1960-05-04

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to raise a question of privilege relating to an article in the Ottawa Citizen under date of May 3, and in the column entitled "Parliament" by Norman Campbell and Greg Con-nolley. One of the paragraphs relating to the question of divorce reads as follows:
Current C.C.F. blockade of divorce bills will continue perhaps for a while yet but the stalling of these bills will be called off before the session ends.
I should like to point out that this is not in accordance with the facts, Mr. Speaker.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Chevrier: What aircraft companies had contracts to fly helicopters in connection with the construction and supply of the D.E.W. line?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: The contracts involved were
either contracts with the United States military authorities or with contractors employed by the United States military authorities, and were not Canadian government contracts. However, it is my understanding that both Kenting Helicopters and Okanagan Helicopters were employed in this connection.


AUTAIR HELICOPTER SERVICES-FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Mr. Chevrier: Is Autair Helicopter Services Limited flying aircraft without having filed proof of financial responsibility with the air transport board?


George Harris Hees: On April 13 the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) directed a specific inquiry to me regarding the subject matter of this question. I dealt with the matter fully, and as the hon. member for Laurier was in the house at the time I can only assume the particular question and answer have slipped his memory. Accordingly I would refer him to page 3199 of Hansard of the above date.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 93-Mr. Winch:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged, during the past 12 months, between the federal government, or any agency or branch thereof, and the province of Newfoundland, dealing with disallowance or otherwise of labour legislation passed by the legislature of Newfoundland; together with any order in council disposing of the matter, and a copy of any report by the Minister of Justice on which such order was based.
He said: This motion has been reworded in accordance with your request, Mr. Speaker, as a result of our discussion the other day.
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Yes. This motion is acceptable, subject to the usual understanding that the government of the province of Newfoundland be approached in order to see whether they have any objection to tabling the intergovernmental correspondence.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 95-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all orders in council made since January 1, 1950, which altered the remuneration payable under section 64 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: This motion is acceptable, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. I am sorry I was not able to give him notice of this question, information concerning which came to my attention just at one o'clock. I should like to ask whether he can resolve the apparent contradiction between the statement attributed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Dief-enbaker) in London that he had made clear yesterday to Mr. Louw, the South African

Inquiries of the Ministry representative at the conference, the views of Canada with regard to apartheid, and the statement attributed to Mr. Louw today in reply to a question at a press conference that he did not hear the Canadian views from the Canadian Prime Minister.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Acting Prime Minister):: I am not aware of the press statement attributed to Mr. Louw, but I shall be glad to make inquiries with regard to it. If the Prime Minister was correctly reported I am perfectly sure his statement is incontestable.


Mr. Robichaud:: It depends on what minister it is.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister or perhaps more appropriately to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister anything to report or any comment to make on the extremely hopeful report from Geneva that Russia agreed today to participate with Britain and the United States in a strictly limited number of joint underground nuclear tests in order to perfect a system for detecting such explosions?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think there is any comment I can make at this time except to say that we are encouraged by the reports that have been received. If after studying the context of the communiques I find that there appears to be anything further I should convey to the house, I shall be glad to do it.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):: In the absence from the chamber of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) and the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), may I ask the parliamentary secretary whether, on the 50th anniversary today of the establishment of the Royal Canadian Navy, he has a message of congratulation for the gallant men and ships of the fleet?


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: The
minister is attending ceremonies on the west coast in connection with this anniversary.
Fifty years ago today royal assent was given to the naval service bill after one of the


more memorable debates in the history of this house. This was one more step in Canada's emergence as an independent nation ready to take her share of the responsibilities that devolve upon nations. Canadian seamen and Canadian ships fought gallantly in two world wars and in Korea. Today the Royal Canadian Navy, with a strength of 20,000 men and women and 62 warships, is stronger than ever before in peacetime. This strength is employed today, as it always has been, in the preservation of peace and freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I know that hon. members would like to join me in paying tribute to the officers and men of today's Royal Canadian Navy, and to those who have gone before them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. This question I raise is important to the tourist council of British Columbia, chambers of commerce and others because of the nearness of summer.
In view of the need for the widest possible dissemination of information in the United States with respect to the recreational opportunities provided in Canada for tourists, and in view of the representations made to the minister by the British Columbia tourist council urging the establishment of a Canadian government tourist office in San Francisco, would the minister inform the house whether it is the government's intention to establish a Canadian government tourist office in San Francisco?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and Natural Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the	hon.
member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. At the present time there are government tourist offices in the cities of Chicago and New York. The proposal to set up an office in San Francisco was made in the standing committee on mines, forests and waters of last year, along with recommendations for facilities in three other cities. The government looked at all these recommendations and did accept the proposition that increased efforts had to be made to attract tourists from the United States into Canada, and therefore increased the amount of money available to this branch of the department.

