1961-03-13

BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Cathers.


Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagol) moved:: That the special committee to consider Bill C-71, an act respecting the civil service of Canada, established on 10th March, 1961 be composed of Mrs. Casselman and Messrs. Bell (Carleton), Campeau, Caron, Hicks, Keays, Macdonnell, Mac-Lellan, Macquarrie, MacRae, Martel, Mcllraith, More, Peters, Pickersgill, Richard (Ottawa East), Roberge, Rogers, Smith (Winnipeg North), Spencer, and Tardif.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(Translation):


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Megantic) moved: for leave to introduce a bill entitled an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to insert in the Unemployment Insurance Act the definition of the words "employee" and "employer" and, through the use of more general terms, to place the service contract and the rental of work in the category of insurable employment.
These amendments are being suggested in order to clarify and facilitate the interpretation of the act by making it more consistent with the intention of parliament when this legislation was passed in 1955.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
(Text):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26
for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the displacement of 160 employees-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am just wondering whether his request would properly be made now. The rule says at the end of routine proceedings. I find that the hon. member is quite correct.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My motion to adjourn the house is for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the displacement of 160 employees of the Canadian National Railways at the main office on McGill street in Montreal through the substitution of contract labour, which appears to be part of a national pattern affecting employees of the Canadian National Railways across Canada. I would hope that Your Honour would give me permission to establish urgency in this case.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall be glad to hear the hon. member. I assume that it is a matter of importance, but the urgency that is involved is urgency of debate. I think I should like to hear the hon. member on the question of whether or not this is one of the administrative responsibilities of the ministry. It seems to me that the point may well be taken that it is a decision, of the Canadian National Railways on its own authority.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to deal with those three points if the house will bear with me. Dealing first with the urgency of the matter, I should tell Your Honour that over the week end I received an urgent communication from the brotherhood of railway carmen of America, signed by the local chairman of Lodge 733, Mr. G. Gagnon, and by the president, Mr. H. Myer-son.
In this communication two points among many others are made. The first is that these employees are gravely concerned about the announced intention of the Canadian National Railways in the Montreal area to effect layoffs and dismissals of the maintenance and cleaning personnel in the Montreal headquarters building coincidental with the sale of the building at 360 McGill street and the occupancy of the new office building adjacent to the Canadian National Railways station. It is pointed out in this communication that

Canadian National Railways 160 employees are affected, and that unless something is done to stop the contract which is about to be given, if it has not already been given, for the new office building adjacent to the C.N.R. station their position will be an untenable one. It is pointed out that most of the people affected by the decision will be unable to find jobs elsewhere because of their age. They are for the most part over 40 years of age, and the majority of those affected are widows who are the sole support of their children.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I may interrupt the hon. member. I think he need not labour the point as to the importance of the matter. The question is really one of urgency of debate. I take it that this decision has been made since the estimates of the Department of Labour were under discussion here last Friday.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore it is a matter which has arisen since then. The hon. member might direct his attention to the possibility for debate of this matter in the ordinary course of events, rather than interrupting the proceedings of the house. The other point-


Lionel Chevrier: I have not forgotten the other point, sir. We are dealing with urgency of debate, and Your Honour is quite familiar with the position in so far as discussion in the house is concerned. First there are the labour estimates under which this matter could ostensibly be discussed. The labour estimates have not been called this week and I presume they will not be called, in view of the information which was given on Thursday of last week. Nothing on the order paper indicates, therefore, that there is any possibility of discussing this matter under the labour estimates.
The next point is that the only other place where the matter can be discussed, if at all, is in the committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and operated by the government. I think the Minister of Transport has indicated in the house that this committee will not sit until after the Easter recess. In any event, it has not been set up yet. As Your Honour knows, I attempted in a general way to deal with this matter on the establishment of the committee on railways, air lines and shipping, and my attention was drawn to the fact that while I could refer to lay-offs in a general way, I was not to go into the matter in detail. I did take exception to that ruling; none the less that seemed to be the decision. So there will not be any opportunity of discussing a matter of this nature until well after the Easter recess.


Your Honour was quite right a moment ago in saying that this matter has arisen within the last day or so. It arose over the week end when the matter has been brought to our attention. Those are the two points that I make with reference to urgency of debate. There will be no opportunity from now until after the Easter recess to deal with the matter.
The third point which Your Honour has asked me to deal with concerns the administrative responsibility of the government. It seems to me that if this matter is not allowed under that heading, then it must of necessity follow that no matter affecting a crown corporation could be discussed under the heading of administrative responsibility of the government. Surely that is not the manner in which the rules have been applied. For instance, if a matter concerned the national harbours board or any other crown corporation, it could well be stated that this was not the administrative responsibility of the government.
I say to you, sir, that it is because, first, the responsibility must rest with the minister whose duty it is to answer for the Canadian National Railways in the House of Commons. Next, it is the government of Canada which owns the shares, on behalf of the people of Canada, of the Canadian National Railways. Third, the government itself is the owner of a number of railways, such as the Intercolonial and, I believe, the Hudson Bay Railway.
Thus I say, sir, with deference that under these three heads the rules allow us to discuss this matter. I should also like to add an additional reason, namely that this is national in its scope. While I have dealt so far only with the situation in Montreal, I have before me here evidence of a pattern which is similar in many other areas, particularly in the three districts affected by this action as they were known before reorganization, namely the eastern district, the central district and the western district where there have been lay-offs amounting to about 6 per cent per year in the staff and personnel of the railway.
There is one final point I should like to make. I think Your Honour has held on one or two occasions in the past that in discussing matters of this kind it is essential to establish not only that the motion be national in scope but that there be a certain confusion existing. My point is this: Thus far the government has indicated no intention on its part of telling the house what these layoffs have amounted to, and in that respect there has been little or no information-


Mr. Speaker:: I think that point is one which might arise if the hon. member is given leave, but not otherwise.


Mr. Argue:: I wonder if I might say a word on the question of urgency.


Mr. Brunsden:: Would the hon. member for Laurier permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Edwin William Brunsden: Did the letter which the hon. member referred to bear a Montreal postmark or a Chicago postmark?


Lionel Chevrier: Unfortunately I have not the envelope here but my memory is quite clear. It came from Montreal and not from Chicago. There is no doubt about that.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps, while the hon.
member is referring to the letter, he would tell me the date of the letter?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The date is March 9, and it is from the office of the local chairman of lodge No. 703, brotherhood of railway carmen of America, and he is Mr. G. Gagnon, of 4477 Bourbonniere street, Montreal. May I complete my answer to that question. The question has been asked, when did I receive the letter? I received the letter by special delivery on Sunday afternoon.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this is a Canadian matter, which seems to be an inference that might be taken from the question which has been raised. I have received a letter from the same organization and bearing the same signatures. For your benefit, Mr. Speaker, I may say I have also received a telegram dated Montreal, Quebec, March 10.
As to the question of the administrative responsibility of the government, I think the very fact that the president of the C.N.R. is brought before a committee of this house from year to year at the time when C.N.R. matters are discussed establishes beyond question that parliament itself can deal with important questions of C.N.R. administration.
As has already been pointed out, there is urgency attaching to such a debate because there will not be an occasion on which this question can be raised in the foreseeable future. I also submit this is an indication of a general pattern which has arisen across the country, namely that the C.N.R. is engaged in wholesale lay-offs that are adding to unemployment problems in the country and creating growing hardship among the people who have been dismissed.
I join with the hon. member for Laurier in submitting that this is a matter of urgent public importance. It is essential that it be dealt with and debated by parliament. It is certainly within the administrative competence of the government, and surely it is
Canadian National Railways within the power of parliament to deal with general questions relating to the Canadian National Railways.
Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that very careful consideration should be given to an attempt to adjourn the house such as the motion moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Laurier. Let us look at the situation. It appears to boil down to a case of a wire being sent to the hon. members for Laurier and Assiniboia by two men who happen to be officers of a union, and on the basis of that wire these two hon. members rise in the house and insist that we should abandon our plans for discussing public business today in order to consider the wire which has been sent in this manner.


Hazen Robert Argue: To consider a matter of urgent public importance.


Mr. Green:: Let the hon. member be silent and take his medicine. Surely the rule under which this motion is moved was never designed to meet a situation of this type. This procedure is supposed to be used only on rare occasions when there is a necessity and great urgency for debate. In years past motions to adjourn the house have not been accepted on more than perhaps two or three occasions in a session. Because the hon. member succeeded in getting away with another motion two weeks ago-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: -or rather succeeded in having a similar motion accepted two weeks ago-


Hazen Robert Argue: A reflection on Mr. Speaker.


Howard Charles Green: I withdrew the words "got away with". In view of the success of hon. members opposite in having a similar motion accepted two weeks ago, I presume because this Monday is set aside for the discussion of private members' business they decided to make this attempt.
From time to time men are laid off. We all regret that. Members of the government do their best to avoid that happening. On every occasion when this happens are we to be faced with a motion to adjourn the house to discuss it for the rest of the day? This, I suggest, would be reducing to an absolute mockery the rules for the conduct of business in this house. I suggest that today is a good time to put a stop to attempts of this kind.
There is on today's order paper under "Government Business" item No. 9, a resolution for the setting up of a committee to consider the affairs of Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines. That motion has already been under discussion on one occasion within the last few days, and I

Canadian National Railways have no doubt it will be called again within the next few days. Discussion under that order of business will give ample opportunity to the hon. member for Laurier to raise the point which he seeks to raise today.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister permit a question? Is he aware of the ruling of the chair in connection with these matters, that a member may not go into detail so far as lay-offs on the C.N.R. are concerned but may discuss them in a general way only?


Howard Charles Green: I was not here at the time any such ruling was made, but the hon. member for Laurier has tried to broaden his motion in his remarks. He has tried to lay a basis or foundation encompassing the treatment of employees by the C.N.R. generally, and certainly that matter would be in order on a motion to set up the committee.
Another point is that questions such as these do not come directly under any minister, and nobody should know that better than the hon. member for Laurier-


Lionel Chevrier: That is not so.


Howard Charles Green: -because he was minister of transport for several years. Time after time when he was asked a question about the Canadian National Railways I have heard him get up in the house and say that he had to consult the president or other officials of the railway and that he could not possibly give an answer until he had done so. Today he has forgotten all about that and he comes here and expects us to deal with some administrative action by the officials of the Canadian National Railways without any opportunity to consult them. Oh, no; today the C.N.R. is entirely the responsibility of the government. There is no question today of the C.N.R. being a corporation operating on its own. This shows what a ridiculous attempt is being made today by the hon. member for Laurier.
In addition to the motion to set up the committee there is to be a supply motion a week from today, and the hon. member for Laurier and his pal from Assiniboia-it is very significant how as soon as one of them makes such a motion the other rushes to get on the band wagon and, of course, that has been done today-will then have the opportunity, either alone or in combination again, to move a motion of want of confidence in the government on this issue, but by that time they will be frying other fish; they will have forgotten all about this particular problem. There will be that opportunity a week from today, however, and I suggest that if we do not take the whole of today to talk about a wire which has been received signed by two individuals the whole process of democracy


will not be upset. I suggest this is a lot of foolishness, and that this motion should not be accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: I feel that I have heard
enough from the hon. members to permit me to deal with the matter unless the hon. member for Laurier wishes to reply to some specific point made by the Acting Prime Minister.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may be allowed I should like to do so. There are two or three specific points to which I should like to reply and I will do so as quickly as I can. The main point is that the Acting Prime Minister has made it quite clear, I think, that there is an administrative responsibility on the part of the government because his whole argument in reply to mine left no other impression. He implied, for instance, that this matter should be taken up on a motion to go into supply which will not be until next Monday if the government so announces this as business for Monday, or in the alternative on the motion for the establishment of the committee on railways and shipping owned and operated by the government. So far as the latter suggestion is concerned, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker have already ruled clearly that the matter cannot be discussed then. The Acting Prime Minister also stated that this matter does not come under any minister.


Howard Charles Green: I did not say that.


Lionel Chevrier: I took down the words used by the Acting Prime Minister and he said that this matter did not come under any minister. There is a responsibility on the Minister of Transport to report to the house on matters affecting the Canadian National Railways. That has always been the case. It was the case when I was over there, just as it is now, and under that head it seems to me there is a responsibility on the part of the government.
The minister then asked whether every time such an event happens the government is to be faced with a motion such as the one now made. I suggest this is the first time such a motion has been made, and it has been moved not only because of what is happening in Montreal but because of the evidence I have here indicating that the same thing is happening in other parts of the country, in the west, in the central section, in Lauzon, in Moncton. As the whip says, it is happening everywhere that the C.N.R. has jurisdiction, as I will be able to establish if the opportunity is given to adjourn the house.
The final statement made by the Acting Prime Minister was that this motion was being moved because a couple of wires had been received. I did not receive any wire. I

made it quite clear that I got a special communication which came to me on Sunday afternoon. It is because of that communication that I consider this matter is urgent and have brought it to the attention of the house.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Stormont supporting the request for leave?


Grant Campbell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Surely-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Stormont is supporting the request for leave I will hear him; otherwise not.


Grant Campbell: Indeed not, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Laurier, as he is entitled to do, has asked under standing order 26 for leave to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance. Each of these requests must, of course, be dealt with on its own facts, and I do not have much difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that this is not a case where leave should be given.
In support of my view I remind the house that this is the sixth private members' Monday, and that to interrupt our ordinary proceedings there should be a clear case which warrants the setting aside of the planned business of the day because this is the last opportunity of this kind which private members will have to discuss their bills and motions. As I say, the case should be a clear one.
I raise the question of administrative responsibility. May I put the facts this way as I see them. First, I should say I am not clear whether the 160 employees referred to by the hon. member for Laurier have been laid off or whether there is a threat or a notice of intention to lay them off, but for my purposes it does not really make any difference. The problem of their employment is, of course, an important matter to them at least and of significance to the Montreal area. However, parliament has given to the Canadian National Railways the responsibility for administering the railway and included in administration is the responsibility for all labour policy. It is true that parliament can change the legislation but it is not true, as I see it, that the government can intervene to direct Canadian National Railways to do something different.
As hon. members will recall, the matter of lay-offs of employees of the Canadian National Railways arises very frequently during the question period, and the minister is always under the necessity of having to say that he will inquire from the C.N.R. to find
Motions for Papers
out what their policy is and that he will bring back an answer to the house. It seems to me that citation 100, which indicates that such matters should relate to the administrative responsibility of the government, might be applied in this case in the sense that the responsibility is indirectly through parliament and not one on which a debate on a motion of this kind could have any direct effect or result. It would be necessary for parliament to amend its Canadian National Railways legislation, if an enforceable decision is to be made or an effective remedy applied.
That may not appeal to all hon. members as a correct summary of the situation, but in addition to that point I think that lay-offs of this kind, whether isolated or part of a pattern, are a continuing problem of employees of the government owned railway which will be coming before the house from time to time when it is sitting, and should be dealt with on the occasions on which it is possible to debate the administrative policies of the Canadian National Railways and the control of these policies by parliament.
I therefore regretfully have to refuse the hon. member leave.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-Mr. Benidickson:
For copies of orders issued by the Minister of National Revenue since December 1, 1958, under the provisions of section 38 of the Customs Act for the purposes of fixing duties.
Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: I would ask that the motion stand.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, you will observe that this is motion No. 50 and that the next motion is No. 71. I know very well that the Minister of National Revenue is in Washington today on important business, but I do not know what we have parliamentary secretaries for if it is not so that we can obtain answers of this kind without the delay that has occurred in regard to this one, and I would ask that the motion be put.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As indicated by the minister last week, he wished to examine the documents because there was a point of procedure raised in connection with this matter. The minister has not been in a position to examine those documents, and on that basis I would ask that the motion stand until he returns.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I do recall that this particular point was raised, and

Motions for Papers
would hope that the minister would be prepared to answer on Wednesday.
Motion stands.



DRUGS-REGULATIONS RESPECTING QUALITY CONTROL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 71-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of the proposed regulations by the food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare regarding the control of the quality of pharmaceuticals, and for a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, submissions, and other documents received by the department or the directorate regarding the said proposed regulations, and for a copy of all communications exchanged between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the director of the food and drug directorate or any other person regarding the said proposed regulations, since July 1, 1960.
Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am prepared to accept this motion subject to the usual reservation that communications within my department or with other federal government departments fall within a class that must be regarded as privileged.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the exception the minister is asking for in effect deletes that part of the original request which has reference to the communications. I think those communications have a tremendous bearing on the subject itself, and I do not think I can proceed with the exception.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has indicated his willingness to accept the motion subject to the reservation regarding documents which are confidential, and generally regarded as such, within his department or between his department and other government departments. The hon. member who moved the motion has indicated his unwillingness to accept the motion with the reservation, in which event I would ask the minister whether he wishes to accept or reject the motion before I put it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I can only accept the motion subject to the reservation as I mentioned earlier.


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



EVACUATION PRIORITIES IN EVENT OF NUCLEAR WAR

Mr. Regier: For a listing of names and addresses on a priority basis of all those people who are supposed to be moved out of Ottawa to a supposedly safe place of refuge in ease of a nuclear war.


