1961-05-17

STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways, alone, or in concert with other railways, engaged the services of Woods, Gordon and Co. in the past three months for any study in the management, economic policy, or union relationship sectors?
2.	If so, when is the study to be received?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is no and part 2 is answered by the answer to part 1.


C.N.R. CAPITAL STOCK PURCHASES, TRUCKING COMPANIES
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What was the total purchase price to the Canadian National Railways of the capital stock in the following companies, described as included in the Canadian National Railways system on page 27 of the 1960 C.N.R. annual report: Eastern Transport Limited, East-West Transport Limited, Empire Freightways Limited, Sydney Transfer and Storage Limited?
2.	What was the recorded net worth in total of the above companies as of the respective dates when the Canadian National Railways acquired ownership of their capital stock?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows. The answer to part 1 is $1,400,000 in round figures. As to part 2, the disclosure of such information would be prejudicial to current negotiations.


WINTER WORKS PROGRAM BY PROVINCES
Mr. Clermont: 1.	Since December 21, 1960, with respect to each province: (a) how many municipalities, cities, and towns have made applications to the federal government in connection with undertakings to be carried out under the winter works assistance program? (b) of these applications, how many have been accepted? (c) what is the total estimated cost of the approved undertakings? (d) what is the estimated amount contributed thereto by the federal government by way of direct wages?


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question contains a great deal of statistical information. I would ask either that the answer be taken as read and incorporated in today's Hansard or it be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the answer quite extensive?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Very extensive, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it could be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Howard: 1.	Has the Minister of Justice examined each private bill relating to divorce introduced during the current session of parliament in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights and, if so, upon what date was each such bill so examined?
2.	Have any such inconsistencies been found, and, if so, what are they?
3.	In the process of so examining such bills, was the evidence taken before the Senate divorce committee upon which each such bill was founded also examined?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: The
answer is as follows:
1.	The Canadian Bill of Rights states that "the Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the governor in council, examine ... every bill introduced or presented to the House of Commons, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this part (part I) and he shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity".
The following private bills relating to divorce, which have been presented to the House of Commons, have been examined as required by the Canadian Bill of Rights:
Bill No.	Date
SD- 1 to SD- 21	 March 7, 1961
SD- 22 to SD- 44	
SD- 45 to SD- 53		
SD- 54 to SD- 75	 "	[DOT][DOT]	"
SD- 76 to SD- 85	
SD- 86 to SD- 94		 *	
SD- 95 to SD-108	
[DOT][DOT]	"SD-109 to	SD-121	
"	13,SD-122 to	SD-148	
"	"SD-149 to	SD-179	
*[DOT]	20,SD-180 to	SD-205	
April	6,SD-206 to	SD-232	
May	2,
The following private bills relating to divorce, which have been presented to the House of Commons, have not yet been transmitted by the Clerk of the House of Commons to the deputy minister of justice and have, therefore, not been examined as required by the Canadian Bill of Rights:
SD-233 to SD-237.
2.	No.
3.	No.

Starred Questions



COLUMBIA RIVER BRIDGES, B.C.

Mr. Herridge: 1.	With respect to the nearly completed two-lane
trans-Canada highway suspension bridge, spanning the Columbia, west of Revelstoke:	(a) what is
the bridge seat elevation at the west end? (b) what is the bridge seat elevation at the east end? (c) what is the crest elevation of water at bridge site, if the High Arrow dam is constructed? (d) does crest elevation of water permit clearance for navigation, floating trees, forest debris, and ice? (e) will reconstruction of this bridge be necessary if the High Arrow dam is built, and, if so, what is the estimated cost of same?
2.	With respect to single track, main line Canadian Pacific Railway bridge, across the Columbia, west of Revelstoke: (a) what is the bridge seat elevation of this bridge? (b) what is the crest elevation of water at bridge site, if the High Arrow dam is constructed? (c) does crest elevation of water permit clearance for navigation, floating trees, forest debris, and ice? (d) will reconstruction of this bridge be necessary if the High Arrow dam is built, and, if so, what is the estimated cost of same?
3.	With respect to provincial highway bridge
crossing the Columbia, west of Revelstoke:	(a)
what is the bridge seat elevation at the west end? (b) what is the bridge seat elevation at the east end? (c) does the crest elevation of water permit clearance for navigation, floating trees, forest debris, and ice? (d) will reconstruction of this bridge be necessary if the High Arrow dam is built, and, if so, what is the estimated cost of same?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, this question involves more than one department and will call for a lengthy reply; so on behalf of the Secretary of State I would ask that this question be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



TELEPHONE LINE TRANSFER, CAPE BRETON ISLAND

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has the Department of Transport transferred the operation and ownership of its telephone lines in certain areas of Cape Breton island to the Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company Limited?
2.	If so, what mileage of line and areas are affected?
3.	What are the terms of the transfer?
4.	Did the Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company pay for this line, and, if so, what amount?


Léon Balcer: The answer to this question is as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 117 miles of line in the Marion Bridge area, Victoria constituency.
(b) 178 miles of line generally in the Inver-ness-Richmond constituency.
3.	(a) In the Marion Bridge area, the Department of Transport undertook to rebuild the pole lines immediately after the transfer.

The Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company undertook to rebuild the wires and expand the service as required. The terms of the transfer include lines and ancillary equipment.
(b) In the Inverness-Richmond area, the Department of Transport, in lieu of rebuilding the pole lines, as was done in the case of the Marion Bridge area, agreed to pay to the Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company the equivalent cost in the amount of $150,000, and the company undertook to do all the work required to expand the service, rebuild the pole lines, wires, etc. The terms of the transfer included all lines and ancillary equipment.
4.	The consideration in respect of each transfer was the nominal sum of one dollar.



COLUMBIA RIVER


Mr. Howard: 1.	Will any Indian reserves or Indian graveyards be flooded as a result of the proposed Columbia river project?
2.	If so, what is the area and location of each such reserve or graveyard, the estimated compensation accruing to the Indian bands for each reserve, and the estimated cost of relocating each graveyard?
3.	With respect to the relocation of the graveyards, what steps have been taken to acquire additional lands, and what has been the degree of success experienced?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is that it is contemplated that some Indian reserve land will be affected; this is particularly so if the Okan-agan-Similkameen basin portion is developed. So far no application has been received for any land, and until detailed information is available it cannot be determined if any graveyards are involved. Consequently I cannot answer the other questions.



C.B.C. BROADCASTS    REPRESENTATIONS BY FINANCE MINISTER

Mr. Lessard: 1.	Have any representations been made by the Minister of Finance to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation either by letter, telephone, or conversation, with regard to any television program broadcast or proposed to be broadcast?
2.	If so, when, and how were they made, what was the nature of these representations, and to what program were they referring?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.



GEORGE AND BRUCE RILEY

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Was Mr. George Riley employed in the national park in Prince Edward Island?
2.	If so, for what periods, and what were his duties?

3.	Was Mr. Bruce Riley employed in the national park in Prince Edward Island?
4.	If so, for what periods, and what were his duties?
5.	Did Mr. George Riley also hold a position with the provincial government?
6.	Was (a) Mr. George Riley (b) Mr. Bruce Riley, unemployed at the time he was engaged for employment in the national park?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to this question are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Continuously from November 28, 1960. He was employed as a carpenter.
3.	Yes.
4.	From November 28, 1960 to April 28, 1961. Carpenter.
5.	According to departmental records, Mr. George Riley was employed for eight days in November, 1960 by the Prince Edward Island government.
6.	As far as can be determined, both Rileys were unemployed when engaged for employment at the park.



WASHABUCK CENTRE WHARF REPAIRS, N.S.   FOREMAN

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Was a foreman employed by the Department of Public Works to supervise wharf repairs at Washabuck Centre, Victoria county, Nova Scotia, during the winter of 1960-61?
2.	If so, were instructions issued to the foreman that only supporters of the present government could be on this program?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 of this question is yes, and the answer to part 2 is no.



CAUGHNAWAGA INDIAN RESERVE


Mr. Howard: 1.	Has any portion of the reserve lands of the Caughnawaga Indians been leased for the purposes of a golf course and attendant facilities?
2.	If so, is any portion of the leased land used for the selling, serving or consuming of liquor; and what is the position, with respect to the prohibitive sections of the Indian Act dealing with liquor, of any person who sells, serves, or consumes liquor on the said lands?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the answers to this question are as follows:
1.	Yes, on October 1, 1920.
2.	It is not known whether any portion of this leased land is used for the selling, serving or consuming of liquor. Sections 93 and 96 of the Indian Act would apply to this land.
Starred Questions



NEILL ADVERTISING AGENCY, BRANDON, MAN.

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	What is the street address and telephone number of the Neill advertising agency of Brandon, Manitoba, which handles advertising contracts from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources?
2.	How long has this agency been at the present address, and what was the previous street address and telephone number of the agency?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, the following are the answers to this question:
1.	201 Kennedy building, 107 Seventh street, Brandon, Manitoba. Telephone number, Parkway 6-2675.
2.	Since April 15, 1961. Previous address and telephone number: Leech printing building, Eighteenth street and Park avenue, Brandon, Manitoba. Telephone number, Parkway 6-6054.



JACK STEPLER

Mr. Martin (Timmins): 1 Has a Mr. Jack Stepler recently been appointed to a position within the Canadian high commissioner's office in the United Kingdom, and, if so, to what position?
2. What is Mr. Stepler's (a) annual salary (b) expense structure, both normal and extra, if any (c) date of appointment (d) duties?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the question are as follows:
1.	Yes. Special adviser on press relations in the office of the high commissioner for Canada to the United Kingdom, London, England.
2.	(a) $12,000 per annum.
(b)	An allowance of $8,000 per annum, and travel and removal expenses in accordance with the provisions of the foreign service officer regulations.
(c)	May 15, 1961.
(d)	Answered by the answer to No. 1. [Later;]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. Was the highly remunerative $20,000 a year position to which Mr. Stepler has been appointed filled on the basis of a competition open to other interested people?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there is a patent error in the question. I gave the information this morning that the salary in question is $12,000 and the allowances for the position are $8,000. The function of allowances, of

Orders for Returns
course, as I am sure the hon. member must realize, is quite different from the function of a salary.
As to the details of the appointment, if the hon. member wishes to put his question on the order paper seeking information as to considerations relative to the appointment, that information will be given.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the Acting Prime Minister if this was another of those secret appointments?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to reply. There is a nasty insinuation in that last question as applied to the government, perhaps, but certainly as applied to the individual. I feel I should say this concerning the individual. He is a highly competent civil servant who has been appointed to this position. I think this is no time to be casting slurs on a person who has been appointed to this position.


