May 30, 1956

SC

Frederick George Hahn

Social Credit

Mr. Hahn:

We have waited for a beginning on this line, I am not denying that. I am pleased that you brought it up. I believe the government is largely responsible for that delay and I would support you in that, but 1 will not support you in the tactics you are using today.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

Is the hon. member addressing the Chair?

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
SC

Frederick George Hahn

Social Credit

Mr. Hahn:

I beg your pardon, sir?

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

Is the hon. member addressing the Chair? Is the Chair responsible?

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Enough of your childish technicalities, Stanley.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
SC

Frederick George Hahn

Social Credit

Mr. Hahn:

Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. I have been brought to order again by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who no doubt looks forward to sitting in your place some day. It has now been pointed out to me that the hon. member has been appointed as assistant to the chairman. I am told that this is his new vocation.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier I am interested in finding out exactly what the Conservatives do support. Do they support the McMahon proposal? It is a very simple matter to come into this house and be critical but let us have something else to offer in place of it.

I hear that the Conservatives want natural gas in this area but apparently they do not want it very quickly. Here again I wonder quite seriously if we are not beginning to feel the effect of the United States coal lobby and the United States gas lobby in this house in delaying this bill at this time. It is quite possible in view of the particular methods that are being used, Mr. Chairman. The United States coal and gas industry is willing and prepared, as I understand it is doing in the United States today, to stop natural gas from this country going into the United States. They want this very lucrative market that we have in this area as well. They want to keep it for their own. Certainly the expenditure of a few more millions would not stop them, I would say.

Coming back to our Tory friends, I would like to pose this question: Where will another pipe-line company get the necessary pipe? Hon. members of that group have tried in their own way to answer that question. Another question I would like to ask is: Where will this man McMahon, or anyone else, get gas? You have to have contracts for these things. Surely it is for sale and there is no denying that, and I would not doubt that McMahon or anyone else who is prepared to build the line could eventually obtain contracts, but it takes time and you just do not

draw up contracts overnight. As far as the people in the province of Alberta are concerned, time is of major importance. This is also important to the rest of Canada, because this is an urgent problem today.

Has any other company purchased a right of way to build the gas pipe line? Where have these honoured gentlemen been for the past five years, three years or even two years? How is it that they come in at the last moment each of them saying, "We have a new plan. This is the thing. Take this. This will keep everything in Canada". No, Mr. Chairman, I cannot go along with that kind of reasoning.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Trans-Canada was not asking for a handout two or three years ago.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
SC

Frederick George Hahn

Social Credit

Mr. Hahn:

As I began to say earlier, this is not a question of natural gas alone. This important project also involves by-products, propane, butane and sulphur. I feel that my own province will benefit very directly from the fact that sufficient sulphur will come from this particular project to supply the whole of this country with all its sulphur needs. We speak about saving Canada for Canadians. Here we have an industry which will be built up. We will have rubber plants-

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

And rubber money.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
SC

Frederick George Hahn

Social Credit

Mr. Hahn:

I regret that I did not hear what the hon. member had to say. With the passing of the present bill petrochemical plants will be set up on the prairies and in Ontario and there will be an increase in population. All these things should be taken into consideration when we are considering postponing the construction of this line for two years. By building this line today we are going to create in Canada at least 20 new industries, and our economy requires these secondary industries.

I forget the exact figure used by the minister the other day in discussing our imports. I believe four million tons of coal per year was the figure used. A bit of computation will show that that works out to about 109,500 million cubic feet of gas on the basis of b.t.u's. One ton of coal is equal to 27,375 cubic feet of gas, and if the price of coal is $28 per ton in this province a bit of simple arithmetic will show that the consumer could be charged $1 per thousand cubic feet for natural gas and still be saving money. That in itself is an important factor. The price quoted is much below that and will be much below that.

In closing may I suggest that if hon. members will just take time to think this thing out reasonably we will all be cooking with gas.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nesbitt:

Mr. Chairman, the first thing I should like to bring to your attention today

is the rather unusual and desperate tactics which have been used by our friends of the Social Credit party. Apparently they have been selected by the government to be the hatchet men for the Liberal party. Some of the tactics used and some of the expressions and terms we have heard from them directed toward members of the other opposition parties make Senator McCarthy seem like a babe in arms. This business of guilt by association, which the hon. member for Macleod dealt with yesterday, is based on the simple logic that if Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev like bacon and eggs for breakfast, then if you like bacon and eggs for breakfast you are a communist. That is exactly the logic used by the hon. member for Macleod.

Apparently some hon. members of the Social Credit party, particularly the last speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster, seem to think that parliamentary procedure is of no importance, that the important thing is getting things done. That indicates the respect for parliamentary institutions which the members of that party have. It almost reminds me of some of the neo-fascist parties that spring up in other countries from time to time.

