1964-06-03

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (SI. Ann) presented, in English and in French, the third report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in the anxiety of the house to learn the present standing of priorities I missed an opportunity to catch Your Honour's eye on presenting motions. Perhaps I may have leave to revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mr. Baldwin presented the second report of the standing committee on public accounts, and moved that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Righi Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as requested I should like to make a statement to the house on the business before the house.
The government hopes to complete as soon as possible some important measures which are now in hand and which are before the house. These are the bill on farm credit, the national housing legislation and the approval of the Columbia river treaty. We will proceed as soon as we can, Mr. Speaker, with the constitutional amendment to section 94A of the British North America Act making it possible for the pension plan to include supplementary benefits. All the provincial governments have agreed to this amendment in
principle, but we have to await the full agreement on the exact wording of the amendment by all provinces, and I think there are three which have not yet replied to our request for agreement on the formula. I am hopeful, however, that we will be able to move on this matter next week. The constitutional amendment may therefore come ahead of the resolution relating to a Canadian flag. Certainly we will not let anything delay that amendment, because we want to make sure it is dealt with at Westminster before the parliament there dissolves.
Subject to this consideration we intend toward the end of next week to proceed with the resolution relating to a Canadian flag, and we shall follow that with the resolution on a national anthem. If progress on all the matters I have mentioned is not very fast it may be necessary to interrupt the debate in order to ask for interim supply and, of course, we hope to make progress with the consideration of the estimates. When the constitutional amendment has been made we wish to proceed with the early stages of the pension legislation so there will be ample time for this complex matter to be studied by a parliamentary committee and by the public generally.
Next in order of urgency we place legislation for extending family allowances and to deal with certain aspects of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. It would not be possible now to give an exact order for other items, but I will mention the following to which we attach priority importance and others which have already been mentioned to the house: legislation to provide loans to students; the completion of two measures which are now before committees in the house, namely the amendments to the National Defence Act and the legislation on a 12 mile fishing zone; a measure to assist Canadian magazines; the legislation on electoral redistribution; the establishment of a treasury board with a separate minister, and the creation of a department of forestry and rural development.
I do not need to go any further in order to indicate that there is plenty of work ahead of us. Indeed, so that members need not give

Business of the House
up all hope of some kind of break this summer, the government intends shortly to propose to the house a measure for the lengthening of the hours of sitting.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: As far as the constitutional amendment is concerned, the amendment which will be asked for, we in this party said a year ago that such an amendment would be necessary if survivor benefits were to be provided under the pension legislation. I am glad the government intends to proceed now, after having made several indefinite motions in the direction of pension legislation; it brought these things forward and then withdrew them.
With reference to the flag situation, apparently the meeting of the Liberal council has slowed up the Prime Minister a little and he has decided that the day of politicking and polemics is over. As a matter of fact, if I might make reference to a statement he made last evening, it is very obvious that he had in mind the calling of an election. He wanted to blame the opposition for obstruction; then he proceeded to say that 40 different matters had been passed and he proudly exhibited them as evidence of the activity of the government.
Let me say this. That excuse of obstructionism on the part of the opposition is simply a smokescreen designed by the Prime Minister as an excuse for the election he is trying to force on the people. The very fact that 40 pieces of legislation were passed is indicative of the degree to which parliament has applied itself. When the government proceeds to place before parliament legislation which is beneficial to the people, then, as always, we will give it support; and the measures to which reference has been made, the measures which are to come up, deserve consideration and priority. But I say this to the Prime Minister: do not let him think he is bluffing anyone when he endeavours to place a charge of obstructionism against the government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -against the opposition. The responsibility rests on the government, whose chameleon-like changes, legislation brought in one day and postponed or withdrawn the next day, have brought about uncertainty. If, following the meeting of the Liberal council, the government now knows where it is going and will bring worthy, acceptable and necessary legislation before the

house, we will give it every support to bring it into effect-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -as has always been our course. Now that we have a change of front on the flag, a withdrawal, a retreat, and we find on the other hand an end of indecision and inaction, of fumbling and uncertainty in the presentation of legislation, I hope that parliament will be more effective. All the government has to do is to give leadership rather than indulging in politicking and polemics.


An hon. Member:: The chickens home to roost.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, after this excellent example of abstaining from politicking and polemics may I say just a word. I do not think the public interest is served at this time by any party in any part of the house talking about the imminence of an election. I think the people of Canada expect members of parliament to get down to work and do some of the things they were elected to do.
The first few items which the Prime Minister has outlined as requiring immediate consideration, the Farm Credit Act legislation, the National Housing Act legislation, the Columbia river treaty and, if it is ready, the constitutional amendment to permit survivor benefits to be paid under the Canada pension plan, should, of course, be dealt with at once. But I do want to point out to the Prime Minister that other items-the Canada pension plan itself, student loans, the legislation to give some measure of protection to Canadian magazines, the redistribution legislation and the extension of family allowances-are all very essential pieces of legislation.
I must say on behalf of the party for which I am speaking that we consider these pieces of legislation much more important than a debate on the flag. We feel that the question of the flag could quite easily have been left until next fall. It could have been left until these very pressing legislative matters had been dealt with. The people of this country are concerned about bread and butter issues. They are concerned about pensions, family allowances and loans to students, and we feel that parliament would be better occupied' dealing with these legislative matters first.
The Prime Minister and the house know that I and most of my colleagues are quite prepared to support legislation for a distinctive national flag for Canada, but we do not

think this is a matter of such paramount importance that it should delay the discussion and implementation of some of the important legislation I have just enumerated.
I do hope the Prime Minister will give some thought to the advisability of giving higher priority to the legislation which he said would be discussed after we had disposed of the flag resolution or that, from time to time, the debate on the flag resolution may be interrupted in order to consider such things as student loans, the Canada pension plan, family allowances and so on. I point out to the Prime Minister that there are hundreds of students across Canada who ought now to be making their arrangements for returning to university next fall. Unless these student loans are made available fairly soon they will be of no value whatever for the academic year 1964-65.
It seems to us, therefore, that we would be doing our duty as a parliament if we were to forgo a discussion of the flag resolution at this particular stage and deal with such matters as student loans, the Canada pension plan, family allowances and these other items I have enumerated, and leave the matter of the flag resolution to a later date, probably next October or November.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: The Prime Minister has outlined some of his opinions regarding priority. I think that to put first things first, we in this house have a very special, collective responsibility. We are very much aware that we are a minority house.
I am convinced that a minority parliament can work, and work effectively. In fact it can work even more effectively than a majority parliament can work or has worked during recent parliaments, if only members who make up this house would put their priorities in the right place.
I am sure this need rests not only in the hands of the opposition but in the hands of the government as well. I suggest to the right . hon. Prime Minister that he look very carefully to his responsibilities in the government so far as priorities are concerned, and that we in the opposition should do likewise, in so far as getting work done is concerned and not just naming work that has to be done. In a very special way the eyes of Canadians right across this country are on us as they have never been before. It is expected that as representatives of the Canadian people we produce some results. I believe it is this which should have first priority.
Business of the House
A minority parliament can work and it will work if we make up our minds that is what we are going to do. There are several suggestions I should like to make to the right hon. Prime Minister. One is that I feel it is the responsibility of the government in bringing legislation before the house to leave it there, not to put it out and then pull it back but to leave it before us until completed. A great deal of our time is wasted going back over the same ground that has been covered before, simply because there has been a time interval between debates on the subject.
Then I would hope the special committee on procedure could bring in a report and lay before us their recommendations for speeding up the work of the house. These recommendations should be adopted on an interim basis. One of the things which is most important is that we should come to an agreement on the length of debate in reference to any particular piece of legislation that is placed before us. So I would urge the committee to bring in their final report as quickly as possible and let us give it a temporary trial.
Again I come back to this particular point, that it is not good enough to be naming pieces of legislation which we must deal with before we have a recess. A recess is a very necessary and essential thing, not only for the government but for each individual member of the house in connection with his constituency responsibilities. The first priority should first of all be to make up our minds that we are not just going to talk about the work that has to be done, but that we intend to make every effort to do it.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, all the points raised by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) this afternoon as business before the house were mentioned in the speech from the throne which was read to us in the middle of last February: farm credit, amendment to the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation, Columbia treaty, amendment to section 94; the only measure which might not have been included at that time deals with the national flag and the national anthem. But if my memory serves me right, I think it was. The following were also included:	national estimates, family
allowances to young people 17 and 18 years old attending school, loans to students. All those measures were proposed to us exactly three months ago.

Business of the House
In spite of what was announced in the speech from the throne, the government has not seen fit until now to introduce such legislation, and today the Prime Minister comes up with some 20 items. Well, even if we were to spend only three or four days on each, we would still be sitting in six months. Why? Because the government waits too long before bringing forward its measures.
Yesterday, for instance, the Prime Minister stated that if the opposition persisted in practising obstruction as it was doing he would have to go to the people and hold the opposition responsible for a new election.
As for us, Mr. Speaker, this threat of a new election does not scare us one bit.
A moment ago I heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) say that he was guilty of no filibuster. We heard the same thing last year when he was prime minister and the present Prime Minister was leader of the opposition. At that time the then prime minister accused the opposition of doing some obstruction by opposing the legislation laid before the house.
Mr. Speaker, let the government face up to its responsibilities concerning the introduction of legislation. We are here to examine it and vote on it.
Now, we have just been told that some items might be more interesting than the question of the national flag. Obviously the Prime Minister must withdraw or, at least, seem to withdraw his resolution calling for the adoption of two flags and two national anthems for Canada, because that proposal does not appear to be acceptable to the vast majority of Canadians.
Wherever objections may come from we are favouring one and not two flags. If the resolution had been a simple one the Prime Minister could have had it passed a week ago. Instead, we are faced with procrastination, delaying tactics, we witness some fancy fence sitting and are getting nowhere.
Mr. Speaker, I contend that the government must introduce its legislation so that we may consider it, instead of finding excuses and saying that the opposition is holding up the business of the house.
We are ready and anxious to examine and pass any legislation submitted by the government.



CANADIAN FLAG


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a telegram that I sent to the premier of the province of Newfoundland in reply to a request by him for an explanation of the procedure which would be followed if the resolution regarding the national flag were adopted.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister say whether he would table the communication he had from Premier Smallwood?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is no other correspondence. The request for this information was made by telephone, and this is the only correspondence dealing with the matter.



THE MINISTRY


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, and as a matter of privilege, may I clarify a question which was raised in the house yesterday about whether the Minister of Transport went to England at government expense or at his own expense. The hon. member for Bow River asked that question, and the hon. member for Ontario asked whether the trip was made on a commercial flight or on a government plane. My reply is to be found at page 3833 of Hansard:
-I have just been Informed that the Minister of Transport went to England by T.C.A. commercial flight, accompanied by his wife and daughter. He will be returning alone today. He bougnt his own tickets and the visit had been arranged some time ago, long before the question of the Queen's audience arose.
The Minister of Transport, who arrived back in Ottawa last evening and is in his seat today, has informed me this morning that he bought tickets for his wife and daughter. However, like all his predecessors he is provided with transportation on T.C.A., and used the transportation so provided. Because his visit was a personal one, he has assured me that he has submitted no account to the treasury for any expenses incurred.


An hon. Member:: As yet.
[Mr. Caouette.l



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
June 1-The Secretary of State for External Affairs-The following proposed motion:-That it Is expedient that the Houses of Parliament do approve the ratification of the treaty between Canada and the United States of America relating to co-operative development of the water resources of the Columbia river basin, signed at Washington on January 17, 1961, and the consequent coming into force of the protocol thereto annexed to the exchange of notes signed at Washington on January 22, 1964, and that this house do approve the same.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Prittie: Concerning the competition announced by the Secretary of State for a centennial symbol for 1967, does the government plan to establish a house committee on artistic design to make the final selection?


Mr. Lamonlagne:: It is not the intention to establish a house committee on artistic design to make the final selection for a centennial symbol for 1967.
advisory committee on firearms


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Is there any committee of, or named by the Department of Justice, designed to advise on the law and regulations regarding the use of firearms and, if so, when was it constituted and who are the members?
2.	Is the chief constables association of Canada represented on the committee?


Mr. Favreau:: Because of the wide interest that attaches to this matter I think I should explain the situation in a little detail rather than attempt a "yes" or "no" answer. I should perhaps remind hon. members that I spoke to this matter very briefly in the house on March 9 last in reply to a question from the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.
The firearms sections of the Criminal Code have for a long time been the subject of great interest and representations on the part of those who, on the one hand, think they are not
Questions
strict enough and those who, on the other hand, think they are too strict.
Early in 1960 an informal committee was set up to study such provisions comprising representatives of the legal branch of the Department of Justice, the Department of National Revenue, the R.C.M. Police and the Canadian association of chiefs of police. This committee has given the matter considerable study as has also the criminal law section of the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada, but no decisions have been reached by the department as to what amendments should be put forward because, mainly, of the conflicting views and representations above referred to. That informal committee has been inactive since last fall and there are no plans for reconvening it. In the meantime my department continues to study these provisions in connection with the continuing Criminal Code amendment program.
1	wish therefore to assure all persons who are interested in the subject matter that it is completely open for consideration of any views that anyone desires to place before the department. I hope that, besides answering the question, this reply will serve to quiet the fears that appear to have been aroused that the department intends to recommend far reaching amendments which will have an unduly restrictive effect upon the legitimate activities of sportsmen and antique collectors.


HIGHWAY PAVING, GUYSBOROUGH COUNTY, N.S.
Mr. Armstrong: 1.	Where are the 46 miles of highway in Guysborough county. Nova Scotia, which are still to be paved under the roads to resources program?
2.	Which stretches of this highway are to be paved in 1964-65?
3.	If any contracts have been made, with whom have they been made?


Mr. Laing:: 1. Approximately two thirds of the 67 mile Goldborough loop has, at the request of the province, been approved for paving; of this, work is already largely or entirely complete on the section from Goshen to a point just east of Seal Harbour, leaving a balance of approximately five miles under the present arrangements.
2	and 3. The planning and scheduling of construction is the responsibility of the province, subject to the approval of contract awards by the federal government. In July, 1963, a contract to Warren Maritimes Limited was approved for paving from Drumhead to the Torbay road, a distance of approximately

Questions
15 miles. It is expected that the balance of this contract, covering the five mile section from Seal Harbour to the Torbay road junction will be completed in 1964-65.