Frank Howard: May I speak to the point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear any point of order. The minister was replying to the question which the hon. member raised. I think a further supplementary question would be inadvisable.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


Mr. Caron: 1.	Does the unemployment insurance commission hold any securities? If so, what is (a) the par value (b) the market value, of any such securities as of May 15, 1961?
2.	Of the total loans made by the government
to the unemployment insurance fund:	(a) what
amount has not yet been reimbursed as of May 15, 1961? (b) what is the par value of securities pledged for any such loans not yet reimbursed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the answers to this question are as follows:
1.	Yes.
(a)	$87,045,500
(b)	$73,086,675.62.
2.	(a) $124 million.
(b) $158,757,000.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Pigeon: 1. During 1959 and 1960, has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (English and French networks)

invited public tenders for the following expenses incurred by its national and international services
(a)	printing of publications (b) advertising and publicity (c) stationery and office supplies?
2. In any case, what are the names of (a) the printers to whom printing contracts have been awarded, and what is the amount of each such contract (b) the advertising agencies to which contracts have been awarded, and what is the amount of each such contract (c) the persons by whom stationery and office supplies have been supplied, and what amount has been received by each of them?


WINTER WORKS PROGRAM BY PROVINCES
Mr. Clermont: Since December 21, 1960, with respect to each province: (a) how many municipalities, cities, and towns have made applications to the federal government in connection with undertakings to be carried out under the winter works assistance program? (b) of these applications, how many have been accepted? (c) what is the total estimated cost of the approved undertakings? (d) what is the estimated amount contributed thereto by the federal government by way of direct wages?


COLUMBIA RIVER BRIDGES, B.C.
Mr. Herridge: 1.	With respect to the nearly completed two-lane
trans-Canada highway suspension bridge, spanning the Columbia, west of Revelstoke:	(a) what is
the bridge seat elevation at the west end? (b) what is the bridge seat elevation at the east end? (c) what is the crest elevation of water at bridge site, if the High Arrow dam is constructed? (d) does crest elevation of water permit clearance for navigation, floating trees, forest debris, and ice? (e) will reconstruction of this bridge be necessary if the High Arrow dam is built, and, if so, what is the estimated cost of same?
2.	With respect to single track, main line Canadian Pacific Railway bridge, across the Columbia, west of Revelstoke: (a) what is the bridge seat elevation of this bridge? (b) what is the crest elevation of water at bridge site, if the High Arrow dam is constructed? (e) does crest elevation of water permit clearance for navigation, floating trees, forest debris, and ice? (d) will reconstruction of this bridge be necessary if the High Arrow dam is built, and, if so, what is the estimated cost of same?
3.	With respect to provincial highway bridge
crossing the Columbia, west of Revelstoke:	(a)
what is the bridge seat elevation at the west end?
(b)	what is the bridge seat elevation at the east end? (c) does the crest elevation of water permit clearance for navigation, floating trees, forest debris, and ice? (d) will reconstruction of this bridge be necessary if the High Arrow dam is built, and, if so, what is the estimated cost of same?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 126-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and Canadian Marconi Company or any other person, organization, or company since August 10, 1960, with respect to persons discharged by Canadian Marconi Company pursuant to the following clause in the contract of employment between

the said Canadian Marconi Company and any of its employees: "Native and Eskimo villages are considered out of bounds and personnel are prohibited from fraternization or association with the native population except in special circumstances. Infringement of these orders is cause for discharge."
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 127-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all current contracts between the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Canadian Marconi Company.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 128-Mr. Deschatelets:
For a copy of the complete list of all railway services, discontinued in Canada by the Canadian National Railways Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, since July 1, 1957.
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would allow this motion to stand.


Mr. Deschatelets:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he has any comment to make upon a statement reported to have been made by the Minister of Agriculture in Vancouver yesterday to the effect that perhaps Canada should have recognized the de facto government of red China right from the start; that the Chinese are dedicated people, and that in his grain trade dealing with them recently he had found them most anxious to increase their trade with Canada but would do nothing that would hurt Canadian producers.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not seen the news report in question. Perhaps comment might wait until the return to the house of the Minister of Agriculture.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that workers employed at shipyards at Halifax and Dartmouth, Nova
Inquiries of the Ministry Scotia, and at Saint John, New Brunswick have taken strike action to support their demands for a decent wage, and since the $35 million in federal contracts held by these yards contain a clause guaranteeing the recovery to the employer of the cost of any wage increase, will the minister use his good offices to see that wages in these shipyards, now 30 per cent below those paid on the west coast, are increased and a settlement of the strike secured?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: received notice of this question on my way into the house. First of all I would point out that each of the disputes mentioned comes under provincial jurisdiction. As to the details of the contracts which these shipyards may have, I must inform the hon. member that I have no knowledge on that score, since this is a matter completely outside my jurisdiction.


Hazen Robert Argue: Perhaps I may put a companion question to the Minister of Defence Production, to whom I sent a copy of my question. Since the government is involved with these contracts, and since the Minister of Labour says this is a matter which comes under provincial jurisdiction, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman will use his good offices to help bring about a settlement.


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minisler of Defence Production):: We have a clause in our contracts under which we pay any increase in wages, and we shall certainly respect our contracts, but this is a question of collective bargaining. After the collective bargaining is finished we shall respect our contracts.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the Minister of Labour not prepared to take any part in these discussions whatsoever?


Michael Starr: It has always been the policy of the Department of Labour not to interfere with provincial jurisdiction.



RATE OF INTEREST ON CHINESE BALANCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Ottawa West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, and ask him if he is able to advise the house as to the rate of interest being charged on credit balances in connection with the wheat trade agreement with communist China.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When that situation arises the rate will be established, but I think further comment might await the return of the Minister of Agriculture.

Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: A supplementary question. I do not want to comment on the continued absence of the Minister of Agriculture-


An hon. Member:: Selling wheat.


George James McIlraith: -but we were not able to get information from him, and now he is not here. In the Winnipeg Free Press of May 13-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George James McIlraith: -there is a report of a statement by the chairman of the wheat board saying that the interest rate is 5J per cent. My recollection is that the Minister of Agriculture was unable to give us that information in the house. Can the Minister of Finance find out what the rate is?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not seen the news article in question. I doubt if it is an urgent matter, in view of the fact that the report is now four days old, but at the proper time information will, without question, be made available to parliament.


George James McIlraith: I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Agriculture a related question. Can he provide the answer to the question I asked the Minister of Agriculture a week ago today as to the rate of exchange used in giving his estimate of the total value of this contract? The minister had taken this question as notice.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: The Minister of Agriculture will be back shortly and I will bring this matter to his attention.



TEXTILES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister report on the international textile conference being held in London and at which I understand Canada is represented?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The conference is not concluded. It was to begin on Monday morning and to continue on the 16th and 17th. When the conference has been concluded and the Canadian representatives have made their report I will be pleased to make a report to the house.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Would the minister tell the house how many countries are represented at this conference?


Donald Methuen Fleming: As I indicated in my statement on this matter last week, it
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1
is a tripartite conference. The countries participating in the conference are the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada.


Mr. Chevrier:: Who is representing Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I indicated last
week that this is a conference at the official level. Canada is represented by senior officials drawn from the various departments concerned, and the leader of the Canadian delegation is Mr. S. S. Reisman of the Department of Finance.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether he could give the house an up to date report on the progress of the housing program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Questions of such
scope are not ordinarily accepted on orders of the day.


Frank Charles McGee: I should like to say a word on the point of order you have raised, Mr. Speaker. If my memory serves me correctly, with great respect, a long series of such questions were asked by the opposition when housing starts were declining. These questions were entertained and answered at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: I may have prejudged the issue, but if it is a general report on the condition of house building under the National Housing Act I should think it is definitely too broad in scope for submission as a question on orders of the day. If it is a question capable of a brief answer, and of current importance, that would be a different matter, but what the hon. member has said has not convinced me.



N.HA.    REQUEST FOR LOWERING OF INTEREST RATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. Will the government now give consideration to lowering the National Housing Act interest rate from 6J per cent to a level more comparable to the 5J per cent interest rate being extended to red China, as has been announced by the chairman of the wheat board?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot comment on a news report on which apparently

the latter part of that question is based, and I do not think it is appropriate to base a question on this matter which has already been the subject of a question in this house. So far as the two rates are concerned, they are based, and always have been based, on entirely different considerations. The one is a rate applicable to house building under the National Housing Act, and the other is a rate established by the banks of this country in relation to their advances to the Canadian wheat board. The factors the hon. member has chosen to bring into his question this morning present no basis of comparison.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gale):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he thinks it is appropriate for the chairman of the wheat board to give information to the public which ministers refuse to give in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker,
there has been no refusal on the part of ministers to give-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -information to the house that is appropriate to be given to the house, or to be asked for on orders of the day.
I draw attention again to the fact that the last question is based on a newspaper report. I have not seen the newspaper report and I do not propose to make any comments on it or base any answer on it, until I have seen the report and have had the opportunity of verifying it.


Mr. Hellyer:: Tell us what the rate is.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the rate?



N.H.A.-INQUIRY AS TO STARTS AND COMPLETIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. M. T. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Could the minister please inform the house as to the number of housing starts and completions under the National Housing Act this year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the question asked by the hon. gentleman. He has asked for the number of housing starts for the whole of this year. Surely that is not a matter that has urgently arisen since yesterday, and,
Inquiries of the Ministry therefore, should not be the subject of a question, as the Minister of Finance so vehemently pointed out just a few minutes ago.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I suggest that if it is in order to ask questions when housing starts have been fewer, it should also be in order to ask questions even though housing starts may have increased. Some hon. members may not wish to hear that housing starts have increased, but I would be pleased to hear such a reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is quite different from the earlier question which was asked. Although it might be objected to by the minister on the ground that it is asking for statistical information and should therefore be more appropriately put on the order paper, if the minister does not take that objection I see no reason why the question should not be answered.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the leader of the C.C.F. group for his question, and reply that N.H.A. loan approvals in April for 6,252 dwellings were nearly four times as many as the 1,611 reported for April, 1960. Of the 6,252 approvals, the life, trust and loan companies accounted for 4,117 dwellings, the banks for 3, and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for 2,132. During the four month period there were loans for 18,599 dwellings, an increase of 443.8 per cent above the 3,413 for the same period in 1960. Actual starts for the first four months of 1961 at 20,559 were up 47.5 per cent over the 13,940 reported for the same period last year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, would the minister comment on the fact that construction contracts for other than housing during the first four months of this year are 24 per cent below those for the first four months of 1960?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, such construction is a matter which is in the hands of free, private enterprise. I am only concerned with reporting to the house for the department of which I have the honour to be the minister.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would be kind enough to give us the number of completions this year to date compared with the number of completions to the same date last year.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: He does not know the answer to that.


David James Walker: I will be very happy to get that information for the hon. member.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have a further supplementary question. Could the Minister of Public Works tell the house how many thousands of completed houses are unsold?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the number is less than might be expected under all circumstances and, as a matter of fact, is less than two weeks supply. I can get the exact number for my hon. friend, but in view of the great impetus to housing the number is remarkably small.


George James McIlraith: It is a matter of interpretation of the facts.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Is the minister aware of the protests being made by the commercial salmon fishermen of Nova Scotia and in particular of Cape Breton regarding the severe regulations which are being imposed this year, particularly on those fishermen who operate salmon traps in exposed areas off the coast?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I am aware of the views of the commercial fishermen in the areas referred to by the hon. member. I should like to point out, however, that in the exposed areas referred to no weekly lift period is imposed as in other areas. I have been trying to find an equitable solution to the problem.
Hon. members are no doubt aware that, working with the provincial administrations concerned which have an interest in the Atlantic salmon fishery, chiefly from the sports fishing point of view, the department has been attempting for a number of years to get agreement on uniform regulations. There is no question but that stringent conservation regulations are needed on both the angling and commercial fishermen in the whole of the Atlantic coast areas in order to assist in our attempt to rehabilitate the runs of Atlantic salmon. Unfortunately, however, achieving the desired degree of uniformity has not yet been possible.


Mr. R. S. MacLellan (Inverness-Riclimond):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister of Fisheries tell us what action he has taken to meet the protests of the commercial fishermen of Nova Scotia regarding the change in the regulations this year?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, when it became evident that these particular commercial fishermen in Nova Scotia were being faced with what they felt were severe restrictions, I immediately took up the problem with the appropriate authorities of the government of Nova Scotia. I regret to say, however, that I have been unsuccessful in persuading these authorities to change their strong recommendations regarding the regulations which, in their view, should be imposed on the commercial fishermen of Nova Scotia. I suggested to the appropriate Nova Scotia government authorities that their recommendations for such restrictive regulations should not be implemented all in one season but rather in stages. Because of the strong views of the province that there was urgent and immediate need for restrictive measures, I have been unable so far to obtain agreement to my suggestions.


Mr. Clement O'Leary (Aniigonish-Guysborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Who has the final responsibility for the regulations covering commercial salmon fishing in Nova Scotia, the Minister of Fisheries or the province of Nova Scotia?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, the regulations are passed by federal order in council, but we attempt to co-operate with the provinces concerned in an effort to make the regulations uniform throughout the Atlantic provinces.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to clarify my reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Anti-gonish-Guysborough. I wish to add that the federal government attempts to co-operate with the provinces by passing regulations that are in conformity with the provincial recommendations where the provinces have a special interest in a given type of fishery.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there any doubt that the federal authorities have the ultimate jurisdiction in this matter?


John Angus MacLean: No, Mr. Speaker.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Has the minister sent out invitations to the inauguration of a new defence industry at Atholville, New Brunswick, which is to take place tomorrow?


Donat Raymond: Mr. Speaker, there is a ceremony tomorrow involving the blessing of the building or the inauguration of the project. I have had absolutely nothing to do with the sending out of invitations, and the only knowledge I have is that I will be taking part.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister aware that invitations to the official opening have been sent out in his name?


Mr. O'Hurley:: I am not aware that they are in my name. I know I will be attending, but I was not aware of invitations being sent out in my name.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that on May 12 there was a ceremony involving turning the sod on provincial land for the building which is being constructed by the provincial government to house this industry, and can the minister say why he was not there?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I hope the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate does not mean to imply that I sent out those invitations also.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I thought the minister would have liked to be there with the premier of New Brunswick.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the urgency of that meeting is in the past.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. In order to preserve as far as possible the external beauty and harmony of parliament hill during the reconstruction of the west block, would the minister give consideration to changing the colour of the temporary wall around the west block from the present interior public works grey to an external and harmonious green?
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisier of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Kootenay West suggesting that green is the colour of the New party? We considered making it blue, but we thought we might be suspect so we decided on a nice, quiet grey which would not show dust or debris.



STATEMENT CONCERNING UNITED STATES FLAGS FLOWN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Skeena who questioned me yesterday as to whether my department was derelict in flying the United States flag on parliament hill with only 48 stars, may I say that I have long suspected that on occasion in this house the hon. member must see stars, but I had no idea that he ever found a dearth of them. As a matter of fact we recruited a squad of stargazers who went out and counted the number of stars on the flags on parliament hill. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will be glad to hear that on each of the old glories everywhere on parliament hill there are 50 stars. However, to express the enthusiasm which we all feel for the presidential visit, we have flying throughout the city of Ottawa many old glories, old and new, containing 48, 49 and 50 stars. To relieve the anxiety of the hon. member may I say I am informed by the United States authorities that the official United States flag can contain 48, 49 or 50 stars. I hope that answers the question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether any of them have 51 stars?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received information to the effect that at least four members of the delegation of the unemployed who visited Ottawa last month and therefore had their unemployment insurance benefits cut for that day have appealed this ruling to a board of referees?


Michael Starr: That is right.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Can the minister assure the house that when the decision of the board of referees is handed down it will apply to all those who lost their daily benefit and not merely to the four who appealed?

Canadian National Railways Act


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say at this time what the judgment of the unemployment insurance commission may be in respect to this matter.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if Mr. Hector McKinnon is acting for the government in any capacity at the present time and, if so, what capacity?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was well known that Mr. Hector McKinnon is the leader of the Canadian delegation to the negotiating conference under GATT auspices at Geneva, and has been acting as such from the outset of that conference. He has been in Geneva for something like eight months and is, of course, continuing in that capacity.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 16, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) for the second reading of Bill No. C-94 to amend the Canadian National Railways Act.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, when the business of the house was interrupted at five o'clock yesterday afternoon I was in the midst of a speech on this very important bill. Since some question arose last evening about the respective importance of this bill and another measure that was before the house forecasting a bill I wish to make it abundantly clear that I regard this bill as of very little importance at all, and so do we on this side of the house. We think it is highly inappropriate to be concerning ourselves about changing the number of directors of the Canadian National Railways when there are so many important and urgent problems before this country.


An hon. Member:: Let us pass it, then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: An hon. member says "Let us pass it". We do not think even the waste of this money is justified at this time. That is the reason we do not want to pass it. We do not think this parliament should be asked to engage in further expenditures of public money at a time when we have deficits that are more nearly astronomical than anything this country has ever known before in peacetime, and that are rapidly exceeding those we
[Miss LaMarsh.l
had in world war II. When the unemployment insurance fund is bankrupt, when the government has not brought down-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's line of argument seems to be taking quite a different turn from that suggested by the subject matter of the bill. It would not be appropriate to debate the many matters which might be of importance simply to illustrate the point that this bill is not important.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am really rather astonished at the observations of Your Honour, which I do not take to be a ruling. I have been a member of this house for eight years and have witnessed its activities since 1938. I have never before heard it suggested that an hon. member cannot say that one of the principal objections to a bill is that it is taking up the time of parliament when other much more important matters should be engaging the attention of parliament.
Having made that point I was simply citing -and I was not going to debate any of them -some of the important matters that ought to be before us rather than this measure, matters that should be proceeded with, particularly in view of the fact that on April 24 this house decided, over some opposition, to sit exceptionally long hours to consider the important and urgent business of the country.
This is a sample of the kind of important and urgent business that Her Majesty's advisers bring before us, this bill to raise the number of directors from seven to 12, another stopgap measure such as the one we debated before this and the horse racing bill that we had earlier this week. The only matter of any consequence that we have had in this house up to noon on Wednesday is the war veterans allowance measure, on which there was unanimity and which could have been disposed of and sent to the committee by now if Her Majesty's advisers had had some important business to bring before us, which they had not. That is our complaint.


Mr. Churchill:: Nonsense. May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why is he so anxious to terminate the debate on an important measure like one to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not anxious to
terminate debate on that measure at all. However, it seems to me that congratulatory speeches about the Minister of Veterans Affairs, one after another, are not debate.


Mr. Jones:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Saskatoon and parliamentary secretary rising on a point of order?


Henry Frank Jones: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I am rising on a point of order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has made an accusation that the speeches that were made last night in this house on war veterans allowances were a series of repetitions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member would indicate what his point of order is, he might then substantiate it.


Henry Frank Jones: I am trying to reach this matter, Mr. Speaker, perhaps on a question of privilege. I think it is a matter of privilege. I listened very closely to the speeches that were made. If I may, I should like to lay the foundation-


Mr. Speaker:: So far the parliamentary secretary is only contradicting what was said. What he has said so far indicates no point of order or matter of privilege, to my mind.


