Mr. Brooks:

It is not long.

Mr. Si. Laurent:

The full text is as follows:

May 8, 1953

Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):

On as important an announcement relating to such a far-reaching discussion as has taken place between our own Prime Minister and the President of the United States something ought to be said on behalf of those who sit in other parts of the house.

I agree with what has been said with respect to the great advantage and benefit which comes from a close personal contact between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. These talks help knit closer together the two great nations that compose this North American continent, whose objectives, aims and future destiny are so closely bound up together. These exchanges of views on the personal level between the Prime Minister and the President ought to be maintained and ought to be more frequent so that the least possible area will be open for disagreement on any point between Canada and the United States in the future. We have everything to gain by being together and everything to lose by being apart in even a small way.

I was interested in what the Prime Minister said with respect to the St. Lawrence seaway. This is a matter which is of concern to many people in Canada if not to all people. I was concerned this morning to read, as I suppose most hon. members were, of the new proposal by the President and the cabinet with respect to the United States part of the seaway. It seemed to me to come at a rather late hour in the discussions with respect to the St. Lawrence deep waterway. I have not been aware, and I do not suppose other hon. members have been aware, that the United

External Affairs

States government contemplated that kind of policy, and it must have been somewhat of a surprise to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs when it was brought out of the cabinet meeting yesterday. I imagine most people will be concerned for the simple reason that while it is hoped it may not involve a delay, still when the avenue is left open for participation between the United States and Canada, which the Prime Minister has left open, the undoubted result will be to constitute a delay. I say that because one of the problems that this government and this parliament face in dealing with the United States government is that it is one thing for the government to take a position, and it is another thing for the congress to take the same position and for that congress speedily to carry out the decision that is made.

Frankly, I am concerned lest some of these new things thrown into the St. Lawrence seaway discussion may have the effect of causing delay. I would ask the Prime Minister, when the appropriate time arrives today, and after his having sized up the situation personally in Washington, to tell the house what his own idea is as to when the first sod will be turned on the St. Lawrence seaway project, and when it is likely to be finished.

Those are questions which will be asked every member of parliament in each area when we go home. While it may be a difficult question to answer, it is a question which will come to the front in every conversation concerning the St. Lawrence seaway development. I think parliament ought to know, before it recesses, what views the Prime Minister holds on that point, after his personal contacts in Washington.

Then, I have been interested in the question of trade, and dealt with it myself briefly in the discussion of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. I was glad to note that the matter was raised again by the President and the Prime Minister. Because it does seem to me that while for some considerable time we have been facing the threat of actual aggression by the Soviet union on the military front, we are now definitely faced with aggression which is just as grave, just as menacing, just as serious and just as dangerous to democracy, on the economic and trade fronts.

That is why I think it is important that article II should at this time be the subject of most careful examination, consideration, study and action. While we may be holding our own on the military front, wa must also see that at least we are holding our own on the economic front as well.

External Affairs

The Prime Minister made reference to his representations to the President regarding the unanimous resolution passed by the house the other day. I would ask him to go a little farther on that point, and to indicate to the house what reception he got from the President concerning these various moves which seem to be on foot by various groups in the United States, with influence in the congress, as a result of which particularly agricultural commodities either have been subjected or are about to be subjected to regulations which will have the effect of barring the entry of our agricultural products into the United States.

That is one of the most serious problems now facing this country, and I suggest parliament ought to have something more than the simple and formal statement made by both the President and the Prime Minister on that point. Because that is another matter concerning which questions will be asked the membership of the house when they return to their constituencies after prorogation.

It is of vital interest to agriculture as well as to some other branches of our economy that we know just where the congress and the United States government are going in the matter of barring entry to the American market in respect of some of our most important products.

I do wish to say to the Prime Minister that I hope this is but the beginning of a series of meetings between prime ministers of Canada and presidents of the United States which may occur at intervals sufficiently frequent to bring about some kind of common voice in the councils of the world on the military, economic and other fronts. With so much in common, so far as the peace of the world is concerned, I would hope that this country and the United States might go forward in the friendly manner to which they have now grown accustomed, so that not only would our friendship be maintained but that it might be advanced and promoted in years to come.

Mr. M. J. Coldweil (Roselown-Biggar):

I am

sure all hon. members are happy indeed to have had this report from the Prime Minister. I know there is unanimity in regarding such a conference as one having great value to our country, and I believe also to the United States.

Concerning the matters discussed, the Prime Minister has given us a considerable amount of information. I agree with what the hon. member for Peel has said regarding some ominous signs in the United States which would indicate that the congress may not agree entirely with the President's view

concerning international trade. I hope, too, that the St. Lawrence seaway will be proceeded with.

But there was one omission in the Prime Minister's statement which struck me, and that was that he made no extended reference to the situation in Korea, and the negotiations at Panmunjom. Would the Prime Minister inform the house on that matter, indicating to what extent the possibilities of arriving at a truce were discussed?

I do not wish to add anything further, except to say that I think the country is interested in that problem as well as in the others mentioned, and if he could give us some information concerning any discussions in that connection I am sure it would be appreciated by the house and country.