WINTER CONSTRUCTION BONUS APPLICATIONS, MANITOBA
Mr. Stefanson: 1.	How many applications were received for the $500 bonus under the winter home construction program for homes built in the province of Manitoba?
2.	How many qualified for the bonus?
3.	How many qualified in (a) metropolitan Winnipeg (b) Brandon (c) Flin Flon (d) Portage la Prairie (e) Selkirk (f) Dauphin (g) Gimli, and (h) Stonewall?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1. Under the winter house building incentive program, 1,468 applications for certification were received in respect to structures built in the province of Manitoba.
2.	Out of this number of applications 1,255 qualified for the incentive payment.
3.	The numbers of qualified applicants in the specified municipalities are as follows:
(a)	metropolitan Winnipeg, 934; (b) Brandon, 69; (c) Flin Flon, 4; (d) Portage la Prairie, 14; (e) Selkirk, 36; (f) Dauphin, 3; (g) Gimli, 1; (h) Stonewall, nil.


SHAUGHNESSY HOSPITAL, VANCOUVER
Mr. Douglas: With reference to the Shaughnessy hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (a) how many beds does it contain (b) how many pensioners' cases were re-examined in 1963 by the board of directors (c) how many veteran bed-patients were treated in 1963	(d) how many veteran out-patients were
treated in 1963 (e) how many R.C.M.P. and armed services out patients were treated in 1963 (f) how many sick mariners were hospitalized in 1963 (g) how many R.C.M.P. and armed services personnel were hospitalized in 1963 (h) how many prisoners from penitentiaries were hospitalized in 1963 (l) by what amount, if any, did the B.C. hospital insurance plan contribute to the revenues of this hospital during 1963?


Mr. Teillel:: Rated	Beds
	capacity	set up
(a) Active treatment	572	578Chronic care	378	374Domiciliary care (George Derby	wing)	215	211Total	1,165	1,163(b)	There were 2,911 medical re-examinations of pensioners carried out by pension medical examiners during 1963.
Note-The figures shown in parts (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) refer to episodes of treatment. Statistics are not kept in a form that would show the number of different patients treated.
(c)	6,590.	
(d)	90,858.	
(e)	R.C.M.P.	4,400
	Armed services	1,647
	Total	6,047
(f)	371.	
(g)	R.C.M.P.	109
	Armed services	260
	Total	369
(h)	34.	
(i)	$2,261,052.


DEFENCE RESEARCH BOARD
Mr. Southam: 1.	Were tenders called by the chairman of the defence research board for the removal of the household effects of Mr. R. D. Hanson. Mr. A. J. Craig and Mr. I. R. Gordon, all of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, in 1963 and, if so, what were the estimated weights and the costs submitted by each and all of the tenderers?
2.	To whom was the tender given, and what was the actual weight and price for removal of the said effects?


Mr. Cardin:: 1 and 2. No, tenders were not called by the chairman, defence research board. The contract was made in each case by the employee with the moving company in accordance with the procedures established by the removal expense regulations. Details of estimated weights and costs and actual weights and costs are as follows:
Name	Weight (lbs.)	Cost $R. D. Hansen (a) Estimates Northern Cartage Co.	9,000	1,508.50North American Van Lines	8,000	1,313.75(b)	Actual North American Van Lines	12,430	2,081.90
CMr. Laing.l

	Weight	Cost
Name	(lbs.)	$A. J. Craig (a) Estimates Northern Cartage Co.	7,500	1,305.50North American Van Lines	8,000	1,263.25(b) Actual North American Van Lines	7,570	1,300.40I. R. Gordon (a) Estimates City Cartage Co.	6,000	1,039.75North American Van Lines	4,400	717.60(b) Actual North American Van Lines	4,770	824.20


SOCIAL INSURANCE APPLICATIONS BY CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson): 1.	Are employees ot the dominion government compelled to fill out an application for a social insurance number and, if so (a) what happens if an employee refuses to do so (b) will such an employee lose any superannuation benefits (c) will he be deprived of any old age security benefits should be become eligible?
2.	If an employee is not now paying unemployment insurance, and completes an application form, would he then be eligible for unemployment insurance?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1.	(a) All employees
covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act, including those of the dominion government, are required to complete an application for social insurance number. Section 107 of the Unemployment Insurance Act provides that every person who contravenes or fails to comply with any of the provisions of that act or the regulations made by the commission with the approval of the governor in council is guilty of an offence. Section 80 of the unemployment insurance regulations, approved by the governor in council, requires an employee to register. Registration by employees not covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act is entirely voluntary, (b) No. (c) The Old Age Security Act provides for a flat rate benefit to be paid to everyone in Canada who can meet the age and residence requirements. There is no provision in any legislation whereby a person can be deprived of old age security benefits if he has met the eligibility requirements.
2.	No. In order to become eligible for unemployment insurance benefit, a person must
Questions
have been in insured employment and have had the requisite contributions made on his behalf in addition to fulfilling the other conditions of entitlement.


TEA ROOM CONCESSION, GREEN GABLES, P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Were tenders called for operation of the tea room at Green Gables house in the Prince Edward Island national park and, if so, how many tenders were received?
2.	Were said tenders advertised in the daily newspapers of Prince Edward Island?
3.	Was Mrs. Donald Lamont, former concession-naire, offered a renewal of contract or invited to tender on a new one?
4.	Who will operate the concession in the summer of 1964?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, in March, 1959 (six tenders); cancelled and called again in May, 1959 (seven tenders).
2.	Yes.
3.	Not for the 1964 season.
4.	Miss Vivian Woodside, the low tenderer on both occasions in 1959, and Mr. Wilfrid Pickering.


* RELEASE OF SHORT TERM COMMISSIONED OFFICERS
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	How many short term commissioned officers are to be released from the (a) army (b) air force, and (c) navy, as a result of the integration of the armed forces, and what are the various categories in which these personnel are listed?
2.	What is the estimated cost of training of the above officers for each of the three services?
3.	What is the estimated cost of training an officer for air crew for the R.C.A.F.; an officer for the army; and an officer for the Royal Canadian Navy?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. It is not possible at this time to determine the number of short term commissioned officers in the armed forces who are likely to be released as a result of integration.
2.	Is answered by answer to No. 1.
3.	To train an officer to wings standard in the R.C.A.F. costs approximately $85,000. Dependent upon the method of entry and the tasks to which officers are assigned, the cost of training an officer in the three services varies. However, under the Canadian services colleges plan, the estimated cost to graduate an officer cadet from R.M.C. is $36,753.


&quot;MILE OF HISTORY&quot;, OTTAWA
Mr. Nugent: 1.	Has the government abandoned plans to locate a "mile of history" on Sussex drive in the city of Ottawa and, if so, for what reasons?

Questions
2.	If not, what In detail are the plans, and when will they be brought to fruition?
Answer: 1. The government has not instructed the national capital commission to abandon plans for acquiring properties and improving buildings on Sussex drive.
2.	No detailed plans have been worked out. The national capital commission has had to devote its attention to matters of higher priority in the Ottawa and national capital development. A number of the existing buildings are being cleaned, some painting done and other similar improvements made to the exteriors in order to give these government owned buildings an acceptable appearance. Major structural changes to the interiors of the buildings are therefore not being carried out at the present time due, in part to other heavy capital commitments for new buildings and other improvements in the capital.


RECREATION OF RICHMOND LANDING, OTTAWA
Mr. Nugent: 1.	Have plans for the recreation of Richmond Landing at the foot of Chaudlere falls In the city of Ottawa been abandoned and, if so, for what reasons?
2.	If not, what, in detail, are such plans and when may it be anticipated that they will be proceeded with?
Answer: 1. No.
2.	Detailed plans have not been worked out but in general, the plans are for the development of a community similar to that which existed about 1830, at the foot of the rapids, and associating this with a park development. All such work is to be related to the proposed new construction in Lebreton flats.


BARNEY'S RIVER, N.S.-MAINTENANCE OF POST OFFICE
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Has the Postmaster General received a petition from patrons of the Barney's River, Nova Scotia, post office asking for continued maintenance of the post office at that location?
2.	What is the total number of patrons and how many of these patrons signed the petition?
3.	When is a decision expected on this matter?


Mr. Nicholson:: 1. Yes.
2.	For postal purposes, information of this type is gathered in terms of the number of householders. There are 61 householders served by this office. The petition contained 69 signatures. In some instances more than one member of the family signed the petition.
3.	As soon as our present inquiries on the matter have been completed.


AVONDALE STATION, N.S.-CONTINUATION OF POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Was a questionnaire circulated to the patrons of the Avondale station post office, Pictou county, Nova Scotia, during 1963?
2.	What is the total number of patrons of this office?
3.	How many patrons of the post office were in favour of continuing service in and from the post office?
4.	How many were in favour of a change?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1. Yes.
2.	For postal purposes, information of this type is gathered in terms of the number of householders. There are 87 householders served by this office.
3.	48 householders.
4.	30 householders.
Note: Nine householders did not express any opinion.


CANADIAN INTERVENTION IN INDONESLA-MALAYSIA DISPUTE
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	Has the Canadian diplomatic service intervened, in any way, in the dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia and, if so (a) in what manner (b) in what capacity, and (c) what was the general nature of the intervention?
2.	Does Canada have a permanent diplomatic representative in Kuala Lumpur who is specifically concerned with the dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia and, if so (a) who is the representative (b) since what date (c) what are his duties and prerogatives?
3.	H Canada has no officer specifically designated for this purpose who, in the office of the Canadian high commissioner in Malaysia is concerned with making known the Canadian government's attitude and opinion on this question?
4.	Has the United States made diplomatic representations on the subject of this dispute to the Canadian Department of External Affairs and, if so (a) who made such representations (b) what was their general nature?
5.	Has the president of the Philippines made diplomatic representations to the government on this subject and, if so (a) what was their substance (b) what was the Canadian answer?
6.	Have representations of any sort been made by Mr. Salvador Lopez, special envoy and mediator of the president of the Philippines in the dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia and, if so
(a)	what was their nature (b) what was the Canadian answer?
7.	Has Indonesia made diplomatic representations concerning this dispute and, if so (a) what was the general nature of those representations
(b)	what was the Canadian government's answer?

Answer: 1. The present dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia is under discussion by the proper Canadian authorities and representatives of several countries, including

Questions
those of Indonesia and Malaysia. The general purpose of those discussions was to put forward the Canadian attitude regretting any *confrontation policy.
2.	No.
3.	The Canadian high commissioner himself, at Kuala Lumpur, is concerned with making known the government's attitude and *opinion on this question.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	No.
7.	No.


CANADIAN POLICY RESPECTING INDONESIA AND MALAYSIA
[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	Has the Department of External Affairs examined newspaper reports to the effect that President Sukarno had stated that Malaysia would be crushed before sunrise on the 20th of May next Year and, if so, is Canada at present revising its policy concerning the conflict between Malaysia and Indonesia, and in what respect?
2.	Is Canada or any organization of which Canada is a member presently considering the possibility of sending, at a future date, United Nations troops which would be assigned to maintaining peace *during the negotiations between Djakarta, Manila and Kuala Lumpur?
3.	Did Canada exchange any correspondence whatsoever or diplomatic notes with President Sukarno, the president of the Philippines or any other political leader directly concerned in this *conflict respecting the sending of troops?
,[Translation]
Answer: 1. The Department of External Affairs examined those newspaper reports and other statements made by Indonesian leaders in the last few months to the effect that Malaysia must be crushed or gobbled up. Canada expressed its support to Malaysia when that federation was proclaimed on September 16, 1963, and has reaffirmed it several times since.
2.	No.
3.	No.


CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO VATICAN
Mr. Latulippe: Have representations been made to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, during the past two years, on the subject of naming a Canadian ambassador to the Vatican and, if so (a) when were such representations received (b) from whom were such representations received (c) what was the department's reply in each case?

Answer: (a) According to its files, in 1963, the Department of External Affairs received three letters concerning Canadian representation in the Vatican. No letter has been received this year.
(b)	Two of the letters received in 1963 came from private individuals and the third one from a religious organization in this country.
(c)	In each case, the department's reply was as follows: "The question of accrediting a Canadian representative to the Vatican is reviewed periodically in the general context of Canadian representation abroad. That review covers several aspects: the financial aspect, staff problems and the order of priority to be followed in the opening of new posts. In the case of the Vatican, all those factors are reviewed at regular intervals, although no decision has yet been taken."


REQUESTS FOR WINTER WORKS EXTENSION, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Latulippe: Which municipalities in Compton-Frontenac have asked for the extension of winter works beyond April 30, 1964?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Copy of a resolution passed by the council of the municipal corporation of the town of Lac Megantic at a meeting held on February 18, which requested an extension of the period of the municipal winter works incentive program for 1963-64 to May 31, 1964, was received in the Department of Labour on February 26.


ATOMIC ENERGY LTD. EXPORTS TO IRON CURTAIN COUNTRIES
Mr. Latulippe: Is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited presently filling orders for the U.S.S.R. or other countries located behind the iron courtain, and, if so, of what nature is each one of the orders, in what amount and for what country, and what use is to be made of the Canadian made equipment in the importing countries?


Mr. Drury:: In so far as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is concerned:
To World Health Organization, Geneva, for delivery to the ministry of health in Albania, one cobalt 60 source of radioactivity, approximate value $18,000, to be used for medical purposes.
The following orders in the course of being filled may be considered relevant:

Questions
To the People's Republic of China, Tientsin, one beam therapy equipment and radioactive source, value approximately $39,000, for treatment of cancer.
To the international atomic energy agency, Vienna, for delivery to institute for application of nuclear energy in agriculture, veterinary, and forestry, Zemun, Yugoslavia, a special gamma beam irradiator and radioactive source, approximate value $10,000. It is understood the end user is an organization supported jointly by the government of Yugoslavia and I.A.E.A.


ROBERT BURNS COMMEMORATIVE STAMP
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Does the Post Office Department intend to issue a postal stamp, as has been done in the U.S.S.R., in honour of the great Scottish poet Robert Burns, which would recognize the contribution made to Canada by those Canadians of Scottish origin; help better to promote national unity and mutual understanding; and, serve as a tribute to a minority people who have helped to develop the vast frontiers of this great nation?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No. Members of the royal
family, Canadians and others who have had a direct and specific association with Canada are the only persons whose likeness may appear on Canadian postage stamps.


* RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS RESPECTING SECURITY AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Mr. Orlikow: Has the government given consideration to implementation of the recommendations made by the Canadian association of university teachers in respect to security and academic freedom contained in a memorandum to the Minister of Justice on July 31, 1963 and, if so (a) does the government intend to launch, as soon as possible, an investigation by an independent and qualified commission into the present jurisdiction, procedures, records, qualifications, and training, of the S and I section of the R.C.M.P. (b) has the government given consideration to what steps should be taken immediately to guarantee that a person denied security clearance shall be advised promptly of his disqualification, and (c) does the government intend to establish a tribunal, perhaps like that in Great Britain, to which appeals may be taken by persons who feel that they have been wrongfully accused, where they may confront their accusers or the material on which an accusation has been based, and before which they may be heard in their own defence?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government has given very careful consideration to the recommendations of the Canadian association of university teachers. I personally met with the vice president and the executive secretary of 
the association on July 31, 1963 and again on November 15, 1963. The then minister of justice was present on the first occasion, but was unable to attend the second meeting. There was a very full discussion of the views and recommendations of the association concerning Canadian security policies and procedures, including those set out in a memorandum to the minister of justice dated July 31, 1963. In many respects the statements of policy of October 25, 1963 reflect the benefits derived from the first of those discussions.
With regard to the specific questions: (a) No. (b) and (c) The government's policy with regard to informing government employees in cases of denial of security clearance, and to ensuring an opportunity to such employees of presenting all considerations that they consider to be relevant, as well as the action taken to ensure a careful review of cases before final action is taken, was clearly stated in the House of Commons on October 25, 1963 as shown in the House of Commons Debates for that date at pages 4043 to 4048.


TAX EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 2, BILL C-91
Mr. Laprise: 1.	What is the approximate number of persons who will benefit during 1964-65 from the tax exemption provided in section 2 of Bill C-91?
2.	What are the national origins of persons who will benefit from such tax exemption during 196465 and (a) what is the estimated number of persons in each group (b) what estimated benefit will each group receive?
3.	What is the estimated reduction in tax revenue resulting from such tax reductions during 196465?


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1. The information which would allow an estimate to be made of the number or origin of persons affected by this legislation is not available and cannot be obtained unless recipients of such benefits make themselves known.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


MARMOT BASIN DEVELOPMENT, JASPER, ALTA.
Mr. Horner (Jasper-: Edson):
1.	Who were the tenderers for the development of the Marmot basin in Jasper?
2.	What were the tenders?
3.	Does the government intend to reimburse Toby Raynor for development to date?


Arthur Laing: 1. Marmot Basin Ski-Lifts Ltd., and Marmot Territory Development Ltd., both of Edmonton, Alberta.

2.	Marmot Basin Ski-Lifts Ltd., tendered to instal a T-bar lift 2,685 feet in length, a chalet for day use and related facilities estimated to cost $94,710. Marmot Territory Development Ltd., tendered to instal a pomalift of 2,500 feet in length, a chalet for day use and related facilities to a total value of $93,500.
3.	No; when the Rayner concession was granted in December, 1962, it was made clear that it conveyed no exclusive possessory rights. The crown has accepted no obligation to protect Mr. Rayner's situation in the event of other developments in the Marmot basin. Mr. Rayner has explicitly accepted this position.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Smith: 1.	What are the directions, instructions, regulations or orders given to survey parties regarding (a) purchasing of materials and supplies used in their duties (b) hiring of men?
2.	Within the last year, have these regulations been changed and, if so, in that particular way?
Return tabled.


SERVICE CONTRACTS, CAMP GAGETOWN
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What service contracts have been awarded by the Department of Defence Production for Camp Gagetown for the fiscal year April 1, 1964 to March 31, 1965?
2.	Who submitted tenders and what was the amount of each tender?
Return tabled.


PURCHASE OF MATTRESSES FOR ARMED FORCES
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	How many mattresses were purchased for the three armed services by the Department of Defence Production in 1962 and 1963?
2.	What were the sizes and specifications required?
3.	What price was paid for each category of mattress and were they purchased through tender, or otherwise?
4.	Who manufactured the mattresses?
Return tabled.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS PLACED WITHOUT TENDERS
Mr. Pigeon: What is the total amount of all the contracts awarded or orders placed without public tenders, since April 22, 1963, for each individual government department and crown corporation?
Return tabled.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN FLAG



PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED AFTER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister advise the house whether the unofficial official visit of the Minister of Transport to Buckingham palace had anything to do with the flag question? Would he also advise whether consideration has been given to the fact that use of the union jack, being the flag of the United Kingdom, by any other part of the commonwealth as a commonwealth flag would require the consent of the British government, and possibly statutory action in that connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question I answered yesterday. The second part of the question I will be glad to deal with when the resolution is before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we do not have to wait for three or four weeks. The Prime Minister has tabled a telegram which he sent to the premier of Newfoundland. Surely parliament is entitled to the information made available for placatory purposes in connection with the premier of Newfoundland. According to the telegram the Prime Minister said:
We have not yet decided whether there should be a royal proclamation to establish the national flag and a separate proclamation to recognize the union jack as the symbol of Canada's membership in the commonwealth of nations and our allegiance to the crown but there is no question of our intention to recommend that both be proclaimed by the Queen.
Has the Queen been made aware of the undertakings given by the government, through the Prime Minister, to the premier of Newfoundland?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The telegram to the premier of Newfoundland dealt solely with procedure, a procedure which has been followed in the past in matters of this kind by which the government passes an order in council and the order in council is followed by a royal proclamation. This was the procedure followed in the establishment of a Canadian coat of arms and on similar occasions, and is the normal procedure in these matters.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Prime Minister say that ever before the flag of one of the

Inquiries of the Ministry co-equal members of the commonwealth has been made the flag of another member of the commonwealth, as representing the commonwealth and as one of the two flags of that second country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to deal with that in detail at the appropriate time.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister says it has been done before. May I ask him where? One has just to ask the question to call the bluff.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the distinguished Secretary of State for External Affairs who is the Acting Prime Minister. I should like to ask him whether he intends to suggest to the government to reconsider the decision taken and to accept the request made by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) on January 23, 1961, for a referendum respecting the choice of a flag?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would put this question on the order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have for some time directed many questions to the Prime Minister and today I am directing one to his representative, but no answer is ever given me. I am denied answers to my questions. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs is well aware of the high regard I have for him, I would like him to answer in the negative or the affirmative, by yes or no; thus, the house and the whole Canadian people will be satisfied.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is completely out of order, and he must know it. There is no question of privilege. There may be a point of order, but there is no question of privilege.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I will put my question to the Acting Prime Minister in a different way-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am quite well aware that the hon. member does not wish to cause the Chair any extra trouble.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not want trouble with you.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he is in a position to report to the house on his recent trip to Great Britain and on his mission to Her Majesty the Queen when he conveyed to Her Majesty the decision of the Canadian cabinet to bring forward a two-flag resolution in this house?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, who like me is a privy councillor, has no doubt read the privy councillor's oath and will know quite well why it would be improper for me to make any kind of reply to this question, certainly beyond anything that was said yesterday by the Prime Minister. Therefore, I have nothing whatever to say about it.


Léon Balcer: I wonder if the minister would agree that the same rules should apply to the premiers of the provinces as well as to members of parliament? I do not see why Mr. Smallwood should be informed about these things before any members of this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nor do I.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I ask a supplementary question. Did the government consult Mr. Lesage concerning its two flags? [Translation]


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if, during his audience with Her Majesty the Queen, the possibility of postponing the royal visit to Canada was discussed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have nothing whatever to add to what I have already said.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I be granted the courtesy of asking this question. Could I ask the Minister of Transport, as a great historian-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The question period is over now.


Harold Edward Winch: I have the floor at the moment. Could I ask the Minister of Transport, as a great historian, if he will bring us up to date

on history. We all know why Dick Whittington's cat went to see the queen, but why did Jack Pickersgill go to see the Queen?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I change the subject. I desire to ask a question of immediate urgency of the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm or deny the report that the government has now nominated Mr. Roberts, deputy minister of trade and commerce, to the position of deputy secretary general of NATO? If so, what are the qualifications of this person to hold this important post?
May I further ask the Prime Minister whether this nomination is not a political manoeuvre to remove from government service the only remaining deputy minister appointed by the previous Conservative government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I realize the general interest and importance of this question, but the urgency of it does not impress me very much. If the minister is prepared to give an answer to part one of the question he may do so, but part three is strictly out of order.


Harold Edward Winch: May I have your permission, because the matter is urgent, to say it is my understanding that on Monday of next week an announcement is going to be made by the Prime Minister. I now ask with regard to the second part whether Mr. Roberts has been nominated by the government for this important position in NATO, and what are the qualifications of this nominee.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the question and its implications for a distinguished public servant who has served Canada well under the former and under the present administration, I think I should point out that at the request of a number of countries Canada was asked to put forward the name of someone for the post of deputy secretary general. This suggestion, in the final analysis, could only be realized if the name put forward were accepted by the new secretary general of NATO.
Canada acceded to the request of a number of countries and put forward the name
Inquiries of the Ministry of Mr. Roberts. There was no manoeuvre whatsoever involved. Mr. Roberts was prepared to accept this very important and heavy responsibility, if his name was acceptable to the new secretary general.
Until such time as the latter has taken public and official action, I would not propose to say more, except that I do not believe my hon. friend would want to leave the impression that Mr. Roberts might be assigned to this particular post as a result of any improper or undesirable action on the part of the government of Canada. If this post is accorded to Mr. Roberts, it will only be because he accepted it out of a sense of public duty and because his government considers that, great as his services have been to Canada, they may be needed more in this very important assignment which may be offered to him.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question. We appreciate the answer of the Secretary of State for External Affairs but would he now, free from generalities and pleasantries, in view of an appointment of such importance, give to this house the qualifications of the man the government has recommended?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my hon. friend has put this second question. I can say that there is no question about Mr. Roberts having every qualification for this important responsibility which may be extended to him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether Mr. Roberts prior to this nomination indicated any desire to have his name placed before NATO?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker. It was only as the result of a suggestion which the Prime Minister and I made to him that in the national interest and in the interest of NATO, if this post should come to Canada, we thought he would be eminently qualified to fill it. I cannot say too strongly, in the light of discussions which are now under way that it is not fair to this eminent public servant to have it suggested that he is taking this post because he is not wanted in the public service of Canada. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and one of my other colleagues argued very strongly for his retention for reasons which could soon become obvious.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Harold Edward Winch: I think the minister will understand the importance of one question. He will admit, I think, it is most extraordinary that the government of Canada should recommend for a position of this importance a man from the Department of Trade and Commerce instead of from the Department of External Affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would confirm the judgment of the government. Mr. Roberts has had outstanding experience in matters having to do with international affairs. There are few men in this country who have had as wide a contact with as many countries as he has had during the past four or five years.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Is there any truth to the statement made yesterday by Quebec natural resources minister Rene Levesque to the effect that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources systematically blocks the negotiations with Quebec concerning the transfer of jurisdiction over the Eskimos of new Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under the rules given to me a question should not inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are correct.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Without any reference to the newspaper article, I should like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister. Now that negotiations between Ottawa and Quebec concerning the transfer of Eskimo affairs to the province of Quebec have been broken off, does the Prime Minister intend to appoint another negotiator with whom it will be possible for the province to discuss?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Negotiations are continuing.


Arthur Laing: I think yesterday Hon. Mr. Levesque sought and obtained from his legislature permission to make an


extended reply to a question asked by Mr. Daniel Johnson. An assertion of bad faith has apparently been made and that is important to me. Further I think this question is of sufficient importance to this house and to the public, for me to seek the indulgence of hon. members to make a somewhat extended reply, if I may.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the minister's suggestion?


Mr. Knowles:: In view of the fact that this is Wednesday, when questions are limited to half an hour, should not any time taken up by a statement which is, in effect, a statement on motions, be made outside that 30 minute limit?


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister tell us that there has been no breaking off of negotiations between Ottawa and Quebec on the transfer of control of the Eskimo affair, and that Mr. Rene Levesque made an erroneous statement on that matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the minister making this statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Nielsen:: Perhaps by unanimous consent we could revert to motions so the statement would not impinge on time allowed for questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the house should now revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Laing: I have not yet seen the text of the remarks attributed to Hon. Rene Levesque in the Quebec legislature yesterday on the subject of the Eskimos in Quebec. Neither have I received any communication from Mr. Levesque in connection with his reported statement that further negotiations looking toward a transfer of the administration of services to Eskimos in Quebec were pointless at this time.
It is the policy of this government to enable the indigenous people of Canada to take advantage of the programs and services enjoyed by all other Canadians. I believe that to achieve our policy the federal government and the provinces must share responsibility and find ways to work together. We were pleased to agree to the request of the province of Quebec for negotiations.

The federal government has not in any way departed from its announced policy as contained in the memorandum of understanding which I announced in the house on March 4 last. The Leader of the Opposition asked me in the house on May 29 whether certain comments attributed to me in press reports amounted to a change in policy, and I stated that the reports of my remarks were inadequate and that the policy had not been changed.
Following the memorandum of understanding the officials of the federal government and of the province of Quebec proceeded with a detailed examination of the problems. Discussions were held frequently throughout the months of March, April and May. Serious differences of outlook between the two governments were made apparent early in the discussions between officials, and in an endeavour to try to overcome these differences Mr. Levesque and I met in Montreal on April 28, 1964. On May 22 I wrote to Mr. Levesque to propose that early discussions between he and I to review the work of the officials would be desirable, and on June 1 I received a reply from Mr. Levesque, dated May 26, agreeing that this course would be satisfactory. On May 22 a meeting of officials was held in Quebec city and telephone discussions have occurred since then. On the afternoon of June 2 a letter reviewing official discussions to date was forwarded by my assistant deputy minister, who has been the senior federal official involved in the negotiations at the official level.
Although points of difference had developed between us, I believed these differences could be resolved. Indeed, further proposals had gone forward as late as yesterday. In the memorandum of understanding of February 29, 1964, it was stated that the governments of Canada and Quebec undertake to consult jointly the Eskimos of nouveau Quebec. The provincial government has insisted that the principle of transfer does not fall within the subject matter of consultation with the Eskimos, and that the range of discussions with the Eskimos rests in the area of techniques of implementation. Our own view has been firmly that the widest range of consultation with the Eskimos must be allowed and the federal government cannot be placed in a position where, because of any agreement with the province of Quebec, we would be forced to impose our views on the Eskimos no matter what the conditions. I do not see that 20220-247
Inquiries of the Ministry we have any room for departure from the important principle we have maintained.
A second substantial area of difference has been in the insistence of the provincial authorities on a schedule setting up times by which the transfer of various aspects of administration must be carried out. In our view the transfer must depend upon the confidence of the Eskimos whom we seek to help. An abrupt change is unthinkable without the assent of the Eskimos, and I candidly admit to the house that such assent does not appear immediately forthcoming. There were these and other reported difficulties when Mr. Levesque and I met on April 28, 1964, in Montreal.
At the meeting I proposed that a study be made by the officials of those areas of administration in which the provincial government could become involved immediately. The Montreal meeting concluded on the basis that the officials would consider this approach thoroughly and report to their respective ministers, after which a further ministerial meeting would be held.
If Mr. Ldvesque is rightly quoted as saying that I have personally intended to place a road block in these discussions, then I can only say that it is not so. Mr. Levesque made an announcement on the basis of newspaper reports which attributed certain remarks to me. On May 29 and on June 1 I was asked questions concerning these reports in this house, and I stated that I was inadequately quoted. Mr. Levesque made no effort to confirm what I had said, and neither I nor my officials received the benefit of any query from Mr. Levesque. I can only assume that Mr. Levesque may have had reasons external to these discussions for his reported announcement.
In the patient and protracted negotiations which have been carried forward by my officials with those of the province of Quebec a positive understanding, forbearance and resilience has been demonstrated worthy of the finest traditions of the civil service of this nation. The impasse to which we seemed repeatedly to return was the definition of consultation with the Eskimo people. We have insisted that consultation be, in fact, consultation. Anything short of this would destroy their sense of personal dignity and human worth. One of the more sacred trusts of this nation is the development to full stature in the nation of its indigenous people.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that before long Mr. Levesque and I will be able to again