Henry Frank Jones: If I may do so, I should like to state briefly the matter of privilege.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A moment ago it was a point of order.


Henry Frank Jones: The question of privilege is simply this. The statement made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was quite wrong and cast a reflection on all members of this house. The speeches they made were very thoughtful speeches on this particular subject.


An hon. Member:: They were not congratulatory speeches at all.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the aspersion cast on the members of the house was not severe enough to make it a matter of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I did not mention any member of the house at all. I made one simple statement. I said that speeches of congratulation to the Minister of Veterans Affairs were not debate. That is all I said. I did not refer to any member of the house. I merely made a simple statement that speeches of that character were not debate. I think Your Honour could not disagree with that statement. However, it is quite irrelevant, and I made it in answer to an irrelevant question asked by the house leader. I would not have thought of making it had it not been for the house leader's interruption.
If I might be permitted to proceed to discuss the measure before the house, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we could make more progress, though hon. gentlemen do not seem to wish to have it.
17, 1961
Canadian National Railways Act


Henry Frank Jones: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Henry Frank Jones: In view of the remarks he has made to the effect that these matters that have come before the house in the last day or two are of such little importance, is he able to explain to us why the hon. member for Laurier made no less than 40 interjections, including three speeches, in one day and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate approximately 29 or 30 in one day?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no trouble at all in answering that question. That is precisely why I am speaking on this matter. The hon. member for Laurier on the previous bill was protesting that the government did not bring in a solution to the problem but brought back the same old stopgap. We as an opposition are trying to do what we have a right and a duty to do. We are trying to draw attention to the fact that, ever since the by-election campaign started, the government has ceased to do the public business.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are afraid to bring any contentious matter before this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time for discussion of the order of the business of the house has expired. If the hon. member pursues the course he is following, other hon. members will be entitled to take the same course and the bill will not be referred to.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member was answering a question.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that we return to the principle of the bill, which is to increase the number of directors of the C.N.R. from seven to 12.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what I have been seeking to do ever since I rose in my place, Mr. Speaker, and I have been diverted from doing so by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The reason I rose last evening was to draw attention to the fact that no argument had been made by the Minister of Transport, who seems to be rather a spectator as far as this debate is concerned. I am not criticizing the Minister of Transport on that account.


Léon Balcer: I have never been so bored in all my life.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the Minister of Transport made his interjection I was going

Canadian National Railways Act to say that the Minister of Transport generally sets an example to the hon. gentlemen opposite that would improve the decorum of the house if they followed it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know whether it is because of influences external to the house, but there seems to be a general desire for all members to talk at once this morning. We shall not make any progress on that basis. I ask for their co-operation in restraining their comments until they get the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rose yesterday, Mr. Speaker to take issue with me the only solid argument, if you can call it that, which has been made in favour of this bill. I refer to the argument made by the hon. member for Vancouver South. The hon. gentleman was in his place earlier. We know there are good reasons why the hon. gentleman may not be in the house, and I do not want to allude to them. I certainly do not want to say anything that would be in any way a reflection on that hon. gentleman, particularly in the circumstances in which he finds himself at the present time and about which we all feel great sympathy.
However, I am obliged to take issue with his argument, and it is only with his argument that I am seeking to take issue. He made an argument and I should like to read it, because yesterday he said that I had been unfair to him. I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. gentleman in any circumstance, and I am deeply anxious not to be unfair to him in the present circumstance. I should therefore like to read what he said. As will be found at page 4906 of Hansard he said:
Mr. Speaker, before I answer some of the statements made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) I should like to say this to the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) who stated so emphatically that he tried to find one argument for increasing the number of directors but could not find one valid one. If he would compare the operating statements of the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. over the past few years, he might find a few arguments. He might find an argument in the fact that the C.N.R. deficits over 1960 and 1959 were $110 million which were paid for by the taxpayers whereas in the same two years the C.P.R. contributed $53 million in the form of corporation tax payments. If you have a business operation and are not too successful and if you have very successful competitors, the wise businessman takes a look at the practice of his competitors and is not afraid to copy any of the practices which he feels may be of advantage to him.
In reply to that observation, as found at page 4908 of Hansard I said this:
The hon. member has advanced one reason why we should be in favour of this bill, and I think that reason should be given somewhat more emphasis than he placed upon it. He said we should appoint five more directors to the board of the C.N.R. in order to end the deficit.

Perhaps that is a somewhat exaggerated way of putting what the hon. gentleman said. However, if we just leave the two statements side by side I think most people would come to the conclusion that what the hon. gentleman was saying was that if we increased the number of directors of the C.N.R. there would be a greater prospect that the C.N.R. would not have a deficit, and that it would be in a position similar to that of the C.P.R. If his argument did not mean that I do not think it meant anything; and I think it was intended to mean something. I just wanted to make it very, very clear that I had grounds for what I said; that I was not being unfair to the hon. gentleman in that matter.
The hon. gentleman also took some exception to another statement I made. I should like to clear that up also because again, as I say, I do not want to be unfair to the hon. gentleman. He took some exception to my drawing this conclusion from his observations in the committee stage when I said yesterday:
So that even though the high minded member from Vancouver South said British Columbia does not need a director he finds his colleagues from Alberta rising at once to say that if there are to be any more directors we should have one from Alberta.
I did not mean to imply-and if I did the hon. gentleman any injustice I want to repair it at once-that the hon. gentleman said specifically that there should be no director from British Columbia. He did not say that. If I gave the impression in my words that he did say it specifically, I apologize. But the general language he did use was, "Take the best men wherever you can find them. Do not pay any attention to these considerations of geography other than broadly regional considerations".
That, of course, is the position the previous government took. That is the position that prevails at the present time with seven directors. When the hon. member for Vancouver South made his argument he was seeking to refute an argument that was made by the hon. member for Laurier, an argument that I do not think can be successfully refuted; the argument that if we have 12 directors the appointments will have to be not on a broadly regional basis but in fact, owing to all the practices which there have always been, no matter who was in office in this country, there will have to be a representative from every province or there will be a great deal of complaint from any province that is excluded.
To illustrate my point yesterday-and I repeat this because the argument does not seem to have been appreciated and perhaps repetition in that case is excusable to make the argument abundantly clear-I recalled that hon. gentlemen in 1957 campaigned against us in one of the provinces of this

country because the Liberal cabinet did not contain a minister from that province. I suggested that if that province was ignored when these extra five directors were appointed, there would be a storm from the province, particularly as that province is as much concerned with the operations of the Canadian National Railways-which is the only railway in that province; it is one of the two provinces where the C.P.R. does not operate-as any other province except one, and the other one is of course Newfoundland.
I am quite sure that if there are to be 12 directors and there is no director chosen from Newfoundland, that will not be very well viewed in that province. I am quite sure this will be true of every province. At least three voices have been raised from the province of Alberta already to put in a claim for a director from that province.
What my hon. friend from Laurier said is quite true. I am not saying there would be anything essentially or necessarily wrong with having a director from every province, but we have had a great deal of experience with Canadian National Railways over the years, and there does seem to have been for a long period now, under two governments-for four years under the present government-a view that with seven directors the broad regional aspects of the country have been reasonably represented.
As my hon. friend from Laurier said, this does seem to be an odd time to be changing that policy, when there are so many really urgent things that need to be done. I think we have reasonable ground for expressing disquietude about the reasons given by hon. gentlemen opposite. I exclude the minister from that, but I refer to the minister's friends in their support of this bill. They are not really supporting it because they want five more directors. They rise to support it and spend all their time attacking the present management of the Canadian National Railways. If they want to attack the management of the Canadian National Railways, that is their business; but I might point out that the former minister of transport (Mr. Hees) said over and over again that he was completely satisfied with the present management of the Canadian National Railways and with the present situation with regard to the board of directors.
The present minister has never said a word in criticism of the management since he became Minister of Transport or since he became a minister. I believe my hon. friend from Laurier did say yesterday-I have not the reference here-that the minister may have been critical of the Canadian National Railways when he was sitting over here, but I am not attempting to dredge that matter
90205-6-313
17, 1961	4953
Canadian National Railways Act up at all. The minister has been in office for some months now, and I have never heard one word pass his lips in criticism of the management of the railways. Indeed, it seems to me that on one or two occasions he has ascribed to the management of the railways responsibilities which are not theirs at all. However, that would introduce a separate topic, which I do not seek to do because I find within the scope of this bill plenty of things to say without going outside it.
I say that if the purpose of this bill is to undermine the management of the C.N.R., we should not be considering it at all. If the government are not satisfied with the management of the C.N.R. they should change it; they should not seek by this kind of device to undermine it. That is no way to run any kind of business. I think it is about time the government did make a firm statement, in view of the things that have been said by hon. gentlemen opposite, about what they do intend to do with the management of the Canadian National Railways.
Is the purpose of this bill to introduce five directors who will harass the management; who will undermine the management of the railways; who will act, if you like, as spies for hon. gentlemen over there? Is that the purpose of it? That seemed to be implied in some of the things we have heard about this bill. I suspect, having regard to the kind of appointments this government has made to far too many boards and commissions since it came into office, that this bill has an entirely different purpose. I suspect, as I said yesterday-


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Might I ask the hon. gentleman how long he thinks it is necessary to talk to prove that this bill is utterly irrelevant and that we should not be dealing with it at all? I am interested in the length of time he feels it necessary to talk on this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman has a good point. The hon. gentleman is suggesting that I should not emulate his colleague the Minister of Finance and use a sledgehammer to drive home a tack. I think he is right, and I do not think I will be spending very much more time on this topic. However, I was in the middle of a point yesterday which I would have made in two minutes had I had the two minutes and had I not ceded them to the hon. member for Vancouver South so he could take exception to something I said.
My point is this. I suspect, having regard to the precedents of the last four years, the

Canadian National Railways Act kind of appointments the government is going to make. There is going to be a request for an appointment from Prince Edward Island, as I said yesterday, and I suspect that the defeated candidate in Kings will be the appointee from Prince Edward Island.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suspect that the defeated candidate in Esquimalt-Saanich-and I mean the defeated Tory candidate-will be the director from British Columbia. I suspect that the discarded provincial cabinet minister who is now seeking election as a Conservative candidate in Restigouche-Madawaska will end up on the board of the C.N.R.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No doubt-


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am in the middle of making a speech, which the hon. member for Greenwood wants to be short. I suspect the defeated Conservative candidate in Leeds, unless they prefer the defeated one in Peterborough or the defeated one in Niagara Falls, will be appointed from Ontario. Then if they are looking for a candidate from Quebec to keep a proper balance there is always, of course, the defeated candidate in Labelle.
So there will be no need, once this bill is forced through the house, by the majority, as I have no doubt it will be, to worry about the government making these appointments by the first of June. They will not have to wait, as they did in connection with the royal commission on medical care, for six or eight months though it was very urgent last December, we recall. They will not have to postpone it in the way everything else has been postponed, because on this occasion the opposition has made suggestions, which they complain we do not make, as to how this problem of theirs which they are going to create with this bill may be solved. I have made these suggestions perhaps half in jest, but only half; and if those precise appointments are not made, I suggest the appointments-there are only five-will be roughly of that character.


