Then, we can set this matter straight. I hope to have it before the conclusion of my remarks.
The next thing to which the hon. member for Laurier referred and which I want to correct, was that portion of his remarks dealing with the Columbia river treaty. The hon. gentleman said in that respect that we had concluded a treaty with the United States without even arriving at any understanding with British Columbia. Everyone knows, Mr. 26207-1-131
The Address-Mr. Fulton Speaker, that this is not correct. Everyone knows that we had the most complete understanding with British Columbia. Everyone knows that we had the agreement and the consent of the British Columbia government to sign the treaty in Washington on January 17 last year. All these facts have been put on the record. The correspondence establishing these facts has been quoted in the house. Everyone knows, except apparently the hon. member for Laurier, that what has happened has been that British Columbia has changed its position. It is, therefore, completely inaccurate and reveals a prodigious lack of knowledge of the circumstances, to say what he did say, that we signed a treaty without having any understanding with British Columbia.
Now, sir, I must presume that possibly the hon. gentleman knew as little about the St. Lawrence seaway as he apparently knows about the Columbia river. This then would, of course, explain why my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) had such a mess to inherit, a mess that is still being cleared up, in terms of contract claims miscalculated and similar matters. Indeed, perhaps, it explains also why there was such a mess with respect to tolls on the Jacques Cartier bridge.
This, in turn, Mr. Speaker, brings me to the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier in which he referred to changes in this government under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). Of course, the hon. gentleman must himself have poignant recollections with regard to cabinets and those who leave them as well as those who enter them, poignant recollections of the days when he came back, hat in hand, to see if he could gain readmission to a cabinet which, on an earlier occasion, he had left. However, perhaps we can overlook those things and, as I say, put them down to over-enthusiasm generated by the atmosphere in which the hon. gentleman is now living.
There was one portion of his remarks which I do not think can be overlooked and that was his direct attack on the Prime Minister with respect to Canadian unity. It was a grossly wrong thing for the hon. gentleman to do, to suggest that the Prime Minister would do anything to disrupt Canadian unity. This kind of attack is the measure of the desperation of my hon. friends opposite, for it is well known that no man in the-
Subtopic: CONTINUATION OP DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY