1958-07-09

THE ARGENTINE


Mr. Speaker:: On July 1 I tabled a cablegram from the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies of Argentina expressing through me to the House of Commons their cordial congratulations and good wishes on the occasion of the Canadian national holiday. Later I cabled my thanks on your behalf.
Today, July 9, is Argentina's Independence day. In appreciation of this event and of the courteous gesture which I have just mentioned, I am sure hon. members would wish me to express to the deputies and people of Argentina the most sincere congratulations of this house on the occasion of their Independence day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PRIVILEGE


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On July 8 the Ottawa Citizen carried an article the headnote of which reads as follows: "No Liberals at Session of Committee." The report reads:
Not one Liberal showed up Monday when the veterans affairs committee of the commons began its examination of the operations of the Canadian pensions commission.
I am not a member of the committee but the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) is. He informs me that he arrived at the committee at 10.45 a.m. on July 7 and remained until adjournment, which I understand was at 12.30 p.m. I think this correction should be made. I am sure the reporter for the Citizen overlooked the presence of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's.



PRESIDENT EISENHOWER


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Laurier-


Lionel Chevrier: With great pleasure in my
case.


Howard Charles Green: -the following motion:
That the address of the President of the United States of America, Mr. Dwight D. Eisenhower, delivered before the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons on this day, together with the introductory and related speeches, be included in the House of Commons Debates as an appendix and thus form part of the records of this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it from the applause that it is the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[For text of addresses above referred to, see appendix, pages 2081-87.]


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park) presented the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Howard Charles Green: That items numbered 170 to 180 inclusive, as listed in the main estimates 1958-59; and items numbered 571 to 573 inclusive, as listed in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959, relating to the Department of Labour, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Notices of motions for the production of papers.
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: In view of the understandable absence of the ministers involved in the motions for papers Nos. 15, 22 and 23, due to our special visitors, and since I have not spoken to them, may they stand?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works): The Minister of Finance has advised me that he would be willing to have these orders go through today.



RESOURCE ROADS PROGRAM, ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Benidickson:
For a copy of all correspondence since September 1, 1957, between the federal government and the province of Ontario respecting cost sharing of a roads to resources program.
He said: I am sure the Minister of Public Works is referring to the next item.
Motion stands.
EXCISE TAX ON NON-CANADIAN PERIODICALS Motion No. 22-Mr. Benidickson:
For a copy of all briefs received by the Department of Finance since June 21, 1957, respecting the excise tax on special editions of non-Canadian periodicals and the general position of Canadian magazines.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 23-Mr. Benidickson:
For a copy of all national briefs received by the Department of Finance since January 29, 1958, providing criticisms of the Bill No. 248, session 1957-58, setting forth the pattern for an estates tax.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 24-Mr. Roberge:
For a copy of all telegrams, letters, correspondence and other documents exchanged since August 3, 1957, between the federal government, the government of the province of Quebec and the city of Thetford Mines, concerning the assistance to be given in the Thetford Mines district, and elsewhere in the county of Megantic, following the torrential rain and inundation of August 3, 1957.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the report in this morning's Montreal Gazette setting forth the strong criticism of a judge in arraignment court of the provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act which deprives a person of benefits if he obtains casual employment? Is it possible for the minister to inform the house whether consideration is being given to making the necessary changes to correct 
the situation? Can he also inform the house whether it is the intention of his department to introduce at this session any further amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Hon. Michael Stair (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question I wish to inform him that I have not seen the article to which he refers. I will take the balance of his question as notice and give him an answer tomorrow.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgei (Levis):: May I ask
the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he expects to table the letters concerning the Madame Bienvenue case that I asked for on June 26?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the hon. member had lost interest in the subject. I will table the letters now.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have asked for information from the officials of the house every day since I asked this question. I supposed that the minister himself had lost interest in that particular case.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker. When the question was first asked of me I said I would take it under consideration. The hon. member has not raised the question again since. I am quite prepared to table them.


Maurice Bourget: Am I to understand that the minister will table these letters today or tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Right now.


Maurice Bourget: Thank you.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to ask whether or not the report being prepared by Professor Clark regarding old age and survivors insurance and security in the United States is likely to be tabled before the end of July. In this connection the minister will likely want to bear in mind his reply of a few days ago. Also, when replying, will the minister indicate whether or not Professor

Clark has been instructed that his terms of reference are fact-finding and not recommendatory?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as I think the hon. member will recall, the terms under which Dr. Clark was instructed to make this study were according to the Prime Minister's announcement. I mentioned a few days ago that this study was progressing favourably, and that is the case. I have no doubt that the report will be presented just as soon as it is completed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister has entirely overlooked another feature of my question, namely whether or not Professor Clark will be precluded from making any recommendations.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The terms under which Dr. Clark was asked to make this survey did not, I believe, include any request for recommendations but purely a factual study. That is my recollection.



TRIBUTE TO MR. SPEAKER'S RESPONSE TO ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, this is not a question, but I hope you will not rule me out of order. I would be remiss if I did not say at least a word on behalf of the opposition as to how much we appreciated your very fine response to the splendid address by the President of the United States this morning. I can only add, Mr. Speaker, that I am sure the President will carry back to Washington the conviction that we have an exceptionally fine Speaker in our House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank the hon. member and the house. In the circumstances I can scarcely rule him out of order.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gale):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources how soon he hopes to be able to table the return for which I asked, and to which the house agreed some days ago, with respect to employment in the Terra Nova national park.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I shall make inquiries and inform the hon. member.
9. 1358
Railways and Shipping Committee (Translation):



DRUMHELLER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Has he been informed of the difficult position in which the Drumheller miners find themselves, and could he tell us if the government is considering assistance to that important mining industry in Alberta?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation. In fact the officials of my department have discussed the matter and taken it up with the Department of Labour and the Department of Trade and Commerce. We are now considering the matter in order to find some means of providing assistance to this mine and to local miners.
(Text):



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hees:
That a sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and controlled by the government be appointed to consider the accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys; and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time and that, notwithstanding Standing Order 67 in relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee to consist of Messrs. Bourbonnais, Brassard (Lapointe), Broome, Carter, Chevrier, Chown, Creaghan, Drys-dale, Fisher, Fraser, Grills, Gundlock, Hardie, Kennedy, Loiselle, Martini, Mitchell, Monteith (Verdun), Pascoe, Robichaud, Robinson, Rowe, Rynard, Smith (Calgary South), Smith (Simcoe North) and Tasse.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, we resume discussion today on the motion of the Minister of Transport to establish the annual special sessional committee on railways and shipping, that is to say upon enterprises owned, controlled and operated by the government. When the house adjourned at ten o'clock last evening I was dealing with the Canadian National Steamships along with the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines, government-owned enterprises to which the former administration had given particular attention down through the years.

Railways and Shipping Committee
This subject is one which I believe is of interest to all members of the house, though perhaps it might be considered as being of particular interest to those members who come from the Atlantic provinces. All that is necessary, however, is to read Hansard for a few years in order to appreciate what was said by members of the government when they were on this side of the house and to realize how the members of the Conservative party, when they were in opposition, were clamouring for increased services and facilities for the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships. They were loud in their advocacy of the extension of the service. They advocated, for example, adding additional refrigerated space in these ships so as to make the service between this country and the West Indies more efficient. They pointed to the fact that this service was important to the trade between Canada and the British West Indies, and how important the trade was to the Atlantic provinces; they stressed the usefulness of this link between Canada and what is now the federation.
When the government of the day followed the somewhat cautious course-perhaps it was too cautious-of announcing that the service would be continued on a year to year basis, the Conservative opposition criticized us very severely, perhaps with cause, because we had not placed the service on a more permanent basis. They did approve, however, of the action taken by the previous government to give a longer life to the service, and I think they were actually commendatory of the action taken by the previous government when it announced that it was intended to operate the service for a further period of five years notwithstanding the fact that there had been deficits in the past which, perhaps, were not too agreeable to pay.
In other words, while in opposition the Conservative party was strong in support of the service I think, too, that Canadians generally realized that it had great usefulness. It fostered trade with the West Indies. It provided a ready and continuing means of transportation between this country and the islands; it was a service which was economic as well as sentimental; it was a service which had existed down through the years and which, I believe, this country liked to see in operation.
And now that the opposition has become the government, what has happened? They had hardly been in office for more than a few months before the sabotaging of the Canadian National Steamships service to the West Indies began to take place; and I do not apologize for using this word because I believe that is exactly what took place, the
[Mr. Chevrier.l
sabotaging of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships. In fairness to the minister I am not holding him exclusively to blame for the outcome because I think that would not be exactly in accordance with tradition; but I find it extraordinary, in view of all that was said in the past by those who now sit on your right, Mr. Speaker, that members of parliament such as the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), who were so vocal in the past in their criticism of the government for not doing more, should have been party to the sabotaging of this steamship line and the discontinuance of its regular service between Canada and the West Indies.
Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to those of us who sit on this side of the house to realize the manner in which the government consented to the transfer of the flag of the Canadian National Steamships to another country, and it would seem to me that the first thing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not wish to
restrict discussion improperly, but I ask the hon. gentleman to consider whether he is in order in dealing with the subject matter with which this committee would have to deal if it were established. As he well knows, the motion before the house is to establish a committee, to refer certain matters to it and to give it certain powers. Now, if I were to allow the hon. member to proceed to discuss the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships and any other subject matter which this committee might have referred to it by this resolution, there would be no limit to the discussion here. As I said, I do not want to limit discussion unnecessarily but I ask him to consider whether that would not create an impossible situation.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may be allowed to speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I may say that it has been the practice in this house over the years to allow the widest possible latitude in discussion upon the motion to establish this committee. I have not Hansard before me at the moment, but certainly in my experience in the years I was occupying the position which the minister occupies now, members of the House of Commons were allowed to rise in this debate and speak on matters concerning the Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships; particularly, sir, in view of the fact that many members are not on this committee and therefore would have no other opportunity of discussing these matters, save on this motion. It is true they could discuss them on other occasions, on the budget debate and on the

speech from the throne, for instance. Therefore I say to you with respect that in the past this discussion has been allowed.
What I am proceeding to do now is not to enter into this subject in too much detail, but I would like to make a number of general references not only to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships but more particularly to Trans-Canada Air Lines. Of course if you rule me out of order I will accept the ruling, and that will be the end. I submit that in the past discussion has been allowed with pretty wide latitude. It would seem to me that I am in order in discussing the operations of those three government-owned enterprises.


Mr. Hees:: If I might speak to the point of order also, I think the hon. member for Laurier is right when he says that in the past there was a pretty wide-ranging debate allowed on this motion. As far as I am concerned, as minister of the department, I would be perfectly willing to have any of these matters discussed as fully as hon. members would like to discuss them.


William Moore Benidickson: I am glad to hear those remarks by the Minister of Transport, because it just so happens that yesterday and last evening I was looking up some of the past debates when similar motions were before the house. I found that when the Prime Minister himself was a private member of the house he frequently made remarks of this kind on this motion, particularly with respect to pensions of C.N.R. employees. He pointed out that he was not likely to be a member of the committee and urged that the committee, when it undertook its deliberations, should look into increases in the pensions of C.N.R. employees. In similar speeches the Prime Minister, when he was a private member, indicated that he felt the question of competition with Trans-Canada Air Lines and other things should be looked into.


An hon. Member:: Do two wrongs make a right?


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for reminding me of what has been done before.
I must say I am not too happy about the idea of having duplicate debates. When this committee reports, the subject matter of its investigation will be before the house and open to debate and in the interval it will be debated before the committee. It is obviously the sense of the house today that some latitude should be allowed; therefore I am quite content, by leave of the house, to proceed along the lines suggested by the hon. members and minister.


Lionel Chevrier: I would not want you to think, Mr. Speaker, that I would wish to
Railways and Shipping Committee delay the establishment of this committee, because we on this side of the house support the motion. I shall try to be as brief as possible. Unless there are other members on this side who want to speak on this motion, I think, I shall be the only speaker; but I cannot assume that that will be the case. I thank the minister and my colleague the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) for their assistance on the point of order, and the very understanding attitude of Mr. Speaker.
May I go on and say that to those of us who sit on this side of the house it is disappointing that nothing, or very little, has been said during the course of this session about the activities of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, particularly by those who were so strong in their criticism of our action. What is extremely disappointing is that after all this criticism, which I mentioned earlier, was made by members who now sit on the government side, there should be this abrupt termination of the services of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships-again the minister may feel that I use a harsh expression-and the complete capitulation of the government in the face of difficulties which could have been and could still be overcome. Those who have followed the fortunes of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships can feel only a tremendous sense of disappointment that the government should have done so little to maintain this very important service to the West Indies.
I would now like to turn to another matter, sir, before I resume my seat, and it has to do with the activities of Trans-Canada Air Lines. At this time I want particularly to draw attention to the complete silence of the minister on this very important matter of Trans-Canada Air Lines services in Canada. I would like to put on record the attitude the minister adopted when he sat on this side of the house. He was very critical of the operations of Trans-Canada Air Lines at that time. I would like to quote from the debates of 1956, volume 2, page 1868, and I will overlook the interjections in the quotation I shall give:


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the thing I have never been able to understand is why the government insists on maintaining this T.C.A. monopoly after about 15 years of operation because any businessman knows that in any kind of business where competition is allowed to have full sway, both the public and the competing firms benefit. Everybody wins. The public benefit because they get cheaper prices and better service. The competing firms benefit because they are forced to remain efficient and to keep on improving their product and their service. Where monopoly is allowed to hold sway, as it has been for 15 years in the case of the T.C.A. then the organization
2054	HOUSE OF
Railways and Shipping Committee becomes inefficient. Any businessman knows that, and I challenge any member of the house to refute that statement.
Here I would like to interject that there is no doubt, too, that the minister who was being extremely critical of T.C.A. when he was on this side of the house, if he could speak what is really in his mind, would say that there is no greater service than that performed by T.C.A. in aviation in this country, and that T.C.A. compares favourably with any other air line in the world. I continue:
If monopoly is allowed to be maintained, costs rise and service deteriorates.
Therefore it is quite clear, sir, from this quotation as to what was the attitude of the Minister of Transport in those days. Then I should like to put on Hansard another quotation in the same debate which, as Mr. Speaker can see, was quite lengthy and fairly wide in its scope. It is found on page 1869 of Hansard for March 6, 1956, and I again quote the present Minister of Transport:
What I say, Mr. Speaker, is, let us have competition in our air services in Canada. Let the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) stop protecting his sacred cow, T.C.A., and let us have all-out competition-
"Let us have all-out competition."
-between T.C.A. and these lines that have applied to compete for passenger and freight traffic across Canada. As I have said, T.C.A. has nothing to worry about provided it can produce better and cheaper passenger and freight services. If it can, it will maintain its position. If it cannot, it will lose some of the business and, as in all competitive enterprise, the buying public will benefit. T.C.A. will benefit because it will then have to improve its services and efficiency to keep pace with those who are taking business from it. That is the essence of the competitive system. That is what makes business on the North American continent in particular such an outstanding example of what free enterprise can accomplish.
Again, in the last paragraph of his speech he said:
Let us have competition in our air services in Canada and put T.C.A. to the test to prove it is as good as it is claimed to be. If it is, then the public of Canada will be very well pleased.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: Well Mr. Speaker, in the face of this very positive statement made by the minister in 1956 and in the light of the very weak applause for the statement from the other side of the house, it is surprising to those of us who sit on this side of the house that the minister should have been so silent about the activities of Trans-Canada Air Lines. It would have seemed to me that one of the first things he would have done in rising to move the establishment of this committee would be to say something about


this very vital matter. The minister, however, has not availed himself of the opportunity to make a statement to the house as to the policies to be followed by the government in connection with Trans-Canada Air Lines and competition with it.
However, the minister did make a statement outside of the house. On February 7, just a few days after parliament was dissolved, he went up to Timmins and there he told a public meeting what the policy of the government was to be. As is pointed out by my colleague the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), this was during the election campaign. I read from a report of the minister's speech as found in the Montreal Gazette and emanating from Timmins on February 7:
Elimination of Trans-Canada Air Lines' longstanding monopoly on domestic transcontinental air service was announced tonight by transport minister Hees . . . Private companies such as the big Canadian Pacific Airlines will be enabled to try for franchises on routes now covered by the publicly owned T.C.A. At the same time, T.C.A. will be able to apply for rights on routes flown by private lines.
In the first place, this was a very important statement of public policy. It should have been made in the house and not outside it. Again, being an important statement of public policy, it was a change from the policy followed by the previous administration and, a fortiori, announcement of it should have been made in the house. But we find on close examination of the Aeronautics Act that the minister went much further than he should have gone on that occasion. Perhaps first, Mr. Speaker, I should quote a portion of the speech the minister made so that I will not be accused of misrepresenting him. I succeeded in getting a copy of his speech made to the Porcupine chamber of commerce on February 7, 1958.


William Moore Benidickson: An election was coming along, wasn't it?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, unquestionably. I take this sentence from the speech:
-I am requesting the air transport board to proceed with a public hearing on the general need for additional transcontinental air services, since these two applications may not be the only ones to come forward, and the best method of proceeding would be a general hearing at which all interested parties, whether air lines or private groups or individuals, could submit briefs and be heard.
It is that statement of the minister with which I take issue. I take issue because I say that the statement is contrary to the provisions of the Aeronautics Act. Section 15, subsection 2, of the act provides:
No such licence shall be issued in respect of a commercial air service, owned, leased, controlled or operated by any person who is engaged in the transport of goods or passengers for hire or reward

by means other than aircraft unless the governor in council is of opinion that it is in the public interest that such licence be issued.
My point is that under this section, while the air transport board can advise the governor in council, the air transport board does not have the right to issue the licence. That prerogative, in the case of a commercial service already operating by means other than aircraft, can only be granted by the governor in council. The minister is saying in effect in his speech that in principle the government is in favour of competition. Under the Aeronautics Act each air line must apply to the air transport board and establish public convenience and necessity as the reason for the granting of a licence. Unfortunately, however, what was overlooked entirely was the provision contained in section 15, subsection 2, that the granting of a licence in the case of an air line such as Trans-Canada Air Lines or Canadian Pacific Airlines must be done by the governor in council.
Therefore what I am saying is that both the air transport board and the minister of transport are prohibited under section 15, subsection 2, from granting a licence to an air carrier controlled by a surface carrier unless the governor in council is of the opinion that such a licence is in the public interest.
The third point I should like to make is that recently the minister tabled in the house sessional paper No. 197, from which I should like to quote. It is a report by Stephen F. Wheatcroft on air line competition in Canada. I wish to refer to this briefly, sir, because I know the position of the minister has altered considerably, first from the time he sat on this side of the house when he was in favour of all-out competition, then from the time he went up to Timmins where he said that the T.C.A. monopoly must cease; to now when he seems to be in favour of gradual competition. I should like to quote the second paragraph of his letter to Mr. Stephen F. Wheatcroft.


George Harris Hees: May I interject for a moment? As far as I am aware, at no time while I was at Timmins did I say that the T.C.A. monopoly must cease. That was the interpretation taken from my speech by those reporting it.


Lionel Chevrier: Since I was not there all I can say is that a moment ago I read accurately the report in the Gazette but I, of course, must accept the minister's statement. But be that as it may, the second paragraph of the letter which the minister addressed to Mr. Stephen F. Wheatcroft reads as follows. The letter is dated February 4,
Railways and Shipping Committee 1958, which is a few days before the Timmins speech, and I should like the house to pay particular attention to this paragraph:
I am of the view that the time has come for the introduction of some measure of competition on our transcontinental routes. The rapid growth in air line traffic would seem to indicate that competition can be introduced gradually, without major detrimental effects to existing operations, providing the changes are made with caution and on a gradual basis.
The minister has altered his opinion, not gradually but very radically, from the time he sat on this side to the time he wrote that letter. In the days when he sat on this side of the house he was in favour of all-out competition. The former minister of trade and commerce should cease protecting his sacred cow, he said. Today the position has altered, now that he has government responsibility.
Before I resume my seat may I just be allowed to cite one or two of the sections found in this report, which I must say is an excellent report and which vindicates the position taken by the former minister of trade and commerce with reference to T.C.A. On page 75 of the report it is said:
In the years up to 1961 there does not appear to be any possible change in the conclusion already reached about the routes of competitive traffic potential because aircraft size is likely to increase almost as rapidly as traffic growth.
Then farther down on the next page there is the following:
An examination of the possible effects of competition on T.C.A.'s financial position in the immediate future indicates that, unless it was strictly limited in extent, it would almost certainly lead the company to an over-all deficit. A competitive operation of five services daily in 1959 can be shown to be much too large a capacity increment for the transcontinental routes without causing serious financial difficulties: probably for both airlines.
Then the report goes on to say how embarrassing it may be to T.C.A. if competition were introduced at this time. So the conclusion to which I want to come with reference to the argument I am making concerning T.C.A. is this. There were three positions adopted, as I see them, by the minister. First there was the one of all-out competition when he sat on this side of the house. Next there was the one which I mentioned earlier and which he denied, namely elimination of Trans-Canada Air Lines' long-standing monopoly on domestic transcontinental routes as enunciated in Timmins. Finally there seems to be a third attitude, one of gradual competition as outlined in this report.
I think the house is entitled to know what is going to happen to this report. Is the government going to adopt the recommendations and conclusions of Mr. Wheatcroft as government policy? Is it going to instruct
2056	HOUSE OF
Railways and Shipping Committee the air transport board to proceed to hold hearings, notwithstanding the provisions of section 15 (2) which indicate that in this kind of transcontinental operation it is not the air transport board but the governor in council who, in the final analysis, must hear the application and determine upon it.


George Harris Hees: May I answer that question now, Mr. Speaker? The purpose of the Wheatcroft report is to be a guide to the air transport board in the examination of applications made to it. As the hon. member for Laurier has said, and quite rightly, these decisions are decisions of the government made on the recommendations of the air transport board. This is true with respect to a licence of any kind, but as the hon. member knows very well, the decision is the decision of the government and the recommendation comes to it from the air transport board.


Lionel Chevrier: The point I was making was that we had no information to that effect. I think the minister owes it to the house to tell us what is the position. It was for that reason I was putting on the record those three positions that seem to me to be incongruous and to be contradictory. The minister has made a short interjection which gives the house some idea of what his intention is, but I think he should go much further when he has the opportunity later to enter this debate.
I have touched on a good many subjects relating to transportation in Canada and particularly these three government enterprises, the Canadian National Railways, Canadian National Steamships and Trans-Canada Air Lines. I should like now to conclude my remarks by asking the minister when he replies to tell us something about the Pine Point railway. It seems to me the government has maintained a very discreet silence with reference to that railway. The speech from the throne contained a statement to the effect that the railway would be built. Since there are many aspects of the question upon which information ought to be given to the house, I feel that during the discussion of this motion additional information should be provided in connection with the railway to Great Slave lake. In a word, we would like to be brought up to date on what the government and the Canadian National Railways are doing in regard to this important project.
I should have liked to take advantage of this occasion to say something further about the expansion of transportation facilities in Canada, the expansion of the facilities of Canadian National Railways while the government of which I was a member was in office, because I believe that what was done by the former administration with reference


to transportation facilities, railway facilities, air facilities, is something that should be put on the record. Unfortunately I have not the time today, nor would I take advantage of the good humour of the house, to do that on this occasion. But I do hope to be able to indicate at some future time the glorious record of the Liberal administration in the field of transportation.
We believe, sir, that upon this motion we should put on record some of the feelings we have with regard to these government-owned enterprises. We believe, too, that this committee should be established in order to give an opportunity to the officers of Canadian National Railways, and of other government-owned enterprises, to submit their accounts and their respective annual reports. That is the purpose of the committee, during the sittings of which examination of the officers of these government enterprises will take place.
So, Mr. Speaker, because we believe not only in the utility of the discussion of this motion but also in the usefulness of the committee, we shall without the slightest hesitation warmly support the adoption of this motion.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: In rising to indicate the thoughts of the C.C.F. in relation to this motion I should like to say at the outset, after listening to the hon. member for Laurier, that I am sure many hon. members could dispense with ghost writers in the preparation of their remarks and merely review past issues of Hansard, as he has done in making his remarks concerning this particular motion. We remember the glorious record of the Liberal party, also, when it comes to the operation of Canadian National Railways and Canadian National Steamships.
Especially do the people in Prince Rupert remember the brutal and blunt way in which they allowed that company's shipyard to be removed in bits and pieces from Prince Rupert, thus removing one of the last possible hopes of expansion of the shipbuilding industry in the northern part of British Columbia or in the north coastal region. If that is part of the glorious record of the Liberal party, I would imagine it is one of the parts that he and other members of his party would like to forget.
But in any event there is one matter, Mr. Speaker, or one policy that is being shown here that I think is a most unwise one for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) to follow. I might say he is not alone in using this approach. Along with him are other members of the cabinet, notably the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) who a few days ago had somewhat the same approach. But if the

Minister of Transport and his colleagues are going to continue with this policy and are going to persist in taking attitudes now which are at variance with those they took when they were on this side of the house; if they are going to adopt a policy of reversion on everything they had to say and admit how insincere they were-I cannot use the word "dishonest"-or to admit that they did not mean precisely what they were saying when they sat in opposition, then they are doing relatively little except lowering the stature of government in the eyes of the people of Canada and placing in a little bit lower position the opinions that people have of members of the House of Commons or of cabinet ministers.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I interject here, inasmuch as the hon. member has inferred-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister rising on a point of order?


George Harris Hees: It is a question of privilege. The hon. member has inferred that while the Conservative party was in opposition we were-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is no question of privilege.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker; it is a question of privilege. The hon. member has inferred that we were not sincere in what we said. We meant the things we said when we were in opposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Order.


George Harris Hees: We meant what we said when we were in opposition. If two or three years later, because of changing events, we have changed our opinion to some extent, that does not mean that we were not sincere at the time.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the minister was complaining of the use of the word "insincere" as a matter of privilege.


George Harris Hees: Yes; and the word "dishonest".


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member did not say "dishonest".


Mr. Speaker:: The minister will recall that while the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) hinted that he would like to use that word, he deliberately refrained from doing so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He said he would not use it.


An hon. Member:: He did use it.


Frank Howard: This attitude is becoming all too prevalent. Certainly, as the Minister of Transport just said, it is perfectly all right to take a second look; it is perfectly legitimate to change your opinion on some subject 57071-3-130
Railways and Shipping Committee matters. It might be all right for the Minister of Transport personally, in this particular case, to say that there was some justification for changing his mind. The point I am getting at is that that is the general attitude of the government itself. This is just another phase of it.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to remind the hon. member that we are not debating the general attitude of the government. We are debating a motion to establish a committee dealing with transportation.


Frank Howard: Yes, I quite appreciate that fact, Mr. Speaker. I only expanded on that approach because of the question of privilege raised by the minister and said that he is part and parcel of this change of attitude. I think that is something that has to do with the establishment of this committee in view of the discussion entered upon by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) which was rather broad and rather general, and which dealt with a number of these subject matters. I mentioned the matter in that light. I did not wish to expand on it, except in so far as it was occasioned by the interjection of the Minister of Transport. However, I will cease dealing with that phase of the matter and merely say that there are one or two most important questions which must be considered by this committee and one or two most important attitudes of the Canadian National Railways which must be reviewed closely. I hope the Minister of Transport has not changed his mind on this particular phase of it or changed his opinion from that which he had when he sat over here in the opposition. I am referring to the apparently ruthless or callous disregard of the employees of the Canadian National Railways when it comes to lay-offs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Lennard:: The same old chestnut.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members are making interjections. I do not mind interjections but I wish they would make them loudly enough so that I can hear them or make them in a formal way.


Frank Exton Lennard: The same old chestnut.


Frank Howard: This attitude of the Canadian National Railways must be looked at closely and people must not just be turned out on the streets merely because that procedure appears to be the policy or the thing to do at that particular moment. In addition to that-and this is something closer to home- the Canadian National have a steamboat on the Pacific coast.


An hon. Member:: Not a steamboat.

Railways and Shipping Committee


Frank Howard: It does not operate under steam, no. They have a ship. It operates up and down that coast no more than three or four months out of the year. For the balance of the time, Mr. Speaker, it stands in mothballs accumulating deficits or losing money or whichever way the Canadian National want to classify it. This approach of the Canadian National-whether it is influenced by this policy of the government or whether it was influenced by the policy of the last government is something that I do not know-or this attitude of the Canadian National in not making available the full facilities that it should make available from the shipping point of view to the coast of British Columbia has resulted, first, in this particular boat piling up losses or piling up deficits; and, second, completely insufficient shipping facilities on the coast of British Columbia. I hope that the committee, in dealing with these things, will have some influence upon the Canadian National so that they will expand their shipping facilities on the coast of British Columbia so as to be able to embrace the entire passenger-freight shipping facilities on the coast and will bring some sense and some equitability to the situation which exists.
I have one other comment to make about Trans-Canada Air Lines. I mentioned this matter on another occasion in another place and I asked a question about it in this house on one occasion also. This comment also coincides with an attitude that the Minister of Transport used to have when he sat over here on the opposition side and which I think he still has. He is smiling, but I am sure he still has the same opinions. However, they may have been tempered somewhat by the responsibility of the office that he holds. Sitting in this house, Mr. Speaker, are many members who, with respect to availability to their homes, are not quite on the same level as are many other members. Those of us from the west coast, the mid-west and from the Atlantic coast are in somewhat an equal position when it comes to being able to keep in touch with the constituency, to return and visit regularly our families and friends, and to keep an eye on things generally. The proposal made by the minister when he was on this side of the house-and which I say he has certainly not abandoned- was that some provision should be made to balance the scale between the members from Ontario and Quebec particularly and the members from the extremities of the nation. This should especially be done inasmuch as we are progressing more and more into an air age when flying is becoming the predominant way of getting from one place to another. Some arrangement should be made


in order that members from extreme points in the nation should be able, on a paid fare basis or some other basis, to get home at some time during the session.
I have no set ideas as to the application of this general proposal. Many suggestions have been made, one of which was that such an arrangement should apply outside of a certain radius from Ottawa and 500 miles and 1,000 miles have been mentioned as possible limits. I do not think that this is of too much concern to most hon. members. Another suggestion was made that it should apply in the same way as trip passes apply to employees of Trans-Canada Air Lines and that hon. members might be able to use that pass to fly on aircraft only when space is available and when no paying passengers are available to utilize space. I think that would be a generally acceptable and agreeable idea to hon. members who would like to participate in such a scheme.
It was also suggested that a direct payment by the treasury for transportation be made to Trans-Canada Air Lines once or twice during the year or during the session. As I say, I am sure most hon. members are not married to one thought, but we are certainly partial to the idea of being placed more on a par with our T to T members. I do not suggest that we should leave here via T.C.A. on Thursday night and come back on Tuesday morning every week, but I do feel that an arrangement should be made so that at some time during each session-every other month or something of that nature-we might be able to get home, see our families and friends and so on. Once one gets home, of course, it means that there will be problems to face with respect to one's constituents but these are most welcome and it would be an opportunity to keep in personal contact with constituents and in touch with matters concerning them.
I am not a member of this committee, but I hope that the committee members will deal with this matter at considerable length and will discuss proposals with officials of Trans-Canada Air Lines and with the minister in order to get the attitude of T.C.A. to the whole problem, to assess the question of costs and to assess the question of how many aircraft fly without a full pay load. As the minister knows, I have discussed this matter with him as a member of another committee. I trust the whole matter may be thoroughly canvassed so that we may be able to proceed with a view to allowing passes for trips to members from the eastern and western extremities of our country.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I wish to make a few succinct remarks on the point

raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) in relation to passes on Trans-Canada Air Lines and I address my remarks to this house as someone coming from the central part of our country and who, therefore, would not be affected by this matter. I would like to register my support for the members from distant parts of Canada.
I had great hopes of a solution to this problem, bearing in mind the comments of the minister. I had expected that when he came back to this house with a real majority he would be able to do something about the matter right away. Perhaps there is a hesitation on the part of the new government as a result of a too great majority in that it may be felt that since mainly Conservative members would be benefiting from such an arrangement this would arouse too much criticism. I know that this matter has been discussed in the Conservative caucus and for the first time since I came to Ottawa I tried to snoop a little bit on what went on in caucus with regard to this particular matter.
I might say I was not very successful in discovering anything in this regard, and all I have noticed is the looks of chagrin on the faces of some western members, especially those from Vancouver. This has indicated to me that they are not making much progress on this point in the Conservative caucus.
As an Ontario member and as one who has been present in this house on Fridays and on Mondays I would like to say that I feel our western members and our members from the east are carrying the load, in a sense, in this House of Commons. Members from Ontario and Quebec are located within handy reach of their homes and are sometimes even able to carry on and develop two occupations, namely being members of parliament while they are also interested in some other line of endeavour. I know the press will probably take off to a certain extent and will say, if we go after this hon. members of parliament are grabbing another prerogative, but I think this is one prerogative we ought to go after, in the name of equity if for no other reason. In this way our western and eastern members will be on an equitable basis with other members in this house.
If it is going to be too expensive to set up an arrangement whereby members will receive passes as they do on railways, and this certainly seems to be logical, then some other intermediate measure as a compromise might be implemented. I certainly feel it is time for this matter to be brought before a committee and thoroughly explored.
Before sitting down I would like to say I am pleased that the minister was brave enough to stand up and admit that he is not completely consistent right down the 57071-3-130J
9, 1958	2059
Railways and Shipping Committee line. I believe that in our political life of past years we have treasured consistency a little too much and I would like to compliment the minister for having the courage to say that he has altered his approach in this respect.


Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to concur in the remarks of the last two speakers. I think we should accept the proposal which I understand was made some time ago that space should be made available to members of parliament when no paying passengers require space.


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank hon. members who have spoken in this debate for the views they have put forward and to assure them that I have taken careful note of their suggestions, which will be taken seriously.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier) asked for some information regarding the progress which this government is making with the railways in reference to the railway to Pine Point. I am afraid I have no information for him because this matter is under very active study by the railways and by the government at the present time.
As soon as I have further information on the matter I will be very glad to give it to the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the minister not going to deal with the very important questions referred to by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) with respect to layoffs by T.C.A., etc? Surely, after the speech made by the hon. member one would expect the minister to give some elucidation to the house.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I tried to deal with the questions relating to T.C.A. two or three times while the hon. member for Laurier was speaking, and I do not think they require to be dealt with further at this time.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister did not deal very effectively with them.


George Harris Hees: Perhaps I did not deal with them effectively.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Or at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Silence is golden.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


George Harris Hees: That the annual reports from 1957 of the Canadian National Railways: Canadian National (West Indies)

Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act Steamships Limited; Canadian National Railways securities trust; auditors' report to parliament in respect of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships for the year 1957, tabled on May 22, 1958; the budget for 1958 of the Canadian National Railways tabled on June 2, 1958; the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for 1957; the auditors' report to parliament on Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year 1957, tabled on May 23, 1958, and the budget for 1958 of Trans-Canada Air Lines, tabled on January 31, 1958, be referred to the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned or controlled by the government, and that items Nos. 431-Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals; 432-Newfoundland ferry and terminals; 442-Maritime Freight Rates Act; 443-Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, as listed in the main estimates 1958-59, and item 635-Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, as listed in the supplementary estimates 1958-59, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the said committee, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act so as to increase the amount of insurance that may he paid to the beneficiary as an annuity in certain cases and to remove restrictions in payment of insurance in the case of pensioners.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister care to give us an explanation of this motion?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is preliminary to amendments to be made to the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act. It is important, but I do not think it is very controversial. I do not think there are any objections from any source as far as the proposed resolution is concerned and I do not think it is controversial.
As a matter of fact, on a number of occasions in the committee on veterans affairs it has been recommended that certain amendments should be made to the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, and these recommendations have come from hon. members in all sections of the house. I should like to make a short explanation regarding the resolution. It is not usual at this stage to give details of proposed legislation, but I am sure that hon. members will wish me to review the provisions in general terms, if only briefly.
Perhaps I should explain first that this act made life insurance available to veterans of world war I and their widows who, because of disability, might not have been able

to obtain insurance commercially or, at best, might have had to pay an increased premium. The medical standards required by this act were very low. As a consequence, many seriously disabled returned soldiers obtained this insurance. It is of interest to note that in addition many others whose health was good applied for and were issued contracts.
The act was passed in 1920. The time limit for applications expired in 1923, but the act was reopened in 1928 and finally closed for the issue of new policies in 1933. The most important provision contained in the bill amending the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act is one which would repeal section 10 of the act which requires a deduction in the amount of insurance payable, and the return of premiums and interest thereon in lieu of the deduction, in the event that a pension under the Pension Act is awarded on the insured's death. This amendment would have the result of eliminating any future deductions and thus no policies would, on this account, be paid for less than the face amount.
The bill also proposes that the minister may, in his discretion, increase the lump sum payment of insurance money up to $1,000 above the present lump sum maximum of $2,000. His discretion is at present limited to amounts under $500. This will avoid the necessity of the payment of a comparatively small balance in the form of an annuity. Thus, a policy for $2,500 payable to a widow would at present require the payment of $500 in the form of an annuity. The usefulness of this payment and the administrative effort involved suggest that it is wise to modify this provision.
The remainder of the amendments are of an administrative nature involving the change of the expression "alternative beneficiary" to "contingent beneficiary". The latter expression is used in the Veterans Insurance Act and refers to similar classes of secondary beneficiaries. Administration would thus be simplified and the amendment would remove some uncertainty in the minds of policy holders as to whether the word "alternative" has the ordinary or a special meaning.
I do not think any further explanation is necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we ought to be in committee on this matter. The question was that I should leave the chair in order that this question should be dealt with. The discussion can proceed in committee.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the very comprehensive statement made by the hon. minister and I agree

that this is not a contentious matter and that it is one which, I am sure, can be dealt with more expeditiously and more adequately by the committee. I presume it is the minister's intention, after the discussion has been completed here, to refer this matter to the committee on veterans affairs on which we have some members, and with this brief statement I am prepared to content myself.


Mr. Herridge:: I just arrived in time to have the delightful experience of finding the minister out of order for the first time in this house.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Not seriously, I hope.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Not seriously, but I enjoy these experiences.
I listened with interest to his explanation of the two, as I understand it, major amendments that will be to the advantage of the veterans. I understand that in the past some representations along these lines have been made. I am glad to see the minister introducing these two amendments.
As I understand it, the remainder of the amendments are purely to improve the administration of the act. Like the former speaker, I think this matter could be readily referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs, with little debate at this stage, where we shall have an opportunity to go into the details to much better advantage than in these circumstances.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I thank the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Kootenay West for their consideration. It was our intention to ask that the bill be sent to the veterans affairs committee of which committee the hon. member for Kootenay West is a splendid member, where I am sure it will receive very careful attention.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Brooks thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-33, to amend the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


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


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the unanimous consent of the house to have it read the second time now? I would like very much to see the bill go before the committee as soon as possible. The committee is set up.


Lionel Chevrier: By leave.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has agreed to permit this bill to be read the second time now by unanimous consent.
Veterans Insurance Act


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I move, by leave, the second reading of Bill No. C-33, to amend the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Veterans Insurance Act so as to increase the amount of insurance that may be paid to a beneficiary as an annuity in certain cases; to remove restrictions in payment of insurance in the case of pensioners and to extend the time limit for applications for insurance.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister make a statement.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, the amendments that we are asking for to the Veterans Insurance Act are quite similar to those that we are asking for in the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act. As a matter of fact, the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act was an insurance act which granted insurance to veterans of the first world war. The Veterans Insurance Act is the insurance act which provided insurance for veterans of the second world war, for Korean veterans and others. As I stated in connection with the returned soldiers insurance bill, I am sure that hon. members will wish an explanation in general terms of the provisions of this bill.
The Veterans Insurance Act for veterans of world war II and their widows was passed in 1944. The first policies were issued on April 1, 1945. Initially, the period of eligibility to contract for this insurance was three years. It was subsequently extended to six years and eventually to December 31, 1954, or 10 years after discharge, whichever is the later. As with returned soldiers insurance, medical requirements are slight, thus enabling life insurance to be obtained which might not be available commercially except perhaps at a greatly increased rate of premium. Many persons with disabilities took advantage of this opportunity and, as before, many in good health also applied for and

Veterans Insurance Act received contracts. This insurance subsequently became available to those who had served in the Korean theatre of operations and to their widows.
This bill proposes to extend the time limit to September 30, 1962, for Korea veterans whose eligibility now expires on October 31 of this year, and also proposes the same date, September 30, 1962, as the end of the period during which world war II veterans who have continued to serve in the regular forces may apply.
An amendment similar to that under the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act proposes to repeal section 10 of the act which requires a deduction to be made from the face value of a policy in the event that a pension under the Pension Act is awarded on the insured's death, thus eliminating any future deductions.
Another proposed amendment seeks, for this act also, to avoid the necessity for comparatively small annuity payments by allowing the minister, in his discretion, to permit payment in a lump sum up to $1,000 in addition to the maximum of $2,000 which the insured may designate under the present provisions of the act.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the remarks I made on the earlier resolution apply to this one with equal force. Since it is a resolution which is not contentious in its nature we feel again that it should be referred to the committee on veterans affairs.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, like the previous speaker, may I say that my previous remarks apply in general to this bill because the bills are very similar in nature but I have one or two supplementary remarks. First of all, I am glad to see the minister introducing these two bills at this time. We are glad to know that the amendments or the benefits are being equally applied to both pieces of legislation, the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act and the Veterans Insurance Act, and will apply equally, generally speaking, to veterans of the first world war, the second world war and the Korean war. I think that by establishing that principle in veterans insurance legislation we are going to improve the general understanding on the part of veterans and their dependants of the legislation because both cases are becoming very similar. At the same time it will remove the grounds for dissatisfaction which I think could easily arise if these benefits were given in one case and not also given in the other.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

Mr. Brocks thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-34, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time; by leave of the house, now?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I move that the bill be now read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreeable to the second reading?


Lionel Chevrier: By leave.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, by leave, and referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Yukon Act to broaden the purposes for which the commissioner of the Yukon territory may borrow or lend money; to authorize the appointment of deputy police magistrates and provide for them remuneration and allowances; to make it clear that the governor in council may appoint judicial as well as administrative officers; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister make a statement on this resolution?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, these amendments to the Yukon Act are somewhat similar to the amendments to the Northwest Territories Act passed by the house in the last parliament. At that time I promised the house that I would bring forward these amendments to the Yukon Act which have been in abeyance for two or three years in the department. I think the house will recognize that our responsibilities with regard to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories take us into the field of provincial and municipal government. These amendments are in the main routine and technical but I think any person who understands the transitional growth that is going on in the territories will recognize in these amendments forward steps in the administration and growth of our new parts of Canada towards provincial status.

There are five amendments in the bill to be introduced. The first four deal with administration. The first of the four extends the power of borrowing and lending money to the territorial government under the control of the governor in council. The second amendment provides for the appointment of deputy police magistrates in a similar fashion to the amendment to the Northwest Territories Act last year. The third amendment provides for the appointment of judicial officers who in this particular instance happen to be small debt officers. The fourth amendment is with regard to the importation of liquor into the territories. At the present time it can be imported only under licence from the commissioner. This amendment broadens the power in order to give the commissioner power to delegate someone else to give permission to import liquor into the territory where they have no provincial or territorial liquor board and therefore must import it from the neighbouring provinces.
The fifth amendment is not an administrative amendment. It is simply a boundary definition. At the time of setting up the Yukon boundary the territory was described in general terms which were neither precise nor satisfactory in the light of the survey definition that we require today. Therefore the fifth amendment is simply a precise survey description from detailed markers to indicate precisely the boundaries of the Yukon territory. With this explanation of the resolution I think I have given sufficient reasons to indicate the national interest in making these amendments at this time.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few brief remarks on the resolution brought forward by the minister and in support of it. I feel that it will do a lot towards achieving provincial status and autonomy eventually for the Yukon in much the same fashion as our good neighbour to the north, Alaska, has very recently achieved statehood.
The amendment concerning the borrowing and lending of money will enable all municipalities in the Yukon to enter more widely into the field of municipal improvements such as low rental housing, paving, new road construction, hospital services and the like. Those services have perhaps been progressing a little slowly in the more outlying communities in the Yukon because of lack of funds. This amendment will allow the municipalities concerned through the territorial government, to borrow the funds necessary to accomplish such projects.
The amendment respecting the appointment of deputy police magistrates is a welcome step forward. The Yukon territory has one police magistrate whose jurisdiction covers
Yukon Act
over 203,000 square miles. Inasmuch as it is the government's intention, I am sure, to provide a first-class system for the administration of justice, I am sure all members will agree that we cannot allow that system to be thwarted or frustrated by distance or by terrain. The magistrate at Whitehorse is a very busy man and I am sure that the amendment will alleviate a good deal of the load he now has to carry. I do not mean to convey by these remarks that the Yukon is lawless but I wish to assure hon. members that the court is very busy. At the moment the magistrate has civil jurisdiction as well and, of course, he cannot be everywhere at once.
The amendment with regard to small debt officials is, of course, a very welcome step forward as is the boundary amendment which finally and in technical form delineates the boundary of the Yukon territory.
Finally, the amendment regarding the transportation of liquor into the Yukon comes as a very welcome step forward inasmuch as heretofore it was impossible, if the commissioner was away, to keep stocks on hand, as it were. I see in the amendments, especially the one concerning extension of the powers of the commissioner to borrow and lend money, a very firm and long step forward to Yukon finally achieving provincial status.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could put one question to the minister. I must apologize to him. I admit at once that the question is not strictly relevant and if he is not in a position to answer it I do not intend to press it. He mentioned the power to import liquor. I wondered what the Yukon territory had done about the provisions in the most recent amendment to the Indian Act with respect to giving equal rights to the Indians to purchase liquor.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is aware, of course, that it is not strictly relevant but it has relevancy in that it does bear on our responsibilities in the territories. An order in council was passed by the federal government approving the territorial ordinance with regard to the right of Indians to drink in licensed premises in the Northwest Territories. That has gone through and I believe it already exists in the Yukon, if my memory serves me correctly. I think the hon. member for the Yukon would know more about the details of that.


Erik Nielsen: If I may comment on that, Mr. Chairman, the Indian citizen in the Yukon has the right to purchase and consume beer on the premises. However, an Indian, that is one with Indian status, has not the right to purchase liquor at all or to be in possession
2064	HOUSE OF
Cape Breton Highlands National Park of liquor. If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was thinking of liquor, then that comes within the jurisdiction of the territorial council which is, of course, fully responsible in so far as legislation concerning the consumption of liquor is concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps the hon. gentleman has answered my question, but I believe on the point of law he is not quite right. The most recent amendment to the Indian Act, with which I have a certain familiarity, does leave certain responsibilities with the federal government as well. However, he has answered my question and I have no desire to pursue the matter further.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-35, to amend the Yukon Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL PARKS


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the withdrawal of certain lands from Cape Breton Highlands national park.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister make a statement?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the amendment to the National Parks Act affecting the boundaries of Cape Breton Highlands national park is one that has a considerable story to it, which I shall run through in my statement on the resolution and then leave the debate on the details until second reading.
The purpose of changing the boundaries of Cape Breton national park is to provide for the Wreck Cove power development project in Nova Scotia. The National Parks Act does not allow for the exploitation of resources within a park boundary. Specifically, it does not allow for the use of water in a park for hydro purposes. However, if it can be shown that it is in the national interest to exploit a resource in a park, then the affected area must be taken out of the park. This is the purpose of the amending bill.
A request came from the Nova Scotia power commission to the federal government in


November of 1956, and a joint federal-provincial body was set up to look into the question of power in this area, to make a survey and come to some mutual understanding. This report has been submitted to both governments and the recommendation is that ten square miles approximately be removed from the park to provide the necessary additional horsepower for the development of this plant. This area is in the south-central portion of the park.
It is a matter of interest that the last occasion when the parks department had to withdraw land from a national park was some three years ago, and it concerned the same park. At that time they took out thirteen square miles. It is a matter of regret, therefore, I am sure to all Canadians that it is found necessary in the national interest to remove these lands from our national park for hydro development. It is true that the lands in this particular area of the park are not as valuable, from a scenic point of view, as lands in other parts of the park. However, it is necessary, if we are to effectively provide for hydro development in Nova Scotia, to provide all the hydro we can for peaking purposes, and to increase the capacity of the Wreck Cove plant in proportion to the moneys spent.
On these grounds, therefore, that it is in the national interest, although with much regret, we introduce this amendment to take out these ten square miles. The federal government did, with the full co-operation of the provincial government of Nova Scotia, make an attempt to get an equal or greater area in some other portion of the Cape Breton highlands. We did look at an area to the northwest of the park but the scenery there was of a similar type and the situation was complicated by the fact there were a number of fishing villages there which would produce innumerable complexities in the administration of the national park. So, reluctantly, we had to turn down that particular proposal. What we did, however, was to make an agreement with the Nova Scotia government that they would give us land near the Champlain habitation, which has long been wanted by the national historic sites division of my department. In recompense for these ten square miles we have received from Nova Scotia a very valuable bit of property.
I should add that the provincial government showed complete sympathy with our dilemma in this particular case. I can assure the house that if anything worth while does come up in the future by means of which we could recoup our loss of territory in Cape Breton, I am sure we would have the full co-operation of the Nova Scotia government. It is not

possible, Mr. Chairman, to discuss these matters in detail because the bill is not before hon. members, nor can I indicate to them on a map what we have done. I would suggest, therefore, that this is all I need say at this stage.


Mr. Robichaud:: It is not my intention at this stage to make a long statement which might delay the passage of this resolution. We of the official opposition have no idea whatever of opposing its passage. As the minister has explained, it is in the national interest to exploit this area and to remove these ten square miles from the Cape Breton national park in order to further hydro development in Nova Scotia.
The minister has mentioned that consideration was given to the replacement of this area by ground adjacent to the park, but there were complications because of fishing villages that were established in the area. I would suggest that it might have been a new venture for the department to have fishing villages in a national park as a special attraction to the tourists and the public in general. As fishing is one of our basic industries, it may have been worth while to give further consideration to the possibility of taking this new area as part of Cape Breton Highlands national park. However, again I wish to emphasize that we of the official opposition have no objection whatsoever to the present resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say just one word of congratulation to the minister for having acquired the Champlain Habitation. I am sure that some people all over the country will appreciate it as another addition to our national heritage.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention at this time to say very much on this resolution. However, the few remarks I should like to put before the house are to the effect that while we understand that this is a development policy being put forward by the provincial government, I hope-while it is not my purpose to refer to what goes on in another legislature in the country-that the provincial government will move with great caution, because of the serious situation of the coal industry today, with regard to the developing of hydro power in this area.
I should like to make mention of the fact that I feel badly that we are losing part of the park, even although it is only ten miles and is an area which is quite a bit inland and which very few tourists or residents see or rarely have an opportunity to get into.
But I did not quite get all of the minister's remarks with regard to the proposed extension. In view of the fact that we already 57071-3-131
9, 1958	2065
Lake of the Woods Control Board have fishing villages adjacent or somewhat close to the park I cannot see why the department and the minister would not take a careful, cautious and interested look at the idea of expanding the boundaries of the Cape Breton Highlands national park to the extent that it would continue further to the northern tip of Cape Breton Island, where it now cuts off at the entrance to the South Harbour road in the vicinity of Effie's Brook. The boundaries could continue on up along the coast, up through Cape North, Sugarloaf, Bay St. Lawrence and Capstick in Victoria county and continue on into Inverness county which is all very picturesque country. I daresay it is much more beautiful than many other parts of the park. I should like to request that the minister and his department give every consideration to this suggestion. In fact, I would ask for a complete survey at the earliest possible convenience, with the idea in mind of extending the boundaries of the park rather than reducing them. That will be the extent of my remarks at the moment, Mr. Chairman.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-36, to amend the National Parks Act respecting the boundaries of Cape Breton Highlands national park.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LAKE OF THE WOODS CONTROL BOARD


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the second reading of Bill No. C-25, to amend the Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, 1921.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in introducing the resolution on the Lake of the Woods Control Board Act I mentioned to the house that most of the amendments deal with the composition of the board; how in the past there had been two members from Ontario and two from the federal government and how the new bill would provide for two from Ontario, one from the federal government and one from Manitoba; and how this dealt with power in the Lake of the Woods area in Ontario. My statement on second reading will be in greater detail and will deal with some of the historical aspects of this development. I shall have to be extremely precise in my statements because this deals with the affairs of two other governments besides the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to introduce at this time amendments to the Lake of the Woods Control

Lake of the Woods Control Board Board Act, 1921. These amendments are to provide authority for the control of waters diverted from lake St. Joseph in the Albany river system to lac Seul in the English river system by the Lake of the Woods control board which was established by the act of 1921, and also to provide for representation from the province of Manitoba on that board.
In view of the fact that the Lake of the Woods control board has been functioning in an administrative capacity for over 30 years, I will outline only briefly the circumstances which led to the original formation of the board and point out the additional responsibilities which have been vested in the board in the intervening years. This background material, I believe, may assist the members in grasping the salient features of one of the latest developments in regard to the supply of energy in this area and also give a broader understanding of the factors which necessitate amendments to the existing legislation.
The Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, 1921 established the Lake of the Woods control board to regulate the storage in and outflow from the Lake of the Woods. At that time the natural resources of Manitoba were administered by the government of Canada which also had an interest in the navigation and international aspects of the Lake of the Woods storage. The board, as established, consisted of two members for Canada and two members for Ontario. In 1930 administration of the natural resources of Manitoba was transferred to the government of that province, but the significance to Canada of the international and navigational features of this storage has continued and will do so in the foreseeable future.
The international feature continues to be of primary importance to the government of Canada, which has obligations under the Lake of the Woods treaty of 1925 for regulation of Lake of the Woods levels within carefully defined limits. The navigational feature has become secondary in importance as navigation on the lake is limited to tugs and other relatively small commercial and pleasure craft. The storage in the Lake of the Woods has continued to increase in importance to the province of Manitoba which has developed for power production almost the entire reach of the Winnipeg river in Manitoba downstream from the Lake of the Woods.
In 1928 the responsibility for regulation of storage in and outflow from lac Seul on the English river was assigned to this board by provincial and federal concurrent legislation, namely the Lac Seul Conservation Act, 1928.
In 1957 the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario constructed works to


divert water from lake St. Joseph in the upper Albany river basin to lac Seul through the Root river. In order that the board might continue to regulate effectively the storage in and the outflow from lac Seul it is necessary that the act be amended to give the board authority to regulate the operation of the lake St. Joseph diversion works when the level of lac Seul rises above certain fixed elevations during particular months of the year.
Storage from the Lake of the Woods and lac Seul provides the water essential to the development of hydroelectric power on the Winnipeg and English rivers in northwestern Ontario and on the Winnipeg river in southeastern Manitoba. This river system supplies a very substantial portion of the hydroelectric power required by this area for the extensive mineral and timber industries in Ontario and the bulk of the industries and population of Manitoba, particularly the city of Winnipeg and vicinity. The additional water made available by diversion from lake St. Joseph is of substantial value both to Ontario and to Manitoba by the provision of greater amounts of hydroelectric power.
Ontario and Manitoba have agreed upon the division of power generated from the diverted waters and have interconnected their transmission networks for most effective operation. This changing pattern of storage makes it most desirable that Manitoba have official representation on the Lake of the Woods control board which necessitates the amendment of section 2 of the act to alter the board membership by the replacement of one of the two representatives for Canada and by one representative for Manitoba, with Ontario continuing to have two representatives.
The location of all of the reservoirs in Ontario makes this proportioned membership most appropriate. The amendment required to Section 3 (b) of this act now new subsection (c) will give the board authority over the lake St. Joseph diversion works so that if lac Seul is above certain fixed elevations during particular months of the year it will permit the board to regulate the storage in and outflow from lac Seul in the best interests of both provinces.
Other amendments required in the act cover minor changes caused by the amendment to Section 2.
I have been very precise in my statement of the historical background of this amendment to the Lake of the Woods Control Board Act. I would like, if I may, to make the house aware of the significance of what has happened between the two provinces, Manitoba and Ontario. Here we have the

very pleasant circumstances of two provinces, with rivers originating in one province and flowing into the other province, getting together, pooling their resources and working out a mutual deal which gives a great advantage to both provinces. I think this sets a precedent for other provinces and, if necessary, to states of the union, whereby provinces and countries enjoying the waters of the same river basin, by pooling their efforts, can achieve a fair division and a much greater return by their co-operation than they could by working separately.
To those who are not familiar with this area-and I except the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson)-


John Whitney Pickersgill: And also for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -the situation is somewhat as follows: The Lake of the Woods is, I believe, the tenth largest fresh water lake in the world. Rainy river and other short rivers flow into this Lake of the Woods and the water moves northward along the western boundary of Ontario and goes into the Winnipeg river which, in turn, is joined downstream by the English river. The English river derives its waters to some extent from Eagle lake, but mostly from the lac Seul system and, in 1928, when they added the lac Seul system to the Lake of the Woods, they pooled the two basins under the one control authority, which meant that this control board had jurisdiction over the levels of water for the areas not only of the Lake of the Woods but also of the lac Seul basin, which waters flow into the same river as the waters of Lake of the Woods, and its tributary, namely the Winnipeg river.
If the maximum power is to be achieved by spreading the flow of this storage over the year there must be very careful control and synchronization of the flow of waters out of these river basins. This has worked for over 30 years in so far as the Lake of the Woods is concerned and for 20 years in so far as lac Seul and the Lake of the Woods are concerned. An historic occasion has now occurred in that they have gone into a new river basin, one which flows into the Hudson bay and, by putting in a diversion or a dam, they have been able to direct the water of the Albany river system back into the lac Seul system and from there into the English river and into the Winnipeg river, thereby creating tremendously increased storage. This has given to the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba increased power at much lower cost than would have been provided by working alone.
I may say in pointing out the significance of this diversion that if the water levels at lac 57071-3-131J
9, 1958	2067
Lake of the Woods Control Board Seul are high and they did not need the water in the lake St. Joseph region, they could let the water flow back down through the Albany river. The result of all this planning on the parts of the governments of Ontario and Manitoba has made it possible, as I said before, not only for larger amounts of power to be available but for the provision of cheaper power and much firmer power over the whole year.
It has, of course, brought the federal government into the picture because, if you bring in water from other drainage basins in an area such as lake Winnipeg which is already draining the Lake of the Woods and lac Seul, then you add to the water supply of lake Winnipeg and regions below. Naturally the interests of the people of the lake Winnipeg area and those areas below it must be protected. There is the question of flood damage control as well as the question of power, which must be considered, and the technique of protecting these people downstream is covered by holding back the river and the lakes and the storage basins higher up. This is where the interest of the federal government comes in.
The boundary between the United States of America and Canada runs along the Rainy river and cuts off the southwestern corner of the Lake of the Woods, the lowlying lands on the south shores of the Lake of the Woods and, likewise in the United States, the banks of the Rainy river. Therefore, if the level of the water in the Lake of the Woods were to go high enough, under our convention with the United States of America dated 1925 and under the over-all jurisdiction of the international joint commission and the administration by the international board of control this control of the area is taken from the Lake of the Woods control board, which is made up of Canadians, and shifted over to an international board. That is the means whereby our international responsibilities are carried out under this act and I mention this to the house to make absolutely certain that everyone understands that we are fulfilling our international obligations by means of this control.
The bill has been in the hands of hon. members for some time and by reading through these amendments they will be able to judge the importance of them in dealing with the aspect of the changing composition of the board. Most of these changes relate to the lieutenant governor of Manitoba and the only significant change is the one in the third amendment where a new subsection is added.


William Moore Benidickson: That is 3 (c).


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, 3 (c).
2068	HOUSE OF
Lake of the Woods Control Board
I intend to read it in order to put it into the records of the house. It is as follows:
To regulate and control the flow of waters Into lac Seul through the lake St. Joseph diversion works when the level of lac Seul rises above the following elevations in any year, namely, 1168 feet in the period commencing the 1st day of February and ending the 31st day of May, 1170 feet in the period commencing the 1st day of July and ending the 31st day of December and 1169 feet in the months of January and June.
These levels are the levels on lac Seul and are, therefore, under the direction and control of the Canadian section of the Lake of the Woods control board. But as I said earlier, when the water level of the Lake of the Woods rises above a certain point control goes to the international board. I think these are the significant things in the amendment.
I might say a word or two about the proportion of the members on the board. Traditionally there have always been two federal members and two from Ontario. However, as the house may recall, in 1930 Manitoba won back control of its natural resources, but we continued to administer the levels of storage in the Lake of the Woods area even though this did affect the resources of Manitoba. It is only common justice we are doing now in giving Manitoba a voice on that board. We certainly have to maintain our voice in order to protect our international interest and, naturally, Ontario, with most of the water in its area, has the right to two members. Both in Manitoba and Ontario, the provincial legislatures have in their latest sessions, passed legislation similar to this in order to make the composition of this new board possible.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, without wishing to hold up the house, I think it would be appropriate for me, as representing the area which chiefly supplies this watershed to which the minister has referred, to say a few words.
I am sure it gives the minister a great deal of satisfaction to introduce this bill and to speak to it in the very informed manner in which he has, because while he showed modesty in not telling the house that he was born within this domain I am sure it is a matter of pride to him that this was the case. It was also pleasant that while we were discussing this subject the hon. member who is my deskmate should have remarked to me that we were discussing here the most wonderful inland waterway in the world. I am quoting the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) who reminds me that he first became acquainted with this area two years after the Lake of the Woods Control Board Act had been introduced in this house.
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .3


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And he comes from Manitoba, of course.


William Moore Benidickson: And he comes from Manitoba as did I. One cannot, of course, in any way feel that the new composition of the board is not a desirable one, irrespective of the birthplace of either the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate or myself. Our neighbours to the west, in Manitoba, have a great interest in the water levels in the area.
During the committee stage I should like to ask the minister a question or two, because although he is new in the department I am sure he has already informed himself on all these matters. I would point out that there did occur in the Lake of the Woods area in 1950 a certain amount of dissatisfaction which was never cleared up with respect to flooding which occurred in that year. I should like to find out, during the committee stage, to what extent people who have land rights on the lakes which have been referred to will be protected irrespective of the change in the composition of the board. I am of the opinion, and perhaps the minister when he speaks later on would indicate whether or not he agrees with me, that such people are perhaps better protected than they were before as a result of the diversion that was made possible last year providing to the power users in Manitoba via the Winnipeg river an alternative source of water flow by means of the diversion from lac St. Joseph and lac Seul. In other words, there would no longer be sole dependence on water-flow from the Lake of the Woods, and in consequence we might not have the same feeling, in the area where people reside, in Fort Frances and on the Rainy lake and in Kenora, and on the Lake of the Woods, and Minaki as we had in 1950, that because our waters were necessary to provide power further downstream in Manitoba the board might at times disregard residents' land and shore rights so far as water levels above are concerned.
I think that is all I am anxious to say at this stage; I have a few questions to ask on the sections of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 1-Establishment of the board.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two questions I should like to address to the minister. Is he able to inform the committee as to the investment that was made in the canal and dam which provides the diversion from lac Seul? Secondly, as he informed the house, this bill had its first reading some weeks ago. I wonder whether

during the interval he has received any objections from the public and if so whether he would indicate from what source. Then I am concerned about the fact that this is a board composed of four people. Has the chairman, who it is stated will be a federal representative, any over-riding authority if there should be a tie in the voting? Finally, would the minister indicate to the committee the responsibility of the authority with respect to sharing claims for damages that might result from flooding in the area.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, there is one question I should like to deal with first, namely, how are the land rights protected under the new legislation? The answer is that there is no additional protection of land rights under the new legislation, which is simply an amendment to give Manitoba membership on the board as well as allowing for the taking in of this new area under the Lake of the Woods Control Board Act. I would point out to the hon. member something which he knows, that this year with low water probable in the Lake of the Woods the position is strengthened by the fact that the diversion from the Albany will give additional water which is required so much in the Lake of the Woods.
As I understand the working out of the Lake of the Woods control board, they meet and they do receive information on the amounts of snow and all the other information, and from that they try to guide their decision in letting out the water.
As the hon. member has recognized, this is purely a matter of power between the two provinces of Ontario and Manitoba.


William Moore Benidickson: Which power is now integrated.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, their
flows are integrated.


William Moore Benidickson: There are connected
transmission lines.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, there is an interconnection between them. The federal responsibility is navigation and with the levels affecting international obligations.
As I understand it, as far as land rights are concerned, the hon. member is thinking of the people upstream who are trying to get enough water in front of their property to operate.


William Moore Benidickson: I probably should have said this. As the minister knows, we have here a most important resort area, one of the most important in Canada. I suppose one can conceive of people having damage as a result of having their shoreline damaged
Lake of the Woods Control Board owing to inadequate amounts of water as a result of some artificial interference with the rights that were there when they took the properties over. Are there rights for individuals who might suffer as a result of water being too low owing to a decision reached by the board?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was right in my first statement. Under the Lake of the Woods Control Board Act they do have certain levels, maximums and minimums. When there is a maximum the international board takes over and when there is a minimum they have to stop draining the lake.
As far as we know in the department the only recourse that any person has who has land rights is to go to law and sue. I suppose the government of Ontario, or the government of Manitoba, as the case may be,- in this case it is the government of Ontario 

is the interested party. I am very sorry, I cannot answer these legal questions. My deputy knows no more about it than I do.


William Moore Benidickson: My recollection is not necessarily good on this but I do recall that we had damage claims again about 1937. My recollection is that they were due to flooding but that there was a federal contribution at that time. The claims were probably assessed by a provincial organization but a contribution was paid by the federal government. That is why I asked the question as to the percentage of the responsibility for damage claims in practice or by law under this board.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member has information which is not available to us at the moment. As I understand it, he has said that there were claims for damages in 1937 in which the federal government participated. We know nothing about that in the department.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister did not yet
reply to the question as to whether or not there had been any objections received by him to the bill since it was given first reading and became public knowledge.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There are two questions that I would like to answer at the one time. We have had no complaints from anybody on this bill. Of course, the two governments concerned have passed enabling legislation.
The hon. member asked another question earlier on which I was trying to get some information. He asked, if there was a division of opinion between Ontario and Manitoba, how would the board members vote. As a matter of fact, as I understand it, if there is a clash between Ontario and Manitoba they

Lake of the Woods Control Board do not vote. Manitoba and Ontario have separate agreements of their own which laydown conditions of downstream benefits, proportions of contributions, damages, and so on.
I was looking through my file and I have not in my file a copy of that regulation. However, here is a copy of the agreement. This is included in the new bill from Ontario and is dated 1958. Section 18 of the agreement between Ontario and Manitoba reads:
Manitoba and the board shall indemnify and save harmless Ontario and the commission of, from and against any and all loss, costs and damages to which Ontario or the commission shall be put or shall suffer arising or resulting in any manner whatsoever within the province of Manitoba from the introduction into the Winnipeg river of the diverted water to the extent permitted by this agreement, and Ontario and the commission shall indemnify and save harmless Manitoba and the board of, from and against any and all loss, costs and damages to which Manitoba or the board shall be put or shall suffer arising or resulting in any manner whatsoever within the province of Ontario from the introduction into lac Seul, the English river and the Winnipeg river of the diverted water as permitted by this agreement or the diversion of such water from lake St. Joseph and its normal water courses.
This is the agreement which was included in the bill in Ontario. As I understand it, each one saves harmless the other when the damage is owing to their respective actions.


William Moore Benidickson: Will the minister make a comment as to whether or not there is likely less mutuality now or more since the diversion from lake St. Joseph? Formerly there were many people in Ontario who might have suffered damage as a result of the board's decision because of the pressures that would be made by the power interest in Manitoba. Would he say now that because of the diversion and the integration of power made available in the two areas perhaps the English river power development in Ontario and the Winnipeg river power development in Manitoba are now more mutually interested in the whole? Perhaps henceforth in the two provinces there is not the same rivalry or differences?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the hon. member has put it very well. This agreement between the two provinces ends long years of difficulties between them and particularly this concept of the downstream party recognizing that by moneys spent for storage and facilities in the other party's area, the upstream area, they achieve downstream benefits and they contribute part of the advantage back in the form of extra power- whatever the agreement calls for-to the other party. In other words, they share the downstream advantages. I think by working together, as they have done in this case, as I have gathered from discussing this with the

men who helped draft the agreement, even though the federal government is not interested in the details of the agreement but only in the international responsibilities, this ranks as one of the best examples in Canada of two parties working together to share downstream benefits not only to produce more power cheaply for both of them but also to give firmer power over the whole area.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time? Now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



LAKEHEAD HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS


George Harris Hees: the second reading of Bill No. C-26, to incorporate the lakehead harbour commissioners.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister make a statement?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works have for some time had representations brought to their attention urging the construction of a modern freight terminus at Port Arthur and Fort William with seaway depths from which freight might be unloaded from ship to both railway cars and motor trucks for local, northern and western distribution. Accordingly, last October an investigation was made by engineers and economists of the two departments of the harbour development at these two cities.
It was found that the freight terminals operated by the Canadian Pacific railway in Fort William and the Canadian National Railways in Port Arthur are obsolete, that there is no facility for unloading to motor transport and that seaway depth of 27 feet could not be provided at the berths because the foundations of the wharves would not permit additional dredging.
A recommendation was made that a new, modern terminus be constructed to handle all types of traffic and that the management of this terminus should be placed in the hands of harbour commissioners. This proposal was supported by the governments of

Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur, Canadian National Railways and the Canadian trucking associations incorporated.
The city of Port Arthur has some 180 acres adjoining its boundary with Fort William and located on the waterfront, together with an equal area of water lot property. The city of Fort William has a small parcel adjoining this site, a relatively large water lot area and approximately 200 acres on the lakeward side of island No. 2. Both cities have agreed to make the property available to the commissioners for harbour development. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) announced in the house on June 6 that a consulting firm has been retained to carry out surveys and prepare plans for a lakehead harbour terminal estimated to cost $3 million to $4 million. The logical site for the terminus, if soil investigation proves its suitability, is astride the boundary between the two cities. The commissioners would also have harbour dues and water lot lease revenues, which last year amounted to $12,000 and $1,800 respectively.
The bill to incorporate a body to manage the harbours of Port Arthur and Fort William as one harbour, to be known as the lakehead harbour commissioners, is the logical forward step in the increased development that is expected upon completion of the St. Lawrence seaway. It is important not only to the immediate area but also as a distribution point that will serve the prairie provinces.
The bill is similar to the one passed in April, 1957, to incorporate the harbour commissioners for Windsor, Ontario, with the exception that as both Port Arthur and Fort William should have representation both city councils will each appoint one commissioner and three commissioners will be appointed by the governor in council. The commissioners will have jurisdiction over all the harbour fronting both the cities and, as is the case with the Windsor harbour, revenues remaining over the operating expenses, etc., will be paid to the receiver general.
I might say that when the bill is given second reading it is my intention to move that it be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I am sure the bill will commend itself to the house as a forward step in the development and expansion of traffic through the lakehead.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed with a great deal of pleasure that I welcome the introduction of Bill No. C-26 which will enable the establishment of a harbour commission for the lake-head and, what is more important of course, the construction of harbour installations
Lakehead Harbour Commissioners which will provide facilities for ocean-going vessels. I welcome the statement of the minister because as far as Fort William and Port Arthur are concerned it is good news.
Fort William, being the largest city in northwestern Ontario, will be one of the principal beneficiaries. By saying so I do not wish to minimize the importance of the city of Port Arthur. As a matter of fact, by common consent with my friend, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), we look upon each city as being equal.
The coming of the St. Lawrence seaway will bring the oceans of the world to the door of this mid-continental heartland 1,250 miles from the city of Montreal. In its two cities, seven towns, 25 organized townships and 11 improvement districts live approximately 200,000 persons. They comprise but one-twenty-fifth of the population of the province of Ontario but inhabit more than half the province representing about one person per square mile.
In the speedy pace of the economic development of Canada during the past decade or since the war northwestern Ontario has achieved much. In gross production, in development of resources and industrial development it has made great strides. Its contribution to the national production has been estimated at more than $250 million annually. Yet this great area of immense potentiality and great promise is known little by the rest of Canada.
The lakehead ports of Fort William and Port Arthur handle upward of 11 million tons of freight each year, which is a greater tonnage than the combined freight cargo of Toronto and Hamilton. No accurate assessment can be made at the present time of the increase in tonnage after the seaway is in operation. An expansion is expected, but it will depend upon various factors such as the coastal trading regulations; seaway tolls; great lakes pilots and wage rates paid to seamen, which will definitely influence costs to foreign ships.
The grain trade is an international business, competitive on a world-wide basis. Consequently grain freight rates are protected at a low level by statute, and doubtless any burden placed upon this trade by harbour dues or tolls would be considered unwise.
I am not over-enthusiastic about the imposition of tolls. Before a definite policy is established in this regard it will be necessary to make a detailed study of the situation, especially when we are dealing with grain shipments and other price-sensitive commodities.
The movement of grain varies from year to year according to crop conditions, but
2072	HOUSE OF
Lakehead Harbour Commissioners especially in the light of world demand and supply and other market conditions. From time to time our 25 terminal elevators, and I am including all the elevators at the lake-head within the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William with their combined capacity of 93 million bushels, are not cleared promptly enough to prevent congestion.
The ore shipments from the Steep Rock iron mines are expected to reach 10 million tons by 1960 and be worth considerably more than $100 million or nearly four times the value of the 1956 production. The Steep Rock area is, in fact, a range rather than a mine and further exploration is expected to reveal an additional hundreds of millions of tons of rich ore to supply this continent for generations to come.
Then, there is the package goods trade of which fully 90 per cent is consigned to Winnipeg and the west, hence the interest of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta in the establishment of harbour facilities at the lakehead. The present freight sheds owned by the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canada Steamship Lines, as pointed out by the minister, are old and were not built to handle boat and highway truck traffic for which there was no need when these facilities were built.
Our geographical location, our grain and grain products, iron ore, pulp and paper, wood products, coal, oil and general cargo traffic, as well as our fast growing industries, are all reasons for the need of speedy development of our harbour. This bill is designed to set up a harbour commission for the purpose of operating facilities which will be constructed by the Department of Public Works, and which will serve the lakehead and western Canada for many years to come. There is a point or two that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. Section 6 of the bill reads:
Each commissioner appointed by the governor in council shall hold office during pleasure for such term not exceeding three years as is fixed by the governor in council, and at the expiration of his term of office may be reappointed.
There is no provision for the appointment of a new member in the case of death or resignation or for the reappointment of a commissioner at the expiration of the term of office. I feel that reappointment should be subject to the approval of the city council of the city concerned.
Then, section 10 reads:
Subject to this act, the corporation has jurisdiction within the limits of the harbour, but nothing in this act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I would remind the hon. member that we are debating second reading and it is the principle of the bill that is the subject of discussion. It would be appropriate to discuss the clauses of the bill in committee.


Hubert Badanai: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just going to go over some of the paragraphs, but I shall have the privilege of speaking when the bill comes before the committee.
In any event, I should like to say this. It seems to me that the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur, who will contribute the land sites free of charge to the commission, should be placed in a position to share in any revenues that may be available at the end of each fiscal year. The bill does not make any such provision, and I think I am in order in saying that.
May I conclude by saying that if the government, as I believe it will, will give the lakehead harbour facilities befitting the potentialities of the district of Thunder bay, I want to assure them that the Liberals of the lakehead will thank the government; the Conservatives will thank the government and the C.C.F.'ers will thank the government and too, will thank the minister.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I believe, Mr. Speaker, in giving credit where credit is due and there is much credit due the government in this regard. If I might review history for a few minutes, I think you will see the point. We had an election on June 10, and as one involved in the campaign I often had the question thrown up to me: You know, if you are elected you are going to be in the opposition, so what could you possibly do for Port Arthur? What would the government possibly do for Port Arthur with you as a member, especially when we have such a distinguished cabinet minister as Mr. Howe? Well, Mr. Howe went, and I think it is worthwhile pointing out that Mr. Howe was not an advocate of this particular piece of legislation introduced by the government. His attitude, linked with that of Senator Paterson who is head of the Paterson Steamship Lines, was that the seaway development was going to be a long, slow process, and that at that time the lakehead did have facilities in charge of the railways which seemed adequate. There was no rush.
I recall during the election campaign that the Free Press, just before it switched to Howe after being against him for a while, had a cartoon in which Mr. Howe was depicted as sitting under a great big umbrella, and the umbrella was labelled "safe seat". Off in the distance somebody was fooling around with some harbour developments, but

Mr. Howe was ignoring the whole thing. After the last election this government began to show an interest in the protests which were launched by Mr. Jobin-I think he should be given credit-and the importunities of the Saskatchewan government. They felt it was quite possible the lakehead area was going to fall behind the United States lakehead area, that is Duluth and Superior, in being ready for this particular situation. The local people, therefore, rallied, and the member who previously spoke, as the mayor of the city of Fort William, and the council of the city of Port Arthur, began to get interested and this whole pattern began to develop.
But I must say again that we would not get really definitive action until there was a move by the government and the Minister of Transport was able to talk to the representatives of the cities, to the chambers of commerce, to the government officials of Manitoba, to listen to representations from other places in the west and to decide to go ahead with the bill.
In the last election campaign before March 31 again I was out on the hustings and people were saying: Now that Howe is gone, the main thing to do is to have another link in the Diefenbaker chain; why elect an opposition member to parliament which is all you will be. We will get such things as the lake-head harbour commission only in that way. As the minister and maybe some of the members of this house can gather, in the next electoral campaign, if I should be around fighting it, I shall have the opportunity of pointing to this magnificent terminal dock and of saying: Having an opposition member is not against you; these are the things you get for being an opposition member. So figuring on this election campaign four years from now, if I have the opportunity I shall be able gratefully to refer to this contribution to the lakehead economy and the economy of the whole country that the minister has introduced.
I have a few minor points that I want to make in detail but I will do that in committee, Mr. Speaker. Again I want to give credit where credit is due; and a great deal of it is due to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) for the part which was played by him and to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) in this matter. I hope it is a real indication that merit triumphs over everything in judging these particular cases.
As I sit down I should like to say that maybe there is an indication in this fact that we are going to have a board that operates and brings the two cities together. This may be an indication of what the mayor of Fort William, the hon. member for Fort William
Supp ly-A griculture
(Mr. Badanai), has sought in the past. This may be an indication that eventually we are going to move to amalgamation and that within a very short time the Canadian lakehead can become one of the largest cities in Canada rather than remain, as is the situation at the present time, two cities that really in essence are one social and economic unit.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration Service-
1. Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $674,164.
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I have had the opportunity of presenting the estimates of the Department of Agriculture to the committee. I do not intend to contribute to delaying their rapid passage through the committee by making a long speech. However, I think perhaps I should say something about the general situation of agriculture, particularly during the past year. It has been a year which has been marked by some difference in trends from the previous year and some of these I should like to draw attention to in particular.
Despite marketing problems associated with some agricultural products in 1957, the year was a reasonably successful one for Canadian agriculture. Farm cash income declined slightly from the 1956 level but it was $47 million higher than the average for the ten-year period 1948-1957 and higher than the amount realized in five years out of this ten-year period.
Smaller prairie grain crops were mainly responsible for the slight decline in farm cash income last year. In comparison with many recent years, growing conditions on the prairies were far from ideal. Although spring came early and the crop was planted in good time, cool weather in late spring and early summer retarded growth and plant development.
Over much of the region periods of extremely hot July weather, coupled with drying winds, inadequate moisture, and widely ranging hail storms resulted in reduced yields. These lower returns were only partly offset by higher returns from the sale of livestock and dairy products.
In contrast to the prairies, the rest of Canada in 1957 experienced generally excellent growing conditions for small grains,

Supply-Agriculture
and most yields were well above recent averages. In Nova Scotia, unusually dry weather resulted in a hay shortage.
Perhaps the outstanding development in export trade last year occurred in the livestock industry. Despite the fact that domestic consumption of beef was at a record high level, about 21 per cent of commercial marketings in 1957 were exported as live cattle or beef. This represents a substantial increase in export trade, compared with only 4 per cent of total marketings in 1956. In the first quarter of this year-that is 1958-exports of cattle and beef were the equivalent of about 29 per cent of commercial marketings.
Another interesting feature of the agricultural export trade picture is that Canada has been the only one of the four major wheat exporting countries-that is the United States, Australia, Argentina and Canada-to have exports of wheat and flour in the current crop year at a higher level than in the same period a year earlier.
Exports of agricultural products in general this year are running about 12 per cent above those in the corresponding period last year, something which I think is a very encouraging sign indeed as far as the general agricultural picture is concerned in Canada in 1958.
On a regional basis, farm cash income was about the same in 1957 as in 1956 in Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia, but lower in all other provinces.
The index of the physical volume of agricultural production-with 1935-39 being taken as ioo-dropped to 130.5 from 169.2 the previous year, a very large decline in production. The sharpest declines were in the grain growing provinces. The fact that the decline in cash income was so small indicates better prices for many products. However, when grains and other field crops are taken into consideration, the general index of farm prices was slightly lower, dropping to 209.2 from 213.2.
The farm price situation has improved steadily in late 1957 and 1958, to a considerable extent I think since this government came into office and instituted new policies in connection with agriculture. Preliminary dominion bureau of statistics estimates place the index of farm prices of agricultural products at 240.7 in April compared with 237.1 in March. April is the fifth consecutive month witnessing a rise in the index. In other words, in the past six months the general level of agricultural prices has been upward.


Mr. Argue:: Will the minister permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does he happen to have with him cost of production statistics for the same period, or the cost of production index?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No; I have not that at the moment.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the minister know whether that index is higher than the index of agricultural prices based on the 1930 average?


Douglas Scott Harkness: During the period which I have just outlined, namely the last six months, there has been very little change. I have in my hand a list of selected commodities, which includes most of the main items produced in Canada and which gives the prices for the first week of June, 1957 as compared with the first week of June, 1958. It indicates the situation in general this year as compared with the situation in the first week of June last year so far as farm prices are concerned, as follows: Cattle, good steers at Toronto, in 1957 were selling at $19.88 per cwt. and in 1958 at $24 per cwt.; hogs, grade A in Toronto, were $32.25 in 1957 and $34.50 in 1958; lambs in Toronto were $22 in 1957 and $24 in 1958; creamery butter, Canada first grade, Montreal, was 57 cents as compared with 63 cents; cheddar cheese in Ontario, f.o.b. warehouse, was 34 cents per pound as compared with 35 cents per pound and cheddar cheese in Quebec was 33 i cents per pound as compared with 32J cents per pound; eggs, grade A large, at grading stations to wholesalers in Montreal, were 40 cents in 1957 as compared with 46 cents in 1958; in Halifax they were 38 cents as compared with 40 cents; in Toronto 36 cents as compared with 44 cents and in Winnipeg 37 cents as compared with 39 cents; turkeys, live No. 1, 10 to 20 pounds, Montreal, were 30 cents to 31 cents per pound in 1957 as compared with 34 to 35 cents per pound in 1958; fowl, live No. 1, 5 pounds and over at Toronto, were 19 to 20 cents per pound as compared with 23 to 24 cents per pound this year; potatoes, Canada No. 1, wholesale New Brunswick at Montreal, 75-pound bag, $1.65 to $1.75 in 1957 compared with $1.40 to $1.50 in 1958.
I would like the house to note the difference as an indication of the situation in the potato markets. Potatoes No. 1 in Manitoba, at Winnipeg, a 75-pound bag, in 1957 were 70 cents to $1 while in 1958 they were $3 to $3.50. This is one of the products in which we have a great variation from one part of the country to the other and from one market to another.
Wheat, Ontario No. 1, mixed winter wheat at shipping points, $1.34 per bushel last year compared with $1.51 per bushel this year; wheat No. 1 Northern, in store Fort William,

$1.63 per bushel in 1957 and $1.60i in 1958. This is one of the few cases in which there has been a drop in price.
Oats, Ontario No. 2, 60 cents last year and 64 cents this year; oats, No. 2 C.W.-these are western oats-domestic and export in store at Fort William and Port Arthur, 75 cents a bushel last year and 75J cents a bushel this year; barley, Ontario, 75 cents last year compared with 80 cents this year; barley, No. 3 C.W., in store Fort William and Port Arthur, $1.16 compared with $1.11 this year-another case in which there has been a drop.
Flax seed, No. 1 C.W., Winnipeg grain exchange, in store at Fort William and Port Arthur, $2.40 last year and $3.02 this year. These prices will give the committee some idea of the changes which have taken place; in nearly all cases the change has been upwards. It is as good an illustration as I know of what has happened during the past year as far as the prices of agricultural products are concerned.
As I have said, I think a great deal of the improvement has been as the result of policies followed by this government, including the introduction of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. This act, as most hon. members of the committee know, was the successor of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, and it went into effect on March 3 this year, having been approved by the last parliament at the end of January. There were a number of important changes from the old act; a formula was included for establishing a base price for any agricultural commodities. The board was commissioned to set up a price support on nine stated commodities at a level equivalent to at least 80 per cent of the base price, including cattle, hogs, sheep, eggs, butter, cheese, oats, wheat and barley, outside of designated Canadian wheat board areas.
For these nine commodities a support price was to be announced for a 12-month period and for any others that might be named the act indicated a one year period but allowed time limits if it should be felt necessary to meet a particular situation. This has been found necessary in the case of fruit and vegetables and the provision was included in the act to make it possible to handle these commodities when emergency situations arose.
An advisory board of farmers or representatives from farm organizations was appointed and the general intention of the act was to stabilize prices in order to help agriculture receive fair returns. Fifty million dollars was added to the revolving fund available for price stabilization, raising the total to $250 million. A considerable number of commodities have been stabilized under this act and the government has so far authorized 16
Supply-Agriculture
products in addition to turkeys and potatoes which were authorized under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, which meant a total of 18 commodities under support of the stabilization act. The percentage of the base price at which these 16 commodities are supported is as follows:
Commodity	Percentage
Butter	 107
Cheddar cheese	 110
Dry skimmed milk	 107
Hogs	 84
Steers	 80
Lambs	 80
Wool	 110
Eggs	 85
Wheat	 80
Oats	 80
Barley	 80
Sugar beets	 93
Soybeans	 90
B.C. tomatoes	 112
Asparagus	 86
Raspberries
(In frozen pack)	 102
(In So2 pack)	 91
I have given these percentages to the committee because statements have been made in this house that prices were being stabilized at the minimum provided under the act. The majority of commodities for which a stabilized price has been announced has been supported at a price considerably above the minimum provided for and in a large number of cases considerably above the base price which is the average price for the last ten years. As I have stated, this means that there is a total of 18 commodities presently under some form of support program as compared with a maximum of six at any one time prior to June, 1957. In other words, we have under support at the present time three times as many commodities as had the previous government at any time under the old act.
Ever since taking office, of course, this government has received a large number of demands which have been in existence for many years past with respect to protection for Canadian agriculture. There are a number of reasons why Canadian agriculture needs protection, five of which are as follows:
1.	The short growing season.
2.	The long period during which livestock must be housed and fed.
3.	A production season that follows peak production in the United States.
4.	Long east-west hauls to market centres.
5.	Greater exposure to competition from imports than is experienced by manufactured goods.
These reasons, then, account for the unfavourable position of agriculture compared with other segments of the economy, and explain why this government recognizes the need for greater protection.

Supply-Agriculture
There are several ways to give this protection without resorting to subsidies or forms of direct government expenditure. Authority is provided under the Customs Act to fix a fair market value for imports of any product from countries, other than those in the commonwealth, if their importation causes injury to Canadian producers. Valuations made under this authority apply for the purpose of assessing special dumping duties, which are added to the ordinary duties. Other means of protection would include tariff quotas, import controls, and establishment of state monopolies such as the Canadian wheat board.
I may say in this connection that there has been a very wide demand in the past year for the imposition of fair value for duty particularly on a wide range of fruit and vegetables. Under the GATT agreement we have to make out a case before fair value for duty can be declared and in a large number of these instances it has not been possible to make out a case which would justify making use of fair value for duty.
I should say something more with regard to exports, and go into a little more detail. Exports of agricultural products in 1957 amounted to $909 million. This was a little lower than the $1,013 million of the year before but higher than in 1954 and 1955. Agricultural exports continued to make up about 20 per cent of total commodity exports. Figures for the first five months of this year show that agricultural exports are continuing at a high level, running about 12 per cent above those in the corresponding period last year.
As stated earlier, Canada has been the only one of the four major wheat exporting countries to have exports of wheat and flour in the current crop year at a higher level than in the same period a year earlier. From last August 1 up to the end of March this year Canada exported 194 million bushels of wheat compared with 176 million in the corresponding period last year, an increase of about 10 per cent. Total wheat exports from all four countries were about 23 per cent lower in the August-March period this crop year than last. Canada has also increased her share of the total wheat trade, supplying 36 per cent of total wheat exports from the four countries compared with 25 per cent in the year earlier.
I think this increase in our wheat exports is one of the most favourable features as far as agriculture is concerned.


Mr. Pearson:: Could the minister tell us how much of that increase is due to gifts and long-term credit under the Colombo plan?
[Mr. Harkness.l


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have not the breakdown in figures available at the moment but the actual exports for cash were considerably higher during this period than in the same period a year earlier; our total share of the world cash trade was very much larger than it was a year ago.
Legislation proclaimed last November 25 provided for making cash advances on a quota of farm-stored grain in western Canada-50 cents a bushel for wheat, 20 cents for oats and 35 cents for barley. This materially aided the cash position of western farmers and the whole Canadian economy last winter and spring.
Now I should like to say something about a few other major commodities. First, cattle. Cattle represent, probably, the brightest spot in the last six or seven months in the entire agricultural picture.


Mr. Gour:: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Cattle and calves at June 1, 1957, numbered 11.3 million, 2.6 per cent more than in 1956, and an all time record. Net marketings-total less feeders returned to farms for further feeding-reached a record of 2.3 million head, an increase of 17 per cent over 1956. The record rate of output continued in the first quarter of 1958 when 602,000 head were marketed, a rise of 30 per cent over the first quarter of 1957. In other words, marketing has continued to increase so that it is 30 per cent higher in the first quarter of this year than in the first quarter of last year. Canadians consumed an average of 75 pounds of beef per person, slightly more than in 1956. This compared with a per person consumption of 55 pounds in 1935-39, and 60 pounds in 1946-50. The improvement in our cattle position has been due to a great extent to the fact that Canadians are eating more beef. That demand has meant better prices, of course, and also the possibility of greater production.
Although Canadians consumed a large proportion of the beef that was produced, about 21 per cent of commercial marketings were exported either as live cattle or beef, in 1957, compared with only 4 per cent of the total in 1956. In the first quarter of 1958 exports of cattle and beef were the equivalent of 175,000 head about 29 per cent of commercial marketings.
Some 376,000 head of cattle were exported in 1957, seven times as many as in 1956. The movement increased spectacularly in the last half of the year owing mainly to heavy sales of feeders to United States buyers. This heavy buying continued in the

first quarter of 1958 with 141,000 head being exported, compared with only 8,000 head in the first quarter of 1957.
Exports of beef in 1957 amounted to 48.5 million pounds and were 13.8 million pounds in 1956. Exports of beef in the first quarter of 1958 continued to be large and totalled 15.7 million pounds compared with 2.9 million pounds in 1957.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the house what the business is for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we will begin with budget resolutions, taking first the one having to do with succession duties and then, if these resolutions should go through, we will take the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
Business of the House


Lionel Chevrier: Do I take it that once the resolution on succession duties is through, if it gets through tomorrow, we will not consider other budgetary resolutions?


Howard Charles Green: Oh no, we will go on with the other budget resolutions. Probably the second one will be the resolutions concerning income tax.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the leader of the house tell us what the business is likely to be on Friday?


Howard Charles Green: We expect it will be either budget resolutions or agriculture estimates. I am not sure at the moment which will be called first.


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

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

Mr. Macnaughion: 1.	Have full and detailed plans regarding space to be allocated to air line companies in the new Dorval terminal building, under construction, been submitted to the said companies?
2.	Have details as to the rental costs of such space been submitted to the said air line companies for consideration?
3.	Has the Department of Transport any plans for alleviating the shortage of restaurant facilities, both in the present domestic and international terminals?
4.	Will the Minister of Transport consider giving the public full details of the new terminal building at Dorval by exhibiting plans and drawings in a public place?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	Minimum costs have been indicated to the air line companies. Actual rental costs are under study and will be communicated to the air lines as soon as studies are completed.
3.	The department expects to let a contract shortly for a temporary addition to the transAtlantic building (international terminal). This will alleviate restaurant facilities at this building.
4.	Perspective drawings of the building and floor plan layouts have already had newspaper publication. Enlarged plans of the building, for exhibition in a public place, are in the process of preparation but completion has to be deferred until completion of other urgent construction drawings.


MARINE RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION, CARAQUET AND SHIPPEGAN, N.B.
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has the Minister of Public Works received any official representations or requests from the government of the province of New Brunswick, since
3.