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: I wish to speak on this bill. I do not wish to take too much time, but I should like to answer some of the childish accusations which have been made by that party of gloom and despair.
I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Hull said the appointment of these five new directors was decided upon in order to give Conservative candidates jobs.

Yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate talked about ward heeling. _ The hon. member for Laurier is afraid of political interference. I do not think people in glass houses should throw stones. When those people were in power for 22 years they built up an empire like Caesar had in Rome. Now they do not like to see it falling. They filled these corporations, they filled the C.N.R., with Liberal dead heels.
Now we want to put on five good, solid businessmen to bring this company out of a deficit position. I do not think it is right that we should be paying the top director $75,000 to run the corporation. We have to get some good businessmen on this corporation to see whether they can reduce this deficit which the Canadian people are paying. I congratulate the minister and his department for seeing that these appointments are brought forward at the earliest possible date.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: listened with great interest to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate make his amusing speech. I wonder if he has the same problems with the C.N.R. in his riding that I have in mine?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the C.N.R. in your riding?


James Russell Keays: No. I noted that this morning the hon. member spent most of his time correcting statements he made yesterday, or conveying a different impression from the statements he made earlier. I know he calls this a threadbare bill and says it is of no importance. I am wondering whether that is just because the bill consists of only a few words asking parliament to approve an increase in the number of directors from seven to 12.
He succeeded, however, in his last few words in telling us why the official opposition are against this bill. It seems he is worried that the nominations which will be made may not be very popular with the thinking of his party. But throughout all the speeches made by the opposition no one seems to have wished to speak about the real need for increasing the number of directors on the board. Hon. members opposite seem to think that the political question is much more important than the financial problems which this corporation is facing.
It is true that many members of this house have attacked the present administration of the C.N.R., and perhaps rightly so. This is possibly one of the reasons the C.N.R. has moved ahead and reorganized its system into operating zones where the superintendents of these zones have more leeway in taking

decisions, and this alone should prove that the C.N.R. is willing to endeavour to better the financial situation of the company.
However, this in itself is not sufficient; and if the C.N.R. can bring in more directors, people from the world of finance or business, people who are acquainted with the problems which exist in different areas of the country, I am sure this alone will justify an increase in the number of directors. Any director nominated to this board and living in an area where there are special problems would, I am sure, be concerned with the operation of the railway in that area, and would be able to bring up and discuss intelligently at board meetings ways and means of improving the service, of improving the financial situation of the corporation, and of giving to the Canadian people at least the hope that the deficits now being experienced will in time disappear.
That is why I was a little concerned that the official opposition at no time brought in any argument as to why we should increase the number of directors. It is sufficient that these directors should endeavour to look closely at the situation and improve the financial situation of the C.N.R.
It seems that hon. members opposite are worried about regional representation. This is important, but if any person named to this board can contribute one iota of information which would better the situation it is immaterial from which area he comes, providing he does know of the situation and is able to bring his knowledge to the table round which the board will sit. Therefore I trust that this reason alone, the hope that the C.N.R. will be able to cut its deficit and increase the service, either passenger or freight, to all Canadians, is justification for increasing the number of directors from seven to 12.


Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which preceded this bill was on the order paper for a great many weeks. I thought it was very appropriate that the Minister of Transport should have introduced this bill for debate on May 15, the date originally scheduled for a national railway strike. One of the heaviest concentrations of C.N.R. employees exists in my riding; consequently I feel it is my responsibility to make a few remarks regarding this bill, and they will be very brief.
I was a member of the sessional committee which made the recommendation to the government to increase the number on the board of directors, and it is therefore a great satisfaction to me to witness this bill today. I have no quarrel with the suggested size of the increase, although I originally hoped the number might have been in excess of 12.
90205-6-313J
17. 1961
Canadian National Railways Act However, 12 does seem to be a sufficient number, and will certainly improve the operation of the railway.
The annual railway report for 1960 indicated, among other things, that responsibility and authority are being decentralized to the regional and area management levels on a geographic basis, as distinct from a departmental basis. I believe that statement in the annual report will clarify and remove any doubt that may have been cast upon the intention of this legislation. As all hon. members know, we now have five regions of the Canadian National Railways in Canada. I have no idea as to the actual residence of the five living directors, but it is my hope and my suggestion to the government that each of the five regions will have two directors, so that as a consequence we will not then have to look upon provincial boundaries but on regions as a whole.
I believe this legislation indicates to the citizens of this country that the government at this time is very dissatisfied with the present management of the Canadian National Railways. I believe that the appointment of Mr. Gordon by the former government, was a mistake. Perhaps the criticism of Mr. Gordon represents the reason that the hon. member for Laurier, when he spoke on Monday, included the following statement in his speech, at page 4843 of Hansard:
We on this side of the house will oppose this legislation.
All hon. members know that once this bill is passed and the appointments have been made, the effect will be a tightening of the control and authority of the present general manager. I am of the opinion that so long as he remains president and chairman of the board of directors, the shippers and employees of the railways will never be satisfied. I make that statement without qualification and add that it would be effective even if the Canadian National Railways had a surplus, and even if working conditions had improved and were such that no demands were being made at the present time.
It is my opinion that the present board of directors, and the new and larger board of directors, should be called before the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping. I feel it is the responsibility of parliament to ascertain what effect the directors have on policy decisions of the Canadian National Railways. I believe answers should be provided to questions such as who recommends the promotion of senior members of the staff to positions as vice president; do the directors make those decisions, or are they made by one man alone? To what extent did the present board of directors study the huge reorganizational decision and to

Canadian National Railways Act what extent does the board of directors supervise the plans before hump yards, presently under construction in Canada, are located and commenced; and I refer particularly to the commencement and construction of the hump yard at Moncton, New Brunswick.
I suggest these are important questions to be answered. They do not only involve management problems but rather policy decisions which result in the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars. I should also like to know the extent to which the board of directors took responsibility for the real estate development that took place last year and is continuing to this date, at Montreal. I should also ask whether that board of directors had the responsibility for the redevelopment at Moncton. As the member of parliament representing that area I welcomed the decision of management to do so, but I wonder about the extent to which the board of directors took part in the planning, leasing, etc.
This bill was the subject of debate on Monday and Tuesday of this week. I hope it will be passed today, and that no time will be lost in passing the required orders in council. I hope at the same time the government, in making the selection of the six new directors, will give serious thought to placing retired C.N.R. employees on this board of directors. I realize that we should have businessmen on the board, however, if working conditions are to improve; and if we are to establish better relations between the public and this crown corporation we must have individuals on the board of directors who know what is wrong. A businessman may have some idea in this regard, as he may be or may become a shipper, but this board of directors must also include retired railway workers who have given a lifetime of service to this crown company.
I have reason to believe that Mr. Gordon is employed at the present time on what can be generally termed as a day to day basis. If I am correct in that belief, perhaps he will agree with my interpretation of this bill; that this is an appropriate time for him to tender his resignation.


Mr. Fisher:: Hear, hear.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, if the value of the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is to be measured by the accuracy of that statement which he ascribed to me, then I suggest he might just as well send word up to Hansard to have his remarks of this day taken off the record. He suggested in his speech of yesterday, and I think he repeated

it today, that I had advocated that if this bill passed, one of the new directors should be appointed from the province of Alberta.
That is not correct. I referred to the region served by the Northern Alberta Railways, and that is an entirely different situation. The Northern Alberta Railways system is a monstrosity created in 1929 by the then Liberal administration. It serves not only the northern half of Alberta, but is the focal point through which freight proceeds from the Northwest Territories into the northeastern part of British Columbia, into the Cariboo district, which is so ably represented by my good friend the hon. member for Cariboo. It now seems possible, if legislation implementing the recommendations of the Manning commission is proceeded with, to have an extension of some 400 miles into the Northwest Territories.
Speaking in regard to representation on a regional basis, I should like to say that I have always felt-particularly with reference to the Canadian National Railways board of directors-there should be regional rather than provincial representation. I related that fact to the recommendations contained in the MacPherson royal commission report, which obviously suggested that the difficulties which the authors of that report had in mind would be vast if there was a measure of change so far as passenger traffic, freight traffic, and diminution of service on a regional basis are concerned.
That was what I had in mind and for that reason I strongly advocate passage of the bill. The railway situation certainly needs attention, and I think that attention might well commence at the top with the administrative processes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I misinterpreted the hon. member I did so inadvertently and I am quite willing to substitute northern Alberta for Alberta.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, all through this debate my hon. friends opposite have said repeatedly that this bill is insignificant, unimportant and useless; that it will not help the C.N.R.; that it is a waste of money, and so on. All I can say is that with all these accusations against the bill I think it is only proper that we should have a look at the background of the legislation and try to find out who were the original dreamers, the insignificant people who first conceived this idea.
I have been looking at the report of proceedings of the sessional committee where

this matter was discussed. First of all, the great proponent at that time of an increase in the number of directors was none other than the deskmate of the hon. member for Bon-avista-Twillingate, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson). We all know that the committee unanimously recommended that the government should bring in such a bill which is now called insignificant, unimportant and so on by hon. members across the floor. Among those members who voted for this recommendation in that committee were the hon. member for Port Arthur, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, the hon. member for Lapointe, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and the hon. member for Fort William.
I do not agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that this bill does not mean anything. He got up to speak about 20 times on the bill. I would not say that he has made three major speeches-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nor would I.