Howard Charles Green: If you will recall, Mr. Speaker, this motion was to stand until the return of the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: I remember that the last time this motion was called the Acting Prime Minister suggested that it be dropped from the order paper and I rather resisted that action in the belief that it had been the practice not to drop motions in the absence of the mover. But I find that he is correct, in accordance with standing order 19, and that unless the government requests that a notice of motion shall stand when it is called, it is dropped. There is, of course, perfect liberty to reintroduce it. There is nothing final about the procedure; it is in order for an hon. member to restore the motion to the order paper when he returns. Therefore as I read standing order 19 (1), the government has the option of standing the motion, or, if they do not ask to have it stood, it is dropped in the absence of the mover who can proceed with it.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Acting Prime Minister through you whether in view of the absence of the hon. member on official government business at the United Nations in New York, who I believe is expected back in another week or ten days, it could be allowed to stand on this occasion?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: On this point, Mr. Speaker, I endeavoured to review the rules and the practice in the past. Although perhaps this is not a matter of very great moment, nevertheless I think some ruling from the Chair might be helpful for the future.
As we all know, these motions are not debatable. Therefore the presence of the hon. member who has put the motion on the order paper is not absolutely essential. The hon. member is looking for information, and that information is either given or denied by the minister responsible.
In the past the practice has been to permit someone else to move the motion in the absence of the proposer. That was done on March 6. Quite correctly, Mr. Speaker, when the request was made that the motion be withdrawn you stated that this could not
Motions for Papers
be done without the hon. member being present. That is in accordance with standing order 49, which says:
A member who has made a motion may withdraw the same only by the unanimous consent of the house.
However, on looking back in Bourinot's fourth edition on page 300, which deals with-


Harold Edward Winch: If you are referring to Bourinot you are going a long way back.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I point out to the hon. member who has interrupted that Beauchesne was founded on Bourinot, and Bourinot's rules still carry authority in the House of Commons. Bourinot deals at very great length with this subject and Beauchesne does not. I think the reason Beauchesne does not deal with the subject of motions for production of papers is that the method of procedure had been so well established that the author thought it was not necessary to refer to it.
On page 300 of Bourinot, dealing with this type of motion, it says:
Neither can any motion be withdrawn in the absence of the member who proposed it; but it may be negatived or agreed to in such a case on the question being put formally from the chair.
Then Bourinot gives an example of where that was done; the mover of the motion was absent but the matter was disposed of. In this particular instance the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated that the motion is not acceptable. Therefore it is not a question of the hon. member having the privilege of withdrawing, which requires unanimous consent, but simply of disposing of it immediately. It could be put before us by one of his colleagues and then it would be in the hands of the house and we could either accept or reject it as we saw fit; otherwise it stands on the order paper. I think that is unnecessary, particularly in view of the fact that on this question of motions for production of papers there is a sentence in standing order 47 which reads:
All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of-
It seems to me that our practice has been to dispose of them except on the request of the government that the motion shall stand for some special consideration, as is the case with order No. 50 on our order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the practice has perhaps developed by consent somewhat divergently from the express wording of the rule. Standing order 47, which deals with notices of motions for the production of papers, provides as follows:
All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of-

Motions for Papers
That has already been indicated by the minister. That means they are not debatable. Standing order 47 continues:
-but If on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the clerk to the order of ''Notices of motions".
That is the special rule relating to this particular type of notice. Then standing order 19 (1), to which I referred previously, says:
Questions put by members and notices of motions, not taken up when called may (upon the requests of the government) be allowed to stand and retain their precedence; otherwise they will disappear from the order paper. They may, however, be renewed.
I think that amendment, when it was introduced to the rules, was intended to prevent the accumulation on the order paper of notices which, if dropped, were not prejudiced in any way. As I see the matter now, unless the government asks that the motion stand or the house accepts a motion on behalf of the absent member so that the question could be voted upon, the rule would require the motion to be dropped.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver East would communicate with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I have no objection to having the motion stand until later in the week.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion stands at the request of the government. May I say one word more. The views of the mover are of some consequence. In this case the mover has a choice whether to ask that the matter be proceeded with and go to a vote of the house, or to drop it because of the circumstances put forward by the government. For this reason I do not encourage the practice of having a motion moved on behalf of an absent mover.
Motion stands.



DISCONTINUANCE OF STEEL STATISTICS

Mr. Argue: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the government and any person, organization, or industry since January 1, 1960, regarding the discontinuance of publication of statistical material, relating to steel operating rates and steel producing capacity, by the dominion bureau of statistics.


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Hon. members will recall that on Wednesday last, as reported on page 2780 of Hansard, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said he wished to deal with this motion having regard to the Statistics Act and, more particularly, to section 15. In the absence of the minister today on government business in Washington, I wonder if

the hon. gentleman in whose name this motion is set down would agree that it stand until Wednesday.
Motion stands.



&quot;UNPLACED APPLICANTS&quot; ITEM, ONTARIO MONTHLY SUMMARY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 76-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of the item entitled "unplaced applicants" formerly contained in the monthly summary of employment conditions in Ontario published by the Ontario region national employment service office, since September 1, 1960.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 79-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of any protests, petitions, or communications received by the postmaster general or any official of the post office department regarding the conduct of the postmaster at Fraserwood, Manitoba, since the appointment of the present postmaster.
Hon. W. J. Browne (Solicitor General):: May I ask that this motion be allowed to stand? We received notice of it only today.
Motion stands.



AUTAIR HELICOPTER SERVICES LTD.  POLAR SHELF CONTRACT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 81-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of the economic assessment of the applicable air transport rates and associated costs made by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys in connection with the contract awarded to Autair Helicopter Services Limited, as approved by treasury board on March 2, 1961, for the continental polar shelf project.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 82-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all records of Mr. Glen Exelby that are on file with the unemployment insurance commission or the national employment service or on file with any branch thereof; and for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, or other documents exchanged between Mr. Exelby and the unemployment insurance commission or the national employment service or any branch thereof since September 9, 1960, and for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, other documents, or records of telephone conversations between the Minister of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission or the national employment service or any branch, officer, or employee thereof since January 1, 1961, relating to the said Mr. Exelby.
Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: In
view of the fact that this motion appears on the order paper for the first time today and that in consequence proper consideration has not been given to it, I would ask that the hon. member agree to letting it stand until Wednesday.
Motion stands.

(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport or, in his absence, to the acting minister.
Is the minister aware that the C.N.R. intends to dismiss the 160 members of the maintenance and cleaning staff at the head office on McGill street in Montreal? If so, what action is being considered by the government in order to take those employees on again?
(Text):


Howard Charles Green: I will see that this matter is brought to the attention of the officials of the Canadian National Railways, and hope to have an answer in due course.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Is the minister aware that the Canadian National has decided to sell its present main office building on McGill street, and to move into a new building next to the railway station where maintenance services would be carried out under contract instead of being ensured by the present staff, thus putting out of work 160 persons, several of whom have been working for Canadian National for many years? What comments can the minister offer on that subject?
(Text):


Howard Charles Green: I will make inquiries on this particular aspect of the question, too.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the minister has anything to report to the house on the present situation in the Congo, where there has been a further outbreak in the current reign of terror and killing.


Howard Charles Green: I have received no further report today on the situation in the Congo.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister might tell the house whether there has been any recent request from the United Nations for further
Inquiries of the Ministry assistance of any kind from Canada, involving either military personnel or food.


Howard Charles Green: From time to time there are requests for a very small number of men to carry on services of the type the Canadian contingent is now rendering. I believe there was a request for one such man within the last day or two.



REPORTED DESIRE TO SHORTEN AGENDA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of various reports that endeavours are being made at the United Nations general assembly to drop many important items, already referred by the assembly to various committees, in order to facilitate business and shorten the adjourned session, can the minister comment on the Canadian position in regard to this proposal?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, for some days there have been discussions going on between the United States and the Soviet union concerning the agenda for this resumed portion of the session of the general assembly. Those discussions have not yet reached finality. As a matter of fact the general committee which, as the hon. member knows, is the executive committee of the United Nations, was to have met today to deal with the question of the agenda but that meeting has been deferred and may take place tomorrow.
As yet there has been considerable confusion and doubt as to what items will be dealt with during this resumed session. I do not think there is much doubt that disarmament will be one of the subjects discussed.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Because of the government's interest in certain of the resolutions, may I ask whether Canada is being consulted with regard to any matter that may be dropped?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Representatives of all the member nations are involved in these discussions. The hon. member will recall that dozens of discussions take place in the United Nations building every day. I would judge it is a regular beehive of activity at the present time in an attempt to work out an agenda from which will have been deleted those items which would aggravate the cold war.

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



GLEN EXELBY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingale):: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Labour whether he has received a letter from Mr. Glen H. Exelby.


Michael Starr: Yes, I have received a letter from Mr. Exelby, to which is attached a copy of an affidavit. I understand the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, as well as others, has also received copies.
In so far as the records of the unemployment insurance commission are concerned, as I outlined them in the house, I would say that in general they are borne out by the affidavit. Basically the facts are that Mr. Exelby was employed for six weeks during a period when according to the television program he had been out of work for several months. Both he and his wife were paid for the program at the rate of $25 a day; that is, each of them were paid that amount. This has never been denied.
Mr. Exelby was interviewed for a job on February 24. According to his own affidavit he told the interviewer that he was doing a show for the C.B.C.-


Some hon. Members:: A show?


Michael Starr: He was hopeful that the show would produce a job but he was not overlooking any bets at all. These are his own words. The result of this interview was that he did not get the job. It is not my intention, nor has it been my intention, to criticize Mr. Exelby or his wife in respect to their appearance on this program-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: There are certain facts in connection with the situation, and these facts are admitted by Mr. Exelby in his own sworn statement. I have mentioned them above, and these are the facts which were not presented in the C.B.C. show. In view of this, I would suggest that the record stand.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would ask the minister if in the interest of the truth he professes to be so interested in-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -if he would table-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Michael Starr: Your Honour, I wish to rise-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Your Honour, before the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister has interrupted on a question of privilege arising out

of something the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said, and I think I should hear him.


Michael Starr: The hop. member for Bonavista-Twillingate charged me with only professing to be interested in the truth, and I wish to object to that.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the minister should be too much concernd about a straightforward statement that he professes to be interested in the truth. If it were said that he professes not to be interested in the truth, a question of privilege would arise. I was hearing the hon. member on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was in the midst of asking a question when the hon. gentleman interrupted me, sir. My question was this. Would the hon. gentleman in the interests of the truth, and the whole truth, table the letter from Mr. Exelby and the affidavit so all of us can read them?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I feel certain the hon. member has already read them but if other hon. members of the house wish to read them I will be glad to table them.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the practice of the house requires the production and tabling, as suggested, of the documents from which the minister has quoted perhaps not verbatim but the substance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would suggest that in view of the grave injustice that has been done this gentleman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -the minister ask leave to have these documents given the same publicity in Hansard that his own erroneous statements were given.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's request has been acceded to. I am not sure why he is rising again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think Your Honour did not hear my request. I asked the minister if he would ask your leave to have the documents printed in Hansard. That is the request I made.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member said tabled.


Mr. Lennard:: The hon. member does not know what he wants.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I said I would table the documents. I have only one copy of the letter and the affidavit. I shall have to make photostat copies so I will have one in my possession. I shall table the documents tomorrow.



KITIMAT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has he received a six page telegram from the Kitimat local of the united steel workers of America in which it is mentioned that a five to eight week shutdown of the smelter there will take place some time in June, and in which reference is also made to certain lay-offs and certain solutions are requested? Can the minister indicate what action is contemplated with respect to this matter?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, such a telegram was received this morning and an investigation is being made.



NEW BRUNSWICK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance whether an interim payment was recently made to the government of New Brunswick in respect of the winter works program?


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: I shall have to make inquiries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Does the hon. gentleman know that, according to the Fredericton Gleaner, an announcement to that effect was made on March 8-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -by the hon. member for Y ork-Sunbury ?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member was looking in the wrong direction, but I hope he will be more attentive to this end of the room.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. member heard my question.



WINNING OF WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP BY TRAIL SMOKE EATERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I do so with utter delight and pleasure because he is a native son
Inquiries of the Ministry of the Kootenays. I am sure all hon. members of the house will wish to offer their warm and sincere congratulations to the Trail Smoke Eaters for winning the world's hockey championship. As a native son of the Kootenays and Acting Prime Minister of this country, a fact of which we are all proud, does the minister not think this a great achievement and triumph for Canada?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think all hon. members of the house would wish to join with the hon. member for Kootenay West in congratulating this fine team on their victory. Canadians in all parts of the country are glad they have had this great success in Europe. Of course it is of particular importance to the city of Trail, from which they come and which has supported them so loyally for many years, and it is also of particular significance to all the other residents of the Kootenay district.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the discussions which took place today at the commonwealth prime ministers' conference in London with reference to the position of South Africa in the commonwealth, will the Acting Prime Minister tell the house what position Canada has adopted or, in the alternative, has he any comment to make?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I believe there were discussions this morning in the commonwealth conference concerning the South African question. These discussions were not concluded and will be going on again tomorrow morning. In the meantime it would be quite improper for me to make any statement with regard to what was said in the course of those discussions.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice. Would the parliamentary secretary inquire and inform the house whether officials have examined the first retail pricing guide issued by the Canadian General Electric Company Limited

Inquiries of the Ministry after the government's amendments to the Combines Investigation Act last session to ascertain whether consumer electrical goods, in consequence, are no longer available except at prices 25 per cent to 40 per cent higher than formerly?
If an examination has taken place, is the minister satisfied that because of the amendments of last session there is no offence against the remaining provisions of the act respecting resale price maintenance?


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the officials are on the job in this respect, but I shall be glad to refer the matter to the appropriate officials for comment.



PACIFIC PRESS LIMITED-STATEMENT ON STATUS OF INVESTIGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday and Friday of last week the hon. member for Skeena asked questions about the Pacific Press Limited case. In this regard the director informs me that in view of the commission report the situation is being kept under careful surveillance. Up to the present time no court actions have been undertaken as a result of the report referred to, and as to whether such actions are contemplated, no final decision has yet been reached.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Justice, notice of which was given some days ago. Has the minister examined Bill No. 42 of the British Columbia legislature to determine its constitutionality with particular reference to the section having to do with direct or indirect contributions of employees to political parties?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member's question is contrary to the practice established in this house about questions relating to the disallowance of provincial legislation.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order you raise, I suggest the practice has been that it is in order to ask questions as to the government's consideration of the constitutionality of a measure. In many cases in the past it has been ruled that it is not in order to debate the matter, and therefore we have not been able to debate similar questions. I am positive 
I am accurate in saying it has been held in order to ask the questions of this nature on the orders of the day. I refer of course to our procedure with respect to the famous Newfoundland legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a matter of some importance, because questions of this kind may arise from time to time. If the hon. member would allow his question to stand I should like to review our practice in this matter. My present recollection is that we have not accepted questions about the exercise of the prerogative of the disallowance of provincial statutes in advance of the time of dissallow-ance. I shall be glad to look into the matter, and if I am incorrect in my recollection perhaps the hon. member would not be prejudiced by deferring his question until tomorrow.


Harold Edward Winch: You cannot do it after 12 months.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On that point, Mr. Speaker, citation 161 on pages 135 and 136 of Beauchesne reads as follows:
Disallowance of provincial laws is not one of the functions of the dominion parliament.
It goes on to point out that this subject is dealt with in section 90 of the British North America Act, and then says:
The only authority that can disallow provincial laws is the governor in council... Since the only power enjoyed by our House of Commons in matters of disallowance is to criticize the action of the dominion government after it has either disallowed or refused to disallow a provincial act, it follows that the house must await government action before taking the matter up.


Harold Edward Winch: That is why the whole thing is farcical.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the house leader for the reference, but I should like to review the matter if the house will allow me.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to page 147 of Beauchesne, citation 171, paragraph (m), which says that a question shall not ask solution of a legal proposition such as interpretation of a statute, which is exactly what the hon. member is seeking.



&quot;CLASS OR KIND MADE IN CANADA&quot;


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is he aware of the statement made by his colleague the Minister of National Revenue in Washington, as broadcast over "News Round-Up" this morning, that what is

commonly known as legislation of a class or kind made in Canada now before the house will not be used against the United States? Will the minister comment on this statement?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I expect that the Minister of National Revenue will be back in the house on Wednesday, and perhaps it would be just as well if the hon. member for Laurier would ask him the question directly.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is asking about a matter which is to come before the house for debate in due course, if I am not mistaken.


Lionel Chevrier: The matter has already been under discussion, is now on the order paper and has not been completed. The Minister of National Revenue has made a comment on it in Washington, and I think I am entitled to ask the government what its reaction is to the statement as reported over "News Round-Up". I have a supplementary question arising out of the first one. Will the Acting Prime Minister tell the house whether or not it is the intention of the government to lay aside this legislation in so far as the United States is concerned, when the legislation is passed by the house?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, any policy of that kind is not discussed on orders of the day.


Lionel Chevrier: This is a policy which has already been announced by the government and concerning which legislation is on the order paper. Therefore the matter has been determined, and as it has been determined by the government that is why I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the intention not to use the legislation against the United States as is indicated in a report in the Toronto Star headed "Tariff Changes Not Aimed at United States, Nowlan says".


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid the Liberal brain trust has not been working very effectively over the week end.


Lionel Chevrier: That is a very evasive answer.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys a question stemming from a statement by M. S. Fotheringham, president of Steep Rock Iron Mines Limited, that it is impractical for the mine to go ahead with development at lake St. Joseph without massive backing by United States funds. Has the
13, 1961	2915
Private Bills
government under consideration at this time any measures which would assist in the raising of capital on a large scale in Canada for such mining projects?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has the minister under consideration any measures which would encourage United States capital to assist such projects?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked a very broad question, as he knows, and I think he can hardly expect anything of that scope to be dealt with on the orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have another question I should like to pose and I think I will have to address it to the Acting Prime Minister, because three other cabinet ministers are involved in the particular legislation. Have any requests been received with respect to postponing or delaying the consideration of Bill No. C-70 for this year? If I may clarify that, I am referring to the bill in the name of the Minister of Justice dealing with the furnishing of financial and other statistical information by corporations and unions.


Howard Charles Green: I will have inquiries made.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-9, to incorporate international brain research organization-Mr. Fairfield-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a very few minutes to say a few words on clause 1 of Bill No. S-9, to incorporate international brain research organization.
Without doubt this is an important measure. We were given a most interesting discourse on the bill by the sponsor when the motion for second reading was before the house. In no way whatsoever am I opposing the bill, but I do feel it raises one or two questions with respect to which I should like to have the comments of the sponsor.
The purport of the bill in principle is to incorporate the international brain research

Private Bills
organization tor the purposes outlined in the objects set forth in the bill. To be precise, those objects are to develop, support, coordinate, promote and undertake throughout the world scientific research and education in all fields concerning the brain, to promote international collaboration and interchange of scientific information on brain research, and to provide and assist in the dissemination of information relating to brain research through any media whatsoever.
In so far as brain research is concerned, I feel it is very important to attempt to understand just what drives an individual, although it is a very difficult problem in view of the fact that almost everyone has an aberration of one kind or another. I should like to hear some comment from the hon. member, who is sponsoring this bill, regarding the research attack on the problem of finding out what is wrong with the mind, and why it is perhaps necessary to establish this additional organization for that particular job.
We all appreciate that there are innumerable associations and organizations, provincial, national and international, which deal with different aspects of research on the human body in attempts to find causes and cures. There are associations in existence today which deal with diseases of the heart and chest, as well as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and arteriosclerosis. There are of course additional organizations dealing with research regarding both children's diseases and mental health problems. I have only named a few.
In view of the fact that the sponsor of this bill has a magnificent reputation not only as a member of this house but as a physician and surgeon, and in view of his interest in research, I would ask that during the introduction of this bill to incorporate a brain research organization he satisfy us of the existence of some of the problems in this connection. He could perhaps indicate whether he thinks the time has arrived, in regard to research of this type, when an over-all organization should be established. We all know that hardly a two week period passes without our receiving analytical reports from various organizations of this kind. During the same period individuals receive requests to join, make donations and, in general, help these organizations in some way. We all realize that these organizations hold individual drives and community drives in attempts to raise funds.
I would ask the sponsor of this bill to indicate, as I have said earlier, in view of the existence of these various organizations and the legislation both provincial and national which covers them, whether an

over-all research body should be established to support the research in respect of these various diseases. I am sure that if these organizations continue attempting to support research in the way they have in the past, we will reach the point where we will be asked to establish an organization to support research into the problems of hangnails and dandruff. I appreciate of course that this is an exaggeration, but I hope the sponsor will appreciate the point I am making. I feel that now is the time for the hon. member sponsoring this bill to express himself about the entire medical research situation and the method of financing research programs. I would certainly appreciate it if the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa would rise at this time and expatiate, as my chemistry teacher used to say.


The Chairman:: Before the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa replies I would say that if he follows the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver East he will open the door to a wide debate. We might find that we are discussing the whole problem of research, and we are now at the committee stage of this bill, with the sole object of incorporating the international brain research organization. I have no objection to the hon. member making a short reply but I would warn him that I might be forced to intervene if the debate becomes too wide.


Mr. Fairfield:: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Vancouver East seems to be puzzled by the number of organizations for research into cancer, heart disease, arteriosclerosis, but I must remind him that these are national research organizations and that the proposed organization is an international research organization respecting brain research. Despite the fact that we have quite extensive research in this country it is fairly localized to two or three spots in Canada and therefore confined. We find, as a result, that most of our discoveries in connection with the brain have been made only in the past 15 or 20 years and have come to light in the main through international meetings which have not been organized, except by research teams from different countries.
At the meeting where this suggestion concerning an international organization was made there were 247 members in attendance. These individuals were not general practitioners or surgeons, but research men who were very much interested in research in respect of the brain. The organization which is now being proposed has that international flavour which is required because of the fact that the different panels and different disciplines throughout the different countries of

the world use different methods for research into the brain, and to expect them to carry on this very vital task with the support of one country would be too much to ask. That is why this research organization must be set up.
In so far as the questions of development, support and co-ordination are concerned, I might say that proposals have been extensive but will not be accepted until certain funds are provided. This organization will be a clearing house for information at the outset and, following funds being made available through grants from foundations or grants from UNESCO-one has already been received to assist during this formative stage- the organization will be responsible for the establishing of fellowships to assist scientific workers; for the fostering of medical students who are primarily interested in research; and for setting up temporary research teams in countries where funds do not exist to cover the cost of equipment needed for research in respect of brain diseases.
Through their teachers and many of their finest men in this organization they will be available to promote education in brain research. Through the use of laboratory facilities in some of the larger centres of countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, the U.S.S.R. and Canada they will make available the apparatus to help underdeveloped countries in their brain research. I hope that answers the hon. member's question.


Mr. Peters:: I want to congratulate the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa on the presentation he made on the motion for second reading of this bill. It seems to me that the hon. member must be a highly trained and qualified doctor. Certainly he has done a good deal of research into the reasoning behind the setting up of this international brain research organization. If a number of our doctors in Canada are as qualified to speak on this subject as he has indicated that he is, I think we in Canada will feel proud of the developments that will take place through the leadership of the members that have been suggested as the founding members of this unincorporated association.
The hon. member points out that there were 250 scientists from 30 countries taking part in the convention held under UNESCO which decided to set up this international organization. They held a central meeting. A number of them were polled and a vote was taken which resulted in the setting up of this organization.
In his introduction the hon. member also pointed out that research of a similar and quite often parallel nature was taking place
Private Bills
in brain research in various countries throughout the world. He mentioned particularly the United States and Russia who, of course, have pioneered in this field along with Britain and Canada under Dr. Penfield himself. He mentioned that these people in many cases had been developing techniques and doing research of a similar nature, and that if the exchange of information and of the equipment that is necessary for this type of work had been available, and the results of that research had been available, probably the duplication that was taking place would have been avoided and the intelligence of doctors experimenting in these fields would have been directed forward rather than running parallel as it now must.
I was very much interested in reading the names of the various people comprising the original committee or association. The first one mentioned is Herbert Henri Jasper, professor, who is widely known for his work and his teaching in the field of brain development. The next is Wilder Graves Penfield, surgeon, who also is very well known. He has been known for many years as an outstanding brain surgeon in the city of Montreal in the Royal Victoria Hospital.


Mr. Chown:: Montreal Neurological Institute.


William Arnold Peters: He is a man about whom many stories are told, I can remember one about a young boy being brought down from northern Quebec with a serious brain injury as a result of an accident. When the operation was over and the young lad was on his way to recovery the father, on asking Doctor Penfield how much the bill was going to be, was asked by the doctor how much money he made, and what kind of job he had. When the doctor was informed that the father was a miner in Noranda mine, the bill seemed to have been set in keeping with the earnings of the parent and this young chap was not prevented from receiving the benefit of treatment by this famous doctor. Probably arrangements would be made for the next patient to contribute something toward that assistance.
Brain surgery in Canada, as in other parts of the world, over the years has gone through the same type of reluctant support as that of other forms of medicine from Pasteur and Lister on down. There have always been those who say that you should not play around with things you cannot see, in some cases, and do not understand. It has been a field in which a great deal of difficulty has been experienced when corrective treatment or corrective surgery is attempted; I refer to the field of criminal and psychopathic tendencies. Treatment through the removal or the curtailing of the use of certain lobes in certain

Private Bills
cases may solve the problem with regard to sex deviates and others. A continual cry is going up that this type or research or this type of experimentation should not be allowed. In establishing this international organization it seems to me that we have brought into consideration the facts developed in other countries that probably would have a bearing on the relationship between the legislation and the various types of brain treatment that we would have in Canada as a result of the work done in other countries.
Some countries with more progressive legislation in this field than ours will be a factor, I am quite sure, in the work of the international research organization. I expect it will make it much easier for doctors in Canada and in other countries across the world to do initial research work on the correction of brain ailments. One of the reasons I am interested in the people who were named to the original unincorporated association is the fact that these are the people to whom the people of the world will look for guidance in connection with those who will be suffering or who have suffered from brain injuries.
I looked in the library to see what information was available on some of these people. It is surprising and unfortunate that in many cases more information is not available concerning what has been done and the calibre of the people that we are being asked to endorse in this organization. In the Dalhousie Review I read an article written by one of the doctors involved, namely Dr. Wilder Penfield. He was addressing the Dalhousie University faculty of medicine at their annual refresher course in October 1953 and he said in part as follows:
There is a river not to be found on any map of this terrestrial globe, yet a river well known to all the sons of men, and never very far from any of us. It flows in the Realm of Time. It is Lethe, the river of Oblivion. What memories of noble persons and heroic deeds, what words of wisdom and what glorious thoughts have been engulfed in that dark, remorseless tide.
He was speaking, of course, of research into all facets of brain surgery. He went on to say something that I think most hon. members would be pleased to endorse. He said that in giving these lectures he must wear the mantle of Stewart, who was a former president of that organization. Then he said:
Each doctor of medicine discovers that he wears a cloak of authority and wisdom in the eyes of his patients, if not in the eyes of his family. It covers the nakedness of our shortcomings. It causes us to stand up straight and tall, each one according to the stature God gave him.
The mover of the bill did not say to what extent the organization was going to involve itself in brain research of types other than

those in which it is presently engaged. It has been pointed out by scientists, and it was certainly pointed out by the doctor in the same relationship, that in the science of brain research we have not gone very far. Yet the brain is the fundamental machine which runs the human body and which has developed the human race. It is the machine that gives us those things that are good and in some cases the brain is responsible for those things which are bad. I refer to the malfunctions of the mind that occurred in the late Adolf Hitler. He is certainly not missed by anyone, but pershaps he could have been treated and his undoubted talents could have been put to work in a much better fashion if research in that type of field had been developed to the stage we expect it to develop in the very near future.
Our hospitals in Canada are full of people suffering from mental disorders of one kind or another. Good surgeons will eventually be able to correct a great many of the problems which now affect these people who are in institutions. They have found out exactly what part of the brain produces our faults, controls emotion, memory and the other things that go to make up the human mind. They know that in order to get at these things they have to apply stimulus to the brain. This has only been achieved because of the persistence of people of the calibre of Professor Jasper and Doctor Penfield. If these people, on their own and with very limited resources in many cases, had not been willing to pioneer in this field, particularly in Canada which is a small country with a proportionately small grant for this type of medical development, we would not know what is wrong with a great many of the people who are in our mental institutions.
It seems to me we could gain a great deal from co-operating with countries like Russia, England and the United States and could arrive at a quicker solution to the problem that now exists in Canada. As we look at the statistics of the number of mental patients in hospitals who are under care, we see that this problem is not getting any smaller even though research and surgery facilities have been developed to a great extent. In fact, this problem is getting larger.
The high speed of modern day living, the tensions that are developing at a great rate and the noise factors that are involved, coupled with the lack of exercise and other things that may previously have dissipated some of these tensions, are problems that are being studied in institutions. It has been felt by many people who are concerned with this matter that surgery itself may be a solution for eliminating the tensions that are produced today.

There is another much more positive endeavour, and that is in the field of congenital and pre-natal mental conditions. Many of these conditions are now being prevented by chemistry. Many of the accidents of birth that took place years ago are being prevented by chemistry, the use of hormones and other secretions. These mental ailments are no longer as widespread as they were. A cure is in sight for many of these people born with congenital diseases, and particularly those with submental capacity, through the use of chemical preparations. In the future many more people will be born with normal intelligence, with their minds undamaged, where years ago this was a very large and very worrisome field for doctors. At that time they had no opportunity and no method of checking to find out why this type of development was taking place, or what could be done about it.
I think members of this house are appreciative of the fact that this organization is being born under the auspices of the United Nations, with its support and help, and that it is taking into consideration the best medical research ability that is available. We should be, and are, proud of the fact that this organization is being developed in Canada and that at least for the time being the headquarters of the organization will be in this country.
I think this will mean that those in Canada who are suffering from mental ailments will perhaps in the near future be treated by surgical, chemical and medical methods that will be available here as soon as they are available anywhere else. Probably people across the country will remember these four or five people who are setting up this organization.
As a Canadian I certainly give my wholehearted support to this organization being born and established in Canada.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might be permitted to say a few words on this matter. I believe it was a week ago today, if I am not mistaken, that the miscellaneous private bills committee met and considered this bill. Unfortunately I am not a member of that committee and I was not able to be there. I certainly would have liked to be there because of the extreme importance of the subject matter of the bill itself and the great advantage not only to Canada but to the world that will undoubtedly accrue as a result of the establishment of this organization in this country.
Private Bills
This organization will collect, correlate and disseminate as much information as it possibly can about all the fields and activities of the brain itself. I know that hon. members of this house who are also members of the medical profession have an intense, close concern and interest in the establishment of this organization. Their closeness of concern, of course, comes from their field of work. Those members who are laymen as far as the medical field is concerned have an equal interest though, undoubtedly, their understanding of the complexities of the problem is not as great. So I am sure those hon. members who are directly interested will not think that because some members of this house are, to a degree, inarticulate with regard to this subject they do not take the interest in it which it deserves, because I am sure we all value the importance which this work has in our society. The brain itself is a most fabulous mechanism and though it may sometimes appear to go awry, even the most massive I.B.M. machine must pale into insignificance, I think, compared with some aspects of its activity.
I believe there is little doubt that the house will agree to the passage of this measure, and I wonder if before we pass from this item the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill would explain in a little more detail the financial arrangements of the proposed new organization. He mentioned, I believe, that the United Nations, or UNESCO, had made one financial contribution. I wonder if he could tell the committee what he expects the financial relationship to be between the organization which he now seeks to establish and UNESCO or any similar international organization. Can he tell us whether or not there will be a large financial contribution made by UNESCO, or whether it is hoped that the public will be able to finance this project primarily by means of private contributions.
Before I close I should like to leave this thought with the hon. member. For some time an immediate concern of mine has been the field of narcotic addiction and alcoholism both of which have been considered in recent years, and, I think, correctly so, to be the result of malfunctioning of the mind leading to conduct which is not in accord with that expected by the majority of society. We look upon the results of these addictions as being due to mental disturbances-mental illness- inability to face reality and an attempt to hide from the realities of life. I hope that when the organization is established it will be able to collect and disseminate information in this field concerning the mental functions

Private Bills
of people who have propensities toward addiction to drugs and alcohol to the end that not only here in Canada but in other parts of the world we may have a better understanding of this problem and that we may be able to evolve measures to reduce the waste of human and mental assets to which such addiction leads.


George Clark Fairfield: Perhaps I may answer the question concerning financial support. There has been no approach made, as yet, by this unincorporated body, but there has been some agreement in principle, informally, by government research bodies in Canada, France and the United States. The organization has not so far sought any charitable donations. It is hoped that when the bill for incorporation has gone through parliament certain foundations may be approached with a view to their donating money. Since there has been no incorporation as yet, no approach has been made to the Department of National Revenue as to whether or not this is a charitable organization.
To deal with the immediate budget, the estimates are $250,000 a year increasing by that amount over the next three or four years to a final figure of $1 million a year. Thus, hon. members can see that the plans are extensive and require a fair amount of money. As far as the government is concerned, there has been only the contribution made through the national research council of Canada to defray the expenses of the executive secretary, Dr. Jasper, while he was working on the organization of this corporation.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the sponsor of this bill if there is any relationship at the present time between this unincorporated organization and the mental health organization which presently operates in Canada. If not, will there be any such relationship in future? At the moment, in the absence of a fuller explanation, I cannot differentiate, generally speaking between the broad aspects of brain research and mental health.


George Clark Fairfield: One is, broadly speaking, engaged in research only and the other is more or less concerned with treatment. The mental health foundation is concerned primarily with the treatment of mental diseases. This corporation is concerned primarily with research.


Harold Edward Winch: On the functions of the brain?


George Clark Fairfield: It will be understood that included in the panels of this organization there are a large number of behavioural scientists who will co-operate with national bodies in any country as far as mental health is concerned.


Harold Edward Winch: This is, then, a straight research organization having to do with the function of the brain and so on. It has nothing to do with diseases of the brain?


George Clark Fairfield: It certainly has. It has very much to do with diseases of the brain. In so far as many aberrations are now considered to be diseases either caused pharmacologically, or by some lesion, chemical lesion or even traumatic lesion of the brain,-all of these have some connection with mental health. But this is a purely research organization. It is not primarily interested in treatment. It is interested in finding out how to treat these cases.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Objects.
William Arnold Peters: I presume this is the clause which has to do with the financing of the proposed organization. What is the method which it is intended to use? Is it to be contributions from the public? How is it intended to pay for the international organization itself?