G. H. Montminy Inc.
Theriault & Beland J. O. Lambert Inc.
Barnabe & Fils Freres Jobin Inc.
Cimota Construction Corporation Ltd. J. E. Verreault & Sons Ltd.
Benjamin Robidas Emile Frenette Ltd.
C. Jobin Ltd.
June 10, 1957, requesting financial assistance for the construction of a marine railway or haul-up at Caraquet or Shippegan, Gloucester county, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, has any decision been reached in this regard?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):
1.	Representations were made prior to June 10, 1957. Since that date the Department of Public Works continued its consideration of the request until September, 1957, when arrangements were concluded to have the marine haul-out constructed by private interests.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


LEVEL CROSSING PROTECTION, DOLLARD COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Rouleau: Since June 10, 1957, has the Minister of Transport or the board of transport commissioners received representations from Mr. Maurice Cousineau, mayor of St. Laurent, on the island of Montreal, requesting adequate protection at railway level crossings in the county of Dollard?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
No.


POST OFFICE BUILDING, PLESSISVILLE, QUE.
Mr. Roberge: 1.	On what date was the last call for tenders made in connection with a post office building at Plessisville, Quebec?
2.	On what date were the tenders opened?
3.	What are the names and addresses of those who requested plans and specifications?
4.	What are the names and addresses of those who submitted tenders and what was the amount in each case?
5.	Was the contract awarded?
6.	If so, on what date and to whom?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):
1.	April 29, 1958.
2.	June 11, 1958.


ADDRESS
[Stage Direction]
5	Richelieu, Quebec, P.Q.
1065 avenue Holland, Quebec, P.Q.
6	Garagonthier, Quebec, P.Q.
1205 2ieme avenue, Quebec, P.Q.
925 Ste. Therese, Quebec, P.Q.
128 blvd Ste. Anne, Giffard, P.Q.
1250 3rd avenue, Quebec, P.Q.
164 rue Dumoulin, Drummondville, P.Q. 225 St. Laurent, Quebec, P.Q.
Centre Industriel No. 5, Quebec, P.Q.
[Stage Direction]

Questions

[Stage Direction]
Laflamme & Lafleur Vincent Frere Ltd.
L.	P. Pare Emile Lefebvre
Eastern Canada Steel & Iron Works Ltd. Canadian Pittsburg Industries Ltd. Beaudet & Fils Magloire Cauchon Ltd.
S.	Savoie Ltd.
M.	Lionel Henri M. Alphonse Theriault Wm. Lavallee Construction Ltd.
Allan Construction Ltd.
Dubois Construction Enr.
Alfred Gagnon & Son Ltd.
M. Adrien Berube Alsco Products of Canada Ltd.
Northland Construction Co. Ltd.
W. A. Rankin Ltd.
R. E. Stewart Construction Corp.
R.	E. Stewart Construction Corp. Ltd.
The Letang Hardware Co. Ltd.
Robert Warren
Williams Construction Co. Ltd. Hill-Clark-Francis (Quebec) Ltd.
Clerk Windows Ltd.
Adelard Laberge Ltd.
P. E. Laperriere
4.
[Stage Direction]
J. O. Lambert Inc.
Theriault & B eland Enr.
Adrien Berube
Benjamin Robidas Ltee.
Cimota Construction Corporation Limited C. Jobin Ltee.
Emile Frenette Ltee.
G. H. Montminy Inc.
Louis-Philippe Pare
S.	Savoie Ltee.
Vincent Freres Ltee.
5.	Yes.
6.	July 8, 1958, to J. O. Lambert Quebec, P.Q.
97 sud, Notre Dame, Thetford Mines, P.Q. 729 Westmount, Sherbrooke, P.Q.
Plessisville, P.Q.
Rang St. Alexis, Louise de France Co., Champlain, P.Q.
Lesage avenue, Quebec, P.Q.
1285 St. Vallier, Quebec, P.Q.
Quebec, P.Q.
239 de la Salle, Quebec, P.Q.
Plessisville, P.Q.
Plessisville, P.Q.
Plessisville, P.Q.
Sherbrooke, P.Q.
Trois-Rivieres, P.Q.
Montreal, P.Q.
Plessisville, P.Q.
Trois-Pistoles, P.Q.
191 Ashtonbee road, Scarborough, Ont.
P.O. Box 68, St. Lambert, Montreal, P.Q.
410 Bank street, Ottawa, Ont.
862 Wellington S., P.O. Box 277, Sherbrooke, P.Q.
919 Notre Dame St. No., Thetford Mines, P.Q.
30 St. Paul St. west, Montreal, P.Q.
P.O. Box 132, Charlesbourg, P.Q.
P.O. Box 715, Sherbrooke, P.Q.
Room 209, 4781 Van Horne Ave., Montreal, P.Q.
1499 Bishop street, Montreal, P.Q.
260 5th street, Quebec, P.Q.
P.O. Box 695, Trois-Rivieres, P.Q.
ADDRESS	AMOUNT
6 rue Garagonthier, Quebec, P.Q.	$ 137,662.50
1065 Holland, Quebec, P.Q.	137,800.00
Comte de Riviere du Loup, Trois Pistoles, P.Q.	139,600.00
164 rue Dumoulin, Drummondville, P.Q.	139,700.00
128 blvd. Ste. Anne, Giffard, P.Q.	139,930.00
1100 rue Vincent-Massey, Quebec 8, P.Q.	145,000.00
225 St. Laurent, Quebec, P.Q.	145,155.00
5 rue Richelieu, Quebec, P.Q.	149,280.00
1480 rue Savoie, Plessisville, P.Q.	159,526.00
Plessisville, P.Q.	162,100.00
729 Westmount, Sherbrooke, P.Q.	174,700.00
Inc. of
[Stage Direction]
Questions

Mr. Chevrier: 1.	At May 31, 1958, how many Canadian-owned ocean-going vessels of 1,000 gross registered tons or over were there, with their total gross registered and deadweight tonnage (a) on Canadian registry, classified as to dry cargo and tankers; (b) on any other registry subject to recall to Canadian registry by the Canadian government, classified as to dry cargo and tankers?
2.	At May 31, 1958, had the sale of any of the vessels included in 1 been approved? If so, how many and what is their total gross registered and deadweight tonnage, classified as to dry cargo and tankers?
3.	At May 31, 1958, under the replacement plan administered by the Canadian maritime commission, how many proposals for replacement vessels, with their total gross registered and deadweight tonnage, classified as dry cargo or tankers, has the Minister of Transport or the commission as the case may be, approved, and which are not included in 1?
4.	How many of the vessels included in 1, with their gross registered and deadweight tonnage, were built during world war II for government account and subsequently sold to private owners?
5.	On May 31, 1958, how many vessels with their gross registered and deadweight tonnage included in 1, were there laid up for reasons other than waiting or undergoing repairs, surveys or periodical drydocking or overhaul?
6.	How many of these vessels with their gross registered and deadweight tonnage were built for government account during or following world war II?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	(a) 17 dry cargo vessels totalling 82,751 gross tons, 110,897 deadweight tons and 8 tankers totalling 96,252 gross tons, 148,915 deadweight tons; (b) 61 dry cargo vessels totalling 453,426 gross tons, 662,058 deadweight tons and no tankers were on United Kingdom registry under the special transfer arrangements.
2.	The sale of two dry cargo vessels totalling 14,251 gross tons, 20,628 deadweight tons and no tankers had been approved.
3.	9 proposals for ocean-going replacement vessels were approved and not yet completed; they consisted of 5 dry cargo vessels totalling an estimated 63,900 deadweight tons and four
tankers totalling an estimated 92,150 deadweight tons and did not include any vessels mentioned in 1; the gross tonnage is not available before measurement for registry.
4.	65 vessels totalling 429,898 gross tons, 622,363 deadweight tons.
5.	According to the information available to the Canadian maritime commission from various sources there were so laid up 19 vessels totalling 113,581 gross tons, 159,492 deadweight tons.
6.	All 19 of these vessels were so built.


T.V. SATELLITE TRANSMITTERS, MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Has the Department of Transport or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation received an application or applications from private telecasters or radio broadcasters for the construction of T.V. satellite transmitters or translators in any part of the maritime provinces?
2.	If so, by whom was the application made and for what area?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	Newfoundland Broadcasting Co. Ltd., Argentia, Nfld.; Cape Breton Broadcasters Ltd., Inverness, N.S.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Carter: 1.	How many loans have been granted to fishermen in Newfoundland from the fishermen's small loans fund for each year up to the present date?
2.	What is the amount of each loan?
Answer by:	Hon. Donald M. Fleming
(Minister of Finance):
It is assumed that the hon. member is referring to loans made under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
1.	Three.
2.	It is not in the public interest to disclose this information which is a matter of customer and bank relationship.

Visit of President Eisenhower



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
of

[Stage Direction]
President of the United States
to

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Eisenhower was welcomed by the Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada, and thanked by the Hon. Mark Robert Drouin, Speaker of the Senate, and the Hon. Roland Michener, Speaker of the House of Commons.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister of Canada):: Mr. President, Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, members of the parliament of Canada, President Eisenhower comes to us as the renowned leader of a mighty state, but what is more meaningful today is the fact that he comes to us as a good neighbour and friend. We are happy that he is accompained by his gracious wife and helpmate, for Canadians are very fond of her, too.
(Translation):
I now wish to add a word of welcome in the French language, and to assure you, Mr. President, that the warmth of Canadian feeling toward you and our great neighbour is one that comes from the heart.
To you and to your gracious wife, I extend the most cordial welcome.
(Text):
In visiting us unaccompanied by pomp and circumstance the president is following an old and precious precedent in the relations of our two nations. Although you come to us, sir, as the head of a powerful state, the intelligence service informs me after diligent inquiry that you come bearing no arms and carry no armour other than a brassie and a putter. May I, sir, as an aside express the wish that under clear skies and on fairways not too narrow you will be able, while here, to use this armour and add to your list of victories.
The communist world is waging an intensive economic global offensive of "aid and trade", an offensive which is not designed to secure profits in a bookkeeping sense in order to secure the ordinary values of trade for its peoples, but an offensive whose success will
be measured by the degree to which the souls and hearts and the freedoms and aspirations of the recipients will be subverted under communist tyranny.
I think this is a very great occasion. We say what we have said on occasions in the past, that our countries are united in defence. I believe, sir, that the Soviet challenge demands that we can be no less in economic objectives. I believe that each of our nations, and each of the nations of the free world, in forming economic policies, while at all times looking primarily to the welfare of the individual nations, must as never before take into account, in the common interest and for survival itself, the effects of such policies on the economic welfare and interests of all other free nations. And I go even further and suggest that, to meet the ever-enlarging expansion of communist economic cold war, joint action is imperative to the end that world trade will be expanded and the financial base of liquid resources necessary for such expansion will be materially increased. I feel sure I speak for all Canadians when I say that Canada stands prepared to assume her full share and to make her full contribution to such a bold policy.
Mr. President, our two lands have a glory of their own, the glory of two peoples moving forward together, not complacently but with a humble pride, and joined in fraternal association that has extended through a century of tragedy and storm in different parts of the world.
We can on this occasion, in the simplicity of our faith, thank God that our nations know nothing of ancestral hatreds or animosities. Above all, we may hope that this spirit of

Visit of President Eisenhower peaceful and co-operative relations will in due course become the fortune of all mankind.
Sir, as you came into our city you drove by and crossed over a small canal. Few know today when or why it was built. It was built more than 100 years ago to help protect this country from yours. Today it is a museum piece; it represents a past that is past.
I would recall to you, sir, on this the occasion of your visit to our country one of the earliest visits by Canadian parliamentarians to Washington. When Abraham Lincoln went to Gettysburg to deliver his immortal and timeless address, one of those who accompanied him as his guest on the Gettysburg platform was the Hon. William McDougall, one of the fathers of the Canadian confederation. Mr. McDougall had been in Washington with Mr. Galt on a small matter regarding trade, and Mr. Lincoln, with that informality which has continued since to characterize our relations, invited Mr. McDougall to accompany him. It is of interest, too, sir, that when the next day Mr. McDougall wrote to his family in Canada his opinion, so different from many opinions uttered that day, was that the president's words would live in history.
In the years since there have been many comings and goings; there have been meetings, and not all brought satisfaction to both sides. But there has remained that glory to which I referred a moment ago, that we can discuss, that we have discussed, that we shall in the days ahead continue to discuss our problems and our differences with the candour of free men in friendship, understanding and manly frankness.
I have often been asked by other nationals what is the secret of the dedication of these two nations to neighbourliness and mutual respect. The answer, we know, is this. We trust each other in a union of hearts based on common ideals and the abiding principles of freedom and the rights of men. Our peoples are North Americans. We are the children of our geography, products of the same hopes, faith and dreams, products as well of those forms of expression which have been nurtured and enriched in the traditions and common heritage of Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus.
When, 13 years ago, you were given the freedom of the city of London another great warrior-statesman, Sir Winston Churchill, said of you that you had shown "the capacity for making great nations march together more truly united than they have been before." I take leave to quote your noble reply in which in part you said:
Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives the acclaim earned in the blood of his followers and the sacrifices of his friends.
Mr. President, it is in your clear knowledge that it is only by constructive deeds of living men that the sacrifices of the dead can have their proper values that parliament, yes, the Canadian people as a whole, give you their warmest welcome and acclaim. I salute you, sir, as the wartime commander under whose leadership the legions of freedom marched when liberty was under siege and no man knew where salvation lay. I greet you, sir, as one whose wisdom, humanitarianism and prestige are once more humanity's major hope for freedom and for peace.
Members of the parliament of Canada, I have the high privilege of presenting to you a great and good tribune of freedom in war and in peace, the President of the United States.


Mr. Dwight D. Eisenhower@President of the United Slates of America: Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. Prime Minister, members of the Canadian houses of parliament, distinguished guests and friends: As I begin, may I be permitted to speak a few words in my halting French to my French friends in Canada. The Prime Minister did this with great courage. I assure you I do it in abject fear.
(Translation):
Here, in Canada, you have demonstrated that differences in speech and forms of speech need not impair communications between free peoples. So it must be among all nations of the free world. Though we may speak in different tongues and accents, that fact does not weaken our determination to work for a just and lasting peace. All of Canada has a great and rich tradition in the service of this high purpose. Her dedication to it has been staunch and persevering. Her example encourages free men everywhere.
(Text):
Mr. Prime Minister, I want you to know of my deep personal appreciation of the warmth of the welcome you have extended to me and of the generosity of the remarks you have just delivered concerning me. Along that same line, I should like to express my very great appreciation of the warmth of the welcome that Mrs. Eisenhower and myself have experienced throughout the city, along its streets and in every meeting in which we have had a part. We are truly grateful.
This is my fourth visit to your beautiful capital. I recall so well that when your gracious Queen came to Washington from Ottawa we spoke together of the beauty of this city and of the greatness of Canada.