Léon Balcer: -but he has certainly made three lengthy speeches in which he has said that this measure is unimportant and so on. I must admit that I am somewhat at a loss in trying to understand his attitude as to the importance of various matters that are brought before the house. Only last week we brought forward a matter of such importance as a brand new shipping policy that will provide a lot of work for Canadians but we have not heard from him about it. Yet he finds the time to make three speeches on this bill which he calls unimportant and insignificant.
I will not pretend that the fact that we are increasing the number of directors of the C.N.R. will settle all the problems of the railway. Of course not. But I must say that I certainly fail to find any sense in the argument of the hon. member for Laurier when he says that we should not take this step because there is unemployment in Canada and because the C.N.R. has a deficit. I think precisely the opposite view should move the house to support the bill, because the C.N.R. is extremely important business. It has an operating revenue of about $700 million, and the management has to make tremendously important policy decisions which mean a lot to the future of this national railway. I think that to strengthen the board with good Canadians who will have at heart the welfare and improvement of our national railway is a move in the right direction.
As I said in my opening remarks on the bill, if one looks at the United States railways one will see that the largest and most important ones, which are all smaller than the C.N.R., have boards of directors with memberships ranging between 15 and 25, and
Division
our own Canadian Pacific Railway has 24 directors. An argument was made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River both in the house and in the committee as to the importance of an organization like the C.N.R. having as directors good businessmen who will bring traffic to the line and who will bring to the board as directors their experience as successful Canadians in their various fields of endeavour. I think this is all to the good. In my view this move will really help the C.N.R. and it will be money well spent.
I know my hon. friends across the floor during this debate have taken an attitude that is not very commendable in saying that because these people are going to be paid, this is money wasted when there is unemployment at the present time and some Canadians are suffering. I sincerely believe that this is no argument at all, because what we are recommending is the strengthening of one of the largest enterprises of the Canadian government.
Canadian National Railways is a tremendous public undertaking. The government has the responsibility for this railway. It must see that the railway is well managed and that management has the proper support and the tools with which it can do a good job. By doing what we are doing today I think we are helping the C.N.R. We will bring to the board of directors great Canadians. When we look at the people who have served on the board in the past I think we can have confidence that we will have great Canadians as directors who will bring to the C.N.R. their vast experience, their Canadianism and the will to render a great service to the Canadian public.


Mr. Leiourneau:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct an error. I do not mind being called Legere, but my name is Letourneau.
After the taking of the vote:


Mr. Speaker:: To make the matter clear may I say this. A vote was recorded tor Mr. Letourneau but not for Mr. Legere, whose name was called in error.
I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be considered in committee of the whole? Next sitting of the house.


[Stage Direction]
At one o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to order made on Thursday, May 11, 1961.

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

Mr. McCleave: What are the latest figures available regarding the municipal winter works incentive program 1960-61, for (1) Canada (2) each province, the
Question
Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Indian bands, with regard to:	(a) applications received (b)
applications accepted (c) applications rejected, pending, or withdrawn (d) estimated total cost of projects (e) estimated total direct payroll cost of projects (f) estimated cost of projects to May 31	(g) estimated direct payroll cost
of projects to May 31 (h) estimated federal government share of direct payroll costs (i) estimated number of men to be hired to May 31 (j) estimated man-days work to be provided to May 31?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
[For answer see the table on the following page.]



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Municipal Winter Works Incentive Program 1960-61 Cumulative Report Week Ending'JVlay 12, 1961
Canada	B.C.	Alta.	Sask.	Man.	Ont.	Que.	N.B.	N.S.	P.E.I.	Nfld.	Yukon	N.W.T.	Indian BandsApplications received	7,275	780	827	981	304	1,746	2,103	205	107	15	136	4	7	60Applications accepted	7,093	765	815	960	297	1,710	2,027	202	104	14	135	2	7	55Applications rejected, pending or withdrawn 	R. 119 P. 21 W. 42	15	12	21	7	36	76	3	3	1	1	2	5Estimated total cost of projects	289,911	41,451	24,541	11,039	7,384	71,217	125,733	3,050	2,175	443	2,557	3	15	303Estimated total direct payroll cost of projects	91,553	13,033	8,192	3,873	2,393	21,949	38,438	1,466	1,082	157	777	2	5	186Estimated cost of projects	
Oct. 15/60-May 31/61	210,353	23,515	20,724	9,388	7,152	52,917	89,850	2,718	2,090	149	1,630	2	15	303Estimated direct payroll cost of projects.. Oct. 15/60-May 31/61	71,040	8,572	7,115	3,375	2,282	16,764	29,775	1,370	984	57	553	2	5	186Estimated federal government share of direct payroll costs	35,159	4,241	3,556	1,683	1,141	8,321	14,668	658	492	28	275	1	2	93Estimated number of men to be hired	
Oct. 15/60-May 31/61	118,976	8,919	13,120	12,167	3,607	22,446	48,695	5,551	1,532	153	1,964	7	30	785Estimated man days work to be provided. Oct. 15/60-May 31/61	5,060,169	473,509	497,947	270,660	171,752	1,087,413	2,273,589	121,414	84,016	6,156	54,158	118	460	18,977
N.B.-Cost figures shown in thousands of dollars.
Percentage of total payroll cost to total cost of projects undertaken during period of program-33.8.
4960	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Question


[Stage Direction]
of

[Stage Direction]
President of the United States of America to

[Stage Direction]
in the
HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER, OTTAWA on
Wednesday, May 17, 1961
The President was welcomed by the Right Honourable J. G. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada, and thanked by the Honourable Mark Robert Drouin, Speaker of the Senate and the Honourable Roland Michener, Speaker1 of the House of Commons.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbakei (Prime Minister):: Mr. President, Speaker of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Commons, members of the Parliament of Canada. Today it is my honour to welcome here, on behalf of the Canadian parliament and people, one who comes to us not only as a renowned leader of the free world but as a good neighbour and friend.
(Translation):
Mr. President, Members of the Parliament of Canada.
Today it is my honour to welcome here, on behalf of the Canadian parliament and people, one who comes to us not only as a new but as a renowned leader of the free world, and also as a good neighbour and friend.
(Text):
Mr. President, the extraordinary welcome from the people which you have received is a demonstration of their admiration and affection not only for your country but for you and Mrs. Kennedy. As you passed through the streets yesterday and today, Mr. President, you must have been conscious of a divided attention, and all who had eyes to see could see why that was so.
This is an unusual gathering, Mr. President, bringing together as it does the members of the Senate and the House of Commons. I believe with your experience in both legislative branches of parliament you will feel particularly at home in the parliament of Canada, for I am told that on occasion the Senate of the United States and the House 90205-6-314
of Representatives are not always in agreement either with themselves or with the President. In that regard they seem at the moment to be similar in class and kind to what we have here.
In these houses of parliament, as with yours, we cherish our right to live under a system of government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, our right and our glory being that here in our institutions, opposing views are respected. Here, as in your country, views are not only uttered but are debated. Men who are free to speak are also compelled to answer, and it is our common right to live our lives according to our lights and without any dictation from any ruling clique. Today, sir, I bring to your attention the words of Robert Frost, the poet of your inauguration, who recently in the city of Jerusalem signed the guest book of the university there with these words:
Something there is that does not love a wall- it is friendship.
When you spoke in New Brunswick to the university there four years ago you quoted from the same poet:
Good fences make good neighbours.
We in Canada believe that good fences are necessary. We are determined that as to our two countries, no one shall be permitted to build a wall between them. We have fences between us, but they are not hostile barriers; but rather, by way of co-operation, evidences of distinctiveness that each of our countries cherishes and of the independence and sovereignty that each must respect in the other.

Throughout the years there has been a movement of peoples between our countries. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, have gone from Canada to the New England states, and great numbers from the United States have settled in Canada. Indeed, sir, Massachusetts holds a special place in my heart and sentiment, for two of my wife's ancestors, Brewster and Warren, were of the Mayflower company that laid the foundations of democracy in the new world in the British tradition.
I summarize the relations between our countries as represented in your presence here today by that inscription on the St. Lawrence seaway granite plaque which reads:
This stone bears witness to the common purpose of two nations whose frontiers are the frontiers of friendship, whose ways are the ways of freedom, and whose works are the works of peace.
We have our problems in trade; we have them in defence. I am of those who believe this, that no nation in the world today by itself can provide for adequate defence. Canada cannot. I say to you, sir, that one of the abiding things of this gathering has been the fact that we realize this fact, that we together have a responsibility to each other to maintain jontly our defences for the benefit of freedom.
That brings me to the next question, and it is this; the need for unity in addition to security. Co-operation in defence and economically is a price that all freedom loving nations, great and small, not only in NATO but everywhere in the world, must pay; for the prize of co-operation may be freedom itself.
I think great benefit comes to us by your visit, sir, in that you again have the opportunity of stating some of the principles upon which the western world stands. I have felt that we have failed among the western nations to state in simple terms the things in which we believe so that all mankind may understand that those principles shall recognize the equality of all peoples, that each and all shall work for the benefit of the other.
Great responsibilities rest upon those such as yourself who are the leaders of the free world. Leaders will not always be right in their decisions. Sometimes they will be on the wrong side. That is of the essence of democracy; but as long as they are never on the side of wrong, freedom will not suffer.
You have a great responsibility as the leader of the world's most powerful nation; young in years, old in experience, scholar, veteran, author, statesman. When I was in Ireland a few weeks ago-and Ireland is the rock whence you were hewn, sir-I was told something of your ancestry, shown the arms of the O'Kennedys of Ormonde and of
the Fitzgeralds, renowned in Irish history as the "Geraldines". And I was shown a poem about the Geraldines written by the poet-patriot Thomas Davis who, incidentally, was the most famous Dublin associate of one of Canada's fathers of Confederation, Thomas D'Arcy McGee, one verse of which has significance today:
"These Geraldines! These Geraldines! rain Wears away the rock And time may wear away the tribe That stood the battle's shock;
But ever, sure, while one is left of all That honoured race,
In front of freedom's chivalry is that Fitzgerald's place."
That is your place today, Mr. President. And I express the wish, not only on behalf of my fellow Canadians but of all people who love freedom everywhere that you may be richly endowed-in thought with faith, in words with wisdom, in deed with courage, and always in service.
In these qualities is greatness. These qualities I have in mind when I present to the Senate and the House of Commons the President of the United States.