But in the priorities we had to work out, the best method of getting more for our money was the test. We decided it should be through direct advertising so as to have an impact effect on the United States markets. In the efforts to get at certain other sections of the market we had to decide that San Francisco could not be provided with an office at this time. Therefore there will not be any office opened this year in San Francisco.


Frank Howard: As a supplementary question, can I ask the minister whether it is not a fact that treasury board rejected this proposal?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The government had this matter under consideration, and treasury board is still part of the government.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Parliamentary Assistant to the Postmaster General. In doing so I would like to ask him to take advantage of the simultaneous translation system.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, on May 19 the Postmaster General will issue a new stamp commemorating the 300th anniversary of the battle of Long Sault.
I should like to ask the postmaster general's parliamentary secretary why the publicity about this event was issued in English only.
I belong to no separatist movement in Quebec, or to any other lodge in this country, but I would like to know why that publicity was made in English only.
(Text):


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that any publicity has been issued in only one language. I shall therefore take the question as notice in connection with the Dollard des Ormeaux stamp and give an answer tomorrow.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Mines and Technical Surveys. In the light of the answer the Minister of Transport has given today to question 133 in my name on the order paper, to the effect that the only Canadian companies which had helicopter work on the D.E.W. line were Spartan and Okanagan, I should like to ask the minister how he can reconcile that reply with the statement he made in the house to the effect that Autair Helicopter Services had had work on the D.E.W. line?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I must have been misinterpreted or misquoted. What I did want to say, declare or state was that the most important thing in operating a helicopter service was to have pilots who had experience in the north, and information which I had at that time, and which I still have, is that the pilots of Autair helicopters have full experience in D.E.W. line operation.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question. Did not the minister actually state that they had had a contract for work on the D.E.W. line? Does the minister want to revise his statement in the light of the answer given by the Minister of Transport?


Mr. Comlois:: I will have to look at the whole file and get the information.


Some hon. Members:: Look at Hansard. [Later:]
On the orders of the day:


Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and ask him whether it is a fact that Autair Helicopter Services Limited have sold their company to another helicopter corporation?


George Harris Hees: I have no idea, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Will the minister inquire and tell the house the result of his inquiry?


George Harris Hees: I shall be very glad to do so. However, I am sure the hon. member knows all about it if a sale has been made. He is thrashing an old dead horse and trying to make an issue out of it.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: I should like to ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs-and may I express the pleasure of all the people of British

Inquiries of the Ministry Columbia that at long last the hon. gentleman's abilities have been recognized-the following question. In view of an article appearing in the magazine Modern Car Engineering and an article in the Ottawa Citizen of April 23 written by Mr. Lynch, would the minister inform the house whether it is a fact that we are two years behind in the construction of the atomic research reactor being provided to India under the Colombo plan because of the so-called bungling of Canadians? If so, can the minister explain the reason for being so far behind schedule?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of this question about alleged delays in the construction of the atomic research reactor being provided to India by Canada under the Colombo plan.
In view of recent reports in the daily press and elsewhere about this reactor, I wish to take this opportunity to assure the house that in so far as there have been any delays in relation to the original target date, which in the very nature of things could be no more than an estimate, these are in no way attributable to any bungling by either Canadian or Indian participants in this worth-while project. Any delays that were experienced- and these have long since been completely overcome-were due to the complex nature of the project and the unusual type of structure involved.
I might mention also that this project is now very close to completion and, in fact, the plant is expected to be activated within a matter of weeks. We have been assured by the Indian authorities that they are in all respects fully and completely satisfied with the co-operation they have received from Canada in connection with this project.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister made any change in the method of paying the subsidy of 25 cents per hundredweight for milk to be used for industrial purposes?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not know to what the hon. member refers when he says "for industrial purposes". There is a subsidy of 25 cents a hundredweight on milk which goes into manufacture of any kind, whether cheese, butter or some other product.
[Mr. Regier.l


Samuel Boulanger: I should like to ask the
minister if he can tell us at what price the stabilization board is going to purchase first grade butter, grade 39-92?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I made an announcement in connection with the dairy support program some time ago, at which time I stated that butter, grade 40-93, would be purchased at the support price of 64 cents. I think we will be purchasing the next grading, which is 39-92, at 63 cents.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is that not in fact a drop of 1 cent a pound in the floor price on butter graded at 39-92?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as the purchase of butter is concerned, we are following the principle of paying the highest price for the highest quality product the same system that prevails so far as all other products are concerned.