Inquiries of the Ministry carry forward our discussion of this difficult problem. We must do so if the benefit of the Eskimo people is to be kept in mind.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for the unanimous consent of the house in order to revert to motions so as to hear the statement of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, in view of the great importance and urgency of the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, since the standing orders allow a member to speak on a motion, I should like to say a few words in regard to the statement just made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing). He did not undertake nor conduct his negotiations properly-
Mr. Speaker, I hear the boos of the Liberals, but when negotiations are underway and a minister takes the liberty of making statements along the lines of those made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources at Winnipeg, I agree with what the Prime Minister himself recently said to the effect that it was a lack of judgment to make statements when negotiations are underway. I believe this statement by the Prime Minister may apply to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Now, negotiations are indeed underway and we see one of the negotiators making statements and throwing a monkey wrench into the proceedings.
Mr. Speaker, after listening to the statement just made by the minister it appears obvious that the kind of consultation carried on with the Eskimos is only an excuse to delay the negotiations now underway.
There is no doubt about one thing and the minister is aware of it: if there is any government in the country who has respected minority rights, it is the government of the province of Quebec, and one hundred years of history are there to prove it.
Mr. Speaker, the manner in which the federal minister has just replied to the Quebec minister was enough to reveal in what sort of atmosphere the negotiations are carried out. Instead of taking his share of responsibility, the one thing the federal minister insisted on doing was to accuse the Quebec

minister. Only one thing must be taken into account. It has become impossible for the Quebec minister, Mr. Levesque, to continue his negotiations with the federal minister, because the latter is indeed blocking those negotiations personally.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources should withdraw from the present negotiations and be replaced by someone better qualified than he is to bring to a final conclusion the transfer of the administration of Eskimo affairs into the hands of the Quebec government.
Those citizens must become full-fledged citizens, as residents of the province of Quebec, and I can assure all members of this house, including the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, that the province of Quebec has always respected, more than any other province, the rights of minorities concerning language, religion, etc.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the statement made by the minister. We are sad that it does indicate a complete lacuna in the relationships between the two governments. I should like to point out that a very important dominion-provincial conference with regard to the Indians has already been postponed until the fall, and it is not a very happy augury to have one of the governments that will be involved in this later discussion taking the position that it is worthless to talk to the federal spokesman.
Having made these remarks, may I say that we still have a certain sympathy with the minister, and as much as we can appreciate his outline we agree with the position he has taken. The only other comment I should like to make from a party point of view is that it is very apparent that one of the greatest propaganda hoaxes of our time has been that the federal Liberal government and party are the only ones capable of getting along with the provincial Liberal government and party.


Mr. Graffley:: The cold war now. [Translation]


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to comment on the statement just made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) because I feel that the temperature has gone up a little across the house. If I take, on one

side, the remarks made by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), which were in a sense rather strong, I think that I can establish a parallel with some applause the minister got from the Conservative side when he said that he did not want to do anything, take any step, before making sure that the Eskimos in northern Quebec would get all the guarantees that their rights will be protected and respected by the Quebec government.
Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with that point of view according to which the Eskimos of Quebec must be assured, before being transferred to the province, that their rights and prerogatives will be fully protected.
On the other hand I am asking myself the following questions. Why are we questioning the good will of the province of Quebec in granting this protection? What are the reasons for the minister, the government, or any other member of this house, to question the intentions of the Quebec government in this matter?
Personally, I have followed this debate and I fail to see on what grounds we can disagree with this transfer of jurisdiction over the Eskimos to the province of Quebec. In my opinion, the whole history of Quebec is there to prove, beyond all doubt, that we are respectful of the rights and privileges of the residents of our beautiful province of which we are proud.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a suggestion which I hope to see accepted.
It is perhaps slightly humorous, but I think just the same it is worth taking into consideration.
I would ask the Prime Minister, who is not here at the moment, or his spokesman whether he could not, in view of the present conflict -the breaking off of negotiations between the federal and provincial ministers-delegate as a negotiator in Quebec, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) or Mr. Tom Kent from the Prime Minister's office who managed, as we have seen, to negotiate an agreement in the deadlock which followed the last federal-provincial conference in Quebec.
Following that conference there was a deadlock and everyone wondered where it would lead us. It seems to me that the Minister of Transport, during one of his short trips, as the one he has just made to London, for example, with the assistance of Mr. Tom Kent, managed to find a solution which, even
20220-247i
Inquiries of the Ministry if it was not acceptable to everyone, has at least eased the situation.
I hope the Prime Minister will delegate the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to Quebec city who, in a short trip, probably in a Department of Transport jet, will bring back our two opponents, Messrs. Laing and Levesque, on more favourable ground toward full co-operation in the interest of our fellow citizens, the 2,500 Eskimos of northern Quebec.


Hon. Paul Marfineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: In his statement, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) has listed the safeguards which must be granted if we want to be assured that all the interests of the Eskimos will be respected when they are transferred.
On this side of the house we are in favour of such safeguards and we showed that very clearly when this matter was discussed.
In his statement, however, the minister did not refute the very specific charges which had been made in the Quebec legislature by a minister of the province of Quebec.
Here are these two charges:
1.	The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has allegedly lifted the veil of silence which he had himself imposed and which had been agreed upon as far as the progress of these negotiations was concerned, by making, first, a public statement in Winnipeg and other statements in the house.
2.	That in his new statement the minister has completely and openly violated the agreement in principle concluded on February 29 between himself and his officials on one hand and the Quebec minister of natural resources and his officials on the other hand.
The minister must necessarily supply us with an explanation on that matter.
How can the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), in reply to a question directed to him today, claim that those negotiations are still going on when, according to the statement of one of the main parties involved, namely Hon. Rene Levesque, they were broken off deliberately due to the personal intervention of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources?
It is really a pity that such a deadlock occurred. I believe that it is desirable, in order to settle that question and especially in the interest of the Eskimos themselves, that the Prime Minister step in directly with the head of the Quebec government and that he appoint, as of now, a new federal negotiator,

Inquiries of the Ministry in view of the total failure registered by the present Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as leader of the Quebec Liberal members in the house.
Could the federal government's reserve concerning the transfer of jurisdiction over Eskimos from the federal to the provincial authorities be interpreted as a lack of confidence of the present federal government toward another Liberal government, that of Quebec?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think I have the right to give an answer in the house in the capacity mentioned by the hon. member for Lake St. John. Moreover, I want to point out that the question period having already lasted 35 minutes, I cannot answer this question.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. First of all, we have not yet spent 35 minutes on questions.
This is my supplementary question. Could the Minister of Justice inform us of the requests submitted by Quebec, to which the Canadian government cannot or does not wish to accede, concerning the transfer of jurisdiction over 2,500 Eskimos of northern Quebec? Could we know the reasons why the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Quebec minister of natural resources cannot come to an agreement?


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: There has to be some semblance of order in this chamber. I had already recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on two occasions.


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in connection with a statement of Mr. Levesque as it appears in this morning's issue of the Gazette. Mr. Levesque said that part of the agreement which the minister read into the record-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member rephrase his question?


Erik Nielsen: Well, I had considered raising the matter as a question of privilege and I have to state the question at some length in order to get across to the minister what I am asking.


Mr. Speaker:: My objection to the form of the question was that the hon. member was quoting from a statement in a newspaper.


Erik Nielsen: Very well, Mr. Speaker. As recorded on page 506 of Hansard for March 4, the minister made a statement in this house, the first paragraph of which is at direct odds with what Mr. Levesque is quoted as having said in this morning's Gazette. I am asking the minister whether or not the agreement was as he stated on March 4 or whether it was, as Mr. Levesque says, that the government of Canada was prepared to cede all administrative rights over the Eskimo people to the province of Quebec?


Arthur Laing: Surely, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would not expect me to accept responsibility for the utterances of another person.


Erik Nielsen: As a supplementary question, I am not at all suggesting that, but what I am suggesting is that the minister owes an explanation to this house as to why it would seem that what he said on March 4 is at direct odds with what Mr. Levesque has said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice a few moments ago called your attention to the fact that under the new procedures today was a day when questions were limited to half an hour. Have we not reached that period today?


Mr. Speaker:: On the point of order, and in order to clear up any doubt, we interrupted our half hour question period to revert to motions. The minister will recall that we restarted our question period at 3.43, and we should conclude it at 4.02.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I would first call your attention to the fact that he was not recognized; and further to this point of order, it involves the use of the question period which has been experimented with in the house under the new rules.

I find that the question period is not being applied to each and every member with the same fairness, and in support of that contention I would call your attention to the fact that a number of questions asked were of a similar nature to ones I have asked and answers to which the Chair has permitted. The last one was the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre yesterday, when he inquired about the welfare of workers at the Winnipeg air terminal, which question the Chair permitted while at the same time ruling out my questions of a similar nature concerning 400 workers in Cape Breton.
In further support of my contention that the rule is not applied fairly is the fact that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) has had occasion to rise and ask questions about road conditions in Ottawa.
Third, and this is the one which irks me most, the question period in the last few days has devoted much time to the interests of human rights, particularly the welfare of a convicted American dope peddler, whereas the questions I asked about the human rights of 400 workers in Cape Breton have been denied.
Answers have been provided to the house at the will of the ministers. This afternoon a question by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) was ruled out of order, but when the minister indicated he was willing to answer, then that question was permitted. This was indicated again quite clearly this afternoon on another question concerning the Eskimos. It was also ruled out of order but, because of the minister's willingness to provide an answer, it was permitted.
I fail to understand how questions involving 400 workers in Cape Breton can be continually ruled out of order, with no answers provided, particularly when questions of that nature are allowed in the interest of human rights concerning a convicted American dope peddler. Those same rights are denied to workers in Cape Breton.


Mr. Speaker:: There are now a few minutes less in our question period; but in reply to the hon. member, if he is not satisfied with the conduct of the Chair there is a procedure open to him under the rules, and he may take that procedure. On the other hand it might be a very useful experiment to give the hon. member an opportunity of occupying the chair during some of the procedures of the house.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, you maintain there is a procedure open to me. If I thought there was a hope of carrying it, I would put the appropriate motion.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice as senior minister from the province of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, a little earlier the Prime Minister stated that discussions or negotiations between the province of Quebec and the federal government were being proceeded with, concerning the transfer of Eskimo affairs up north; but, on the other hand, according to Mr. Levesque's statement these negotiations have broken off.
Could the Minister of Justice tell us who is the minister, deputy minister, official, or federal government representative who is continuing negotiations, as implied by the Prime Minister?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that, should I answer that question, I would do so as a member of the cabinet. Moreover, I feel that it should be directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing), since he is responsible for that matter at this time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
So that the transfer of the administration of Eskimo affairs may be made to Mr. Rene Levesque's satisfaction, can the minister tell the house if he will take charge of those negotiations to ensure that Mr. Levesque's wishes and requirements are met, and take that responsibility away from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Following certain remarks made in connection with the manner in which discussions are conducted in this house, I must say, on behalf of our group, that we do not agree with the remarks made about the Chair a while ago and that we are satisfied with the manner in which the Chair is conducting the proceedings of this house.

Inquiries of the Ministry


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. My question is based on a lengthy telegram I have just received from the president of the Canadian brotherhood of railway trainmen and general workers, local 400, Vancouver, B.C.
In view of the caustic comments contained in the Norris report with regard to the sweetheart deals made between management and the seafarers international union, and in view of the fact that the S.I.U. have signed a memorandum of agreement with Northland Navigation Shipping Company Limited, would the minister inform the house if it is the role of the maritime trustees to approve substandard agreements entered into by the S.I.U. that make it difficult for Canadian unions to obtain satisfactory settlements? Will the minister look into this question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have grave doubts that this question is in order. The last two lines of the question in my opinion are not asking for details. The question is very long. In my opinion the question is just on the edge of being out of order. However, in order to accommodate my hon. friend, upon whom perhaps I have been a little rough the last two days, may I suggest that he put it on the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am quite willing to withdraw my opinion and leave the rest of the question.


INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION RESPECTING LABOUR CODE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Prime Minister, but in his understandable absence perhaps I may put it to the Minister of Labour. When the list of business was given to us today, was it an oversight that the proposed national labour code was not included? Can the minister say whether this legislation will be on the order paper this month?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was not an oversight, because the government attaches a great deal of importance to

this particular legislation. Most of the policy decisions with regard to this legislation have been made and it is now in the course of preparation, and will appear on the order paper just as soon as this stage is completed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When will that be, this month or next month?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Defence Production or possibly the Minister of Finance. Can either of the ministers inform the house whether the government is considering financial assistance to the residents of Cranberry Portage, Manitoba, in relation to the very heavy debts with which they have been saddled in the matter of school debentures, which were negotiated in good faith on the continuance of the mid-Canada radar site at that location? If not, will the government assure the house that full consideration will be given to this matter at an early date?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is surely a question for the order paper.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to questions a few hon. members have asked concerning administrative measures taken by the department to prevent people from being held in custody too long, I should like to give the house the following information:
1. Information concerning any person held under the Immigration Act must be sent promptly to the central immigration office-


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is the second time the minister has attempted to make a statement purporting to be in answer to questions in the house. We

Columbia River Treaty
should either revert to motions, when this statement could be made, or questions, if answered at the time they are asked, should be left at that stage. The other day the minister made a lengthy explanation of incomplete answers. Is he now about to do the same thing?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the statement of the minister a long statement or a short statement in answer to a question?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, it is in answer to a question. It is a short statement.


Léon Balcer: Is it
long or short? On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important that we know if it is a very long answer that would constitute a statement on motions, or whether it is strictly an answer, by yes or no, to a few questions asked yesterday. If the minister is anxious to answer questions he should answer them when they are asked, and not wait until another day and make a full statement trying to cover up his first one.


