiments, not being of the permanent force, which bear the title "Royal"?
2.	In what year was each regiment given the insignia "Royal"?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of
National Defence):
1.	(a) 17th Duke of York's Royal Canadian Hussars (7th reconnaissance regiment), Montreal, P.Q. (b) 6th Duke of Connaught's Royal Canadian Hussars (15th armoured regiment), Montreal, P.Q. (c) The Royal Rifles of Canada, Quebec, P.Q. (d) The Royal Regiment of Canada, Toronto, Ont. (e) The Royal Hamilton Light Infantry (Wentworth regiment), Hamilton, Ont. (f) 1st battalion, the Royal New Brunswick regiment (Carleton and York), Saint John, N.B. (g) 2nd battalion, the Royal New Brunswick regiment (North Shore), Newcastle, N.B. (h) The Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Winnipeg, Man. (i) The Royal Montreal Regiment, Montreal, P.Q. (j) The Royal Newfoundland Regiment, St. John's, Nfld. (k) 3rd battalion, the Black Watch (Royal Highland regiment) of Canada, Montreal, P.Q. (1) 4e bataillon, Royal 22e regiment (Chateauguay), Montreal, P.Q. (m) 6e bataillon, Royal 22e regiment St. Hyacinthe, P.Q.
2.	(a) 1 June 1898; (b) 20 June 1890; (c) 3 January 1910; (d) 3 January 1910; (e) 3 January 1910; (f) 18 May 1956; (g) 18 May 1956; (h) 3 June 1935; (i) 1 September 1923; (j) 14 December 1949; (k) 3 January 1910; (1) 1 January 1921; (m) 1 January 1921.


UNEMPLOYMENT REGISTRATION, P.E.I.
Mr. Murphy (Westmorland): How many persons were registered unemployed in (a) Prince Edward Island; (b) Charlottetown; (c) Summerside; on (i) December 1, 1956; (ii) December 1, 1957?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of
Labour):
Offices of the unemployment insurance commission at Charlottetown and Summer-side serve the province of Prince Edward Island. Data on the number of persons registered for employment at these offices would represent the total number of persons so registered within the province. Such data are not available for December 1, 1957. However, at November 28, 1957, the number of persons registered for employment at each of these offices was as follows: -
Charlottetown	 1,185
Summerside	 751
On the corresponding date in 1956, the figures were as follows:
Charlottetown	 1,127
Summerside	 501


HARBOUR PROJECT, CARRON POINT, N.B.
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Have discussions taken place since November 1, 1957, between representatives of Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation and officials of the Department of Public Works in connection with the harbour project at Carron point near Bathurst, Gloucester county, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, has any decision been taken to proceed with this project during 1958?
Answer by: Mr. Hodgson, Parliameniary Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	No discussions have taken place since November 1957 between representatives of the Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation and officials of the Department of Public Works, although the corporation has been in correspondence with the department since that time. Discussions between the department and the corporation will be held in the near future.
2.	No decision has yet been taken to proceed with this project during 1958. A decision on this matter will depend on the discussions referred to in No. 1.

Questions DREDGE NO. 23

Question No. 283-Mr. Robichaud:
1.	Have instructions been issued to the captain of D.P.W. dredge No. 23 to proceed to a certain port in New Brunswick for winter lay-up?
2.	If so. on what date were such instructions issued and what port was the captain ordered to proceed to?
3.	On what date did it arrive at the port in question?
Answer by: Mr. Hodgson, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	Yes.
2.	Instructions were issued on November 18, 1957, to proceed to Chatham, N.B.
3.	The dredge arrived at Chatham on November 23, 1957.

Royal Commission on Price Spreads


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
p.c. 1957-1632
Certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of the committee of the privy council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the
10th December, 1957.
The committee of the privy council, on the recommendation of the Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker, the Prime Minister, advise that:
Dr. Andrew Stewart, Edmonton, Alberta; Mrs. Dorothy Walton, Toronto, Ontario; Mr. Howard MacKichan, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Mr. Romeo Martin, Montreal, Quebec; Dr. W. M. Drummond, Guelph, Ontario; Mr. Cleve Kidd, Toronto, Ontario, and Mr. Bernard Couvrette, Montreal, Quebec, be appointed commissioners under part I of the Inquiries Act, to:
(a)	inquire into the extent and the causes of the spread between the prices received by producers of food products of agricultural and fisheries origin and the prices paid by consumers therefor;
(b)	determine whether or not such price spreads in general or in particular cases are fair and reasonable, or are excessive, in relation to the services rendered;
(c)	make such recommendations as they deem appropriate if any such price spreads are found to be excessive; and
(d)	examine the adequacy of price information currently available.
The committee further advise:
1.	That the commissioners be authorized to exercise all the powers set out in section 11 of the Inquiries Act;
2.	That in the exercise of their powers to employ counsel, experts and assistants under section 11 of the Inquiries Act, the commissioners may authorize remuneration to such persons and reimbursement for their expenses within such limits and on such conditions as the treasury board may determine from time to time;
3.	That the commissioners adopt such procedure and methods as they may from time to time deem expedient for the proper conduct of the inquiry and sit at such times and at such places in Canada as they may decide from time to time;
4.	That the commissioners be assisted to the fullest extent by government departments and agencies;
5.	That the commissioners report to the governor in council;
6.	That Dr. Andrew Stewart be chairman of the commission.
R. B. Bryce,
Clerk of the privy council.
*
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 11, 1957