Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to present the second report of the joint committee of both houses on the library of parliament.

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):

By leave I should like to move:

That this house do now concur in the report of the joint committee on the library of parliament which has just been read.

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

I should like to table two copies in English and two copies in French of notes exchanged between the United States ambassador to Canada and myself, on June 7 and June 16, respectively, on the subject of the St. Lawrence seaway.

Hon. members will see from these notes that the United States government, in transmitting copies of the Wiley Act recently adopted by congress, stated that it was anxious to undertake discussions with the Canadian government on the subject of the seaway. Canada is prepared to do so at the earliest date convenient to both governments.

Because it may not be very clear why discussions between the two governments should be held at this time, it might be useful for me to add a few words of explanation. In 1951, the Canadian parliament enacted the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act which allows a Canadian corporation to build the seaway from lake Erie to the port of Montreal in Canadian territory. By exchange of notes dated June 30, 1952, and tabled in parliament on July 1, 1952, Canada and the United States agreed that the power project in the international rapids section should be built jointly by Canada and the United States and that this project should be separated, as far as is possible, from the seaway project. As for the seaway project, the exchange of notes of June 30, 1952,

between Canada and the United States embodied an arrangement whereby Canada would build the seaway between lake Erie and the port of Montreal on its side of the boundary. This was, of course, before the passage of the Wiley Act which provided for United States participation.

With the passage of the Wiley Act, the situation could be summed up as follows: Canada is fully empowered by its own legislation to build the seaway from lake Erie to Montreal; an international agreement or arrangement between Canada and the United States has recorded the agreement of both countries to this course of action. However, hon. members will recall that as far back as January 9, 1953, and as late as May 6, 1954, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) declared that the Canadian government was prepared to discuss any specific proposal which the United States government might wish to make, the sense of which would be to vary that portion of the arrangements of June 30, 1952, dealing with the seaway, provided no delay would be caused in the construction of the seaway or power projects, as a result of the consideration of such proposal. Finally, the congress of the United States decided, in May 1954, to build a segment of this seaway entirely within United States territory. Clearly, then, if the object of the Wiley Act is to be achieved, it becomes necessary to hold discussions between Canada and the United States in order to modify the existing arrangements between the governments as contained in the notes of June 30, 1952.

Because of the nature of the arrangements of June 30, 1952, and of undertakings given by Canada, talks must be undertaken soon if they are not to delay the seaway or power projects. Canada accordingly suggested on June 16 that discussions between officials of both governments be held in Ottawa in the week of June 28, for the purpose of preparing specific topics which might form the basis for subsequent intergovernmental discussions. I have not heard yet from the United States ambassador what exact date would be agreeable to his government, but I expect that the talks will get under way in Ottawa in the very near future.

Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of Ihe Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words about this but with particular reference to one source of satisfaction which

St. Lawrence Seaway

I feel should be in the mind of every hon. member and every Canadian, that we have reached the point when talks of this kind can take place. Very naturally there has been great emphasis upon the opportunity for larger ships to pass up and down the St. Lawrence to the upper waters of our great inland waterways. Naturally also great emphasis has been placed upon the much needed and immense resources of electric energy which will become available.

I am inclined to think, however, that perhaps one of the most valuable features of the undertaking which is contemplated by this conference is the unique evidence which will be given not merely of our verbal and very real expressions of understanding between Canada and the United States, but of one of the most remarkable and practical examples of international co-operation the world has ever seen, and I am not aware of any similar undertaking along the boundary of any other two nations. As we see that waterway go ahead, as we see the power development take place and the greatly needed horsepower become available for industry and for the farms and homes of this province as well as New York state, let us thank God that two nations can live together, work together, and understand each other as these two nations do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that up to a certain point I agree with what the Leader of the Opposition has said. As I have said in this house before, I think that under certain foreseeable circumstances it might be better if one or the other of the two countries undertook this project of its own volition. I believe that would prevent any complications in the future. However, discussions are to take place with regard to a joint undertaking. I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the government will carry out the pledge given that this co-operation and the preparation for it must involve no unnecessary delay. We have had so many years of discussion about this project that if there is any disposition to delay I think the matter should be proceeded with by Canada. We have the legislation and the government has the authority, and I think the project should be proceeded with by Canada alone if necessary.

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, however, that the demonstration of the undertaking of a power project on a joint basis is sufficient evidence to the world that two nations can live together side by side with a contiguous boundary and be able to undertake a joint project of this description. However, I hope there will be no delay, and if there is any disposition to delay I hope the government will proceed to build this as a

Canadian project; because, as I have already said and I would like to emphasize this, I think that for the future it would be better if one or other of the two governments undertook this project of its own volition, and X would have liked to have seen Canada undertake this project in that way.

Mr. Balcom:

What is the per diem cost of hospital diet per patient in service hospitals (a) navy; (b) army; (c) Royal Canadian Air Force?

Mr. Blanchette:

Unless a member of the services requires a special diet, he receives the ordinary ration and the average cost of this is 93 cents per day. The cost of the special diets varies with the locality, the hospital and the diet.

1. How many liens have the government collected on estates of old age pensioners under the Old Age Pensions Act, since the Old Age Security Act came into force?

2. What is the total amount collected?

3. What amounts were collected from each province?

Mr. Martin:

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would agree to perhaps reword this question or allow it to drop. We had a chat on it the other day.

Mr. Hansell:

Would the minister agree to allow it to stand on the order paper and not pursue the answer for a little while? I am in touch with the Alberta government respecting this, so perhaps it could be allowed to stand meantime.

Mr. Speaker:

Is it agreed that the question be allowed to stand?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker:

Question stands.