Hon. John F. Kennedy (President of the United States):: 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.
I am grateful for the generous remarks and kind sentiments expressed toward my country and myself, Mr. Prime Minister. We in the United States have an impression that this country is made up of descendants of the English and the French, but I was glad to hear some applause coming from the very back benches when you mentioned Ireland. I am sure they are making progress forward.
(Translation):
I feel I am truly among friends.
(Text):
It is a deeply felt honour to address this distinguished legislative body, yet may I say I feel very much at home with you here today, for one third of my life was spent in the parliament of my own country, the United States congress. There are many differences between this body and mine. The most noticeable to me is the lofty appearance of statesmanship which is on the faces of the members of the Senate, who realize that they will never have to place their case before the people again. I feel at home here also because I remember in my own state of Massachusetts many friends and former constituents who are of Canadian descent. Among the voters of Massachusetts who were born outside the United States the largest group

by far was born in Canada. Their vote is enough to determine the outcome of an election, even a presidential election. You can understand that having been elected president of the United States by less than 140,000 votes out of 60 million, I am very conscious of these statistics.
The warmth of your hospitality symbolizes more than the courtesy which may be accorded to an individual visitor. It symbolizes the enduring qualities of amity and honour which have characterized our countries' relations for so many decades. Nearly 40 years ago a distinguished prime minister of this country took the part of the United States at a disarmament conference. He said "They may not be angels, but they are at least our friends." I must say I do not think we have probably demonstrated in the 40 years since then that we are angels yet, but I hope we have demonstrated that we are at least friends.
I must say that in these days when hazard is our constant companion, I think friends are a very good thing to have. Your Prime Minister was the first of the leaders from other lands who was invited to call upon me shortly after I entered the White House, and this is my first trip as President-the first trip of my wife and myself-outside our own country's borders. It is just and fitting and appropriate and traditional that I should come here to Canada across a border which knows neither guns nor guerillas.
But we share more than a common border. We share a common heritage traced back to the early settlers who travelled from the beachheads of the maritime provinces and New England to the far reaches of the Pacific coast. Henry Thoreau spoke a common sentiment for them all: "Eastward I go only by force, westward I go free. And now I must walk towards Oregon and not towards Europe." We share common values from the past, a common defence line at present, and common aspirations for the future-our future, and indeed the future of all mankind.
Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder.
What unites us is far greater than what divides us. The issues and irritants that inevitably affect all neighbours are small indeed in comparison with the issues we face together, above all the sombre threat now posed to the whole neighbourhood of this continent and in fact to the whole community of nations. But our alliance is born not of fear but of hope. It is an alliance which advances what we are for, as well as opposing what we are against.
90205-6-3141
And so it is that when we speak of our mutual attitude and relationship, Canada and the United States speak in terms of unity. We do not seek the unanimity that comes to those who water down all issues to the lowest common denominator, or to those who conceal their differences behind fixed smiles, or to those who measure unity by standards of popularity and affection instead of trust and respect.
We are allies. This is a partnership, not an empire. We are bound to have differences and disappointments, and we are equally bound to bring them out into the open, to settle them when they can be settled, and to respect each other's views when they cannot be settled.
Thus ours is the unity of equal and independent nations, co-tenants of the same continent, heirs of the same legacy, and fully sovereign associates in the same historic endeavour; to preserve freedom for ourselves and all who wish it. To that endeavour we each must bring great material and human resources, the result of separate cultures and free economies. And, above all, that endeavour requires a free and full exchange of new and different ideas, a full and frank consultation on all issues and all undertakings. For it is clear that no free nation can stand alone to meet the threat of those who make themselves our adversaries, that no free nation can retain any illusions about the nature of that threat, and that no free nation can remain indifferent to the steady erosion of freedom around the globe.
It is equally clear that no western nation on its own can help those less developed lands fulfil their hopes for steady progress. And, finally, it is clear that, in an age when new forces are asserting their strength around the globe, when the political shape of the hemisphere is changing rapidly, nothing is more vital than the unity of your country and mine.
And so, my friends of Canada, whatever problems may exist or arise between us, I can assure you that my associates and I will be ever ready to discuss them with you and to take whatever steps we can to remove them. And whatever those problems may be, I can also assure you that they shrink in comparison with the great and awesome tasks that await us both as free and peace loving nations.
So let us fix our attention not on those matters that vex us as neighbours, but on those issues that face us as leaders. Let us look southward as part of the hemisphere with whose fate we are inextricably bound. Let us look eastward as part of the north Atlantic partnership upon whose strength and will so many depend. Let us look westward to Japan, to the newly emerging lands

of Asia and, beyond Asia, to Africa and the Middle East where live the peoples upon whose fate and choice the struggle for freedom may ultimately turn. And let us look at the world in which we live and hope to go on living, and at the way of life for which Canadians and Americans alike have always been willing to give up their lives if necessary to defend and preserve it. I was reminded again of this on my visit to your war memorial.
First, if you will, let us consider our mutual hopes for this hemisphere. Stretching virtually from pole to pole, the nations of the western hemisphere are bound together by the laws of economics as well as geography, by a common dedication to freedom as well as a common history of fighting for it. To make this entire area more secure against aggression of all kinds; to defend it against the encroachment of international communism in this hemisphere; and to see our sister states fulfil their hopes and needs for economic and social reform and development, are surely all challenges confronting your nation and deserving of your talents and resources, as well as ours.
To be sure, it would mean an added responsibility, but yours is not a nation that shrinks from responsibility. The hemisphere is a family into which we were born, and we cannot turn our backs to it in time of trouble. Nor can we stand aside from its great adventure of development. I believe that all the free members of the organization of American states would be both heartened and strengthened by any increase in your hemispheric role. Your skills, your resources, your judicious perception at the council table- even when it differs from our own views- are all needed throughout the inter-American community. Your country and mine are partners in North American affairs; can we not become partners in inter-American affairs?
Second, let us consider our mutual hopes for the north Atlantic community. Our NATO alliance is still, as it was when it was founded, the world's greatest bulwark of freedom. But the military balance of power has been changing. Enemy tactics and weaponry have been changing. We can stand still only at our peril.
NATO force structures were originally devised to meet the threat of a massive conventional attack, in a period of western nuclear monopoly. Now, if we are to meet the defence requirements of the 1960's, the NATO countries must push forward simultaneously along two major lines.
First, we must strengthen the conventional capability of our alliance as a matter of the highest priority. To this end we in the United States are taking steps to increase
the strength and mobility of our forces and to modernize their equipment. To the same end, we will maintain our forces now on the European continent, and will increase their conventional capabilities. We look to our NATO allies to assign an equally high priority to this same essential task.
Second, we must make certain that nuclear weapons will continue to be available for the defence of the entire treaty area, and that these weapons are at all times under close and flexible political control that meets the needs of all NATO countries. We are prepared to join our allies in working out suitable arrangements for this purpose.
To make clear our own intentions and commitment, to the defence of the western world, the United States will commit to the NATO command area five-and subsequently still more-Polaris atomic missile submarines, which are defensive weapons, subject to any agreed NATO guidelines on their control and use, and responsive to the needs of all members but still credible in an emergency. Beyond this, we look to the possibility of eventually establishing a NATO sea-borne force which would be truly multilateral in ownership and control, if this should be desired and found feasible by our allies once NATO's non-nuclear goals have been achieved.
Both of these measures-improved conventional forces and increased nuclear forces- are put forward in recognition of the fact that the defence of Europe, and the assurance that can be given to the people of Europe, and the defence of North America, are indivisible; in the hope that no aggressor will mistake our desire for peace with our determination to respond instantly to any attack with whatever force is appropriate, and in the conviction that the time has come for all members of the NATO community to further increase and integrate their respective forces in the NATO command area, co-ordinating and sharing in research, development, production, storage, defence, command and training at all levels of armaments. So let us begin. Our opponents are watching to see if we in the west are divided; they take courage when we are, and we must not let them be deceived or in doubt about our willingness to maintain our own freedom.
Third, let us turn to the less developed nations in the southern half of the globe, those whose struggle to escape the bonds of mass misery appeals to our hearts as well as to our hopes for a free and stable world community. Both your nation and mine have recognized our responsibilities to these new nations. Our people have given generously, though not always effectively. We could not do less, and now we must do more.