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise the hon. member that I asked the minister if his statement is long or short and he has assured me it is a short statement.


René Tremblay: 1. All information concerning a person detained under the Immigration Act will have to be forwarded promptly to the head office of the department in Ottawa.
2.	Such information will be placed on file in Ottawa where it will be checked daily by senior officials of the department.
3.	Report will also have to be made immediately to Ottawa concerning the progress of any action taken against a person detained under the Immigration Act or otherwise. That will enable the officials entrusted with the supervision of such cases in Ottawa to know exactly how matters stand at any given time.
4.	Any person against whom a deportation order has been issued will be deported as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made concerning transportation and reception by the country where the person is being deported (unless charges have been laid under the Criminal Code).


SHIPPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what is apparently to be the last question today of the Minister of Public Works. This is an urgent matter, because almost a week ago the minister said he would shortly be tabling supplementary estimates relating to the low water problems. Can the minister give us an indication now of how soon they will be tabled?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelels (Minister of Public Works):: Very shortly, Mr. Speaker; and may I add that probably tomorrow I will make a statement covering this important matter.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On motions?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: As usual, Mr. Speaker.


COLUMBIA RIVER
Paul Joseph James Martin: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the ratification of the treaty between Canada and the United States of America relating to co-operative development of the water resources of the Columbia river basin, signed at Washington on January 17, 1961, and the consequent coming into force of the protocol thereto annexed to the exchange of notes signed at Washington on January 22, 1964, and that this house do approve the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the committee on external affairs, which dealt with the Columbia river treaty project, made its report to this house, and this will be found in Votes and Proceedings for May 28 last. I am sure that all members of the house who were not on that committee would want me to say to the chairman, to the vice-chairman and to all the members of that committee how grateful we are for the thorough way in which this subject was considered by the committee, not only by those who supported the treaty and the protocol but by those who took issue with both those instruments. Certainly, as the minister responsible, I want to add my own personal gratitude for the fact that this committee, which held 50 sittings, did such a thorough and responsible job. I am sure the country will be grateful.

Columbia River Treaty
On March 3 I moved that the Columbia river treaty and protocol should be referred to the standing committee on external affairs. The committee reported, as I have just observed, on May 28 with a statement of clarity that I think deserves to be repeated. The substantive part of the report says:
Your committee has considered and approved the abovementioned treaty and protocol.
In moving the present resolution, which is based on the committee's report, I would hope to be brief because I made an extended statement when this matter first came before the house and I made two statements in the committee. My remarks will be brief because the entire situation relating to the treaty and the protocol has been set forth fully and in detail. In addition, all hon. members, those on the committee and those who are not, received the white paper which set forth the relevant documents. All hon. members, have also received the "Presentation", a book of 172 pages giving a complete background and explanation of the negotiations, the arrangements finally concluded and the advantages that flow from them. I made a thorough survey of the whole matter in my statement on March 3, and again in concluding the debate on the motion to send the document to the committee on March 9. I believe this house had a useful debate on the entire treaty arrangement and the changes made by the protocol.
The committee on external affairs has examined the Columbia river treaty with a thoroughness that has been accorded, I believe, to very few subjects in the history of this parliament. It held, as I observed a moment ago, 50 meetings between April 7 and May 21, and its proceedings, up to the last issue I have received, cover some 1,407 pages. In addition, briefs have been received and witnesses have been heard and cross-examined; indeed, every aspect of this great plan has been examined, checked, assessed and set forth. There is, it seems to me, little that need now be said.
The critics of the treaty have been heard and their arguments have been probed with care. In my statement to the committee on May 21 I summarized and commented on the points that have been made by those who criticize the treaty and the protocol. All the arguments dealt with questions that had been raised in one way or another before or while the protocol was under negotiation. All were weighed then with care, and all have been examined again. They do not in any way alter the judgment which I, as the responsible

minister, and the government as a whole had made. In my statement of May 21 I gave the reasons why the arguments of the critics cannot be accepted as in any way invalidating the case that has been presented on the outstanding advantages of the two instruments concerned. In the statement which I made in this house on May 3, 1964, I summarized them as follows:
1.	We will be able to instal over 4 million kilowatts of capacity at points in the Columbia river basin in Canada capable of producing annually about 20 billion kilowatt hours of energy for Canada at an at-site cost of approximately two mills per kilowatt hour. This installed capacity is nearly one and a half times the total present hydroelectric installation in British Columbia and about one fifth the total for all of Canada, all at the very low cost of two mills.
2.	We will secure prevention of floods in settled areas on the Kootenay and Columbia rivers.
3.	We will have the continued production, at the end of the 30 year sales contract, of downstream benefits in the United States with a potential value to British Columbia of $5 million to $10 million per year for the life of the treaty and possibly thereafter.
4.	We will be entitled to additional payments of up to $8 million by the United States for extra flood control if it is required during the treaty period.
5.	Construction of the projects will require a peak labour force of about 3,000 men. An average of some 1,350 will be employed on the dams alone during the nine year construction period of the treaty storage projects. Expenditures by this labour force and by industries across Canada on the production of materials and equipment for the dams will create a great many more jobs.
6.	Following the construction of Duncan, Arrow and Mica there will be a continuing building program for a further 10 to 15 years for other large dams on the Columbia river.
7.	Canada will secure an increase in foreign exchange resources from the payment by the United States of $319 million in United States funds, of which $254 million will be paid in 1964.
These are tremendous advantages, Mr. Speaker. They cannot be secured except in a co-operative arrangement. It is quite clear that the cost of power would be much greater and the results to Canada infinitely less beneficial if we tried to develop the Columbia alone. No one seriously suggests this should be tried. It is equally clear, I think, that the arrangement worked out is no second best. Careful engineering studies show that the arrangement is better than any alternative sequence of development. This was clearly emphasized by all of the engineering experts who appeared before the committee and by all of the notable engineering firms represented before the committee; and I think I can say that nothing has been produced to

the contrary from an engineering viewpoint which has not been controverted. It would be utter folly not to proceed with the plans that have been so meticulously worked out by two governments of Canada over so many years.
The advantages of the treaty and protocol can be realized without in any way impairing our sovereignty or our ability to draw full advantage for Canada from the waters of the Columbia system. We have also established explicitly and clearly our right to make diversions within the basin or consumptive diversions outside the basin if and when they are needed.
In concluding my remarks on March 3, as reported at page 489 of HansardL I said:
-we have before this house a treaty that should, and will, commend itself to the members of this house, as I am sure it will to the great majority of the people of our country. The plans that have been prepared are good plans. The engineering is nearly finished. The money to be paid by the United States will be raised in the coming weeks. It is for us to decide whether the fruit of years of effort is to be gathered for the benefit of the people of Canada now and in the years to come. I have no doubt, on the basis of the record, what the verdict of this parliament will be.
The results of the consideration by the committee on external affairs have amply confirmed the conviction I then expressed. Witness after witness, either in chief or in response, clearly indicated that there was no exaggeration in the position put forward by those who believe that this treaty and the protocol are in the interests of the owner of the resource, in the interests of Canada and in the interests of responsible and good relations with our neighbour.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that on a matter of this kind, which is not partisan in any sense, we might move quickly, even unanimously. Work can be done this summer. It will be started even in advance of ratification if the decision of parliament is clear. We will begin to feel the good effects at once, and they will benefit our country for generations.
As I have said, I think it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the treaty and protocol constitute an arrangement that will redound to the enormous advantage of this country for years to come. They represent the efforts of 20 years of careful consideration and the considered policy of two governments of Canada, as well as the viewpoint and the wish of the owner of the resource itself, the government of the province of British Columbia. The treaty and 20220-248
Columbia River Treaty the protocol are the fruit of two decades of careful study, mature consideration and hard negotiation. We can all take satisfaction from what has been accomplished. The time has now arrived for action.
I commend the present resolution to the favourable consideration of this house in order that such action may begin at once.


Mr. Sluari A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, the minister referred to the 20 years which have elapsed since the first discussions and initial negotiations on the Columbia river development began. Since that time perhaps millions of words have been written and many more spoken about this development. Probably at this particular moment in time there is very little more that is either new, or which can add to what has already been written and said on the subject. The exhaustive hearings of the external affairs committee over the past two months on the subject of the Columbia river development have brought forward many briefs. Hours of testimony in answer to questions by members of the committee were given. As the minister has stated, every aspect and facet of the development has been probed, analysed and assessed. We now come to the point where a decision is to be made by this house. It is therefore appropriate to endeavour to summarize, at least briefly, where we stand, where our respective parties stand, and how individuals who have been concerned directly or indirectly with this matter over the years feel at this point when a decision is to be made by this house.
As one who has lived most of his life within the Columbia basin and who has heard of the dreams of people who have foreseen the development of the river, I can say that many generations have passed since the first of our pioneer citizens looked at the immense water flow of the Columbia and realized how its energies might be harnessed. We now come to the point where it is no longer a speculative matter. It is no longer a question of what might be done: We now know what can be done, and we are to make the decision whether it will be done.
During the period of negotiation it was always the objective to establish a foundation for a treaty under which the full power development of the river in Canada could be achieved. So we have a treaty that includes three dams, which are referred to by the treaty primarily as storage dams-or the general reference to their function is as

Columbia River Treaty storage dams. Because this is so there has developed across Canada over a period of years, since the treaty was signed particularly, the impression that this was the whole, and the all, with regard to the Columbia development in Canada; that three storage dams were all that the Canadian people could anticipate from the Columbia; that they would provide for the generation of power in the United States and for flood control protection in the United States, and that would be the end of it.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, if that were so then there would be no justification for this house to waste very much of its time on this treaty. But it is not the case and never has been. I, and I imagine all of those who supported the former administration when the treaty was negotiated, appreciate the fact that the present administration has come around to the viewpoint that this treaty is a good one and does provide the foundation which is sought for the development of the Columbia in Canada. By creating storages on the river, by regulating its flow and by securing a 50 per cent return, as the treaty did, of downstream benefits either for power or flood control, a means was secured by which the construction of immense power development in Canada could be made economic on the most favourable terms-not at just favourable rates but at preferred rates, some of the lowest cost power in the world. We have had these assurances in the committee both from the minister of lands and resources of the province of British Columbia and from the chairman of the British Columbia hydro authority, that they saw the treaty as one which provided this potential and that it was a policy of the hydro authority to proceed with the further developments which make the project so attractive.
The installation of generators at Mica Creek, which Dr. Keenleyside said could take place very shortly after the construction of the dam at that point will lead to most substantial benefits. At one point we were told that 1.8 million kilowatts of power producing capacity would be made available at site at 1.5 mills. In order to appreciate this one has only to recall that in British Columbia now the average cost of power is somewhere in the region of five mills at site. Second, as the Columbia is developed this immense reserve of power incorporated in the B.C. power and hydro system will bring about a great reduction in the cost of

power throughout the province. We should also realize that the Mica creek development is not the only one possible. Downstream from Mica at Downey creek, Revelstoke canyon, Murphy creek, on the Kootenay river and, possibly, at sites in east Kootenay, to mention only some of the possibilities, further installations can be built until some four million of kilowatts of capacity are generated in Canada at an average cost of two mills on site.
This, of course, was the objective throughout-to create for British Columbia the possibility of the total utilization of the river in Canada resulting in the production of power at low cost in order to make industry more competitive and enable industries which are high consumers of electric power to locate in the area, as well as providing electric power at low cost to agricultural users in those large farming areas where irrigation is the life blood of their existence and where the cost of pumping water is now so high.
There would be over the years throughout every aspect of life in British Columbia a new advantage gained through the availability of immense stores of power averaging in cost in the neighbourhood of two mills.
This was the objective, and this is what the treaty achieves. This is what the present administration is now prepared to recognize. Since the treaty was signed and the disagreement arose between the federal and the provincial governments after the signing, a new element has been added to our consideration of this question. This element has been added as a result of the decision of the government of British Columbia to proceed with the development of the Peace river project, its intention that the Peace river should provide British Columbia with its domestic power requirements for the next ten years and that the downstream power available under the treaty should be sold to the United States rather than returned to British Columbia in the form of power. This party when in government advocated strongly that the benefits be returned to British Columbia as power to serve the needs and industrial growth of the province over the next 10 or 15 years. However, that contention did not prevail.
In September last this question was taken to the people in a provincial election. The present administration in British Columbia

put forward its argument in favour of a two-river development, and that policy prevailed. The present government won its new mandate and the Peace river power project is going ahead. It will provide power for the domestic requirements of the province over the next ten years or so and, therefore, the benefits downstream on the Columbia become surplus to provincial requirements. Unless a favourable sales agreement could be made in the United States with respect to this downstream power the Columbia development was at an end. This was the only conclusion that could be reached after September 30 of last year when the provincial government decided to proceed with its Peace river development. For this reason a favourable sales agreement had to be achieved, otherwise all the work which had gone into the surveys and planning of the Columbia scheme would probably end up in pigeonholes with only historical interest attached to them.
But a sales agreement has been negotiated. Many questions have been asked by myself and by other members of the external affairs committee seeking assurances that the sales agreement does provide the provincial government with the money necessary for the construction of the three storage dams and also, as contended, leave a surplus sufficient to provide part of the cost of installing machinery at Mica creek. Assurances have been given to the committee to this effect by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) reinforced by the testimony of the chairman of the British Columbia power and hydro authority. There are some complex equations in these computations. Interest rates are used which we have to assume will be the correct ones, and so on; but on the face of the testimony given I feel the committee received assurances that the sale agreement will provide the benefits claimed for it in the white paper. This being so we can proceed confidently on the assumption that the development of the river will produce power at the very low costs which are claimed for the project. The assurances which we sought have been given and these assurances have been reinforced by government spokesmen and by statements from the engineering witnesses. So, in my judgment, we are able to support the ratification of this treaty.
I am, of course, fully aware that many of the critics remain critics; they have not changed their position. They have come to their decision honestly and earnestly. In many cases they hold their viewpoints passionately.
20220-248i
Columbia River Treaty They feel something has been done which could have been done otherwise and better. I suppose it would have been possible to have written a better treaty in one set of circumstances. If there had been no boundary settlement in 1846 and if the Oregon territory had not wound up in the United States, and if there had never been a British North Amercia Act separating the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments, especially in the field of resource development-in these circumstances we could have written an excellent treaty. Of course, in these circumstances we would not have needed a treaty; we could have developed the river ourselves.
However, those circumstances do not prevail. There has been, throughout, a realization that there would have to be a reconciliation of the rights and interests, not just of Canada and the United States but of the federal government in Canada and the provincial government in British Columbia. There was a realization that inevitably there would have to be compromises made, but always seeking to secure a net advantage for Canada and to make sure that the advantages derived would be far greater than could be achieved by any other means. Mr. Fulton explained very clearly in his testimony several times that it was the purpose of getting the maximum net advantage for Canada that motivated him and the other federal negotiators at that time.
We have heard about many alternative sequences of development. Undoubtedly those who claim that there are better methods of development feel that the government of Canada could have disregarded the wishes, interests and rights of the provincial government and imposed its will on that government in order to secure development along other lines. Surely if there is any validity in the federal system of government, surely if there is any validity in the claims of the provinces with regard to their jurisdiction over their lands and resources, the federal government must take into account the wishes of the province concerned in negotiating an agreement of this kind.
The immense magnitude of the program is most apparent, as are the changes in the face of the land that are bound to take place. It was known from the beginning that, regardless of what sequence of development was chosen the changes would be of such magnitude that the face of the land in the Columbia basin would be altered, that immense areas would have to be flooded, that there would b<