Mr. St. Laurent:

With respect to the question by the hon. member for Peel, as to when work can be expected to start on the St. Lawrence power and seaway project, I cannot say anything more than I have said.

There is going to be a change on May 15 in the chairmanship of the federal power commission. A new chairman will be sworn in on May 18. Obviously, I had no personal contact with the members of the federal power commission; but the impression of those to whom I spoke was that there would be apt to be a decision shortly after the new chairman assumed his functions as such, and that the hopes, which the President had already expressed in a letter to Senator Wiley, of which he sent a copy to the Hon. Thomas C. Buchanan, the present chairman of the federal power commission, on April 25, might be realized.

And I think it was to strengthen and to give more publicity and weight to that letter that this decision of the cabinet was made yesterday morning, and the statement about it issued yesterday afternoon. I have been told-not directly, but a message was sent to me by the chairman of the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission-that, within hours from the time a decision is made, he is ready to start work. I cannot go beyond that.

Of course if the application were denied we would have to try to devise some other method of getting results. We could develop a portion of the potential power in the international section of the St. Lawrence, and we could build a canal on our own side. But we would be losing for Ontario and the Ontario hydro commission almost half the potential that can be developed if there is a dam that stretches from one shore to the other shore. The economic value of that | power to Ontario, I am told, is not less than $30 million a year. Now, that represents.

interest and amortization on a very substantial sum of money; and we would have to i take all those factors into consideration in | trying to arrive at some conclusion as to | whether or not we should go ahead and do i what can be done on our side, leaving the 1 other side open. And if that were to be done it would have to be recommended to parliament-because parliament has not authorized anything of that kind.

But I share the President's hope that there may be an early and favourable decision on the application of the state of New York to do its part of the power development. If that decision is made, it may be contested in the courts. However, I have been told by Mr. Saunders, and the President expressed the view that he had obtained advice, that this would be quite constitutional. There might be court proceedings, but they were not apt to be successful. That is the information the Ontario Hydro has about the legal situation and that is the basis which the chairman regards as being sufficient to justify making an immediate start even if there may be court proceedings taken. Of course, that is provided there was no injunction; but if an injunction is sought I am told that an application will be made for a bond against damages which would be quite impressive.

With regard to the second question, as to where the congress and the United States government are going in respect of trade policies, especially with regard to agricultural products, I am sure that not even the President could answer that question. The President would be able to say in what direction he wants them to go, but he would not be able to say in what direction the majority of congress will really go. I think the President is making a valiant effort to enlighten the public of the United States.

Mr. Cold well: That is where our Prime Minister has an advantage over the President, and it is a good advantage.

Mr. St. Laurent:

The advantage is in the good sense of the members of the house and perhaps to a certain extent in the form of our constitution. As I say, the President is doing a splendid job of enlightening the United States public by stressing that it is not to help anybody else that this is being proposed; it is because it is in their own interest in the United States that the benefits arising out of expanding trade do come to the various partners in the free world making us all better able to save ourselves.

Mr. Brooks:

That is the only way to appeal to them.

Mr. St. Laurent:

That appeal was very strongly made at the $100 a plate dinner that

External Affairs

filled both the Waldorf and Astor hotels in New York on Thursday night. I think it was made to the kind of people from whom it is apt to spread.

The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked if there had been any serious discussion of the situation in Korea. I can assure him that there was and that I got the impression the administration was most anxious to have an armistice that would mean something. All the developments are being dealt with at the highest level, not only by the negotiating teams. I think that that is all that I should say.

Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):

Mr. St. Laurent:

I think the hon. gentleman will be glad to know that the chancellor of the exchequer left a most favourable impression on the minds of the President and those cabinet members with whom we were having our discussions during these last couple of days.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):

The first item under this vote is for Bonavista, towards fishing harbours, $60,000. Three years ago there was a vote of $305,000 for deep water dredging and two years ago a vote of $683,600, or a total of about $1 million, and I am wondering why there is such a small vote in this instance.

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

This amount of $60,000 is to provide towards a fishing harbour consisting of dredging, landing and mooring facilities to accommodate small fishing craft in the area known as Harbour pond.

Mr. Browne (Si. John's Wesl):

I suppose this is to complete the other work.

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

This is the continuation of the work on the inner harbour for small fishing craft.

Mr. Browne (St. John's Wesl):

The next item is for $115,000, and there was a vote of $50,000 in the main estimates. The same applies in connection with the Fortune item. Here there is a vote for $100,000 and there was a vote for $50,000 in the main estimates. Perhaps the minister can explain why the double vote is necessary here, because there

[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1

would not likely be any work done during the winter.

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

I am told that this $115,000, together with the sum of $50,000 in the main estimates, 1953-54, is originally required for dredging the bar in the entrance channel to permit larger boats to enter the northeast arm of the harbour and to provide safe anchorage in stormy weather.

Mr. Browne (Si. John's Wesl):

Then with regard to Port aux Basques. A large undertaking is going ahead there under the Department of Transport. Is there additional money being spent on dredging? There was a previous vote of $103,000 in the main estimates.