It is good to return, to see old friends and to make new ones.
I came here first in 1946 to congratulate the Canadian people on the brilliant role played by the Canadian forces you placed under my command in the world war which had then recently ended in victory. My next visit was made as commander of NATO forces in Europe. In 1953 I returned as president, and talked in this house of some aspects of the relationship between our two countries.
I then spoke of the St. Lawrence seaway in prospective terms. Today it is near completion and next year it will be opened. This is truly a great :oint accomplishment. It will open up important regions of both Canada and the United States to ocean traffic. It will ever stand as a monument to what can be achieved by the common effort of two sovereign nations.
On that same occasion I spoke of the need to devise ways to protect our North America from any surprise attack. Since then we have made great strides. The distant early warning or D.E.W. line has been built and placed in operation. In the process of its construction I am sure much has been learned which will contribute to the more rapid development of the northern reaches of Canada and our new state, Alaska.
Last month an agreement was concluded between our two governments to establish a combined air defence headquarters for this continent. We have also, both of us, striven, as we will continue to strive, for the Soviet union's agreement to a system of inspection to protect against surprise attack through the Arctic. Recent Soviet communications have strengthened the hope that they will come to see that by such a system any basis for their professed fears of an attack across the pole will be removed. For Canada and the United States such a system in operation would add measurably to our security against a sudden attack. Possibly it might also pave the way for still further measures of arms control and permit some reduction of the burden and danger of modem armaments.
Both of these developments, the seaway, a broadened, deepened road for peaceful commerce, and the strengthening of our common defence of this continent, strikingly illustrate two things. The first is that change is the law of life and of relations between nations. When two great peoples such as ours, energetic and optimistic, live side by side in all the diversity that freedom offers, change is rapid and brings in its wake problems, sometimes frictions.
The second lesson I see in these common achievements in diverse fields is that by mutual respect, understanding and with good
9, 1958
Address by President Eisenhower will we can find acceptable solutions to any problems which exist or may arise between us. It is important to remember this. Such differences as are from time to time expressed never affect the similarity of purpose which binds our two countries together.
Of course, each of us possesses a distinctive national character and history. You won your independence by evolution, and the United States by revolution. Our forms of government, though both cast in the democratic pattern, are greatly different. Indeed, sometimes it appears that many of our misunderstandings spring from an imperfect knowledge on the part of both of us of the dissimilarities in our forms of government. And yet, despite these dissimilarities in form, our two governments are developing and are increasingly using effective ways to consult and act together. This we do to meet the problems that confront us in our relations with each other, and in the relations of both with other nations of the world.
We share the basic belief that only under free institutions, with government the servant and not the master, can the individual secure his life, his liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are both determined to frame and follow policies which safeguard the lives and homes of our people, their peace of mind, their material well-being and, above all other things, their ideals. True to these ideals both of our countries, for example, are determined that the great decisions of peace and war will remain always under civilian control.
Moreover, we both recognize a design of aggressive communist imperialism which threatens every free nation. Both of us face a military threat and political attacks. Our system of free enterprise is challenged throughout the world by a state-directed, state-controlled economic system. Indeed, this could well be the area in which the competition will be most bitter and most decisive between the free world and communist imperialism. We must never allow ourselves to become so preoccupied with the differences between our two nations that we lose sight of the transcendent importance of free world co-operation in the winning of the global struggle.
Acting in accordance with our common dedication the two of us, with others, have drawn together in collective security arrangements. The most notable of these is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in which both Canada and the United States are equal partners. We are both determined to maintain what George Washington described as "a respectable military posture." We are

Address by President Eisenhower equally determined to maintain our institutions in good repair and to ensure that our own economies function well.
Thus we seek not only to meet the expanding needs of our people but also to set an example of free men's accomplishments which will encourage and attract those less fortunate. Finally, we are agreed that we shall never cease striving for a just and lasting peace to be achieved by negotiation with those who challenge us. We overlook no opportunity to settle the issues which divide the world and under safeguarded conditions to reduce the burden of armaments.
Now, against this background of similarity in basic factors and policy, let me now point to some of the matters which it seems to me are troublesome between us. Among these are the surplus wheat disposal policies of the United States, the imbalance of our mutual trade, certain aspects of United States private investment in Canada, and Canadian fears of a trend in the United States away from forward-looking policies in the field of trade.
I am sure you agree that we should talk frankly to each other. Frankness, in good spirit, is a measure of friendship. It should be the practice, I believe, on both sides so to speak, when either feels that important interests are adversely affected by actions contemplated or taken by the other. Happily, these instances are rare. In mentioning today specific problems on which we do not see eye to eye I am doing so, of course, as an American, expressing an American viewpoint. I can assure you that your Prime Minister, in discussing these problems with my associates and me, most loyally and eloquently expresses the viewpoint of Canada.
It is my conviction, in which I believe he fully concurs, that for all of our present problems and all of our future ones we will find acceptable solutions. It will take understanding, common sense and a willingness to give and take on both our parts. These qualities we have always found in our dealings with Canada. I hope you have not found them lacking in us.
First then, in some detail, I should like to comment briefly on our surplus wheat disposal policies. I think no one can quarrel with our purpose, though some of our methods may seem unorthodox by traditional standards. Simply stated, our wheat disposal program has three aspects. In times of local famine or disaster we give wheat away. We have also bartered it for strategic materials. Finally, we sell wheat for local currency to countries which cannot afford to purchase it commercially. In these cases our policy is to lend back to the government in question most of the proceeds for local economic development. Our intent is not to

damage normal commercial markets, and in this I think we have been generally successful.
I know that in the past there was criticism of certain aspects of these programs, and particularly of our barter arrangements. I believe that the basis for these objections has been largely removed. Increasingly close consultation between officials of our two governments has ironed out many misunderstandings respecting our surplus disposals. Your government knows in detail what we are planning. I assure you that it is our desire and intention to keep the doors of consultation fully open. There must never be a final word between friends.
In several respects, despite inconvenience and even occasional damage in the past, Canada stands to benefit from our moving some surplus agricultural commodities into consumption overseas. First and most evident of all, many hungry people around the world have had food which they otherwise would not have had. Second, had these products remained in dead storage they would have had a depressing influence on the world market and world prices. Finally, the funds which we have been enabled to make available to recipient countries should in the long run help to raise standards of living and create enlarged markets for all of us.
I come next to the question of the imbalance of trade between our two countries. You buy more from the United States than you sell to us and this fact is of concern to many thoughtful Canadians. There are a few basic points which should be noted in this connection.
First of all, the United States and Canada are not state traders. All the products of industry manufactured in the United States and sold to customers abroad are sold through the enterprise of the private seller. These articles come to you in Canada only because of the desire of the individual Canadian consumer to buy a particular piece of merchandise. The United States government does not place goods in Canada as part of a state-directed program. This aspect of our trade with each other is the natural consequence of two private enterprise economies working side by side and trading with each other.
Then we should also remember that the free world represents a multilateral trading community. To try to balance our books once a month or once a year with every nation with which we trade would stifle rather than expand trade. I assume that Canada is as interested as we are in the expansion of world trade rather than in its artificial redirection. Both our peoples want to buy and sell in a climate of economic vigour and expansion. An imbalance in trade with one country, in such a climate, is usually balanced

or largely offset by the state of the accounts with other trading nations.
This is the case with Canadian trade. Your export deficit to the United States is offset by export surpluses to other countries and by the flow of investments to Canada. The promotion of healthy multilateral trade, as opposed to artificial bilateral balancing, is an important objective of the international monetary fund and the general agreement on tariffs and trade, to which both Canada and the United States belong.
For a moment I want to address myself as well to the other side of the trade equation, namely your exports to the United States. Here you can rightly say that through quotas and tariffs our governmental policies can either expand or restrict your opportunities to sell to us. The same of course is true of actions taken by your government which can affect the volume of our exports to Canada.
Neither of our countries is a "free trader" in the classifical economic sense. Each of us feels a responsibility to provide some protection to particular sectors of our economies which may be in distress or are for other reasons deserving of governmental assistance. We have taken some actions of this sort. So has Canada.
Oil imports into our country contribute a case in point. We believe that to ensure adequate supplies of oil in an emergency, it is necessary that exploration to develop oil reserves be carried forward with vigour. This means a healthy oil industry throughout the continent. A healthy domestic oil-producing industry is vital to our national security. We recognize that our security and yours are inseparable. We have been keenly sensitive to that fact in considering the nature of the voluntary restrictions on oil imports that have been put into effect by oil companies in the United States, and have minimized their impact on your economy.
Our restrictive action with respect to oil is not in any sense reflective of a change in the fundamental trade policy of the United States. Such actions must be viewed in perspective. For example, since the so-called escape clause was incorporated in our trade agreements legislation in 1951, there have come from industry in the United States a number of requests for the imposition of quotas or higher tariffs. In about a dozen cases presidential approval for some relief has been granted. In only one of these cases was Canada directly affected as an exporter. We have always conscientiously sought to take account of your interests as well as our own in seeking the best remedy to these intricate problems. I believe that a study of the record will bear out the truth of this statement.
9, 1958	2085
Address by President Eisenhower
Next, the flow of investment funds from the United States into Canada has led to expressions of concern on your part. These funds have been attracted to your country by the business opportunities Canada has offered. Though they may raise questions in specific cases respecting control of an industry by United States citizens, these industries are, of course, subject to Canadian law. Moreover, these investments have helped you to develop your resources and to expand your industrial plant at a far faster rate than would have been possible had you relied wholly on your own savings. They have thereby helped to provide employment, tax revenues and other direct benefits. These funds have also helped Canada to finance with ease its recent surplus of imports from the United States, a fact that is testified to by the premium of the Canadian dollar over the United States dollar.
I am confident that if there are some defects in this investment process, ways will be found to correct them because that is in the interests of both our countries.
One final word on the foreign trade policy of the United States. In 1934 the United States took an historic decision to embark on a positive policy of fostering trade with the launching of the reciprocal trade agreements program. This policy we continue to support and practice. The government of the United States, after a public searching of soul at times of renewal of the trade agreements act, has consistently reaffirmed this policy. Have no fear that the United States will abandon a policy so well established. The problems I have been discussing concern our economic lives. Our points of economic contact are varied and numerous, as they of necessity must be under our chosen system of private enterprise.
Our governments have a responsibility to help compose difficulties, but we must not forget that thousands of individual citizens of Canada and the United States must themselves find in their diversified activities the answers to many of these problems.
Finally, there is no cause to be surprised or disturbed to discover that occasionally differences arise between us. The distinguishing character of the peoples of the free world lies in the fact that differences between them can develop, can be expressed and then amicably resolved. We in the United States have no more desire than you have to seek in our relations with other nations the silent, sullen unity that elsewhere has been purchased or imposed. The hallmark of freedom is the right to differ as well as the right to agree.
I have spoken to you today in the knowledge that through you I address a nation strong in the tradition of freedom and
2086	HOUSE OF
Visit of President Eisenhower vigilant in its defence. You and we are alike convinced, by our history, our religious faith and our common heritage of freedom that economic well-being and political liberty both depend upon the efforts of individuals and on their willingness to accept the responsibilities of freedom. Today I assure you once more of the pride and gratification that we of the United States feel in our long and friendly association with you, our sturdy northern neighbour.
We stand together at a pivotal point in history. All that we Canadians and Americans, and those who went before us, have built, all that we believe in, is challenged as it has never been challenged before. The new horizons of competition range from the polar areas, and extend to the infinity of outer space. It is for us, all of us, to bring to the challenge a response worthy of ourselves and of our two nations.
As we do, we shall know the satisfaction of having built, in friendship, a safer and ampler home here on the earth for this generation and those that shall come after us.
I thank you very much for your kind attention.
(Translation):


Hon. Mark Robert Drouin (Speaker of the Senate):: Mr. President, it is indeed a
privilege to welcome you, on behalf of the Canadian Senate, to a body so dedicated as we are to justice, to freedom and to a belief in Canada's future.
Your presence among us recalls those fine hours when our two peoples made the sacrifices which had to be made if they were to maintain those great ideals which are still, today, as precious to them as they were then. Your visit also focuses attention on the deep feeling of friendship which binds our two countries in these difficult times when it is not easy to draw the dividing line between peace and war.
Our two countries are, so to speak, family relations. We freely refer to you as our cousins to the south, and through the centuries a true family bond has developed between our two peoples. True, we have our occasional squabbles, we have our differences, we disagree; but it amounts to nothing more than the mere family spats such as are likely to occur in the best regulated families. But once we find ourselves faced with a common danger, we are quick to forget these growing pains and, closing ranks, we join forces, and heartened by our bonds of friendship, we confront the enemy; and, with God's help, we have been known to emerge the victors.
Mr. President, you come as the head of a powerful democracy in which the peoples of

the free world have, to a large extent, placed their rightful hopes. This privilege is not without its heavy responsibilities. While you must no doubt, on the one hand, be the guardian of your national interests, your guardianship, on the other hand, of the whole of the free world impels you to have a constant regard for the hopes and the needs of the nations joined in alliance. Never must these hopes and needs be confused, still less brought into conflict; most vital of all, they must be brought ever more closely together and reconciled. This heavy task can only be accomplished through the utmost clarity, impartiality and strength. In you, Mr. President, we find embodied all these qualities, and we beg of you to rest assured of our confidence and understanding.
Yet, despite all the crushing burdens which are your lot, you have accepted to spend a few days in our midst. Undoubtedly you have been struck by the many contrasts of language, tradition and procedure between our two countries. Our political institutions are not built up in the same way; our ties with the nations are not all identical; our individual interests do not necessarily call for a like approach. But you must have found, in Canada, a spirit indistinguishable from that which inspires your own country- that of a free people, vigorous and aware of the paramount importance of moral values.
What we have, through the grace of God, we mean to hold; but no longer can nations do this alone. We feel comforted at the thought that we have the United States as our neighbour, and we are pleased to feel the warmth that comes with the knowledge that we stand together in face of the common danger.
Mr. President, please allow me to express to you, as well as to your charming wife, our hearty congratulations on the occasion of the 42nd anniversary of your marriage, and to wish both of you many more happy years together. Your union is symbolic of the bonds of sympathy and of brotherliness which bless the relationship between our two-countries.
We are deeply grateful, Mr. President, for the kind words you had for us, and we ask you, on behalf of both the Canadian parliament and the Canadian people, to accept our heartfelt thanks for your visit, and to assure your compatriots of our sincere and loyal friendship.
(Text):


Hon. Roland Michener (Speaker of ihe House of Commons):: Mr. President, the French language as spoken by my colleague of the Senate is so distingue and in this case has

been so expressive of our gratitude for your visit and for your address to us today that it would be an anticlimax to repeat his words in English. Even to add to them may be what the Presbyterians would call a work of supererogation. But I must take that risk in the interests of preserving the bilingual rights of my Engish-speaking colleagues and you, Mr. President, must therefore submit to be thanked twice. Furthermore, my thanks and good wishes are expressed more particularly on behalf of the House of Commons in whose chamber this auspicious meeting is taking place.
You will be pleased to know at once that your message to our two houses has evoked a response of complete and unanimous concurrence. You may find it useful, Mr. President, to cite this example to our legislative counterparts in Washington and to remind them that it would be unseemly for them to be outdone in this respect by their Canadian cousins.
We are deeply conscious, sir, of the great consideration which you have shown to our country in your visit to our capital, accompanied by your gracious wife and by your distinguished Secretary of State, Mr. Dulles, and of the honour you have done to our parliament and people by the sincere and friendly message which you have just given us. Your words have reassured our minds, but more than that they have rekindled in our hearts those ancient and enduring sentiments of friendship which have characterized our relations for the last century and a half.
It is clear that our objectives are the same, that we think alike and want to act together.
Visit of President Eisenhower Nevertheless, as our affairs become more closely interwoven in this shrinking world, more effort is required by each of us to keep them from becoming entangled.
The effort to this end which you are now making we deeply appreciate, more especially because of the constant demands upon your time. Your great office combines in its responsibilities some of the duties of our Governor General in his capacity as representative of the head of the state and commander in chief of the armed forces, and some of the duties of our Prime Minister as chief of the executive branch of government. One cannot carry this dual comparison too far; our Prime Minister has some duties in this chamber which you may be glad, or on occasion sorry, not to share. In any event this duality of your functions, by our standards, makes it more difficult for you to leave Washington and makes us doubly grateful for your presence with us in Ottawa.
I trust that your reception here this morning and the enthusiastic response to your message will leave no doubt of the success of this part of your mission. We offer you our best wishes for the continued success and enjoyment of your entire visit and express our hopes that, by coming to us for a second time, you have established a firm precedent for the future.
Upon your return home we trust that you will convey to your countrymen the respects of the parliament of Canada and will advise them that we shall long remember this significant session. We also ask you to express to them our neighbourly thanks and best wishes.

Thursday, July 10, 1958