Columbia River Treaty dislocation and that new conditions of living would be imposed in that region. However, there had to be the assurance in the minds of the negotiators, both federal and provincial, that although these changes were necessary the benefits would be far greater and sufficiently great to justify the changes both in the land and in the lives of numbers of people. There had to be the assurance that no one would suffer loss, that there would be alternative programs of settlement and redevelopment on available lands, that there would be redevelopment of communities affected together with compensation to those who would suffer loss sufficient to provide them with a stake to re-establish themselves.
All of these assurances had to be given. All of these factors had to be in the minds of the negotiators throughout the period of preparation that led up to the signing of the treaty, and the submission of the treaty and the protocol to the external affairs committee for a recommendation.
In the immense volume of testimony before that committee assurances were given on all of these points. In my view some of the statements by the government of British Columbia do not go far enough yet. Their plans have not yet been revealed in sufficient detail. But Dr. Keenleyside did go into some detail in his submission. On page 15 of the brief he submitted to the committee he referred to the special organization established within B.C. hydro which has been working on the over-all redevelopment plan, the additional plans they have in mind and the path which they will follow. We have also been given the assurance by the provincial minister of lands and forests that these matters are of first consideration to the government of that province.
Having secured these assurances, we in this house have gone as far as we are able to go. We have gone as far as we have a right to go in regard to these questions which affect primarily the rights and responsibilities of the province. If answer are still to be secured they must be secured in British Columbia from the provincial government, and the B.C. hydro and power authority. I believe we have arrived at the point where we must be prepared to accept the assurances of men of distinguished public service such as Dr. Keenleyside, and a man such as the minister of lands and forests of that province who has consistently been returned by the people of British Columbia to positions of high authority. We must be prepared to accept the assur-

ances of these people that they are going to provide for these essentials. I think it remains for the people of British Columbia within British Columbia to secure from the government of the province and B.C. hydro the details of how they are going to undertake to fulfil their commitments to the people whose lives and property will be affected by this development.
A relatively new factor has been injected into the consideration of the treaty during the past year. It has to do with the possible diversion of water to the prairie region. A submission was presented by the previous administration of the province of Saskatchewan. It was an interesting one, not one that could be thrust aside and not given proper scrutiny and examination. But as a British Columbian who lives in the dry belt where a great part of the area is totally dependant upon the utilization of water in irrigation systems, as one who knows something of the cost of bringing water to the land and of the low cost that must be maintained in moving water so that it is economically feasible to use it when you get it to the point where you need it, I have had considerable doubt throughout with regard to diversion over the main range of the Rockies as a means of securing additional water for the prairie region at this particular time. Some evidence was submitted to indicate that there are other rivers more readily accessible from which water can be drawn.
There may come a time when it will be necessary to exert our right of diversion in order to move water over the main range into the South Saskatchewan and on through Alberta, Saskatchewan and possibly into Manitoba. This day may come. In my view article XIII of the treaty provides that this may be done. It does not say so specifically, but I believe it is far better that the right be provided in the treaty and that we leave the specifics to negotiation when the necessity arises. Do not tie the hands of the government of Canada at this point, but leave it with the freedom of movement that it will probably require when specific diversions are to be made. But diversion for consumptive purposes is guaranteed and assured under the treaty, and the principal reason for diverting water from the Columbia basin to the prairies or to another part of British Columbia would be for consumptive purposes or, as it is defined, domestic or agricultural purposes.

I believe that the treaty in its original form, and now supplemented by the protocol, provides a basis upon which the development of the Columbia in Canada can take place to the advantage of Canadians in general and the people of British Columbia in particular. I believe the opportunity is presented to us now to realize the dreams of half a century. I believe that the treaty should be ratified. I believe that as time goes on the wisdom of this decision will make itself more and more apparent.
I also realize, of course, that all of us who are interested in this project must maintain our vigilance to see that those people whose lives will be at least temporarily disrupted by this great development will not suffer as a consequence of the benefits conferred on other citizens. Provided this is done, I am sure that the benefits will far outweigh the temporary inconveniences of change. But because change is inevitable, because change is a fundamental factor in any development of the Columbia, we must accept that fact and now proceed with the ratification of the treaty which will not only bring about these changes but will confer benefits on the province really too great for us to contemplate or endeavour to measure at this time.
There will still be opposition. There will still be objection. I do not believe this could have been avoided under any scheme of development. This scheme, as envisaged in the treaty, represents the work of a great many dedicated public servants and political leaders. I feel that it will confer the benefits that British Columbia and Canada seek. I trust the resolution will receive the approval of the house.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say at the very outset that we propose to oppose this resolution with all the vigour and determination that we can muster. We are under no delusion whatever about the fact that the decision has already been made, although it has not yet been registered. It is our belief that although to some people it would appear to be an exercise in futility to oppose that which is inevitable, nevertheless we believe that even if we stand alone in this house it is in the interests of Canada that opposition to this treaty be expressed, and that our objections be now heard.
It may well be that the reason there are so few members in the house at the present time and so few representatives in the press
Columbia River Treaty gallery, when we are dealing with a treaty which in its significance far outweighs 99 per cent of the matters which come before this house, is that there is a feeling of inevitability. The government has spoken. The government has said that this treaty will be passed in this form. After all, this treaty contains, in our view, only very minor changes from the treaty approved by the former administration. Perhaps it is because there is an atmosphere of inevitability that, when we are asked in this parliament to perform the solemn act of approving, of ratifying a treaty of such tremendous significance to Canada, there are so few apparently concerned enough to be here to deal with this matter.
So far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is our hope that if we point out as clearly as we know how what we believe to be the serious errors in judgment contained in this treaty, perhaps they will not be repeated in the future. An awareness of what we, and any other individual Canadians believe to be the defects of this treaty may help to insure that in the future the interests of Canada will be safeguarded more effectively than we believe they are in the present treaty.
To some members in this house, it may seem strange that our party which has a very large, and if I may say so, a very capable representation from British Columbia, should have as its first spokesman on this treaty dealing with a river that runs through the province of British Columbia, a member from eastern Canada. Perhaps this is symbolic of our conviction that the Columbia river treaty affects national as well as provincial interests and deserves the most careful scrutiny of every member in this house, because it concerns every Canadian.
I speak as one who tried to follow carefully the evidence before the external affairs committee, and it is our conviction that, in the words of a very distinguished Canadian, this treaty is a very bad treaty for Canada, and parliament should know it. I am quoting the words of General McNaughton who, I suggest, is not only a very distinguished Canadian but better qualified to express an opinion on this treaty than any other Canadian. It is true, I suppose, that those who listen to evidence pick out those things that suit their preconceived views. Nevertheless, I say that, having listened to the evidence, we endorse, support and accept that characterization of the treaty, that it is a very bad treaty for Canada.
It may well be, Mr. Speaker, that the provisions of this treaty, which extend into the

Columbia River Treaty future for 60 years and in some respects even beyond that time and deals with many highly technical engineering matters, are necessarily so complex that to debate them in detail would require many weeks or many months. However, we are going to try to highlight and emphasize what we believe to be the main issues. Let me make it clear at once that we are not opposed to all treaties. We are not against the co-operative development of this international river. We are not in favour of going it alone. It is this particular treaty that we regard as not being in the best interests of Canada. We are not antiAmerican, but we do not believe that our friends in the United States will respect us one whit less because we stand up firmly for what we believe to be in the interests of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, since I have spoken in these fairly definite terms about our view of the treaty, what are the major aspects of the treaty we criticize? I do not propose, but some of my colleagues will, to go into a careful analysis of the treaty in so far as it affects two important aspects. One of these is flood control. One of the purposes of this treaty, in part, is to provide for flood control by dams on the Canadian part of the river, and we are to receive certain payments for that. Whether or not the details of the treaty in that respect are satisfactory or adequate, some of my colleagues will outline later. I do not propose to discuss the matter. I do not propose to discuss the question of whether the projects proposed in this particular treaty or the projects envisaged by sequence 9A, commonly known as the McNaughton plan, will provide most satisfactorily for the generation of hydroelectric power. We recognize that the generation of hydroelectric power is extremely important, now and in the future, in relation to any proposal for the development of the Columbia river on an international basis or on any other basis. I do not propose to discuss whether or not we have been paid adequately for the downstream benefits that the projects proposed by the treaty will make possible, or whether other projects were more suitable in the interests of Canada. I will leave discussion of these matters to my colleagues.
I want to say this, that our major objection to this treaty can be summed up in a single word: water. We believe that the future interests of Canada in the use of water for purposes of irrigation and other consumptive purposes, have not been secured by this

treaty. In fact, we believe they have been given away without a cent being paid for them by our friends in the United States. This is the underlying issue-the future importance of water to future generations of this country; and that, we say, is the core of our objection to this particular treaty.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I think my hon. friend will recognize that there are those who take strongly the view that there is no basis for that statement.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I appreciate that, and that is why I am going to develop it and try my best to demonstrate to this house, within the time limit available, why we say the right of diversion for these consumptive purposes is not adequately protected by this particular treaty.
Let me first of all state-and I am not an engineer and I do not propose to give engineering evidence-that the use of water is increasingly important to the maintenance and development of our civilization, and the demand for flows of water for irrigation and other consumptive purposes, and multiple purposes, is a sine qua non. It is a necessary condition of the growing development of our country, and it is because this treaty does not -and I repeat the word "not"-in our opinion provide adequately for the potential diversion, perhaps 20, 30, 40 or 50 years from now, into the prairie provinces arid area, and because in our view it shuts the door to that, we say this treaty is not in the interests of Canada as a whole.
I am fully aware-because I spent a good deal of time listening to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and other witnesses assert, with the force with which the Secretary of State for External Affairs usually makes his assertions-that in fact this treaty contains in article XIII adequate provision for diversion. I want to deal with that particular matter at this moment. It is perfectly true that the treaty explicitly provides for diversion for consumptive purposes, but lying within that phrase is an ambiguity which has never been cleared up in the evidence and which I believe cannot be cleared up. This is where the difficulty lies. "Consumptive purposes" are defined explicitly in the treaty so as to exclude the use of diversion for the generation of power.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the evidence before the committee that was produced by representatives of the government of Saskatchewan and

its hydro engineer, Professor David Cass-Beggs, a very well known engineer in this field, and whose view I support, was that any practical form of diversion could not be exclusively for the purposes of consumption alone-for irrigation and other related purposes-but in order to be practicable it would have to involve within it the generation of power, not only to pump the water over the Rockies but in order to make the whole development economical; and as the water flowed through the South Saskatchewan river, from which it could be diverted in Alberta and Saskatchewan for irrigation and other purposes-industrial purposes that are becoming growingly important in those provinces and to the development of those provinces- it would inevitably flow through the power plants erected on that river, and must therefore from the beginning be contemplated as for the generation of hydroelectric power. But the definition of "consumptive use" exclusively excludes its use for the generation of hydroelectric power. The real thing therefore is that the use is not merely for consumptive purposes. It is not a use merely for the generation of electric power. It is a multiple use, and that is the only practical use involved.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, and others putting forward the argument for the government, kept on repeating that if the main purpose is for consumptive use, if this is the real purpose, the primary purpose, or some other sort of clarifying purpose, then Canada has a right to this diversion, but they produced no single opinion to back that up. They refused to inquire from the representatives of the United States whether they agreed with this interpretation, and I challenge that interpretation as being inconsistent with the evidence given, the clear meaning of the words used, and the definition of the words in the treaty.
If perchance I am wrong, if perchance my own view of the clear meaning of these words should be in error, at the very least there is an ambiguity. I see the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) sitting in the house, and he put this very frankly in the debate. He said there was an ambiguity in the use of these words. Of course there is an ambiguity, if not worse than an ambiguity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But after he heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs he changed his view on that point.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I think his opinion, when he spoke in this house just a few months before
Trade with Caribbean Federation he heard the siren tones of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, was a little better and nearer to the facts than any change of opinion he may have had since, although I do not know whether he has changed his opinion since then or not.
I frankly confess, myself, to be shocked by the fact that when a treaty of this consequence was being negotiated, dealing with a matter so vastly important as the use, the diversion for consumptive purposes, for the benefit of the people of the prairie provinces, no satisfactory legal opinion was prepared, presented or ever put in writing at all so as to guide the government and the negotiators.
We have heard a lot about the 50 sittings which the committee had. I now tell the house and the country that during all those 50 sessions only one reasoned legal opinion was presented, and that was by Mr. Strayer of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, who gave a reasoned expose, with authorities and analysis of the treaty, to indicate that in his view, and I share it, there was no provision for the diversion for multiple purposes.
But, Mr. Speaker, let us assume for a moment that there is some doubt about this. What we say is that that doubt should be cleared up before any treaty is ratified. Before I conclude my remarks I propose to move an amendment which will clarify that matter, so that the people outside the province of British Columbia can be assured that what the minister asserts, namely that he has secured this right of diversion for these multiple purposes, which is the only practical diversion, is in fact acceded to by their fellow negotiators in the United States signing this treaty.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions and public bills.


PROMOTION OP TRADE WITH EASTERN CARIBBEAN FEDERATION
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of establishing free trade between Canada and those West Indies islands comprising the proposed eastern Caribbean federation.