George Clark Fairfield: I thought I had just answered that question. I think I explained it fairly fully.


William Arnold Peters: I was out of the chamber for a few moments.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4

Central committee.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, what I will have to say in relation to this clause will also apply to clause 5. Clause 4 has reference to the management of the affairs of the organization by a central committee to be composed of members elected or appointed as the organization may prescribe by bylaw from time to time. For the purpose of continuity I should point out that clause 5 refers to bylaws now in existence.
I am concerned about the reference to the appointment of members. From time to time a hue and cry is raised with respect to the executive of voluntary organizations in Canada, the charge being made that the democratic process of election is not followed. I realize it is necessary to have provisions for appointing members and these are useful if they are not abused. Can the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa tell us how appointments are made at the present time?


George Clark Fairfield: Mr. Chairman, I believe I mentioned when first moving this bill that the central committee would be composed of

representatives of several different panels representing the fields of neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, neuroendocrinology, neuropharmacology, neurophysiology, behavioural sciences, neurocommunications and biophysics. Each of the first five panels has already ballotted for and nominated two members. With respect to the last two panels, there are four in each of these two groups.
I do not think the hon. member need be concerned on an international basis, although I can appreciate his concern on a national basis. The central committee consists of the group of men in these seven panels coming from all over the world, France, Canada, U.S.A., Italy, Australia, U.S.S.R., Poland, et cetera. In addition to these panel members who are ballotted for and nominated by their panel, the central committee may appoint individual members at large who shall not be assigned to any one of the above mentioned panels. Such members will be selected from leading scientists in neurobiology, general neurophysiology, clinical sciences, or other fields not readily included in any one of the above panels. As new panels are formed in different types of brain research, I suppose the central committee will have authority to name a delegate from these panels.


Frank Howard: I was interested only in the present arrangement and was not apprehensive about giving a potentially damaging power to someone. While I could not repeat the nomenclature used by the hon. member, I take it from his reply that the central committee is made up of seven representatives elected from seven panels plus three others from additional fields?


George Clark Fairfield: No, Mr. Chairman, there are 18 members from the panels plus the executive secretary who is already a member of the central committee. There are 19 plus 3.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5-Bylaws, rules and regulations.
Frank Howard: Paragraph (a) of this clause refers to conditions and classes of membership in the organization. Would the hon. member explain what that means?


George Clark Fairfield: This has reference to the classes I have already named. The panels are the classifications involved.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 9-First bylaws.
Harold Edward Winch: Under most acts of incorporation a definite time limit is set between the passing of the legislation and the calling of the first conference or convention. The language of this clause is as follows:
Private Bills
Subject to section 8, the first bylaws, rules and
regulations of the organization shall be enacted at a time and place and in such manner as may be determined by the central committee of the unincorporated association-
Some acts of incorporation set the time limit at 12 months or two years. A recent measure passed in this house set the time limit at 18 months. This present provision, however, is indeterminate. The meeting may not take place for 20 years. Why is there no definite provision?


George Clark Fairfield: In drafting this measure reference was made to the form of incorporation of the last international organization to have been incorporated, the international air transport association incorporated in Montreal in 1945. This clause is similar to the clause in the measure incorporating that association. Under the bylaws the central committee must meet in ordinary session every two years.


Harold Edward Winch: Not according to this clause.


George Clark Fairfield: When this organization is incorporated it will be subject to the bylaws and regulations of the unincorporated organization.


Harold Edward Winch: Because of the language of clause 8 and because in the unincorporated organization there is a bylaw providing for meeting in ordinary session every two years, no provision of that nature has to be included in clause 9?


George Clark Fairfield: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now, by leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Clark Fairfield: the third reading ot the bill.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two before the motion carries in order to express a feeling which I am sure is shared by every hon. member in the house. May I say how much we enjoyed and appreciated the clarity and understanding of the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Fairfield) in piloting the bill through the house. It was quite evident that he had an intimate and detailed knowledge of all the intricacies of the organization and its past and future activities and I for one

Private Bills
wish to express my appreciation of the marvellous job he did in piloting the bill through the house.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



WENDY GRACE MCCULLOUGH

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill SD-57, an act for the relief of Wendy Grace McCullough.-Mr. McCleave.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that all divorce bills shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hazen Robert Argue: Call them one at a time.



MARIE ANNE SIGOUIN

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill SD-70, an act for the relief of Marie Anne Sigouin.
Mr. Broome:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether my hon. friends in the corner want to punish our good friend, the second clerk assistant, by making him read all these orders. I should like to suggest that we stand all the rest of the divorce bills.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I would agree provided they are not consolidated and remain in the same form.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the hon. member for Tim-iskaming, is it the pleasure of the house that all the divorce bills be stood at this time?


Frank Howard: Without consolidation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Without consolidation.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



AURORA PIPE LINE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 6, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-2, to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company- Mr. Woolliams-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman-


Hazen Robert Argue: Where is the sponsor of the bill?


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that the sponsor would be here but I can see that his alternate is here.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The sponsor is on his way to the house now.


Harold Edward Winch: I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again when the sponsor is here.


Jacques Flynn: Would the hon. member put his motion in writing?


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Vancouver East does not wish to speak on the bill at this time, I do.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the hon. member for Jasper-Edson be now heard.


Jacques Flynn: We have a motion before the committee and I will put it right away. It is not debatable.
Motion (Mr. Winch) negatived: Yeas, 7; nays, 38.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I move that the hon. member for Jasper-Edson be now heard.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Mr. Chairman, at the outset of my remarks this afternoon I should like to comment on what has happened in the committee on this bill to incorporate the Aurora pipe line. We have witnessed, and I am sure will continue to witness, a determined effort on the part of that small minority to filibuster this bill. This minority is, of course, regarded as the champions of democracy on occasion, but apparently only when it suits their needs. I challenge the sincerity of this minority group in respect of a number of points.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order regarding the imputation that the motive of this group is to filibuster, and that we are insincere in what we say in this house. That imputation cannot be made in this house and 1 ask that it be immediately withdrawn.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw any remarks I have made regarding the hon. member.


Jacques Flynn: Order. If the point of order is settled by the withdrawal by the hon. member of the offending words, then I must rise myself on another point of order. The remarks of the hon. member are certainly not relevant to clause 1 of the bill under discussion.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Mr. Speaker, I will try to quickly cover the points I have in mind.
The first point I have in mind relates to a statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver South in respect of the construction of the pipe line. Unfortunately, the hon. member chose to raise this question even though he had prior knowledge that what he was saying was not correct.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Ernest James Broome: I will rise on this point of order myself.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member for Jasper-Edson has said that the hon. member for Vancouver South made certain statements in this house knowing in advance that the statements he made were incorrect. I would suggest that such an accusation by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: If I indeed said what the hon. member for Assiniboia has suggested then I withdraw. What I intended to say was that the hon. member for Vancouver South had been assured prior to his statement that the company involved intended to use Canadian contractors on the Canadian construction.
The second point I should like to cover, sir, concerns the whole question of the discussion of this bill in committee. There have been several individuals who have complained in this committee during the discussion, on clause 1. I suggest the hon. member for Skeena was one member who did so. This hon. member, as well as any other hon. member of this house, could have attended at the meetings of the committee discussing this bill if they so wished.
I should like to make one further point regarding the fact that representatives of Pembina Pipe Line Limited, and its subsidiary, Foothills pipe line, did not choose to attend the committee meetings. I would suggest they did not attend because these representatives were quite willing to stand on their own feet and accept their responsibilities and chances regarding this operation. I believe they are happy as a Canadian company to take their case to the Alberta conservation board and the national energy board. I am sure that this company Pembina Pipelines will be given a licence to set up a gathering system within the province of Alberta.
I would draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that one year ago another pipe line bill was before this committee in respect of Northern Pipe Line Limited, introduced by the hon. member for Kindersley. At that time our friends in the corner asked if the government of Saskatchewan was in favour of that bill. The hon. member for Kindersley replied that the government of Saskatchewan looked at the bill with favour and we heard nothing more from our friends in respect of that bill. Apparently our friends in the corner go along with anything the socialist government of Saskatchewan puts forward but do not wish to have competition in the field of by-products in Alberta. I point out to you, sir, as well as those members, that the element of competition is of vital importance to the people of 90205-6-185
Private Bills
Alberta. As I have said previously, this element of competition has a bearing on the determination of the price of these by-products to our farmers, the citizens of the small towns, and the local industries. This competition will determine the price of these very essential by-products, whether used as fuel or raw material by local industries.
Mr. Chairman, as the member for the constituency in which Pembina Pipe Line Limited head office is situated, I assure you that company, as a Canadian company, is not unwilling to take its chances with competition. I assure you, as a citizen of Alberta, that I should like to see the proper development of our resources. I should like to see local and secondary industries developed there to as great an extent as possible. I am sure that the people of Alberta need and hope to see foreign capital coming into our province to assist in the development of these resources. We ask only that Canadians be given an equal opportunity of participating in the financing and operation of these lines. I suggest to you that the government of the province of Alberta, although I do not agree with its policies in every regard, has certainly been successful in respect of the Alberta natural gas company, which was set up to gather gas in the province. I am sure that a similar course will be followed in regard to these by-products, if it is feasible. However, I want to suggest to you finally that if we, as Canadians, cannot accept the incorporation of this company because of the possible competition which will result, there is certainly something wrong with us, and for that reason we should accept this incorporation without further delay. I feel this will be a first step in the direction of allowing the export of some of our by-products which are now in a surplus position.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down made certain references to a statement I made and I should like to quote from Hansard in this regard. I suggested I had information that this pipe line would be built through a negotiated contract with a United States contractor and that no Canadian firm would be allowed the opportunity of participating. This information was not held as a secret but was turned over to the hon. member for Bow River during a conversation between that hon. member and myself. He read certain excerpts from a letter he had which appeared to be rather inconclusive. I felt the excerpts would have been more conclusive had they been placed on Hansard.
I have been reported at page 2677 of Hansard as follows:
What is the situation in regard to the construction of the line? I feel I am being fair to the

Private Bills
sponsor of this bill, as I have informed him of the information I have at hand.
Further on I am reported as follows:
When I conclude my remarks I hope the hon. gentleman will be able to correct me as to the accuracy of my information.
I could have been corrected regarding my information at that time. It could be that the information was correct at that time and that the company has changed its policy since then.
It seems to me that some hon. members around here take the attitude that no one shall have his own ideas about anything in this house, and that no one except someone who lives in Alberta can talk about pipe lines. It is a matter that concerns the whole country and every hon. member in this house. If we want to talk about accuracy of statement, Mr. Chairman, I will refer you to Hansard of March 6, 1961. After certain references the hon. member for Bow River, as reported at page 2705 of Hansard, said:
Under subsection (d) of section 44-
He was referring to the act setting up the national energy board.
-the board must have regard to the question of financial responsibility. That will be considered. It must have regard to the financial structure of the applicant. That will be considered. It must have regard to the methods of financing the line. That will be considered. It must have regard to the extent to which Canadians will have an opportunity of participating in the financing, engineering and construction of the line. That will be considered.
What does the act say? It says that the board "may". There is a great deal of difference. It says that the board may, subject to the approval of the governor in council, issue a certificate. At the end of the first clause it is stated that the board may have regard to the following and it goes on to mention the availability of oil or gas, the economic feasibility, the financial responsibility and all the rest of it. The word is not "must"; it is "may".


Mr. Woolliams:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Ernest James Broome: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether the hon. member has read Maxwell on the interpretation of statutes wherein it is stated that "may" may be interpreted as "shall", and vice versa. If he has done so, I should like to hear from him.


Ernest James Broome: I know how lawyers can twist points. I know that two counsel can be put in a trial; that one can take one standpoint and the other can take the opposite one; and that both can buttress their arguments. All I know is simple language and to me "may"

is not "shall". If lawyers would start to write in simple language, it would be a great deal better for them also. We have heard a great deal about Canadian participation in this line. I tried to set the record straight in my opening remarks when I spoke on this bill. I referred to the evidence given by Mr. Burgis when, as reported at page 45 of the committee minutes of proceedings and evidence we find the following. This is with regard to a question by the hon. member for Calgary South who was inquiring as to the financing of the parent company and as to the degree of public participation in that financing. In reply Mr. Burgis said as follows:


Mr.   Burgis@: Yes. We take the point of view that this is a relatively small line, and it would be quite usual for an oil company to build it as part of their normal operations. In terms of public financing in Canada back in 1957 our directors did offer public participation in the ownership of Hudson's Bay Oil & Gas, when there was no public clamor for ownership.


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: You say in 1957?


Mr.   Burgis@: Yes.


Arthur Smith: But, what was the final result?


Mr.   Burgis@: 9.6 per cent-approximately 10 per cent-of the outstanding shares are owned by some 12,000 public shareholders.
I pointed out that you could take one interpretation from these remarks. The interpretation that seems to be taken by the members in their speeches was not the interpretation given in information I placed before this house and it has not been refuted as yet by anyone speaking on this bill. That information referred to the fact that the public participation in this issue came about through rights given to shareholders in Continental Oil and Hudson's Bay Company. These were rights to purchase shares in their wholly-owned subsidiary Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas. Prior to 1957 there was no public participation in the ownership of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas. The inference here is that there was public participation and that it came about through this indirect means.
I wonder how many shares are owned by Canadians or residents of this country in those parent companies, namely, Continental Oil and Hudson's Bay Company. I would venture to make this suggestion about the public participation in these companies- when I say "public" I refer to the Canadian public because I think that is what we should be concerned about in this House of Commons -that Canadian public participation in this parent company, would be, I would guess, and I emphasize the word "guess" because I trust that my hon. friend from Bow River may have detailed information on this matter, not more than 2 per cent to 3 per cent. I just wanted to set the record straight.

I agree with the fact that we want to export these commodities. But I say that in this forum we will let it be known that companies that are going to be incorporated in Canada, based upon our natural resources, shall take care that they are in tune with the climate of opinion prevailing in this country, and that climate is that Canadians shall have the right to participate. This is what I am talking about, namely the right to participate. I am not talking about not bottling up our resources; furthering logical and needed development; or taking by-products of which we have an excess to a market which needs them. All these are good things. But this benefit can be achieved in this new way of letting Canadians take part in these ventures.
This is the reason for my opposition to this bill. At no place in this evidence do I see any indication of a real attempt by the company to take this matter into account. All of the blather and furor cannot disguise that fact. I ask anyone to show me one place where any such evidence can be found. I therefore oppose this bill, Mr. Chairman. When I first spoke on it, I wanted to go to the committee to get the information. I have not obtained the information I wanted. On the basis of what I have been told today and from a reading of Hansard- and I read Hansard because I was not here for the full debate when the bill came up for consideration last Monday-I say that my questions have not as yet been answered. Until they are answered I oppose this bill.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


Harold Edward Winch: I have maintained an interest in this bill ever since it was introduced. Through the medium of conversation and that of correspondence I have done my best to obtain every bit of factual information possible. I have either listened to every speech that has been made on the bill since it was introduced or, if I was unavoidably absent, I have read in Hansard the speeches that were made. I find myself now in the same position as that in which I was when the bill was introduced and in the same position as the hon. member for Vancouver South who has just spoken. I do not feel that we can pass clause 1. I am opposed to the bill in question. I am opposed to it for many reasons. In spite of the emphatic denials made by some hon. members, they have not been able to present answers to the problems which arise in the course of the passage of this bill for incorporation; and those answers should be given if it is to receive the authorization of this House of Commons and of the other place and royal assent.
90205-6-1854
Private Bills
I anticipated that we would obtain a great deal of information in committee. I am very, very sorry that for a considerable part of that meeting we did not have a reporter in attendance and the transcription is not complete. I think we have to emphasize this question. What does this bill mean, either through the reading of the bill, through the information that was given us in committee or that which has been given by the various members who supported the bill? Certain facts stand out. First, not only is it not denied but it is admitted by the sponsor of this bill and others that Aurora Pipe Line Company is a United States controlled company as far as the majority of its preferred and common shares are concerned. Second, it is not interested in developing any secondary industry in the province of Alberta.
It was most interesting to listen a few moments ago to the exhortation of the hon. member for Jasper-Edson in support of the bill. He pointed out his interest in the developing of secondary industry in the province of Alberta. We have it not only on the authority of the wording of the bill itself but also on the authority of Mr. Burgis, who appeared before the committee, that this company is not interested in any sale in Alberta whatsoever; it is only interested in export, and export to the lines of Continental Oil in Idaho and Montana. Of course, there is then a connection, if they wish, clear through to Chicago.
We have heard a great deal from hon. members who support this bill about Canadian ownership, Canadian development and the absolutely vital need for us not to be hewers of wood and drawers of water but to develop secondary industry.
I am not going into detail on this matter because it is well known to hon. members. Some two years ago this house incorporated a company which laid down as a priority requirement that the interests of Alberta should come first; second, the secondary industry in Alberta and then, and then only, export outside the boundaries of our country. Moreover not only is that organization the majority-wise Canadian owned and Canadian financed, or will be so financed if the plans go through, but we also know that they will not just deal with the southwestern corner of Alberta. They are interested in the entire province of Alberta and they have already signed what might be termed preliminary contracts to take up
75,000	barrels a day on an export basis if that much is available. We have this company to compare with the one we are now being asked to incorporate. This company only wishes to deal with the cream of the by-product group.