The discussion of Bill No. 298 has two aspects. First of all there are the merits of the bill, and second there are the shocking methods used by the government to force this bill through parliament, both this house and from what we heard this morning the other place as well. We all want a pipe line, let no one misunderstand that, but we do not want it under the present conditions. We do not want this pipe line built with the money the Canadian people are being asked to put up to enable United States financiers to make enormous profits. If they want to put up their own money to build it, as they said they would in the first place, let them do it. They have broken their promises and the government is now trying to bail them out.

Bill No. 298 is being rushed through on the pretence that there is great haste required to build this line, but the end certainly does not justify the means being used in this case, particularly when that need for haste as an excuse is supported only by Social Credit members for vague and invalid reasons.

With regard to the bill itself, I do not intend to repeat some of the things that have been said by hon. members. This party and the C.C.F. party have been accused of repetition and I am not going to make any repetitious remarks. One of the principal shareholders in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has been aptly described by a United States magazine as a "wheeler-dealer" from Texas. Mr. Clint

30, 1956 4489

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Murchison's connections with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines have been well described. The various aspects of his connections have been well described by other hon. members and I do not intend to repeat them.

However, I think it might be of interest to hon. members to find out just what happens when Mr. Murchison gets control of a public utility. I have before me a copy of the Indianapolis News of April 6, 1956. Apparently Mr. Murchison controls the Indianapolis Water Company, a public untility which presumably supplies water to the citizens of Indianapolis. I quote from this newspaper as follows:

The Murchisons of Dallas, Texas, have sold 25 per cent of their common stock holdings in the Indianapolis Water Company at a profit which may be close to $1 million.

Sale was made "about April 1", according to James H. Clark, Dallas, a major stockholder and an executive assistant to the Murchisons.

Clark refused to disclose the sale price, but the stock has been quoted at about $39 a share. John D. Murchison and Clint Murchison Jr., who made the sale, bought the stock in 1952 when it was quoted at $18.

The shares sold, which went to unidentified Indianapolis investors, were "about 25 per cent of the stock" held by the two Murchisons, Clark said.

Then the article goes on further to deal with the control of this utility by saying:

Clark told the News, in response to a question whether the Murchisons still owned "working control" of the company:

"That's a fair statement (that the Murchisons do have working control). When it comes to the orthodox things, we do have working control. But if we tried to do something silly, we wouldn't have."

I have been told that the reason the shares of this water company in Indianapolis rose in value was that the rates were increased when Mr. Murchison got control, which forced up the price of the stock because it then became a more lucrative investment. I know perfectly well that hon. members opposite will say that the board of transport commissioners would control the rates charged by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. We have heard that before and it is quite true; but the fact is that this government has done everything it could to assist Trans-Canada Pipe Lines during these last few years. I do not think there is much doubt that if some time in the future Trans-Canada Pipe Lines were operating this pipe line and wanted the rates increased and could advance any kind of argument, the board of transport commissioners would undoubtedly permit the rates to be raised.

Many methods have been used by this government to force this legislation through parliament. Since this debate started we have had various types of closure applied. The first closure was applied before the discussion had

4490 HOUSE OF

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation even started, which was a most unique and significant happening in Canadian parliamentary history. We are now in the committee stage and are faced with the fact that clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the bill cannot be discussed. As hon. members know, if the first clause of a bill is foreclosed, to coin a phrase which has been used several times, it simply means that the questions you would like to ask in respect to financing cannot be asked.

Now we are getting around to a different type of closure which was proposed today by the Prime Minister. It really is not a different type of closure; it is the same old thing, but it has a rather shocking corollary.

I wonder if anyone really believes that the date of June 7 set out in the agreement between the government and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was not put in at the instigation of the government. As hon. members know, the agreement provides that if the money is not voted by parliament by that date Trans-Canada Pipe Lines is not obligated to finish the job by the end of this year. Does the government really believe this is an excuse for the haste it is harping on at this time? No, not at all. This was merely an excuse by the government to use the device of closure in a new and vicious form so that debate on this bill could be cut down, and so an excuse could be found to prevent the reference of Bill No. 298 to a proper committee where all the devious and mysterious goings-on and activities behind this bill with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines could be brought to light.

Only before such a committee as that would hon. members of this house be able to find out the answers to a great many questions. For instance, we heard the hon. member for Middlesex East, my colleague say that a telegram had been received from a company in Welland saying that by the early part of next year they would be able to make 34-inch pipe, and we heard from the government that nobody could make this pipe except certain companies in the United States and so forth.

That is the kind of thing about which we would like to find out. Very few hon. members, apart from the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Public Works and perhaps one or two others, are engineers. We are told that 34-inch pipe is the size of pipe that is necessary. Perhaps it is. I am not saying it is not; but if we could call witnesses before the committee, if this were referred to a committee, we could find out what would be the optimum size. Maybe some other size would be just as good, or it might be better to use two smaller sized

pipes. It might be more expensive, and again it might not. There are many questions like this to which we should like to know the answers. Unless the bill were referred to a committee, there is no possible way of finding out.