Trade with Caribbean Federation
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not often vouchsafed to a humble backbencher to have in immediate sequence two "brief gaudy" hours on the private members' hour, and perhaps because of some of the remarks passed about me yesterday I should have stopped when I was slightly ahead! However, I am sure the subject matter of this motion is of importance to all hon. members, and I would like to discuss some of the aspects of trade with that part of the former British West Indies federation.
It is perhaps appropriate that a citizen of an island province should initiate the discussion on this matter concerning communities made up of islands. I also have a particular interest in this area, not only because I am a mari-timer but in my years of lecturing at certain maritime universities it was my pleasure to have in my classes many fine young people from the part of the world to which this resolution directs our attention.
I recall so well that on July 21, 1958, parliament had before it a motion by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mc-Ilraith), as he now is, which under the rules at that time we discussed for a full day. I thought I could do no better than model my motion on the wording of his, except that I altered the geographic area as a result of what has happened with the break-up of the former federation, that political community for which we all had such hopes but whose collapse did not surprise us so greatly; certainly it did not surprise many of the people living there. The geographic area which we are discussing here comprises the seven islands, Barbados, Antigua, St. Kitts, Montserrat, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Dominica. This is the little group sometimes called the outer seven, or the left out seven, now that the greater islands, Trinidad, Tobago and Jamaica have become independent states. Grenada has perhaps a special destiny in that it plans to become a part of the Trinidad and Tobago entity.
This collection of small islands is populated by less than three quarters of a million people. The land area is something like 1,300 square miles; but while the area is small, their problems are large: poor soil, shortage of water, lack of proper facilities, roads and airports, shortage of skilled labour, a crying need for capital in their effort to approach something like self-sufficiency, a pressing problem of overpopulation. Indeed, any economic study of these small islands demonstrates why the study of economics has often been described as a dismal science. Yet

these small and beautiful islands could have a fairly bright future. There is tremendous opportunity in tourism, and it is no doubt as tourists that most Canadians know this part of the south. Fun in the sun often takes Canadians to this part of the world. A possibility of broadening their industrial base and diversifying their agricultural industry is of course to the forefront in the planning of the people of these islands.
It is so clear that such small communities with such difficult economic problems and with such a limited economic base must require substantial assistance from outside. From whence shall it come? The United Kingdom has done much and its program of development there is impressive. The United States has helped. Some private developments have brought benefit to the indigenous population although one does not always expect, nor is he disappointed when it does not happen, that business enterprises are necessarily geared to the improvement of the people who live in the area of the enterprise. But Canada comes, I think, into this picture and presents a splendid opportunity for this area. We have historic ties with this part of the country, especially we maritimers. In our days of glory, the days of the wooden ship, the iron men and the golden prosperity [DOT]-long before the time of any of us, I must say, alas-we had close ties. Ships from Prince Edward Island and all parts of the maritimes carried goods to and from the West Indies. As early as 1855 efforts were made to establish a preferential trade agreement with these areas. This was thwarted by the British colonial office. This was in the days before Alexander Galt asserted our economic independence from our former mother country. In 1898 we had the first sugar agreement. In 1912, under the government of Robert Borden and under the auspices of that great maritimer Sir George Foster, we initiated our first trade agreement on a reciprocal basis. This was extended in 1920 and 1926. And so on over the years. I am not going to take the time of the house by going into the figures, Mr. Speaker, but there has developed a substantial trade between Canada, especially eastern Canada, and all the West Indies islands, including of course the islands to which this resolution directs our attention.
In 1962 our trade in exports to Barbados was something like $4J million. That is a substantial sum. Barbados is, of course, a very small community. Our imports were $3,170,000. These figures are in Canadian dollars. There are some commodities which are of special

interest to us. Sugar has always been of interest, and molasses too. Maritimers grew healthy, strong, brilliant and brainy by eating bread on their molasses.


An hon. Member:: Bread on molasses?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that someone has noted the inversion there. Of course, we were so poor that it was the other way around; it was molasses on bread. Yesterday mention was made of the social graces, and I think part of the social graces is based upon another commodity which drew close together the maritimes and the West Indies. I have just noticed a news item in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. It is a report on a businessman discussing trade, and he says:
"We don't import much into Nova Scotia from the West Indies-just rum and fruit juice with the emphasis decidedly on the rum", said one Halifax shipper.
I am sure this was not a matter of taste or preference, but just one of the economic facts of life as that man saw it. It is encouraging that we have seen in recent months -certainly since I had this motion placed on the order paper and hoped it would eventually be reached for discussion-a reawakening of Canadian interest in this matter. I think all hon. members received a very impressive publication from Mr. W. J. F. Kontak of St. Francis Xavier University, who has also written for maritime newspapers, on the result of his study on this part of the world. The Canadian Institute of International Affairs have issued a report of a most impressive study in this connection. A conference on commonwealth partners in the West Indies, sponsored by the institute and the University of New Brunswick was held last fall, in which participated prominent people from the West Indies islands. The study group of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs to meet in Charlottetown, as has been the case with all respectable national bodies this year, will take up the whole question of relations with the West Indies and the hemisphere generally. A week ago a most impressive group of people, the young Progressive Conservatives of Ontario, held a week end conference at McMaster University, where they brought together outstanding scholars, brilliant politicians and fine young people and discussed, among other things, Canada's relationship with this part of the world. If any hon. member of the house,
Trade with Caribbean Federation of any party, would be interested in receiving some of the very valuable reference papers produced at this conference, I should be glad to make arrangements for their distribution.
There has been a development too of what one might call an altruistic concern. We Canadians with all our material blessings seem to look altruistically at this small community whose economic and political viability is somewhat questionable. There are a few brave souls who suggest that it would behoove Canada to offer the outer seven provincial status. A very able professor from the University of Toronto-this shows my ecumenical nature as a McGill man to quote a Torontonian-David Gauthier not long ago wrote in the Toronto Telegram for February 26, 1964:
The Caribbean islands are poor, and several of them are becoming poorer. Their natural resources are severely limited. Their populations are expanding rapidly-
Perhaps it's time to do more-to do something radical. Let us offer to accept the smaller islands, which still remain British colonies, as our 11th province.
Confederation would automatically confer two benefits on the Caribbean. First, a Caribbean province would qualify for the same equalization grants, the same federal assistance programs, which now assist the poorer provinces of Canada.
Second, the inhabitants of the Caribbean would have the right to emigrate to other parts of Canada, thus alleviating the pressure of population in the islands.
Then he goes on to discuss, as a good professor should, some of the reasons which might mitigate against such a course, and he ends up in this way:
The most effective criticism we could make of the racial policies of South Africa, or of southern whites in America, would be to invite a Negro community to become Canadian-
On the other hand, perhaps we might best strengthen ourselves by turning our attention to others. We might achieve a true unity by unitedly assuming a new responsibility.
I am inclined to think that Professor Gauthier's suggestion will not be immediately seized upon, but I think we should expect something more to be done. I think we should congratulate the government for such steps as it has taken to renew our contacts with this area and to improve our assistance programs in respect to this part of our hemisphere.
When we discussed the question back in 1958 the statement of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on the matter was quoted by the mover of the resolution, and is to be found at page 2480 of Hansard, July 21, 1958:

Trade with Caribbean Federation
Perhaps it would be worth considering whether we cannot tie that new part of the commonwealth, as it soon will become, more closely economically and financially to our own country, Canada, by exploring the possibility of free trade between the West Indies and Canada, or a freer trade area, and by tying up our two currencies which would encourage trade and transport between us.
Mr. Kontak, to whom I have referred, after spending a good deal of time in the West Indies came back and reported that the friendship one finds toward Canada in the Caribbean is unbelievable. "This friendship gives a feeling of both pride and embarrassment; pride because Canada has conducted her affairs in such a manner as to produce this feeling, and embarrassment because she has done so little compared to what she is capable of and can afford to do".
It is perhaps no longer common to expatiate on the glories of the commonwealth, yet I believe that the commonwealth still serves as a mighty force for good in the world, is a unique political experiment, and should remain a vital cornerstone in our foreign policy considerations. It is as a senior member of the commonwealth in this part of the world that Canada can assume a greater responsibility for the commonwealth. It is not easy to suggest what should be done. It is certainly not incumbent upon us to rush into the area we are speaking about and suggest how they can make their economy viable. It is not for us to say to them what form of government they should adopt and what should be our relationship to it. But it is, I think, incumbent upon us, and it would behoove all Canadians, to make readily available any financial aid or technical assistance, or a greater exchange of personnel and Canadian ability, to assist them. Because certainly we have that ability, Mr. Speaker.
Some of us were impressed and a bit shaken when at the University of New Brunswick conference last fall the very outspoken prime minister of Barbados laid down some pretty unpopular statements about our country's attitude toward his island and toward those islands near Barbados. He said that the Canadian government has failed miserably to recognize that they are partners in the commonwealth. According to the Fredericton Gleaner for October 26, 1963, Prime Minister Barrow said:
Canada, participating in the Colombo plan of aid for eastern countries which had made no contribution to the dominion, had not seen fit to do anything similar for the closer West Indies. It would be better for both Canada and the
[Mr. Macquarrie.l

United States to help their friends than "fritter away taxpayers' money" in eastern communities.
That is very interesting and thoughtful, but pretty critical. He also said that while Canadian trade with the West Indies is increasing, the traffic is in one direction only; and he went on to say that the West Indies sorely needed investment capital. He went on to say this:
"Canadians arrive with tennis racquets and in Bermuda shorts, spend 17 to 21 days and return with a nice tan". He invited them to combine business and pleasure and make some contribution to the islands' economy.
So often, of course, closer economic ties either imply or involve closer political ties, and the outspoken prime minister did not hesitate to discuss the question of immigration. He spoke of the fact that the only people which our laws would allow into this country were the very types which his country needed most, namely those skilled personnel so essential to a growing, developing and diversified industry.


Mr. Pierre Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to point out to you that there are only 19 members in the house. Now, there must be at least 20 members present so that the house may carry on its business. Since there is no quorum, I would ask you to kindly adjourn our discussions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The Chair will count the house.
A quorum is present. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie).


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say I have concluded my remarks. Otherwise you might have lost your quorum.


Robert Norman Thompson: While I agree with your mathematics, Mr. Speaker, and we do have a quorum, I wish to say that I am ashamed there are not more members of the house present who should be interested in the very important subject brought up in the resolution before us.
I heartily agree with the hon. member from Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) who is responsible for this resolution and I appreciate his scholarly remarks with regard to the points he has made. I do not intend to attempt in any way to compete with him in dealing with the matter on the level he has, but I do speak from practical experience in this area. It so

happens I act in a consultant capacity for a small project which might be termed as commercial external aid. It is sponsored by a number of Canadian companies which operate in the West Indies and which feel their responsibility to the area is so great that they should put some of their money into a program to help this very area to which the resolution refers, that is, the Windward and Leeward islands. Thus I have an intimate experience in each of the islands referred to in this group, as well as experience in a wider sense with the entire West Indies area.
I believe we in Canada have a particular responsibility to do more than we are presently doing to assist these smaller territories in their multitude of problems. Few of us in Canada realize just what historic connection and background there is for us there. I have been interested in English Harbour on the island of Antigua and the ruins, now partially restored, of the Nelson dockyard. It was here Nelson based the administrative headquarters of the West Indies fleet and he sailed from this harbour when he left the area of the West Indies to take part in the battle of Trafalgar. I must commend the few Canadians and the larger number of West Indians who have taken the initiative in restoring this historic place. But this is only one example of the many interesting aspects of these islands; and if for no other reason than making them the natural refuge of Canadians seeking relief from the rigours of our northern climate, this area certainly has tremendous value.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Mac-quarrie) has just spoken about provincial status for the West Indies, for the proposed eastern Caribbean federation. I think this is a very worthy goal to which we may look at some time in the future. It involves, of course, most specifically the attitude of the people who inhabit these territories and it is my impression that this is not what they are looking for at the present time. The West Indies federation has collapsed, and with the lack of concern or active interest on the part of the colonial office toward these areas at the present time I think they are looking hopefully first of all to the development of their own federation. In fact if it were not for the critical situation which presently exists in British Guiana no doubt they would be much further along in their negotiations at the present time.
Trade with Caribbean Federation
I agree entirely with the suggestion that free trade should first be established between Canada and these areas. I wonder why the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) did not include in his statement Trinidad, Tobago and Jamaica. While these independent countries have now made much more progress than the eastern Caribbean area, they are certainly a part of the larger picture of the West Indies, particularly that which is part of the commonwealth, though it also includes, of course, the French territories as well. I believe it would be an excellent step forward, something worth while and beneficial, if the government would consider the basis of this resolution and begin negotiations, with the intention of developing a free trade area or, at least, an area of much freer trade.
Many might ask: What is there in this Caribbean area other than tourism and sugar? From a trade aspect there is a tremendous opportunity for markets for many of the things we are so well equipped to supply. This applies to housing in particular. One of the greatest needs in each of these territories is housing. A few of the islands have large timber supplies available; others have none at all. Whether it is to utilize the raw materials available in the area and develop them for use in housing or whether it is to supply housing from this country, here is one of the greatest opportunities that we have. This includes industrial development; it even includes certain basic food items. I have assisted in the last few months in setting up one of the first milk reconstitution stations in the Leeward group, and there is a second one which has recently come into production. Milk is urgently needed in each of the territories. We have large supplies of milk powder and there is no reason why we should not be moving to assist these people in their efforts to provide adequate food supplies for their population.
I do not intend to prolong this debate but I should like to mention several other points, particularly one which has been referred to already. It relates to the positive side of things. The Leeward and Windward group definitely are within the British commonwealth. Here is an opportunity for us to show that we have not forgotten all that the British commonwealth represents to us, not only as far as the privilege and heritage we have is concerned but also as far as the responsibility we have to those members, and parts of it,
3912	HOUSE OF
Trade with Caribbean Federation less favoured than ourselves. On the negative side there is another aspect. It is simply this: What will happen to these areas if Canada does not come in and share this responsibility? It is obvious that Britain regards this general area as being within the realm of Canadian or United States influence and that she is no longer in a position to spend large sums of money on it. Therefore the area is more or less at loose ends. Traditionally the connection has been with Canada. Through the shipping service prior to the war a close connection was built up and there is still a tremendous wealth of good will toward Canada. Many of their citizens have come to study in Canada and many of our educators have gone down there to assist them.
This is being carried on today, as a team of Canadians in the medical and educational field continues to work in the general area. But if we do not continue and strengthen these contacts, then someone else will come into the vacuum. It may be the United States. More likely it will be some of those cross currents which today are so evident in the area and it will be a tragedy if those cross currents should begin to take hold because we neglect our responsibility there. It is well known by all of us that today there is a communist government in Cuba, in the West Indies area, and the effect of the ideological struggle which goes on between those who respect freedom as the basis on which society should be built, and those who belong to the dictatorial or the totalitarian type of government, threatens that area. The area is only going to be saved as we in Canada move in for personal reasons, on the one hand, because there is a tremendous opportunity there, and for a definite moral reason, on the other hand. I am convinced we have a responsibility there. They are just on our doorstep and regard us with good will. If we do not move in, somebody else is going to do so. Thus I support the resolution, and I trust that it will be supported in every part of the house because I think this is something that is not only of national interest, but of national concern to all Canadians who look beyond our own personal problems within Canada.