For our historic task in this embattled age is not merely to defend freedom. It is to extend its writ and to strengthen its covenant to peoples of different cultures and creeds and colours, whose policies or economic system may differ from our own but whose desire to be free is no less fervent than our own. Through the organization for economic cooperative development and the development assistance group we can pool our vast resources and skills and make available the kind of long term capital, planning and knowhow without which these nations will never achieve independent and viable economies, and without which our efforts will be tragically wasted. I propose further that the O.E.C.D. establish a development centre, where citizens, officials, students and professional men of the Atlantic areas and the less developed countries can meet to study the problems of economic development.
If we in the Atlantic community can more closely co-ordinate our own economic policies -and certainly the O.E.C.D. provides the framework if we but use it, and I hope you will join us in doing so-then surely our potential economic resources are adequate to meet our responsibilities. Consider, for example, the unsurpassed productivity of our farms. Less than 8 per cent of the American working force is on our farms; less than 11 per cent of the Canadian working force is on yours. Fewer men on fewer acres than almost any nation on earth, but free men on free acres, can produce here in North America all the food a hungry world can use, while all the collective farms and forced labour of the communist system produce one shortage after another. This is a day to day miracle of our free societies, easy to forget at a time when our minds are caught up in the glamour of beginning the exploration of space.
As the new nations emerge into independence they face a choice, shall they develop by the method of consent or by turning their freedom over to a system of totalitarian control? In making that decision they should look long and hard at the tragedy now being played out in the villages of communist China.
If we can now work closely together to make our food surpluses a blessing instead of a curse, no man, woman or child need ever go hungry again. And if each of the more fortunate nations can bear its fair share of the effort to help all the less fortunate-not merely those with whom we have had traditional ties but all who are willing and able to achieve meaningful growth and dignity- then this decade will surely be a turning point in the history of the human family.
Finally let me say just a few words about the world in which we live. We should not misjudge the force of the challenge we face,
a force that is powerful as well as insidious, that inspires dedication as well as fear, that uses means we cannot adopt to achieve ends we cannot permit.
Nor can we mistake the nature of the struggle. It is not for concessions or territory. It is not simply between different systems. It is the age old battle for the survival of liberty itself. And our great advantage, we must never forget, is that the irresistible tide that began 500 years before the birth of Christ, in ancient Greece, is for freedom, and against tyranny. That is the wave of the future, and the iron hand of totalitarianism can ultimately neither seize it nor turn it back. In the words of Macaulay, "A single breaker may recede, but the tide is coming in."
So we in the free world are not without hope. We are not without friends. And we are not without resources to defend ourselves and those who are associated with us. Believing in the peaceful settlement of disputes and in the defence of human rights, we are working through the United Nations, and through regional and other associations, to lessen the risks, the tensions and the means and opportunity for aggression that have been mounting so rapidly throughout the world. In these councils of peace-in the United Nations emergency force in the Middle East, in the Congo, in the international control commission in southeast Asia, in the ten nation commission on disarmament-Canada has played a leading, important and constructive role.
If we can contain the powerful struggle of ideologies and reduce it to manageable proportions, we can proceed with the transcendent tasks of disciplining the nuclear weapons which shadow our lives and of finding a widened range of common enterprises between ourselves and those who live under communist rule. For, in the end, we live on one planet and are part of one human family; and whatever the struggles that confront us we must lose no chance to move forward toward a world of law and a world of disarmament.
At the conference table and in the minds of men the free world's cause is strengthened because it is just. But it is strengthened even more by the dedicated efforts of free men and free nations. As that great parliamentarian, Edmund Burke, said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." To do something is in essence why I am here today. This trip is more than a consultation, more than a good will visit. It is an act of faith, faith in your country and your leaders, faith in the capacity of two great neighbours to meet their common problems, and faith in the cause of freedom in which we are so intimately associated.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to call now on the honourable the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons to thank the President for his address, and at the same time to express the appreciation of the members of both Houses of Parliament for the gracious gesture on the part of the President in that he will meet all members in room 16 on the conclusion of this gathering.
(Translation):
Honourable Mark Robert Drouin (Speaker of the Senate): Mr. President, allow me, on behalf of the members of the Senate of Canada, to tell you how delighted we are to welcome you among us, and to express our gratitude to you for the admirable address you have delivered with so much eloquence.
(Text) :
If I may, Mr. President, I should like to tell you in English that the Senate and the House of Commons had no trouble today in coming to agreement to greet you and Mrs. Kennedy in Ottawa, and if you should be pleased to return and honour us with a further visit I am sure that a truce can be arranged and that we will greet you again with the enthusiasm that you realize is in this assembly.
(Translation):
It is not without deep emotion that we have just heard you speak of the things that unite us. We are not the only ones to have heard the ideas you have expressed, the declarations of principle that you have just made. Your words were addressed to the Canadian people and beyond the Canadian people you were also addressing all those peoples of the universe who, according to our laws, are free peoples. Finally, and mainly perhaps, you were thinking of another world when you spoke to us of peace, taking us to witness. We know that world, it ignores us and menaces us in turn, that world is inimical yet has the same right as we have to live on man's planet. The political and human principles you entertain you have wished to express them for the first time on foreign soil before the Canadian parliament. If you chose to do so it was not indiscriminately. You may rest assured that the Canadian people appreciate your friendship towards us far more deeply than I can express it. Your presence in this house is a brilliant symbol for us.
In the difficult times we are going through, you may rest assured that Canadians are not merely fairweather friends. Twice the young men of our two countries in the prime of life have crossed the oceans to fight for liberty and for that democratic civilization to which
both our countries belong. Today, you are the head of those democracies. And we wish to assure you that the Canadian people working in co-operation and harmony with yours will bring you the support of its resources and friendship.
Your concern to extend beyond the borders of America a generous image of your country honours us because this policy rests on truth. My compatriots I am pleased to say, are, I believe, your voluntary and understanding ambassadors throughout the world-we want the free world to recognize the disinterested generosity of the great American people. We proclaim your proverbial generosity-we want people finally to thank you-to thank you for your philanthropists and your foundations that have helped to rebuild so many cathedrals and assisted so many in distress through the centuries and beyond all frontiers-to thank you for the incalculable benefits derived from the Marshall plan that enabled the whole of Europe to recover rapidly -to thank you for the considerable assistance you grant to underdeveloped countries-to thank you for being the rampart of truly free democracies-finally, to thank you on behalf of those who do not know how to thank.
The long and friendly history of our relations shows that two nations, although of unequal force, can live together peacefully and prosperously.
By your presence here you bring us the ever present friendship of your country. As for ours, you can feel it in the atmosphere of this assembly. You yourself have integrated in your person the knowledge and power to act. You have already qualified courage as the most admirable of all human virtues and you were right. Your political career which in spite of the summits you have already attained is only just beginning, has given us time and again proof of that courage which you were pleased to exalt in others. Your country has entrusted its future to a young, piercing and dynamic mind. It is to some extent our future and that of western civilization that you carry within you. Let us remember that our greatest ally is liberty. Democracies remain while dictatorships pass. A free man can never be vanquished.-a free man is always the stronger. A reign of terror is always of short duration. Contemporary history brings us striking proof of this fact. Within recent times how many dictators have died an ignominious death and on their tombs democracy has blossomed again.
I could not forgive myself, Mr. President, if before finishing I did not add that coming from Quebec, that province which through its civilization, its language, its traditions and its religion differs from all the other provinces

of Canada but which nevertheless is an integral part of this country and makes it a strong and united country, coming, as I say, from that province, I am not afraid to state that the presence by your side of your ravishing wife adds to the attachment we feel for you and all that you represent. Indeed, it is common knowledge that even before you were elected President of the United States, many Canadians hastened to look through the civil status registers in the hope of discovering that Mrs. Kennedy was of Canadian descent. Unfortunately, this search did not bear fruit. But we soon gained comfort from the knowledge that your wife, like us, was of French descent.
Her charm, her grace, her beauty and her vivacity have conquered all our hearts. Your union thus doubly justifies our attachment and our affection for you and your children. Thus, I bow to Mrs. Kennedy in expressing our confidence in you, Mr. President, and our every good wish for the greatness and prosperity of your country. May God be with you!
(Text):


Hon. Roland Michener (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Mr. President, in the name of the House of Commons, in whose chamber we are assembled, I have the honour to offer you our sincere and profound thanks for your presence here today and for your encouraging message of friendship. I am sure that in this respect the House of Commons reflects the sentiments of all Canadians, not only the distinguished leaders of church and state and the guests of parliament who are present, but all Canadians everywhere. Many of them have seen and heard you this last half hour on television. All of them are pleased with your visit. They are all deeply sympathetic with you as you undertake the great responsibilities of your office, responsibilities which have so much significance not only for us as a neighbour, as a partner in NATO and in the free world, but for the strategy of peace in the world at large.
Beyond that, they are deeply interested in you as a person; as a young man who adds resourcefulness and integrity to a profile of courage. If you look about the House of Commons you will see many young men; in fact there are 54 members who have not reached their 44th year. As a group we may be slightly prejudiced in favour of youth and enterprise, in your favour shall we say. There is no doubt whatever of our attitude toward charm and beauty and, therefore, of our wholehearted delight with your wife and
with her presence here today. We not only thank you for bringing Mrs. Kennedy but rejoice in the good fortune which gives you such a beautiful and talented helpmate.
Having regard to some things that have been said today, and in taking unto myself and to my words this broadly representative character, I must make one exception. None of us in this house would dare to speak for what we refer to rather obscurely as the other place-in the plainest English, the senators. Of course they have already been most eloquently represented by my colleague, their Speaker, whose impeccable French, the envy of all would-be parliamentary bilinguists, has given our sentiments most perfect expression.
I can tell you privately, Mr. President, that although we are glad to have the senators with us and to seat them in this chamber, we are not sure that our love is reciprocated. When we are invited from time to time to their chamber- "summoned" is the appropriate word-our fraternization is somewhat restricted by a brass barrier which they have placed just where the red carpet begins. Perhaps in Washington these legislative rivalries have not been thought of.
However, both the Canadian Senate and House of Commons collaborate most sincerely to welcome you. We collaborate in other ways which would interest you. Twice a year a delegation from our two houses meets a delegation of your Senate and House of Representatives in parliamentary exchanges which are carried on under the name of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group. These have been most cordial and fruitful. Taken together with many other exchanges between our two countries, private and official and at all levels, they are evidence of how closely the social and economic life of our two countries has been interwoven. They are evidence, too, of our determination not to let our proximity produce any unnecessary friction or misunderstanding, of our determination to be good neighbours rather than just neighbours.
We regard your visit, Mr. President, as the highest expression of these neighbourly interchanges, a sort of coping stone added to a solid structure of good will. It serves to bring to focus all our desires and hopes in this most important area of international co-operation.
To our thanks to you and to Mrs. Kennedy may we add our best wishes for continued success and enjoyment of your visit, and express our hope that as you have come first to us in Canada we shall continue to deserve and receive that priority in your affections.



4S69

Thursday, May 18, 1961