Private Bills


An hon. Member:: Cream, my foot.


Harold Edward Winch: 
Hazen Robert Argue: We are opposing this bill once again because we think it is a bad bill for Canada. We think it is a bill which is unnecessary inasmuch as another program could have been devised to accomplish the obtaining of markets for Canadian products. We think we are maintaining a consistent position

one which we have maintained over the years-and that this government, by supporting the present measure, is doing a disservice to the nation. We believe that once again, according to this measure, we are handing over substantial Canadian resources to the control of citizens from outside our country.
I notice that the hon. member for Greenwood is in his place. I should be most interested if he were to make some comments in this debate. I should be interested to hear his views as to whether the bill now before the committee is the best way to regulate the handling of the products concerned.
The Tory party while in opposition stood for Canadian development, Canadian participation and Canadian control over natural gas and its distribution. But since it took office there has been a complete reversal, a capitulation by the government to the United
Private Bills
States interests about which they complained so bitterly while in opposition. When this government took office they did not continue the view which they had expressed with regard to pipe lines while in opposition. They appointed a commission to try to get off the hook, but when the commission reported on the trans-Canada pipe line the report showed to what extent the interests of the nation had been sold out to United States buccaneers and certain budding millionaires in our own country. Now the position taken by the Conservative party is that even in connection with a small, short, tiny pipe line we cannot have public ownership or Canadian participation. That is a far cry from what was said with regard to the great trans-Canada pipe line. In debates on this subject on former occasions-I did not quote these references in my speech on the last occasion-the leader of the Conservative party of the day put forward the position taken by that party when he said this about the attitude of the government as recorded in Hansard for 1956 on page 2181:
This is the only place to do so and this is the opportunity to declare our economic independence of the United States. This is the time to plan to make full use of the resources which God has given us.
The hon. gentleman went on to say on the same date:
No matter how friendly any other nation may be I submit it is our duty as representatives of the people of Canada to follow a course which will assure Canada's economic as well as political independence. That course is not served by the resolution now presented to us.
I submit that that course is not served by the passage of the bill which is now under discussion in this committee. The pipe line in question is owned in the main by United States corporations which were involved in the transactions surrounding the trans-Canada pipe line.
I am pleased to see, however, that there seems to be at least a small indication of independence from the other side as was exemplified by the statement we heard today and the statements made on a former occasion by the hon. member for Vancouver South. We welcome his intervention in this debate. We think parliament would be better served if members on the opposite side sometimes gave us a little greater indication that they were exercising independent judgment and not a collective party judgment on this or other issues.
I think there is much to be answered in this debate. I wonder why the hon. member who sponsored this bill cannot give us some clear explanation as to why a capitalization of $10 million should be needed to build half a mile of pipe line. That is one of the strangest

Private Bills
things I have ever heard, that you need $10 million capitalization in order to make a $15,000 outlay. This is a preposterous proposition. It is an insult to parliament and to hon. members of this committee to ask that we rubber stamp a measure which provides $10 million capitalization for a $15,000 expenditure. I wonder what this pipe line is going to be made of, because the capitalization works out to $3,784 per foot of pipe line? Perhaps it will be gold-plated but I do not think even if it were it would cost that sum.
What does this company take us for? Why does the company want all this money? Do not tell us it is under the control of the national energy board because that is not true. What is under the control of that board is an assessment as to whether this company should have a licence to export through its half-mile of pipe line.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about building the pipe line?


Hazen Robert Argue: It is not going to require $10 million to build it. Surely, my hon. friend does not suggest that. The national energy board will not have control over all the other powers this company seeks to have vested in it.
What would we say about the control the government could exercise over the railway companies of Canada if they presented to parliament a couple of dozen bills or perhaps one omnibus bill which placed under the control of parliament only a half-mile of railway line connecting the railway lines between each of the provinces? That is what this company in effect, is endeavouring to do. If the railway companies were to do what I suggested in that illustration it would destroy the control of parliament over the railway system of Canada because parliament would be given control over only a few miles of railway track on provincial boundaries.
I do not know why this company chose to build a half-mile of pipe line. I do not know why it did not choose to build an even smaller one. All it wants to do is dump products over the border. Perhaps the company thought the survey of the system would not be too accurate.
The company asks to build a mere halfmile of pipe line but once the company is incorporated-if that should happen-it will have the authority given it by parliament to build pipe lines within Manitoba. Parliament will have no jurisdiction over what the company does in Manitoba, provided it does not cross a boundary. The company could build pipe lines in Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and parliament would have no control. The company could build pipe

lines throughout western Canada with its $10 million capitalization and parliament would have no control, provided the pipe lines did not cross a provincial boundary.
The company is seeking wide powers in this bill. If passed, this measure will give the company not only the power to build pipe lines in half of the nation but will, under the provisions of clause 6, give the company power to build pipe lines for the transmission and transportation of oil and other liquid hydrocarbons and:
(a) within Canada in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia and in the Yukon and Northwest Territories and outside Canada construct, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire and hold, develop, operate, maintain, control, lease, mortgage, hypothecate, create liens or other security upon, sell, convey or otherwise dispose of and turn to account any and all extraprovincial and/or international pipe lines and all appurtenances relative thereto for gathering, transmitting, transporting, storing and delivering of any natural or artificial gas and oil or any products or by-products thereof or any of them-
That is a lot of power for a company with half a mile of pipe line. The company could go all over Alberta gathering products under the powers sought in this bill. The company wants to build only a half-mile of pipe line, on the surface of it, but that is not all we are asked to rubber stamp. This will be one of the smallest pipe lines in Canada in terms of length.
What else does the company seek? Under the provisions of clause 6 the company seeks power to:
-own, lease, sell, operate and maintain aircraft and aerodromes for the purpose of its undertaking-
I do not know what the company will do with aerodromes in relation to a half-mile of pipe line. I have not the foggiest notion what the company proposes to do with all these powers. This is, apparently, an insignificant company. We let it go to the national energy board. Will they O.K. aerodromes and airplanes?
Not satisfied with that, the company also seeks power to:
*-own, lease, operate and maintain inter-station
telephone

With a half-mile of pipe line one would think one could shout from one end of the line to the other and be heard. I continue:
-teletype and telegraph communication systems and, subject to the Radio Act-
I thank the company for that concession.
-and any other statute relating to radio, own, lease, operate and maintain interstation radio communication facilities-
It is a wonder the company does not want television facilities.


Mr. Speakman:: It may do better than the C.B.C. at that.


Hazen Robert Argue: Someone says, "It may do better than the C.B.C." Someone else wants them to have television facilities. I do not know why the company requires telephone, teletype and telegraph communication systems and aerodromes and airplanes.


An hon. Member:: The Bomarc?


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not imagine the company would waste its money on useless contraptions. I imagine this company will spend its money very carefully.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock I was saying that this company, which intends to build a pipe line only half a mile in length, certainly seems to want tremendous powers. It is to be given the power to operate aerodromes, to maintain aircraft, to establish telephone systems, teletype and telegraph communication systems and a host of other powers. But this tiny company, this most insignificant of all pipe lines in relation to its length, is not satisfied merely with having the power to operate pumping stations, terminals, storage tanks, aircraft and aerodromes, etc.
In order, I presume, to facilitate the construction of this tremendous project and undoubtedly in view of the countless number of employees that will be necessary to construct and to operate this half mile of pipe line, the company is asking parliament and my hon. friends opposite to rubber stamp- I think they are rubber stamping it-a provision which will allow the company to purchase, hold, lease, sell, improve, exchange or otherwise deal in real property. They may subdivide this real property into building lots and generally lay the same out into lots, streets and building sites for residential purposes. Apparently they are going to erect a city somewhere along this half mile of pipe line. They may construct streets on this real property and necessary sewerage and drainage systems and build upon the same for residential purposes or otherwise and supply any buildings so erected-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether the hon. member would answer a question.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I just wanted to ask the hon. member for Assiniboia if we are already on clause 6 or whether he is still speaking on clause 1.
Private Bills


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the point of order you have raised. Of course I am speaking on clause 1. I was not quoting, as Hansard will show. I was hitting and missing on certain very sweeping powers-


Edwin William Brunsden: Mostly missing.


Hazen Robert Argue: -that are very securely embedded in the bill. This company is asking parliament for the right to subdivide its real property, to build houses, to lay out streets, to build sewerage systems and to provide electric light, heat, gas, water or other requisites and to lease or sell the same upon such terms and subject to such conditions-*


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether the hon. member for Assiniboia would answer a question.


Hazen Robert Argue: I did not hear the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will put it if you will listen. The Northern Pipe Line Company, which was incorporated last year for the purpose of exporting gas from the province of Saskatchewan, had the blessing of the provincial government and I should like to know whether there were not similar clauses in that legislation?


Hazen Robert Argue: It is not a question of whether there were similar clauses. It is a question of whether it was a similar company and I answer the hon. member by saying no. Even if the company was identical, which it was not, the fact that it was done in one instance is no reason why we should do it again.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is all right for the C.C.F. to do it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I challenge the hon. member who has sponsored this bill to clean up this atrocity, to delete certain provisions of this monstrosity. Instead of the sponsor of the bill asking that this company be given the power to be a founder of cities and operator of airports, let him at least ask parliament for what he claims the company is seeking, namely, the authority to build half a mile of pipe line. After this company with its huge capitalization gets these tremendous powers it will have been clothed by parliament with the power to do all these things and I suggest that it is a disgrace; that we should not allow it and that the bill should be amended by deleting these provisions. We are being asked to approve powers to establish metropolitan areas, if you like, to build new cities, if you like. There is no limit provided in the bill, and after they have built all these houses they can lease or sell them upon such terms and subject to such conditions as appear requisite, either to their employees or to others.

Private Bills
Not only are we being asked to incorporate a pipe-line company but we are being asked to give the company the authority to commence housing projects, operate air lines, telephone systems, teletype and telegraph communication systems and countless other things.


Mr. McQuillan:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did he ever have the occasion to incorporate a company under the provincial laws of Saskatchewan by using the services of a lawyer who was worthy of his salt? If he has done so he will know that the terms are broad in any incorporation.


Hazen Robert Argue: They may be broad and perhaps they are so broad that we should deal with them. It might be necessary to have such powers in the building of a trans-Canada pipe line over thousands of miles of territory. It might be necessary to have the right to construct homes for the hundreds and hundreds of employees who would be engaged in the work, but surely it is not necessary to have the power to enter into a housing development embedded in a law for the building of this flea bite pipe line in the province of Alberta, a quarter of a mile in Alberta and a quarter of a mile in the United States.


Mr. Bigg:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does the hon. member think that the building of this pipe line would assist in obtaining full employment for the people of Alberta?


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer to that is that I doubt it because it is a flea bite.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I do not agree.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is a flea bite. The hon. member wonders how many men will be employed.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I said I wondered how many men it would assist to employ.


Hazen Robert Argue: There were 693,000 unemployed in the last count and there will be another count soon. Here is the answer to the question of unemployment: we are going to build a half mile of pipe line. If the government would build these aerodromes and other things perhaps it would be of some assistance.
In this case we have the Yankee buccaneers building the pipe line.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am in good company when I use that phraseology. I travel in the same company as the Prime Minister except that he has changed, he thinks it is fine now. Instead of condemning this atrocity he is now promoting it. He is promoting it and I suggest that he should be condemning it on every 
score. I suggest that it is no wonder the government members of the committee rose to support the motion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order. The hon. member said the Prime Minister was promoting this bill and it is not true. This is not the Prime Minister's bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: How will the Prime Minister vote? How will the hon. member vote? Let us see where the government will stand.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order. I suggest the hon. member correct his erroneous statement. This is not the Prime Minister's bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: I did not say it was the Prime Minister's bill.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Yes, you did.


Hazen Robert Argue: I said the Prime Minister was supporting it and promoting it. My friend used the correct word and I use it as well. The Prime Minister is supporting the bill. The house leader is promoting the bill. He is going to vote for it, and he has been voting for it.


James Stanley Speakman: How are you going to vote?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am going to vote against it and have been voting against it. I challenge the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs to stand up in this committee and say how he is going to vote on this measure. There is government unanimity and he says it is not a government bill. He says it is a private bill and they are not here to exert influence or have any say; just rubberstamping with their host of followers a bill that I suggest is an abomination and against the best interests of the country. I would suggest that it is little wonder, because of all of the bad features of this bill, that the members of the government party on the committee voted against a motion merely to defer consideration of the bill in the committee so that interested witnesses might have the opportunity to appear. I hope that parliament in this session will reject this measure.


James Stanley Speakman: I should like to ask the hon. member a question before he resumes his seat. Since he has now completed his speech, and he speaks of course as the voice of authority for his party, perhaps he would now tell us why he is opposed to this bill. I have not heard that as yet.


Frank Howard: You have not been listening.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not responsible for the mentality or the lack of it of the hon. member. It is perfectly clear in our view that this bill is such that it should not pass. I am not responsible for the fact that the hon. member is incapable of understanding.

Private Bills


Edwin William Brunsden: I should like to ask the hon. member a question.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is a war of Alberta in the house.


Edwin William Brunsden: The hon. member talks about unemployment and about trade, but he also talks against this bill. I should like to ask him if he wishes to keep this great natural resource in western Canada landlocked. Does he wish to preserve it for posterity or does he wish to market it today? There will be a time when we have another form of energy and the same thing will happen to gas and oil as happened in regard to coal not very many years ago.


Hazen Robert Argue: If my hon. friend had been listening and had a little more understanding, perhaps he would know what our position is.


James Stanley Speakman: Never mind making remarks about people, just answer the question.


Hazen Robert Argue: I realize that hon. members are in a hurry.


James Stanley Speakman: Not at all.


Hazen Robert Argue: We are very much in favour of obtaining adequate markets for the surplus products of the petroleum industry, but we think it is the duty of parliament to bring about the incorporation of pipe line companies which will export these products in such a way as to bring the greatest possible advantage to the Canadian nation. We think that is exactly what this pipe line will not do.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, rising once again to speak in reference to this matter, I should like to say that if any member feels there are serious questions that have not been answered I will endeavour to answer them. I am not going to take very long because I am the last one who would want to be accused of talking out his own bill. Certainly if there are any serious and honest questions, I will endeavour to answer them. I will assure every member of this committee that if there are questions which I cannot answer there are men who are connected with this company who will endeavour to supply the information.
It does seem to me, whether we like it or not, that the group in the corner have made up their minds that they are going to talk out this bill. I appeal to their intelligence. I have listened to the member for Vancouver East and have a lot of respect for him. He asked some serious questions this 90205-6-186
afternoon because he was seriously interested. I hope, in the same serious vein, that I can answer those questions.
I see the member for Assiniboia packing his papers and books. I hope he will remain with us long enough, now that he has finished his speech, to listen to some of the serious remarks that I have to make.
One of the questions that has been asked in this debate is, why is it necessary to come to parliament? Maybe it is my fault for not having answered this question before, but I thought I had. I will endeavour tonight to make this clear. Why is it necessary to come to parliament to ask for incorporation? I trust the members will bear with me when I go through the technical law in this regard, because it is very difficult to make an argument of this type. I am not appealing to emotion but to reason. I am appealing to reason based on the law of this country. If I am wrong, I trust that some hon. member will rise in his place tonight and correct me.
I should like to refer to section 25 of the energy board act, but before I do so I would refer to the fact that we are building one half a mile of pipe line. I should like to mention two points in that regard; first, why must we come to parliament? After I answer that question my second proposition will deal with the reasons for setting out the terms of incorporation as they have been set out. I am sure my friend from Assiniboia, who has a tremendous sense of humour, will bear with me while I read from the articles of incorporation of the Northern Pipe Line Company, and show that the one thing we missed-television-was included in the Saskatchewan bill.
Let us go back to my first point; why do we have to come to parliament? When the National Energy Board Act was passed, which incorporated some of the old pipe-line bill sections including section 25 to protect the Canadian public and the companies by making sure that equity was-I am sorry to see my friend from Assiniboia leaving. I am glad to see him return.


Hazen Robert Argue: I rise on a point of order. I am listening with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member. I have an engagement tonight which I made a month ago. I must keep this engagement and I am already late. My hon. friend said he would be brief but I understand he has more to say.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have been talking for only two minutes.


Hazen Robert Argue: I regret very much that I will not be able to hear the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is one thing that should be noted. It is the first time we have been

Private Bills
invited to a political meeting in the House of Commons by the hon. member for Assini-boia. However, let us get down to brass tacks. These good orators from the C.C.F. leave; and this applies not only to members from the C.C.F. I noticed the other day that another good orator left as soon as he had made his point and made the press. I should like to emphasize the press. That is important for some members. Let us get back to the matter under discussion.


Ernest James Broome: I rise on a question of privilege. I believe the hon. member is referring to me.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I end this argument right now, Mr. Chairman. I had no thought of referring to my good friend from Vancouver South. I want to say that I am really sorry that he even thought I might have done so.