Hazen Robert Argue: As a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I remind hon. members who are so interested in butter that the agricultural estimates are the next to be considered and it seems to me that would be an appropriate time to argue the question.


Hazen Robert Argue: No argument; I just wanted the minister to admit that he had lowered the price.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Essex East asked me several questions concerning advances to the unemployment insurance commission, precisely, "loans by any agency of the government of Canada or otherwise to the unemployment insurance commission". I gave information about the position in the fiscal year 195859. I gave the position at the close of the fiscal year 1959-60 as well. But I went further and erred in saying there is no such indebtedness at the present time, and for this I wish to express my regret.
I find on inquiry that since the close of the fiscal year-indeed, in the past fortnight-there have been three loans extended to the commission, aggregating $19 million. The particulars are as follows: April 19, $4 million; April 25, $12 million; April 29, $3 million. These were made in accordance with authority contained in order in council P.C. 1960-70 dated January 19, 1960.

The hon. member went on then to ask whether any recommendation was on my desk from the investment committee suggesting that such a loan should be extended by the Bank of Canada to the unemployment insurance commission. Here I think the hon. member's intelligence system in the unemployment insurance commission got a little ahead of itself. I am told that not yesterday but today a requisition arrived on the desk of the-


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Acting Prime Minister, whom I designated yesterday as the best Acting Prime Minister this country has ever had, obviously was not deserving of the tribute I paid to him because of the very grave mistake he made yesterday. The hon. gentleman said that I had some previous advice as to the situation from some outside source. That is a serious charge which I deny, and which I ask the Acting Prime Minister to withdraw at once if he wishes to deserve the designation that he is the best Acting Prime Minister we have had.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, you know how ardently I have studied to deserve some but by no means all of the epithets directed at me by the hon. member for Essex East. If he does not greatly mind I think I will continue to be discriminating in those I seek to deserve and those I may seek not to deserve.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. gentleman deal with the point I raised?


Donald Methuen Fleming: However, I do not think I said what the hon. member has now attributed to me. What I indicated was that his intelligence system in this quarter had got a little ahead of itself. The hon. gentleman asked if I had received on my desk yesterday a certain recommendation. I was proceeding to say in amplification of the negative answer I gave to his question in that respect yesterday that there arrived this morning on the desk of the deputy minister of finance a requisition in connection with anticipated further loans that would be required by the commission during the month of May.
Perhaps I may offer this to him to be checked against his own sources of information in this respect. I may say the commission has indicated that it anticipates a need of further advances amounting to $19 million for the month of May, and it expects that by the month of June it will have reached the point again where receipts and disbursements will be in balance and no further loans or advances will be required.
79951-0-224
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Minister of Finance a further question, now that we have had an elucidation of facts which were denied this house yesterday because obviously the Minister of Finance did not have the information which under the act he must have.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know hon. members do not like the fact that their Acting Prime Minister has been shown to be most careless.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the Acting Prime Minister, or rather the Minister of Finance, advise the house whether he was aware before yesterday afternoon or this morning that loans in the amount of $19 million had been made to the unemployment insurance commission, and had he as Minister of Finance participated in the discussions leading to the authorization of such loans by the Bank of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman should not require to be told that if I had been aware of these specific loans my answer yesterday would have been in different form. The minister is required under the law to report to the house on loans outstanding at the close of the fiscal year. I drew attention yesterday to that fact and pointed out that the hon. member, if he would look at the budget speech, would find no loans outstanding.
He asks me about these specific loans. Obviously I was not aware yesterday afternoon of these specific advances but, in pursuance of the authority in the order in council to which I have already referred, I did authorize advances to be made on application. These had not been reported to me, the reason being the absence of the deputy minister of finance; otherwise they would have been brought to my attention. But the authority was there and had been given some time ago. If the hon. member is going to expect detailed answers of this kind from now on, I might as well tell him right now that he is going to have to put his questions on the order paper and then he will have his answers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: A new Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
3542	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a point of order or privilege or if he wishes to ask a question I will hear him, but otherwise there is no justification for further comment on the matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have a question, but before putting the question I wish to raise a question of privilege. The Minister of Finance has just been allowed to say, by way of a threat to me-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that from now on he does not propose to give answers unless he is satisfied as to the circumstances and conditions under which the questions are put.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has stated his question of privilege I have no difficulty in dealing with it, but if he is about to amplify it I will hear him.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I have not stated it; you rose while I was stating it. The attitude taken by the Minister of Finance in saying that he does not propose to give answers is not one within his rights. Surely that is a matter for the Speaker to determine. It is a violation of the rights of parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Murdo William Martin: -to say, in the threatening way in which he did today, that he does not propose to give answers simply because yesterday and today he was caught off base.
Some hen. Members: Oh, oh.