Mr. John Mullally (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in the discussion initiated by my friend and fellow islander, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie). I must say that I certainly share his concern for those other islanders who live some miles to the south of us. First of all,


I commend the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the house and initiating the discussion we are having today. I assure him that I support very strongly the opinion he has expressed. The first time I spoke in the house during the first session of this parliament I said, as found on page 427 of Hansard of May 29, 1963:
The geographically natural trading routes for the Atlantic provinces lead us to the eastern seaboard of the United States, the Caribbean area and, indeed, in the broadest view to the entire European Atlantic community. I believe, therefore, that more efforts should be made, first of all, to establish a greater volume of trade between the Atlantic provinces and the West Indies and other areas in the Caribbean.
This is still my view. I strongly endorse any efforts directed toward the establishment of more and freer trade between our country and the West Indies. Anything done to expand our trade in this regard will be of benefit to our country and of parallel or even greater benefit to the West Indies.
We have certain advantages which should contribute to and assist trading between the two areas. First of all, and this applies particularly to the Atlantic area of Canada, we can take advantage of much cheaper water transportation between our Canadian ports and ports in the Caribbean. Second, we have been traditional trading partners for many years and we have built up a mutual respect for one another which should provide an excellent framework on which to build or expand our future trade. As the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) has mentioned, many years ago we began trading with this area. For over 200 years our country has been engaged in trade with the Caribbean area.
Third, and I think this is a very important factor, the economy of our country and that of the West Indies is complementary, and as such there is a sound basis for commercial relations between the two areas. I might also add that our climates are complementary and this, of course, has contributed to a very great extent to the development of the tourist business in the West Indies which has been of a very considerable benefit to that area.
I mentioned that our economies are complementary. In this respect the principal products of the Caribbean area, such as sugar, molasses, cocoa and other foodstuffs, are all products which our country has to import. On the other hand, the main requirements of the Caribbean area are products which we have in abundance such as wheat flour, fish.

meat, lumber, newsprint and other consumer goods.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, free trade of this nature requires the consent and co-operation of both parties. I would urge our government to give high priority and the most active consideration to the proposal to establish a free trade area embracing Canada and the West Indies. However, it does not seem that government officials in the West Indies are as favourably disposed to this proposition as we are. From what I have been able to learn it seems that their leaders have been reluctant to commit themselves to such a trading arrangement. This is understandable from their point of view because tariff duties are a very important source of revenue for their governments. Furthermore, the balance of trade between the two areas is very much in their favour.
I am slightly disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member has restricted the terms of his motion in these words: "Those West Indies islands comprising the proposed eastern Caribbean federation". The hon. member mentioned that the proposed federation includes the Leeward islands, the Windward islands and Barbados. This does not include, of course, as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) has mentioned, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Bermuda, the Bahamas, British Guiana or British Honduras.
In my calculations I included Grenada, which I understand is leaning toward union with Trinidad and Tobago but is still maintaining an observer status in the negotiations between other members of the proposed federation. I tabulated the area of the proposed federation and arrived at a figure of 1,196 square miles, which is roughly 10 per cent of the total area of the West Indies. On a population basis I have also arrived at certain figures. They are not up to date but they may be the latest that are available. The figure I have arrived at is a population of 601,127 out of a total population of 3i million, or about 16 per cent. So the area under consideration is really a small portion of the total area of the West Indies. As the hon. member mentioned, the federation proposed in 1958 was formally dissolved in 1962, but I had hoped that he would include in his resolution the other areas in the Caribbean.
To come back to the more restrictive sense of the resolution, I would point out that there are a few considerations which have to be taken into account in any discussion of a free trade area between Canada and the pro-
Trade with Caribbean Federation posed federation. I will mention three of them. First of all, since the federation is not yet in existence or operation as an economic unit or as a governmental unit, it is probably not in a position at this time to enter into negotiations or to address itself to or even consider very seriously trading relations with Canada or other countries. If and when this proposal is accepted and a federation is formed, this area will then be in a much better position to carry on active negotiations with our country.
Second, as I mentioned earlier and for the reasons I have given, recent indications are that the West Indians themselves are not very enthusiastic about entering into a free trade area or a customs union at this time. They are actively engaged in promoting economic growth and industrial expansion and therefore they are preoccupied with the idea of using tariffs as an instrument for the development of new industries under their new legislation.
Third, in considering a free trade area with the proposed federation we would have to have regard to the present trading relations between Canada and the other countries of the West Indies, not only commonwealth countries but non-commonwealth countries as well. Any arrangements which we might eventually make with the proposed federation, if and when it does come into existence, would have to take into consideration all the arrangements we have at present with the other parts of the West Indies.
It might be useful, Mr. Speaker, to consider for a moment the volume of our trade and the pattern of our trade with the West Indies or the Caribbean area in general. In 1962, Canada exported to the Leeward and Windward islands, who are components of the proposed federation, an amount which equalled 5.9 per cent of our total trade with the Caribbean area. Imports into Canada from the areas comprising the proposed federation represented only 1.4 per cent of Canada's total imports from the area. In 1962, exports to the members of the proposed federation accounted for only 16.2 per cent of our exports to the commonwealth Caribbean, and only 5.9 per cent of Canada's imports from the commonwealth Caribbean came from the Leeward and Windward islands and Barbados.
I have a table outlining Canada's trade with the Caribbean and showing Canada's exports to the Caribbean, to the commonwealth Caribbean and to the proposed Carib-

Trade with Caribbean Federation bean federation. If I could have permission to have the table included as part of my remarks, I could move along much faster and allow someone else to participate in this discussion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house give consent to the incorporation of this table in the remarks of the hon. gentleman?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows:]
Canadian Trade with the Caribbean
Exports
1958	1963
$ million
(1)	Canadian exports to
the Caribbean
(2)	Canadian exports to
the commonwealth Caribbean
Of which to the proposed eastern Caribbean federation
155.2
46.1
8.5
193.2
68.2
12.1 = 6.2%
(3)	Principal exports to the commonwealth Caribbean: wheat flour, fish, meats, motor vehicles and parts, lumber, newsprint and cotton fabrics.
Imports
(1)	Canadian imports
from the Caribbean	335.5
(2)	Canadian imports
from the commonwealth Caribbean	64.4
Of which from the proposed eastern Caribbean federation	5.5
347.5
83.1
4.9 = 1.3%
(3)	Principal imports from the commonwealth Caribbean:	bauxite, alumina, raw
sugar, molasses, crude petroleum, fuel oils, rum, cocoa butter and cocoa beans.
Of which the eastern Caribbean federation supplied: sugar, molasses and rum.
Even if free trade is not possible, if free trade cannot be established between our country and the West Indies or the proposed federation, I think we should make every effort, should give every attention, to the development of greater trade between Canada and the West Indies generally. Other members who have preceded me in this discussion have spent considerable time speaking of the great need for Canada's participation in, and more generous assistance of, the economic expansion of this area. I feel we should make a determined effort to develop the economy of these islands. We should give every assistance we can to raising the standards of living and providing more sources of employment for the people in this part of the western hemisphere. We should also take a more active part in the substantial movement towards assisting in the establishment of new industries in the West Indies and in the area of the proposed federation.
I should like to close my remarks by saying that I strongly support the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie). Although I feel it has been restricted somewhat by limiting it to a certain area, I think the hon. member is to be commended for bringing this important matter to the attention of the house. I am sure he has the support of everybody on this side of the house.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) suggesting free trade between Canada and certain of the West Indies islands. This has been a favourite subject of many of us on both sides of the house for some time. I have spoken about it on numerous occasions both inside and outside this house. I understand there are some other members who want to take part in the debate, so I am going to be brief.
We were encouraged by an answer to a question given by the minister of external affairs the other day, as recorded on page 3402 of Hansard. I asked whether or not consideration was being given by this government to participating in a large scale, top level conference that was suggested by the prime minister of Trinidad to be held later this year concerning closer ties with Canada. This conference would, of course, encompass the matter of trade. While the minister of external affairs was quite loquacious, there was an element of hope in his answer that the government would be moving on this matter. I think it is a timely topic and something should be done about it.
IMr. Mullally.]

There are compelling reasons and the first is the break-up of the federation. Then, too, there should be consideration given to the inroads of communism in the Caribbean area generally. I only want to put on the record two of the main reasons for my support of this resolution. First, there is the great benefit that would accrue to the maritimes, which is in such close proximity to the West Indies. This whole section of Canada, I mean the maritimes, is in a period of transformation and is searching for new industries, new communications. We could orient these plans with the West Indies. I think that Halifax and Saint John, which are facing many problems because of the movement inland of navigation as a result of the seaway, would benefit greatly from any expansion of relations with the West Indies.
Then, there is the undisputed fact that the West Indies themselves are counting on us for assistance. There may be disagreement as to how this assistance would be given, but certainly that statement is true. Those of us who spent time in the West Indies on parliamentary business realize that this is true. I see the Clerk Assistant following this debate closely, and I was on one such conference with him. We certainly got to know the problems of that area. We who have been on these conferences realize that transportation difficulties and the lack of natural resources have caused these people to turn to their wealthy northern commonwealth friends here in Canada, whom they value most highly, for assistance. There is the pertinent fact too that with communist inroads in the Caribbean, the benefits would be far reaching in the ideological battle that is taking place.
I do feel that I can answer one contention that has been put forward. I want to say that the remarks that have been made by the previous speakers have been well informed and thoughtful and I certainly could not improve in any way on the details. However, I believe the main reason the proposer of this motion has merely suggested particular islands in the West Indies and excluded Trinidad, Tobago and Jamaica, is that the two larger islands I have mentioned feel they are self-sufficient. They have indicated they want to go ahead on their own. While we can assist them, they may not be so interested in free trade relations. The smaller islands are in extreme difficulties and we would be assisting them greatly.
3, 1364	3915
Trade with Caribbean Federation
In closing, I welcome this opportunity of supporting the motion put forward by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) in such a statesmanlike way. I will not compliment him, because last night during the debate on Sir John A. Macdonald he was complimented so much I wondered whether they were talking about Sir John A. or the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie). Nevertheless, the motion is timely. I hope the government will move on this matter in some way, and help these islands in the West Indies in the way that has been suggested here.


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I think there can be no question but that the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) has done a fine service in bringing this matter to the attention of the house and of the government.
The eastern portion of the British West Indies that would constitute the proposed new federation are about as lovely a group of islands as one could imagine, a delightful land of sun and sand, and much more. Their products have been mentioned by previous speakers, and I think this is a land with which we should develop much closer ties for quite a number of reasons, some of which have also been mentioned this afternoon.
I am not at all sure that free trade with this area would begin to solve the problems that exist as regards its economy and as regards our relations with the area. The problems are much more complex, but we must make moves towards closer relations with the area.
Last month I had the honour to represent the Canadian branch of the commonwealth parliamentary association at a parliamentary course in London, and during my time in England I had the opportunity to meet daily with representatives at that course from Dominica, Montserrat, and the Virgin islands, as well as some of the other areas in the West Indies. I was reminded by the remark of the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) concerning the quality of the young men from those areas he had known in maritime universities, and I am quick to say I seldom had the opportunity to spend time with more delightful people or with men who were more interested in the ultimate welfare of their areas.
I would also associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) concerning the British commonwealth. These islands are not economically able to stand alone as yet. It may be

Trade with Caribbean Federation some time before they will be able to do so, but because of the heavy nature of Great Britain's commitments across the world in bringing dependencies to the point where they are ready for independence; because England has been reluctant, and rightly so, to cast off many of these heavy responsibilities before the areas concerned are ready for stable independence, and because England has been unable to devote as much time and money to the development of areas such as the eastern Caribbean as would perhaps be necessary, I would reiterate what I had occasion to say in England. I said that if we in Canada are to believe at all in a future role for the British commonwealth, and in our participation in the commonwealth, if we see this commonwealth as being an organization which, with the growth of African and Asian countries toward prosperity, can be a major force economically and politically in the world, then there can be no better way for us to participate in the development of the commonwealth than by being willing to take on some of the responsibilities for the development of the West Indies area, an area with which we have had long and close relations.
The port of Halifax has long been the central point for shipments to and from the West Indies. I am told by. the secretary of the port of Halifax commission, Ray Marsh, whom I see in the gallery at the moment and who has always shown great interest in the West Indies area, that the port of Halifax probably handles more tonnage to the West Indies in general than any other port in Canada, and possibly more than any other port in North America.
We have seen a lot of people coming back and forth between those islands and Halifax over the years. There is an awareness in the maritime provinces, that is not common across Canada, of the importance of the West Indies area. If the West Indian islands were not developed properly under the guidance of other portions of the British commonwealth, they could well end up in communist hands, because geographically they are very near to Cuba, and if that happened it would not be any great help to the security of North America.
We have a very vital interest in the West Indian area. These islands have had a British connection. Their citizens want to remain within the commonwealth, and surely it is Canada which can show the lead and help Britain in keeping them inside the common-

wealth as they develop to independence. I am not an economist, but I have suggested upon another occasion that there might be considerable merit in having at least a portion of the area proposed, or perhaps the entire eastern Caribbean federation, brought into the area of the Canadian dollar and have them eventually leave the sterling block. At present we send many tourists south in the wintertime to escape the rigours of our climate, and whether they go to Florida or the West Indies this constitutes a drain on our international exchange payments. If the West Indies were operating on Canadian dollars this would be a great advantage to us as regards that drain.
We in the Halifax and Nova Scotia area would like to see the development of direct flights by T.C.A. to improve communications between the maritime area and Bermuda, the Bahamas and the southern area of the British West Indies. I hope T.C.A. will be able to do this in the not too distant future.


David Réal Caouette: Air Canada.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Excuse me, Air Canada; and I may say I think this is a much more suitable name since the air line operates more than trans-Canada now. But returning to the subject, while an air line connection in itself does not do too much for developing trade, nevertheless contacts between businessmen and citizens in general normally result in an increase in trade. In the West Indies area there is a great friendship for Canada. The island of St. Kitts, in particular, has many citizens who for a long time have wished for very close ties with Canada. The same is true of Dominica, the Virgin islands and other areas.
While this motion cannot be fully discussed in the short time left today, nevertheless I hope the government will recognize that the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) has done a service in bringing this matter to the attention of the house. I hope it will be a signal for increased attention to the development of the West Indies area as regards relations, economical and cultural, between that area and Canada in the years ahead. I have some more remarks I would like to make on this subject but it appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that the hour of six o'clock has arrived and I shall have to wait until another occasion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 4, 1964