Frank Howard: Are you thinking about the Prime Minister?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to come back, if you will bear with me, Mr. Chairman, for a few minutes to the question of the National Energy Board Act. Section 25 reads as follows:
(1) No person, other than a company, shall construct or operate a pipe line.
I want you to take heed. Everybody has been seeking facts.
(l)	No person, other than a company, shall construct or operate a pipe line.
Then it goes on to say what kind of pipe line. Let us see the definition of company. A company means, under these circumstances, as follows:
(c) "company" means a person having authority under a special act to construct or operate pipe lines;
That is the reason we are here tonight, and have been before parliament on several occasions asking for incorporation. Then, we must go to the definition of a pipe line under the same act. It is defined as follows:
(m)	"pipe line" means a line for the transmission of hydrocarbons connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces,-
Those hon. members who have given this matter careful study, and who are really conscientious in their study, will appreciate the fact that the wording of subsection (m) of section 2 is copied directly from the British North America Act. Paragraph (m) continues as follows:
-or extending beyond the limits of a province, and includes all branches, extensions, tanks, reservoirs, pumps, racks, compressors, loading facilities-
And so on. In other words-and let us get down to ordinary language-no company can

go before the energy board or do any one of the things we ask parliament to incorporate us for unless they come before this parliament and ask for a bill to incorporate the company. That is the first thing. Then as to the company, the definition of a company is one that is created by a special act and that act, Mr. Chairman, is an act of this parliament. Then it deals with pipe lines, the kind of pipe line suggested by this particular act, and exporting a particular ingredient. That is an important matter. Several hon. members have inquired why we have asked for the incorporation of a company for half a mile of pipe line. No Alberta company, Saskatchewan company or company formed in Manitoba can come before the national energy board. The company, because of the National Energy Board Act, must be a company created by a special act of parliament. That is the reason we are here.
Let us just look back to the past. I always think that history has some advantage in this regard. I am sorry that my good friend from Assiniboia has left because I want to deal with the Northern Pipe Line Company which was incorporated by chapter 61 of the statutes of Canada, 1960. If we go back, Mr. Chairman, to page 4379 of Hansard lor 1960, we shall find that the hon. member for Kindersley rose in his place in the House of Commons to sponsor a bill for the incorporation of a company that would export from the province of Saskatchewan the same products as the company of which we are asking incorporation here. The reason that he was the bill's sponsor no doubt was that he is one of our most charming members of parliament in the Conservative ranks, a man who is now 70 years of age and who had a birthday the other day. He rose in his place sponsoring a bill to incorporate a company in the province of Saskatchewan to do exactly what we are doing in the province of Alberta.


An hon. Member:: In the same circumstances?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why do I make this point? As reported at page 4381 of Hansard of 1960, a member of the C.C.F. rose in his place. Everyone to a man, if they are sincere, would endorse the terms and conditions of the act to which I am referring and which was ridiculed by the hon. member for Assiniboia. Every term and condition was ridiculed, except one. I am sorry but I made a mistake. I do not want to lead the house astray in any particular.


William Arnold Peters: You could not do so.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member for Assiniboia said that we forgot television. May I refer to page 41 of the 1960 statutes which contains the same identical section the hon.

member for Assiniboia ridiculed in reference to this company. That section was included in the bill with respect to that company and was endorsed by the C.C.F. who wish to talk this bill out. It is contained in section 6 with one clause added "or television communication facilities". He got a big laugh from the House of Commons. I am serious tonight. I do not think it is any laughing matter. I now want to read from page 4381 of Hansard a portion of the speech of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member from Kindersley (Mr. Han-bidge) for his fine remarks in presenting the bill to the house.
I intend to emphasize that every term and condition, with the exception of one or two things which I will mention later in this debate, was identical to what we are asking in the province of Alberta and was endorsed by the people who say they are presenting honest and straightforward arguments with no intention of talking this bill out. The quotation continues:
I should like to hear him, either when he concludes the debate or maybe this information can be made available when the bill is referred to the committee, on the reaction of the government of Saskatchewan-
There is no one in the house who needs to be reminded, even the hon. member for Vancouver South, that the government in Saskatchewan is a socialist government, the only C.C.F. experiment on the North American continent. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam wanted to know the reaction of the Saskatchewan government. May I emphasize that every term and condition that is contained in our bill is contained in the Northern Pipe Line Company bill and was endorsed by the eight members of parliament who today say they rise in their places conscientiously, without benefit of lobbyists, to oppose continually and talk out a bill merely to incorporate a company.
I have listened over the months to men in that corner of the house. I know that hon. members will agree with me tonight when I say that there is tremendous intelligence in that group. I appeal to that intelligence. I ask them to rise and to speak according to their minds and to the dictates of their hearts-


An hon. Member:: We will.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -and to say tonight that they realize that what they did when they voted for the Northern Pipe Line Company and promoted that company as a company from the province of Saskatchewan because they are C.C.F., they did believing it to be proper and of benefit to the province of 90205-6-186i
Private Bills
Saskatchewan. What they did on that occasion I ask this committee to duplicate on this occasion. Perhaps I may just go on reading:


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Kindersley speaks now he will close the debate.
No one objected to that. Then the hon. member for Kindersley went on:


Mr. Hanbidge:: May I say a word, Mr. Speaker.
He went on to say:
With regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), I have to take that up with Regina. I am quite sure my hon. friend agrees with me that the government of the province is most interested in the development of the resources of the province and will do everything it can to co-operate with us in getting this company incorporated so that it will develop the oil and gas fields in Saskatchewan and promote the sale of the product.
Let us go back for a few moments. As I put the facts on the record tonight, I am speaking without any notes. I would be the last person to put any facts on the record which I did not believe to be true. I know that if my hon. friend from Assiniboia were here and were not at a political meeting he would agree with me.
However, I scanned quickly over the record in the lunch hour and found that this company was incorporated wholly with United States capital. It was wholly under United States control. Not one voice was raised by the boys in the corner, because they wanted to create every advantage for the government of the province of Saskatchewan so people would say they were doing the job well.
This is my plea to them tonight. I am sure some of these hon. members are more serious minded than they appear, and I am sure the hon. member for Peterborough will not laugh if I am completely serious about this matter. We are asking to have the same privilege in the sister province of Alberta which, because of the fate of politics, has a Social Credit government whereas Saskatchewan has a socialist government. In many ways the industries of both provinces compare one with the other. Both are agricultural provinces; both have a petroleum industry.
I come back to the Northern Pipe Line Company bill, the Minnesota pipe line system. If you analyse it, there was not one Canadian dollar in Northern Pipe Line Company. I need not go into details; I need only refer to page 4379 of Hansard, volume IV, 1960. When hon. members rise in their places in the House of Commons, as did the hon. member for Vancouver East, and say that theirs is a responsibility greater than that of the average member, I ask the hon. member to look at the record. On that date, May 31, 1960, he rose in his place in

Private Bills
the House of Commons, or remained silent- one or the other-but he endorsed everything we are asking for in the incorporation of our company.
All we from Alberta are asking is to export condensate from the Pincher Creek area. The Pincher Creek area is rather historical. Those who have lived in Alberta [DOT]-it was not my lot to be born in that province-are rather proud of Pincher Creek because it stands for two things. It is one of the great ranching areas and it is where petroleum was first found in western Canada. It created a great secondary industry, if not the first industry for those western provinces.
All we are asking is to export condensate. I have said this on three occasions, and I certainly have no malice in my heart for anyone who honestly and conscientiously, irrespective of his party, rises and opposes me in sponsoring this bill. I have asked, "What is the definition of condensate?" We have a problem in western Canada, and this is why I ask for the greatest amount of reason from the C.C.F., and I know they have a great deal. We have a surplus of wheat and we have a surplus of cattle. In fact, when I was in Japan the Japanese said, "You Canadians are unusual because your problem is that you have a surplus of everything". Now we have a surplus of petroleum.
Condensate is crude petroleum. It is the kind of product that can be properly exported from the province of Alberta or any western province to the northwest United States. I will repeat this. It can be exported to bring up our exports to 600,000 or 800,000 barrels of crude a day. In order to keep that industry healthy we are asking to build 41 miles of pipe line in the Pincher Creek area. That pipe line will be built by the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company, not by Aurora.
Hon. members have risen in their places and asked, "Why are they not building the 41 miles of pipe line?" I have read the statement which gives the reason the half-mile must be built by a particular company.
As a sponsor of the bill and of the company, which is a Canadian company, I have set out the facts. We have nothing to hide. Surely no one will rise in his place and say that we created the law. When we sponsor a bill that concerns any industry, even if it be in relation to a United States company, that company must abide by the law. That is the reason we must come to parliament to create a company for half a mile of pipe line. The 41 miles of pipe line, if and when this charter is granted and if and when the national energy board and the Alberta oil and gas

conservation board approve it, would be built by the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company. This would be to the benefit of people who need employment in the province of Alberta.
I come now to the crux of the question. We are asking to do what everyone in their right senses realizes has to be done in order to get rid of our crude. We are right up to our ears in crude, in the province of Alberta, and we want to export it to the northwest United States. Hon. members will recall that we were criticized by the Social Credit government because we did not do it sooner. I am not here to argue the pros and cons of this matter, but we are asking to export a commodity of which we have a great deal. I said this the other day also.
I hope I am making myself clear in endeavouring to answer every question. I hope that when I resume my seat any really serious and honest questions in the minds of any members will be asked of me. If hon. members will put their questions briefly, I will rise in my place and answer them. All I am asking is this. Here we have a petroleum industry. We are asking to export crude petroleum to the United States because we have so much, like our wheat, our cattle and our uranium. We are asking this so we can create an industry that will give employment.
Hon. members from all parties in this house have talked about unemployment, particularly those members in whom I have a great deal of pride because they have risen from the ranks of labour. I have laboured myself. These hon. members have said they want to help people who are unemployed. Surely, to keep an industry healthy in a province, to build pipe lines and export when we have so much of the commodity will create employment. When you create an industry that will help our imbalance of trade with the United States, surely that is the only answer we have to unemployment.
If these hon. members are honest and sincere-and I am going to listen very carefully to what is said tonight-in what they say about solving the unemployment problem, I say to them with all the sincerity I can muster that if we are to reduce unemployment in the province of Alberta we must keep our petroleum industry healthy.
I would draw their attention to one thing. They talk about United States capital. Last week, according to the Calgary Herald and the Alberta newspapers, the Rocky View News and the North Hill News, which are newspapers published in Calgary, a $20 million processing plant for by-products went up within a few miles of Calgary. I believe every dollar of that $20 million was from the United States, but I believe every man who walks into the door when the

plant is open will be a Canadian taking his place at work, so that he may live in dignity with his family. I get sick when I hear lip service being paid to the plight of the unemployed. In your hearts you know, you people over there do want full employment but, really, you pay lip service to the idea because what really concerns you is political expediency. Members may accuse me of talking out my own bill, but I cannot sit in my place-I cannot be like those who have been trained longer in parliament than I-and listen to the abuse to which I was subjected this afternoon. It was said that it was a disgrace to bring in a bill which would mean the export from Alberta of a commodity which we have in such surplus. Natural gas is like wheat or any other product which we must sell to survive.
This is no time for joking. The man who has striven to be the leader of the new party in Canada stood in his place tonight and ridiculed proposals along lines which he himself had endorsed one year ago when they related to his own province. For the sake of his own political expediency he endorsed his own proposals at that time because, as he said on the platform, the old parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, had done nothing for this country. I believe the Liberals and the Conservatives have done a lot for this country, as we all realize if we consider its development since confederation. All this has been accomplished under the Conservatives and Liberals.
Let us return to clause 6. A clause similar in every way was included in the measure respecting the Northern Pipe Line Company which hon. members in the C.C.F. group endorsed. No wonder they look serious. No wonder they are quiet in their places.


An hon. Member:: Not serious, but bored.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If members of that group are bored they should have seen the reaction when they were speaking. I hope those hon. members will bear with me. I know that in their hearts they are conscious of what they would like to do, but because of considerations of political expediency it is apparent what they will do. They will talk out this bill for development.


Frank Howard: That is not true, Eldon.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad the hon. member called me by my first name, even though it is not in accordance with our parliamentary procedure. Now I will read clause 6. The company may-
Within or outside Canada . .. construct, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire and hold, develop, operate, maintain, control, lease, mortgage, hypothecate, create liens or other security upon, sell,
Private Bills
convey or otherwise dispose of and turn to account any and all extra-provincial and/or international pipe lines and all appurtenances relative thereto for gathering, transmitting, transporting, storing and delivering of any natural or artificial gas and oil or any products or by-products thereof or any of them; including pumping stations, terminals, storage tanks or reservoirs and all works relative thereto for use in connection with the said pipe lines; and buy or otherwise acquire, transmit, transport and sell or otherwise dispose of and distribute natural or artificial gas and oil and any products or by-products thereof; and own, lease, sell, operate and maintain aircraft and aerodromes for the purpose of its undertaking, together with the facilities required for the operation of such aircraft and aerodromes; and own, lease, operate, and maintain inter-station telephone, teletype, and telegraph communication systems and, subject to the Radio Act and any other statute relating to radio, own, lease, operate and maintain interstation radio communication facilities;
Every one of the provisions included in this clause was included in the bill which was supported by the hon. member for Assini-boia and his friends. Let us ask a simple question: why are these things included here? As one hon. member said tonight-I do not remember who it was-when you are incorporating a company you must make its powers wide enough to take care of any difficulties which may arise. I may say that I practised law in Saskatchewan, and I had a great deal of respect for the attorney general of that province at that time. When we incorporated companies, all these powers were included in the articles of incorporation. Why make funny speeches? How can members practise socialism in one province and then give lip service to something entirely different outside the province?
Now we come to the capital structure of the Northern Pipe Line Company. It is stipulated that the capital stock of the company shall consist of just two million common shares with a nominal par value, and 200,000 preferred shares of par value of $100 per share. The capital structure is thus greater than that of Aurora pipe lines, but every company which is incorporated always has a greater capital structure than is necessary for its immediate objects, and all of its powers are wide enough to cover various subjects. That is part of the incorporation. It is part of company law. An hon. member may rise in his place and say: why do lawyers do this, that and the other? But I say: if anyone of you is sick, to whom does he turn? He turns to a doctor. Similarly, anyone who needs legal advice about incorporating a company turns to his lawyer.


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Ernest James Broome: Let him go on.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have just one or two other
things to say.

Private Bills


Jacques Flynn: Has the hon. member leave to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My hon. triend from Vancouver South says "Let him go on". Even though he does not endorse this bill he has no objection to my advocacy of it, and it shows there is always good will in our party.
The hon. member asked one or two questions with reference to the building of the pipe line-that 41 miles. I have read the letter of March 3, 1961. 1 have explained fully that will involve the use of Canadian labour. I have explained why that half a mile of line is proposed to be built by the Aurora Pipe Line Company. It is part of the law, under the National Energy Board Act, and we cannot escape its provisions. We are creatures of the law in this respect as we shall be creatures of the law which this parliament will create when it incorporates this company.
I just want to end on this note. If there are any points which any hon. member conscientiously and honestly believes have been left unexplained, will he put the question in a few words and I, for my part, will try to give an answer in a few words. Let us get on with the job and go forward with a measure which will be the means of creating employment for the people who need employment, because only by trading shall we ever attain full employment. Let us not give lip service to any other formula when only a sound economy based on trade can bring help to the men and women who need jobs.


Frank Howard: I listened with a great deal of interest and attention to the hon. member for Bow River and his sometimes simpering request to do certain things, particularly, as I understood it, to delve the depths of our consciences and to use that as a guide for explaining our position with respect to this bill. That, of course, has been my approach to this measure ever since it came up for discussion in the first instance. I have repeated time and time again the reason we are concerned about it. That reason is, Canadian ownership, Canadian operation, Canadian control and Canadian interest.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question. Does the hon. member have knowledge of any other company that fits into his formula with respect to complete government control that could do the same job in Pincher Creek? If the hon. member knows of the existence of such a company I should be pleased to hear about it.


Frank Howard: Unfortunately we do not have in office a government that believes in keeping its electoral promises or perhaps we might have had.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: That is tommyrot.


Frank Howard: I hear a noise again.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question.


Frank Howard: Here we are trying to get across-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member is making false statements.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: I do not often interrupt the hon. gentleman to put questions to him. Perhaps the hon. member would allow a question.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I understand that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is asking the hon. member for Skeena if he would accept a question.


Frank Howard: I should be glad to allow all the questions hon. members desire, but I ask that they keep them on the subject of the bill before us. You know as well as I do, Mr. Chairman, how easy it is for hon. members to place blocks and diversions in the way of a steady course of discussion. I will certainly entertain the hon. member's question.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: I will accede to the wishes of the hon. member in the terms of keeping a steady course. The hon. gentleman has been talking about United States ownership and participation. Would he tell the committee where the major part of the membership is with respect to the International Woodworkers of America of which I understand the hon. member is past president of a local and of which one of his colleagues is a past organizer?


Frank Howard: You bet I will and in the process I will tell the hon. gentleman how little he knows about trade union structures, and especially that of the I.W.A. I would not care to deal with how little the hon. member knows about other subjects.
In dealing with the hon. member's question, let me say I fear that I will be called out of order during the course of my remarks. However, the hon. member for Vancouver South, who supports the government, will bear me out when I say that the membership of the International Woodworkers of America is drawn from among and is controlled by Canadians which is more than I can say for some of the lumber associations to which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni belongs

and for this pipe line company. Every cent collected through the I.W.A. is spent in Canada.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: That is your story.


Mr. Skoreyko:: That is more than can be said for the pipe-line company in Saskatchewan.


Jacques Flynn: The question was not in order but I allowed that short answer and I think that should be sufficient.


Frank Howard: Although we have disposed of some red herrings, I suppose there will be more as time goes on. The hon. member for Bow River and other hon. members made reference to what I understand is called the Northland Pipe Line Company.


James Stanley Speakman: Northern Pipe Line Company.


Frank Howard: Yes, Northern Pipe Line Company. Hon. gentlemen went to some lengths to deal with the attitude of the C.C.F. with respect to that bill in an earlier session. A basic distinction between socialists and Tories is that socialists believe when they have made an error there is no sense in compounding it by making another. If I am considered in error for having supported the Northern Pipe Line Company bill that is no reason why I should again make a fool of myself regardless of the circumstances.
The hon. member for Bow River mentioned being sick to his stomach with respect to people paying lip service to the salvation of the unemployed. The hon. gentleman must get violently ill every day when he looks across at the cabinet. No group since the days of R. B. Bennett has been more guilty of paying lip service to this question than the carload of hon. gentlemen opposite.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You have eight right there in that corner.


Frank Howard: There is a carload sitting opposite.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member permit a question. If I correctly understood the hon. member for Assiniboia the other day he quoted R. B. Bennett with approval-


Frank Howard: Wait a minute.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I understand that the hon. member for Skeena is not allowing any questions.


Mr. Smith (Winnipeg North):: The hon.
member has no answers, that is why.


Frank Howard: I am not embarrassed; I say only this.
Private Bills


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member left the impression that he might answer my question, Mr. Chairman.


Frank Howard: I shall be pleased to answer the questions of hon. gentlemen on any subject, but particularly the subject of this bill. However, I invite hon. gentlemen to jot down their questions and put them to me at the conclusion of my formal remarks. We all know how easy it is to have one's remarks cluttered up with inconsequential questions that are out of order. With the permission of hon. members opposite I will proceed to deal with the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River and his gratuitous short course in law.
The hon. member's legal lecture dealt with his own interpretation of the subject. I place little reliance on his teaching ability because of his capacity for substituting one word for another and altering their meanings. I refer to his references to "shall" and "may" with which I shall deal later, if hon. members wish.
As reported at page 2705 of Hansard of March 6 the hon. member in his remarks dealt with the structure of the national energy board and the act under which it operates. He said in effect that in 1959 parliament passed the National Energy Board Act giving the board certain responsibilities and therefore we should have faith in the board in carrying out its responsibilities and give rapid and easy passage to the bill before us so the company could appear before the board.
I shall not quote the hon. gentleman's remarks in full but he made reference to sections 10, 27 and 44 of the National Energy Board Act. I shall not quote these sections nor the hon. member's remarks concerning them. I may be guilty of oversimplification in saying that he said that section 10 sets out that the board is a court of record, that section 27 deals with the granting of licences or certificates and that section 44 deals with the responsibility of the board relating to inquiring into the corporate structure of applicants. If I am wrong in my interpretation the hon. member for Bow River can correct me.
The hon. member said, in effect, that this board established by parliament had vested in it certain responsibilities and therefore we should place reliance on the ability of the board to carry out its responsibilities in the best interests of Canada.
The hon. member for Bow River dealt with section 25, in part III of the act, during the short course of law that he gave us gratuitously a while ago. Of course, being a layman in this field, I must grope my way rather

Private Bills
blindly and obviously cannot be as glib as the hon. member for Bow River in this regard. I will have to take the words as I understand them. In any event, the hon. member quoted section 25 (1) as follows:
No person, other than a company, shall construct or operate a pipe line.
Then he referred to the interpretation section which tells us what a company is and said that section 25 was the reason a private bill had to be introduced. Sections 25, 26 and 27 deal with all sorts of things but the key part is that no person, other than a company, shall construct or operate a pipe line. The bill now before us seeks to give authority to a company, as defined in the National Energy Board Act, to construct or operate a pipe line and, specifically, to construct or operate half a mile of pipe line. That is all that is being dealt with in this particular instance. If they spent the whole $10 million capitalization on building that pipe line it might provide some employment because they would be spending at the rate of about $4,000 a foot, but I do not think that is what they are going to do. In any event, I wonder whether or not this a matter which has been considered, whether or not the national energy board under its authority has done so under similar circumstances and whether or not this would not be the proper course to follow if this company sought only to build half a mile of pipe line and did not at some time in the future seek to engage in all these other activities involved in the building of homes, airports and all those other things found in the bill which the hon. member for Assiniboia indicated it was their intention to do.
Let us see what section 49 of the National Energy Board Act says. It reads as follows:
The Board may make orders exempting lines or parts of lines, not exceeding in any case a length of 25 miles, from any or all of the provisions of sections 25 to 28.
What does section 25 say? It says that no person other than a company incorporated by private act shall construct or operate a pipe line, but the board can waive that provision and can say that a company that does not have to be incorporated by private act can proceed to engage in this sort of thing. When we are given references to and interpretations of the statute by hon. gentlemen who are learned in the law, I for one expect them, especially if they are going to appeal, as some of them have, on the basis of emotionalism and not on the basis of sense or logic, to give us all of the law and point out that here is another possibility which has not been foreseen.


Edwin William Brunsden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is this a dissertation on the energy board or is it a debate on the Aurora Pipe Line Company?


Frank Howard: If I may be heard on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, in listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River I thought the discussion concerned the Northern Pipe Line Company which was established last year and has nothing to do with this measure.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to speak to the point of order if I may. The hon. member knows as well as I do that I drew that analogy because someone rose and wanted to know the facts about the capital structure. I pointed out that the capital structure of that company established in a socialist province was identical with that of Aurora Pipe Line Company. That is the reason the analogy was drawn. The hon. member knows it, I know it, and everybody knows it.


Frank Howard: If I may say another word on the point of order before you rule, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bow River has now substantiated my position and in effect I think he is asking you to rule that there is no point of order. I was dealing with the National Energy Board Act for the precise reason that other members who preceded me had dealt with it. Specifically, the hon. member for Bow River quoted section after section of that act. I think there is no point of order.


Edwin William Brunsden: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that we have before us a bill that is of some importance to the province of Alberta and we are frittering away our time. My friend loves to do so and he wants to talk out the bill, but we are not dealing with the bill. We are dealing with inconsequential matters that are on the fringe of the bill and I respectfully suggest that the hon. member be called to order.


Jacques Flynn: I think hon. members will agree that the debate so far has been rather wide. I would think it would be very difficult to rule that the hon. member for Skeena is out of order because the relationship between the bill before us and the National Energy Board Act has been one of the topics of the debate. I am not making a general ruling but a very specific one and I must say that the hon. member for Skeena cannot be more out of order than other members who have preceded him.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I was not able to find this reference earlier or I would have given it to you. However, I can do so now by way of debate and I wish to do so because it deals specifically with the point at issue. I

am referring now to some remarks appearing in Hansard which have to do with the coal industry, of all things and, as found on page 1370 of Hansard, I should like to quote clause 5 of the bill which was quoted then:
The company shall have all the powers, privileges and immunities conferred by, and be subject to all the limitations, liabilities and provisions of the National Energy Board Act, and any other general legislation relating to pipe lines enacted by parliament with respect to the transmission and transportation of oil and other liquid hydrocarbons.
I forgot to mention that I am referring to the speech made on second reading of the bill on January 24 by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. At that time he went on to say:
The National Energy Board reports to parliament. There is the safeguard for the people of Canada with respect to the operation of this particular company after incorporation, and it seems to me that that should be sufficient for all of us.


Edwin William Brunsden: I did not labour it for an hour.


Frank Howard: Inasmuch as the hon. member for Medicine Hat opened up the subject on January 24, perhaps he would be kind enough to let me follow along and point out how fallacious his argument was at that time when he said that we should surrender jurisdiction to the national energy board and not consider the matter ourselves.


Edwin William Brunsden: Take another 30 minutes.


Frank Howard: It is quite true that the member for Medicine Hat did not belabour the point for half an hour, but it was six o'clock when he got to that point in his remarks and his speech was interrupted because of the rules of the house. In any event, I will deal with one or two other points.


Mr. Deschatelets:: Don't be too hard on him.


Frank Howard: No, this is all put forward in that kind of spirit of discussion that the hon. member for Bow River referred to a while ago.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: He has not got much experience.


Frank Howard: Oh, I beg to differ.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Have a little chat out in the lobby if you wish, but if you are going to speak address the Chair.


Frank Howard: I am very sorry and I apologize to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the committee for engaging in these remarks on the side. You must admit that they were tempting. I should like now to refer to some of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South in his speech on March 6, as found on page 2675 of Hansard. I wish that more hon. members would be like him and would have
Private Bills
that independence of mind, depth of conscience and clarity of thought that would allow them to take a stand similar to that of the hon. member for Vancouver South with regard to this bill and, incidentally, with regard to other bills. We all know, of course, that his independence of thought and action does not coincide with the wishes of the cabinet. Let us see what he is reported as saying at page 2675. I will just read those relevant portions. He is reported as follows:
Some of the statements have been made almost on the assumption by the speakers that it was a government bill, when everybody in the house should know that, as a private bill, the government is not involved in it in the slightest degree.
He goes on to say:
-the party whip was in no way involved in the decisions that are taken by hon. members in the private members' hour. There is no party whip on this bill. All members are entitled to speak on this bill as they think right and proper.
I agree that is the proper course to take but the implication is clear that in regard to all other government bills members are not entitled to speak or vote as they think right and proper. Is it a proper implication that when the party whip is around, in regard to government legislation, there is no independence of thought in the ranks of the 200 members? I do not know whether that is the situation but I certainly read it into the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South. We all know how the party system controls the votes of those members on the government side of the house, and I can imagine that there was a big argument during the government caucus regarding that position taken by the member for Vancouver South, which was obviously in opposition to the silent government. I can imagine that there was a question raised on Wednesday morning in that great railway committee room as to why the hon. member for Vancouver South had the temerity to act as an individual, when in reality he was not supposed to. I realize that he comes from British Columbia and possesses that desire for independence which all individuals from British Columbia have, and I have great admiration for him in that regard.
That hon. member made remarks regarding Canadian ownership and control. He read excerpts from the proceedings of that committee. I do not wish to belabour the point by reading them again but I point out that they are available to anyone wishing to read them. He did point out that one of the answers given by Mr. Burgis was not a factual statement. Mr. Burgis did not tell a falsehood. He did not tell the whole truth but phrased the truth in such a way that it led members of that committee into the belief that shares had

Private Bills
been offered to the Canadian public, although there was no public clamour tor ownership. The member for Vancouver South pointed out quite clearly and honestly that this was not the case. He pointed out that not one share had been offered to the Canadian public, and I believe that is the key to this whole consideration.
Let us refer to some of the remarks made by the member for Bow River in regard to Canadian ownership and participation. One of the extensive arguments that we receive from members on the government side of the house is that we have a national energy board with certain responsibilities, one of which is to see that there is a certain amount of Canadian participation in a particular company. The impression is left that the national energy board will protect Canadian interests and that if there is not a sufficient amount of Canadian ownership of these pipe line companies the board will not grant a certificate. I think that is also the implication of many of the remarks which have been made. Let us see if that is precisely what the National Energy Board Act says. The relevant portion is section 44, and this has been distorted somewhat by my hon. friend for Bow River. Section 44 provides that the board "may" do certain things. This is a permissive word, not a mandatory one regardless of how the hon. member for Bow River substitutes meanings. Section 44 provides that the board may, subject to the approval of the governor in council, do certain things. We find that the government does have a finger in this control. The board is not an agent of the government, but we find a degree of government control which makes sure that the board carries out what it is supposed to do and does not stray too far from Tory philosophy, whatever that might happen to be from day to day. The board may issue a certificate in respect of a pipe line or an international power line if it is satisfied as to certain conditions.


Edwin William Brunsden: Are you reading now or just talking?


Frank Howard: I propose to read section 44(d):
-the financial responsibility and financial structure of the applicant, the methods of financing the line and the extent to which Canadians will have an opportunity of participating in the financing, engineering and construction of the line.
That does not in any way say that the extent of participation shall be 10 per cent, 2 per cent, 50 per cent or, and I believe Mr. Burgis mentioned this figure, 9.6 per cent. This section merely suggests that the national energy board may have regard to the extent to which Canadians will have an

opportunity of participating in the financing, engineering and construction of the line. Those are the powers given to the national energy board to ensure Canadian participation in pipe lines. Presumably this law, introduced by this government, has some connection with a paragraph in the speech from the throne this year which reads as follows:
You will be invited to consider means by which to encourage a greater participation by Canadians in the ownership and control of industry and resources in Canada.
That is wonderful, and that is from the speech from the throne. To make it official I might say I have the record, another piece of fiction, but, something which Tory members hold up as containing the truth.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The new testament?


Frank Howard: Yes, the new testament and I find five specific items in this "new testament"-what a blasphemous reference that is-which are false.


Edwin William Brunsden: Speaking to a point of order, the hon. member in the exuberance of his verbosity is calling the speech from the throne a piece of fiction. He referred to a pamphlet as another piece of fiction. I take it he meant the first was also fiction and, if so, he should withdraw that remark.


Frank Howard: If the hon. member for Medicine Hat has come to that conclusion, then I can in no way account for his interpretation of what the speech from the throne meant. I will tell him that the government has as yet not lived up to the speech from the throne, nor has it lived up to any speech from the throne that has been put forward by this government since it has been in office.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I regret to tell the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. Kindi:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to this bill because I want to support it with all the force and energy that I have at my command.
As a preamble to what I have to say, I want to inform the committee that this pipe line from Pincher Creek to the boundary line is mostly in my riding of Macleod. We are tremendously interested in that area in the development of industry, exports and markets for these surplus hydrocarbons. For those who know very little about the gas and oil business, perhaps I might be pardoned if I just take a moment to say that when natural gas comes out of the ground, on the average 90 per cent in Alberta is wet gas; the other 10 per cent is dry gas. That wet gas must be scrubbed and separated. In that separation,

you take out the methane, the ethane, the propane, the butane, the pentane and the sulphur dioxide. The only natural gas that is put through the pipes to Ontario and the United States, in the large 36" pipes, is the methane gas. A market must be found for the other by-products of the gas industry. It is with those by-products and their markets that this bill deals, as they relate to the southwestern part of Alberta.
I want to say this. You cannot sell methane gas unless you take care of the by-products. The conservation board in the province of Alberta requires that these products either be marketed successfully but not wasted; they must be conserved. What is happening now in the B.A. gas field southeast of Pincher Creek is that by-products are being pumped back down into the ground for conservation. What these people want in order to operate economically, to cover their costs, to develop new fields, to increase the size of the industry, to have development, and to give employment-in order to do all these things that we are all hopeful that our industry will be able to do-is to find markets for these by-products. That is what this bill has set out to do. That is why we have been behind it. That is what we are searching for. We are hoping to find markets for these products.
We are splitting hairs when we talk about ownership and a number of problems like that. After all, I have every confidence that the people behind Aurora Pipe Line Company will give maximum consideration to Canadian participation. I believe that these people, deep down in their hearts, want Canadian participation. They want the good will of the Canadian people and may I say that they are out to assist in every way possible to develop industry in western Canada.
There is one other point I wish to make. The B.A. Oil Company, operating seventeen miles south and east of Pincher Creek, is now distributing well over 50 per cent of the natural gas which is being piped to Ontario to warm Ontario homes. That is something to ponder and consider. I refer to the fact that out of that one small area you have this tremendous volume of natural gas. Just west of Pincher Creek some ten or 12 miles, another field is being developed by Shell Oil Company and they also will have their problem of marketing by-products.
Before you can strip out methane and put it through the pipelines to California or export it to Ontario you must find a method by which to take care of those by-products. It is the problem of a market for those byproducts that this Aurora Pipe Line Company seeks to solve. That is why I, as member of parliament for Macleod riding, feel it my
Private Bills
duty to rise in my place and do everything I possibly can to support this bill.
For the life of me I cannot see how a small and, I may say, vocal group in the far corner of the chamber can continue to filibuster a measure such as this one which is in the best interests of the people of that area. It would give employment. I may say that the other pipe lines which are being built through the Crowsnest pass down to Kingsgate and in that direction are giving a tremendous impetus and employment to the people of that area. But before this pipe line can properly operate from Savanna Creek, from the Shell plant at Pincher Creek and from these other areas we must, above all, find a market for these surplus products. There is no room, when starting a new field to pump them back down into the ground. In other words, at present the only place where by-products can be disposed of is in the ground. So I say that in order for these companies to operate economically, they must have a market for these surplus products.
There is no other way in which to deal with them than to sell them to whomever we can sell them and wherever we can find any market for them. They must be shipped by pipe line. They cannot be transported otherwise; except in the case of sulphur, they must be put through a pipe line. That is the most economical way of transporting them. Then, by fractional distillation they are made into some 10,000 different products. For those hon. members who are not familiar with the oil industry let me say that from these by-products about which we are talking here this evening there can be made approximately
10,000	products that serve the needs of mankind. This number of products can be made from these hydrocarbons that are taken from the wet gas as it comes from these fields.
Again, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I do not want to take up any more time in discussing this bill. However, I hope that those in the far corner will co-operate regardless of the fact that they may think sufficient consideration has not been given to Canadian participation. I believe that is a matter which will be taken care of properly. The bill is not different from the act which has been passed in Saskatchewan; and I am sure that Alberta is in a much more serious condition with respect to the marketing of these by-products than Saskatchewan ever dreamed of being. I therefore hope that those in the far corner, like all other members of the House of Commons, will rise to the occasion and give approval to this bill.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure that the committee will have been greatly surprised to find tonight that this is just

Private Bills
another cog in the wheel of the government that will settle the unemployment problem and that the reason that some of the members of the government are so interested in the immediate passage of the bill is in order the unemployment picture will look that much brighter. This is certainly a new way of solving the unemployment problem. I would not know, of course, but I would think that if you dig with pick and shovel a half mile pipe line you would not employ more than a few men for a few weeks. This is not what this bill is for.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether the hon. member has given any thought to the employment which producing 10,000 barrels of by-products a day means to the Pincher Creek area and the province of Alberta. We are not talking about half a mile; we are talking about the whole industry, how many men will be employed drilling the wells, digging out the by-products and the other things which are connected with the operation.