With all respect to the front bench of the government party-and I know quite well, as I have said, that some of them are engineers-nevertheless hon. members could find out the answers to these things if we were to call experts and get the opinion of other experts. I imagine some of these things are not necessarily facts but are very often matters of opinion.

Certain members on the government side have said that the Minister of Trade and Commerce gets things done, and that is why he should be allowed to go ahead with this. I believe the hon. member for Mount Royal in his speech the other night made that reference, and I know it is the attitude of many other hon. members opposite. It is the attitude of the senior member for Halifax and the hon. member for Waterloo North that the important thing is to get things done. That is their opinion, but it is not the opinion of other hon. members.

This excuse of expediency and efficiency all throughout history has cost the lives of democratic governments. If the only excuse were expediency and efficiency, hon. members would be well advised to set up the type of government they have in Russia and formerly had in nazi Germany. Those governments were certainly efficient and expedient but certain other things, which I think hon. members realize, were lost in the process. Throughout history we have had plenty of examples. I have some of them before me. I am not going to waste my time or the time of other hon. members of the house in quoting lengthy examples from history to show how expediency and efficiency have destroyed democratic governments in the past, but I should like to make one or two references, and I would point to the example of Athens, Rome and Venice, where they had democratic governments, and to the parallel case in England in the time of Oliver Cromwell.

I see there is a little time left before six o'clock, and I should like to refer to the experience of Athens. There is a remarkable parallel in the way Athens originally lost its democracy to the situation of today. I should like to refer to a book by Basil Hammond called "The Political Institutions of the Ancient Greeks." I shall quote briefly

one paragraph concerning the time when Athens was threatened. It reads as follows:

The part of Alcibiades in the revolution consisted only in giving it a start by raising false expectations of a Persian alliance. His agents went to Athens, and there Pisander, who took the leading part among them, addressing the assembly of the citizens, urged that the only hope of salvation for Athens lay in an alliance with Persia, and declared that that alliance would be made if they would invite Alcibiades to return, abolish their democracy, which was not to the liking of the king of Persia, and set up in its stead an oligarchy which the king could trust. The assembly was grieved at the prospect of losing its democratic constitution, but under the stress of circumstances gave some kind of provisional approval of the proposed change.

That was in ancient Athens. That was the first step they took to lose their democracy. They received a proposition they could not investigate. They were told they had to hurry up to get it through in order to make the alliance, and so they hurried it up without investigating it properly, and that finished off their democratic government.

A little later we had the same situation with the Romans. Again the Romans were compelled time after time to use dictatorial powers of government to expedite matters because it was more efficient. What happened? As all hon. members know, the senate of the people of Rome became so used to the undemocratic processes that it was an easy mark eventually for the dictator, Julius Caesar, to take over.

Hon. members may think such a thing cannot happen here. We may wear different clothes and we may have automobiles and television; the physical things such as that may change, but human nature does not change one iota from one generation to the next. Once the thin edge of the wedge-and in this case it is a not so thin edge of the wedge-is inserted, it is the beginning of the destruction of democratic processes. When expediency and efficiency are the arguments used to destroy the rules of parliament, it is the first long step toward the destruction of democracy itself.

It is six o'clock. May I move the adjournment of the debate?

Progress reported.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

LIB

Walter Edward Harris (Minister of Finance and Receiver General; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Harris:

We shall continue with this tomorrow, sir.

Privilege-Mr. Hanna PRIVILEGE

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink

MR. HANNA REFERENCE TO REMARKS IN DEBATE THIS DAY

LIB

Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna

Liberal

Mr. R. F. L. Hanna (Edmonton-Strathcona):

May I rise on a question of personal privilege. Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F. party, made reference to the unfortunate fact that certain members of this House of Commons have fallen ill in recent days. He followed that up with the accusation that this announcement by him was greeted with laughter from the Liberal benches.

Topic:   MR. HANNA REFERENCE TO REMARKS IN DEBATE THIS DAY
Permalink
PC
LIB

Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna

Liberal

Mr. Hanna:

I wish to deny that I laughed at the misfortune of any hon. member who is unfortunately taken ill, nor do I believe that any member on this side of the house did or would laugh.

Topic:   MR. HANNA REFERENCE TO REMARKS IN DEBATE THIS DAY
Permalink
PC
LIB

Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna

Liberal

Mr. Hanna:

My point is that I challenge the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to name the people he accused of laughter at this report. If he cannot name them, I suggest that he withdraw that remark and have it stricken from the record.

Topic:   MR. HANNA REFERENCE TO REMARKS IN DEBATE THIS DAY
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):

heard the laughter, as everyone else on this side did. I did not pay any particular attention as to the gentlemen, or the men, who were making the noise, but it was largely over in that corner of the house, and I point over there now.

Topic:   MR. HANNA REFERENCE TO REMARKS IN DEBATE THIS DAY
Permalink

May 30, 1956