William Arnold Peters: I am afraid we are involved in two or three questions in connection with this bill. To answer that question, I would have to go into what results the oil industry has produced in the field of employment and how much has been taken over by automation.
Very few men run a very large industry in Ontario. I do not think there is very much difference between the operation of the oil industry in Ontario and in the west. Many red herrings have been drawn into this debate. The unemployment question is the last in a long series of such red herrings. If we were going to dig a second trans-Canada pipe line with a pick and shovel I would support the bill on the basis of solving the unemployment problem, but to dig half a mile of pipe line-and I do not care where it starts or ends-is not going to solve the unemployment problem when we consider that we have
600,000	or 700,000 unemployed people.
We are faced with another problem. Many hon. members of this house are not the least bit interested in honesty; they are not the least bit interested in the over-all economy of the country; they are not particularly interested in the employment or the unemployment picture. They are interested in their own little segment of the economy and what the bill is going to do for it. Certainly the last speaker-


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? The hon. member has just indicated that there is in

this house a group of members who are not interested in honesty. Would he mind singling them out?


Jacques Flynn: If the hon. member were to do that he would have to withdraw his words.


William Arnold Peters: We heard this afternoon and this evening one hon. member saying one thing and another hon. member quoting from the same document and saying something else. I am suggesting that these hon. members must be using this measure to further their own ends. That, in itself, is not in the best interests of the country.


An hon. Member:: You are wrong.


William Arnold Peters: Someone is wrong. I do not know who that someone may be.


An hon. Member:: You are.


William Arnold Peters: By the time we have finished discussing this matter we will probably know.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw your statement.


William Arnold Peters: The matter is very simple. I think everybody agrees that we are not particularly concerned with this half-mile of pipe line that is being discussed at the present time or the fact that it will export something like 11,000 barrels of crude oil a day. The national energy board suggests that we have an export potential of something like 800,000 barrels of oil a day. What we are now suggesting is that these products must and can be held in Canada and used in Canada for the development of industry in Canada.
Certainly the hon. member who asked the last question should be the last person to object to this aim because in his own part of the country he has seen, as I have seen in mine and as those in northern Quebec have seen, that the exportation of our raw materials has taken place without secondary industry ever being developed.
The previous speaker in this debate talked about developing secondary industry and industry in Canada. If we have a product in a surplus market, I am quite sure that as the price drops for that surplus product there will be an opportunity for some enterprising businessman to go into that field and start developing a secondary industry in which to use this very cheap commodity. We all know that as the demand for the commodity increases as the secondary industry develops, the price will again rise and will level itself off at a competitive price.
The national energy board was of course set up a few years ago when the members of this government believed we should be working towards developing industry in Canada

for Canadians and utilizing our natural resources to the greatest degree. The national energy board was set up for this purpose. We are now being asked to set up a company which will, in my opinion, contravene the aims that we had when we set up the national energy board. We are being asked to set up a fully-fledged company whose only purpose is to drain off and funnel out of Alberta these condensates, these high calibre oil and gasoline bearing commodities. We are channelling these materials into the United States, where they will go into the Chicago area and secondary industry development will take place.
We suggest that this secondary industry development can take place in Canada. It can be done by Canadians and used for the benefit of all Canadians. I agree that the hon. members from Alberta are probably unhappy that this was not done immediately, because it would mean an immediate draining off of some of these surplus products- and I am told they are surplus products-to the United States and a few dollars would come back to the Alberta oil fields. Of course, this would be of some advantage to Alberta. But is it not also true that when we carried our coal off to some other place we obtained some advantage out of it? It was certainly true in northern Ontario when we exported our pulp and paper in its raw form into the United States. We obtained some advantage out of it, but how much more advantage would we have obtained if we had established a secondary industry there? That secondary industry could have been established in our area. We would have obtained a great deal more advantage from it for our community and for the country in general.
I think those hon. members from Quebec in particular should be very much interested in this, because they have seen exactly the same thing happening in regard to their northern iron industry. The iron ore goes down through Seven Islands, where we could have steel plants larger than anything on the North American continent, and goes into Pittsburgh where it helps United States development.
If we are going to be only an adjunct to the United States, this is perfectly all right. However, I want to see secondary industry in Canada. This can come about only if we take advantage of whatever natural resources we have. In my opinion they are not the God-given right of those people in Alberta only, but they belong to the whole Canadian economy. We should also start some of these benefits flowing into the eastern markets, because while westerners may talk about a surplus of gasoline and oil, there is no surplus
Private Bills
in the rest of Canada. We export 6| million barrels and we import 6| million barrels. I do not see where there is any great surplus when one looks at the Canadian economy as a whole.
It seems to me that some of these westerners had better forget about the buccaneers they met when the trans-Canada pipe line come into being and should start thinking Canadian rather than in the buccaneer manner. It is all right to carry the bible under your arm, to preach about all the natural resources we have and how wonderful everything is going to be under the free enterprise system. But it has not been too good in these areas where this type of development has occurred. It is not only the social credit domain that has allowed exploitation on an unlimited scale in those fortunate areas where resources are abundant, but this has also been done in Ontario. I would not like to see again the exploitation that has taken place previously in Canada and which will take place if this pipe line is built.
I agree that it may seem odd to put up such a fight for such a small section of line, but it does not seem to me that it is going to be a small section of line. If an hon. member or one of his friends decided, as a person, to build this half mile of pipe line I am quite sure his exportation program would receive a thorough scrutiny from the national energy board. When this company is established, if it becomes established, I am sure it will not build merely a half a mile of pipe line. I am sure it will eventually have pipe lines running into the Yukon, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and other provinces. If this is not the case, why would they ask for a capitalization of $10 million? Why would they ask for the right to build airports? Certainly, hon. members are correct when they ask these questions, because if they listen to the story being told that all this company wants to do is to build half a mile of pipe line they are bound to say that this company does not need airfields or aeroplanes. They certainly have no need for these things unless there is a question involved of avoiding income tax, writing off assets and getting depreciation. There is no legitimate reason for having this corporation established with such a large capitalization if it does not intend to build pipe lines throughout an interprovincial area.
The initial stage of this venture calls for the draining off of the oil surplus and its transmission to the United States, but tremendous developments will probably take place. One hon. member asked tonight why something had not been done with regard to public utilities on a national basis. It is

Private Bills
not true that we do not have one of these developments. You may remember, Mr. Chairman, that only recently the Canadian government bought from the United States a pipe line which they owned lock, stock and barrel. We bought this pipe line, a pipe line which has attached to it airports and even a couple of villages. I would ask the hon. member sponsoring this measure if he can find out from the government what happened to this particular pipe line. I do not think he could find out. But we have, or at least we had, a pipe line which belonged to us, and it passed through the area which this proposed company would like to cover, in part, at least. I suggest that before setting up this elaborate company to export surplus Canadian oil we should find out what has happened to the resources of that concern.
This proposed company will export a relatively small amount in the over-all picture, perhaps less than 1 per cent of our total surplus, or the full amount available for export. Even when this pipe line is carrying its capacity load we shall only be moving one tenth of the amount which the government has indicated would be available eventually for exportation. Hon. members can stand up and talk about lawyers. It is always true, of course, that lawyers are never right and never wrong. At least, they can never be more than 50 per cent wrong because there is always one of them on each side of an argument, though between them they do not make up 100 per cent of the truth. So it is not fair to stand up and give this flexible lawyer-interpretation of the powers said to be needed by the company. I think this committee is entitled to the actual facts. If the company only intends to build half a mile of pipe line, then let this bill be withdrawn. Let us recommend here that the bill go back to the committee. Let the sponsor explain to his principals that he is not prepared to support the present measure with its large capitalization but that he is prepared to sponsor a bill calling for $15,000 to build half a mile of pipe line and to seek the necessary powers commensurate with the construction of a pipe line of this teeny-weeny length.
I think the hon. member for Bow River is not being entirely fair if he talks continually about the money it will cost to build half a mile of pipe line, while at the same time asking us to endorse the granting of powers which seem to me to be wider even than those possessed by the national energy board itself. These powers enter upon many fields. They will infringe on the responsibilities of four or five departments of government. They will enable the

company to build airports, fly aeroplanes, construct houses, transmit by radio, build highways, and, possibly, build townsites and schools. If development of this type is, indeed, envisaged, then I think we should be told, in which case I do not think there is a member in this chamber who would not oppose the incorporation of a company for these purposes. On the other hand, if the sponsor is only asking for this restricted development then I think he should make that very clear, and the verbiage which is now in the bill should be removed. I think that is a simple proposition.
I believe it should also be made clear that we in this party are not opposed to the orderly marketing of the surplus of a product, but we are of the opinion that this government must give very serious consideration to the establishment in Canada of secondary industry. Such industries do depend upon government assistance, and, I believe, can only be established with government assistance and direction. I think now is the time when we should decide if we want new secondary industry. It may sound a bit like socialism-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Are you suggesting subsidies, which would mean high tariffs?


William Arnold Peters: I am suggesting that if we approve bills of this type we would in effect be subsidizing the people who are going to participate financially, and they are not Canadians. It is not a Canadian company which is going to benefit. I suggest we should subsidize new secondary industries if necessary, particularly in association with the oil industry. In the United States around the city of Chicago there are important secondary industries which live off the waste not only of these condensates but the waste which come from the wastes after the gasoline has been taken out of the condensates. This is not only sulphur. I am told they make coal tar products and all types of manufactures, including aspirin, from these byproducts and distillates from the petroleum products and I suggest that if this can be done in the United States it can be done as well and cheaper in Canada.
There would be no objection then, I think, to allowing the exploitation of these finished products. It seems to me we should have learned our lesson by now. I see the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Minister of Forestry are here tonight and each of them will realize the vast amount of natural resources we have sent out of this country in a raw state. They would appreciate the fact that in the next generation we must create secondary industries in our own country and foster this new development

around the industries with which we are blessed. If I am wrong somebody will correct me-


Edwin William Brunsden: You are wrong.


William Arnold Peters: But it will not be the minister from Medicine Hat because, frankly, I do not think he can tell me anything on this subject. He just asks a lot of silly questions, but there is nothing he could tell me.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He would not need to know much to tell you anything.


William Arnold Peters: And that goes for the minister from Acadia, too. I do not use the word "minister" in the sense of cabinet ministers but in the sense of people who go around the country spreading the gospel of social credit. I am surprised-


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. gentleman is accusing me and the hon. member for Acadia of being Social Crediters. That is the last thing in the world we want to be. The second last thing would be a C.C.F.'er.


William Arnold Peters: I apologize for injecting this note into the debate because we have not time to discuss it. I could point out the similarities but is would not accomplish anything. Those who listen will know. People will support provincially the same candidates they do federally.
It has been said that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and smells like a duck, in all probability it is a duck. What we have seen of the exploitation program in Alberta indicates there is a duck somewhere in the picture.
The hon. member for Bow River in his remarks raised two questions. The first was why the pipe line company should come to parliament with this bill, and the second was why we have the present terms of the bill. I am not sure that I know why the company has come to parliament. Section 25 of the National Energy Board Act sets out who may construct and operate pipe lines and states the exception. It is difficult to know why this bill should come before parliament or why the company should require capitalization of $10 million.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. We have heard this a million times. As I recall it, we have a rule against repetition. It is now five minutes to ten. I appreciate that the C.C.F. has decided to talk out this measure but we have heard this argument a million times, and at least a dozen times from the hon. member who has the floor. His needle is stuck on the record. If we could have the record changed, it would not be too bad.
Private Bills


William Arnold Peters: I have even less respect than before for the hon. member's intelligence. The hon. member raised these new points this afternoon and spent considerable time explaining them. I humbly suggest that no one has had a chance to talk more than once or twice, the hon. member and I being among those who have had. The hon. member has created confusion with his explanation concerning the $15,000 expenditure and the capitalization of $10 million. There must be an explanation for the discrepancy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Section 34, subsection 2.


William Arnold Peters: It is interesting to note-


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Would the hon. member permit a question. Is the hon. gentleman not aware that the petrochemical industry of western Canada has sufficient by-products to last for
1,000	years? We could export the by-products from the entire field at Pincher Creek and have enough left from other fields for the industry to continue for a thousand years. Therefore, the hon. members opposite are not talking about stopping the growth of western Canada. They cannot attack this measure on that ground. They must in fact attack it on the basis of whether we need those byproducts in Canada. The answer is that we do not need them in Canada and should export them.
That is a simple, physical fact which does not appear to have sunk into the head of my hon. friend and until he appreciates that fact he will be arguing on completely false grounds in opposing this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Arnold Peters: I noticed that the hon. member received applause for that statement. Let me tell him, through you, sir, that a similar statement was made many years ago with respect to the white pine industry in the Ottawa valley. A scientist like the hon. member came from Sweden, an expert in the white pine industry. He spent several months touring the Ottawa valley and returned to Sweden. He said that no matter how much white pine they cut in Canada, the supply would never be exhausted.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: The hon. member is simply against the export of gas.


William Arnold Peters: The scientist said the supply would go on forever, but now there is no white pine industry in the Ottawa valley. The hon. gentleman received applause for making a similar statement with respect to a non-renewable industry, a commodity that cannot be replaced.
Progress reported.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the house leader what is the order of business for tomorrow and Wednesday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There will be a slight change from what I announced on Thursday evening. The first item tomorrow will be second reading of Bill No. C-57 to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The second item will be No. 12 on today's order paper, the motion standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture to empower the standing committee on agriculture and colonization to continue its inquiry into the question of prices of farm machinery.
The third item which I had called, namely the army benevolent fund, I should like to postpone. If the house will give its required unanimous consent I should like instead to proceed with a motion to refer Bill No. C-71 relating to the Civil Service Act to the special committee which was appointed on Friday, the membership of which was listed today.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the number of that item of business as it appears on the order paper?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not on the order paper because on Friday we omitted directing what should be done with that bill. There is some slight difference of opinion as to whether or not we have already referred the bill to the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: I was under the impression we had, as I indicated to the house leader earlier.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On Friday we resolved that a special committee be appointed to consider Bill No. C-71 and today we named the committee but we did not actually refer the bill to this committee. That is what I am talking about now.
The fourth item will be item No. 7 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour dealing with programs of vocational rehabilitation for disabled persons.
On Wednesday we will start with Bill No. C-73 which has reference to the Income Tax Act.


Lionel Chevrier: With respect to the consent for which the house leader asked, we on this side are quite happy to give consent in that matter.


Mr. Speaker:: That is consent to deal tomorrow with the motion to refer Bill No. C-71 to the standing committee?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It has been established.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the house wishes to refer the bill tonight?


Mr. Hellyer:: Tomorrow will be soon enough.
It being four minutes past ten o'clock, the house, adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.



ANSWER TO QUESTION

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

Mr. Tucker: 1.	To whom was the charter awarded for a ship or ships to carry out hydrographic surveys in northern waters during the navigation season of 1960?
2.	Was the contract awarded as a result of tenders being called?
3.	If so, how many tenders were received, and what was the amount of each?
4.	Who was awarded the charter in 1959, and what was the amount of the contract?
Questions
Answer by: Hon. Paul Comlois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):
1.	(a) Shaw Steamship Co. Ltd., Halifax, N.S., (b) Christensen Canadian Enterprises Ltd., Montreal, Que.
2.	Yes.
3.	Seven tenders were received in the following amounts:
Basic Daily Rate-$590; $665; $750; $750; $750; $1,000 and $1,400. Plus extra charges for victualling, insurance, fuel, oil and overtime.
4.	(a) Christensen Canadian Enterprises Ltd., Montreal, estimated $91,080; (b) Bowring Bros. Ltd., St. John's, Newfoundland, $96,700; (c) Shaw Steamship Co. Ltd., Halifax, N.S., $123,770.

Tuesday, March 14, 1961



BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Cathers.