Mr. Bell (Sainl John-Alberi):: You got
caught stealing a base.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. No doubt feelings may be aroused by exchanges such as the one that has taken place, but it is the privilege of the minister who is asked a question at any time to take it as notice. Whether a warning in advance that he will take a certain kind of question as notice, which is what the hon. member complains of, is a breach of privilege is very doubtful. I really see no question of privilege.


Murdo William Martin: May I ask the
Minister of Finance whether when he made his budget speech he was aware of the fact that he had authorized or was considering the authorization of loans to the unemployment insurance commission? If so, why was that information, in accordance with the standards he laid down yesterday, not contained in the budget speech? Why does he continue for a second time to violate the principles of budget making?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, implicit in that question is a series of false statements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There were no loans outstanding at the date of the budget, at the close of the fiscal year, and that fact was reported to the house.


Mr. Benidickson:: Commitments?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There were no commitments. There was an authorization, but there was nothing outstanding.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no reference in the provisions in relation to reports of this kind concerning authorizations by order in council. What is required to be reported consists of loans outstanding, and there were no loans outstanding. I do trust that the hon. member will be able to register that fact clearly and will not seek to clothe the facts with an aura of cloud and eyewash.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether it is not a fact that had it not been for this question the house would not have known about this $19 million in loans?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, that suggestion is utterly nonsensical. All that any member needs to do to obtain information at any time is to put a question on the order paper, and he can have the date of the advance and the date of repayment. We had all this last year. This matinee performance this afternoon will not carry any conviction to anyone who was in the house last year and who remembers the show then put on by the hon. member for Essex East.


Murdo William Martin: You have been caught out very seriously.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the Minister of Finance, to the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member whom I see rising to ask a supplementary question that this discussion is going far beyond what is proper.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all hon. members of the opposition. I quite agree with Your Honour that this matter has gone quite far beyond-


An hon. Member:: Sit down then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -a question on the orders of the day. The Acting Prime Minister in

reply to the question of the hon. member for Essex East, made a reference to the intelligence system of the hon. gentleman in the unemployment insurance commission, thus casting a slur upon every employee of the unemployment insurance commission. I suggest to you, sir, that it is thoroughly unbecoming conduct for a gentleman who very temporarily is Acting Prime Minister to cast such a reflection.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Can he not defend himself?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the question of privilege, if there is one, relates to the duty of the house to protect the good name of the civil servants. It is not a question of any privilege of the house; it is a question of the propriety of discussing the conduct of civil servants. I am not sure exactly what is complained of, but if there arf some words which the hon. member asserts go beyond what should be said about the civil service perhaps he would so indicate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I think there are, sir. What I was complaining about was the insinuation made by the Acting Prime Minister that questions properly asked of the government at this time were not asked in good faith by the hon. members concerned. It seems to me that is casting a reflection, and if the Acting Prime Minister cannot substantiate it he should apologize.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard all the discussion, of course, and I did not hear anything which was a reflection on the good faith of any member of the house in connection with any question he asked. In respect to the alleged insinuation about the civil service, if the Minister of Finance wishes to say anything about what he had in mind, what he was intending to say, I would be glad if he would clear up that point.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On the point just now raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, it is obvious that he quite misapprehended what has been said by me. I did not suggest for one minute that the hon. member for Essex East did not ask his questions in good faith. I intimated, however, that I thought he had based his question on premature intelligence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise again on a question of privilege. I would ask Your Honour to regard carefully the attempt by the Minister of Finance to violate the rules of this house and your own direction. I stated 79951-0-224J
Inquiries of the Ministry that my question was not based on any information that had been handed to me by anyone in the public service. The Minister of Finance now proceeds to repeat that that was the case. I have denied it, and under the rules of this house the Minister of Finance must accept my statement unreservedly. I submit to you, with great respect and confidence, that the minister ought to be asked to take this position forthwith.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the matter might be disposed of in this way on the question of privilege. The Minister of Finance has made it clear that he felt the hon. member for Essex East had based his question on premature intelligence. The hon. member objects to that. Perhaps the matter could be therefore disposed of if the Minister of Finance were to modify his statement to say the question was based on immature intelligence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure every member of the house, including the Minister of Finance, will accept the statement the hon. member for Essex East made earlier, and which he has just now repeated. As to the reflections on the civil service, they are of such a vague and inferential character that I think the matter might well be disposed of.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; I ask you to
ask the Minister of Finance to withdraw that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked for a withdrawal, but I assume that the Minister of Finance accepts his statement. If the minister wishes him to affirm it I will ask him to do so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I accept unreservedly those portions of the statement made by the hon. gentleman in which he has disclaimed intelligence from someone in relation to the questions. I made no reference to anything but the source of his intelligence in relation to the receipt in my office of a recommendation from the investment committee. I think I have made my position quite clear in that respect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I regret to say that is not satisfactory.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Murdo William Martin: The hon. gentleman is now saying that with regard to the question put to him yesterday as to whether or not there was information in his office involving the recommendation for a loan-I say that question was put by me without any suggestion from anyone inside or outside of the public service-

Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and the hon. gentleman has left another impression which he should be asked to withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member asserts that he had no information from a civil service source, from which it may be implied he got information, then I am sure the Minister of Finance will accept that statement. I would ask him to do so. In doing so, however, I have this difficulty, that I have not been as sure as the hon. member for Essex East that there was that imputation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not propose, unless you ask me to do so, to let this matter rest. It is a serious matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance must not be allowed to take this matter as a laughing matter, because it is not. He ought to be asked to withdraw that imputation unreservedly and without hesitation.


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps we are making a great deal out of this unnecessarily. I do, though, appreciate the susceptibilities of the hon. member for Essex East, when he wishes to be cleared of the imputation he has taken, and I hope the Minister of Finance will clear him of that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have cleared him of many things, Mr. Speaker, and sometimes also of pompousness.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the minister say when he expects that these loans will be repaid?


Donald Methuen Fleming: During the course of the following months, I pointed out, it is expected that receipts and disbursements will come into balance, and repayment would follow when receipts, during the summer months, normally exceed disbursements.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I ask a supplementary question. Is this principle of financing by loans rather than requiring the unemployment insurance commission to sell its securities a part of the government's fiscal and monetary policy?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We were over this at some considerable length in the debates last session, as you will recall, sir. I may point out that the commission, exercising the rights conferred upon it by statute, has sold certain of its security holdings and has also applied to the Minister of Finance for loans,

which were authorized in accordance with the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: These were authorized without your knowledge?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not at all; these were authorized by the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister.


Erhart Regier: Might I ask the minister if he would inform us as to the rate of interest the government of Canada charges the unemployment insurance commission on these loans, and also the rate of interest the government of Canada pays to the unemployment insurance commission on its investments in the securities of the government of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: This matter has been pursued at great length, and the search for statistical information might very properly be made through the order paper. Then we might proceed to the next order of business.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that in the last three years the unemployment insurance fund has declined from $917 million to $359 million at the end of March, and probably will be $300 million at the end of this year, can the minister inform the house if he intends to introduce legislation during the present session to protect this fund?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I cannot recognize any further supplementaries on this subject. It has been debated at inordinate length, and if hon. members wish to further debate this matter they will have to do so at the proper time.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I rise on a point of order as is my right as a member of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: My question was not a supplementary question. It had nothing to do with the loan, but it had to do with the fund. I was asking the Minister of Labour whether he intends to introduce legislation during the present session to protect this fund, which is facing depletion.


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Finance if he will table the orders in council

for the present financial year authorizing loans to the unemployment insurance commission?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are none for the present fiscal year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister table the orders in council authorizing the loans about which he has given information to the house today?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Certainly.


INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF SEASONAL BENEFITS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I understand that last week the minister had a meeting with representatives of the British Columbia federation of labour. As a result of discussion of the situation in British Columbia, may I ask whether it is his intention to introduce any changes in order to continue seasonal benefits after May 15?


Michael Starr: I had the pleasure of meeting the representatives of the British Columbia federation of labour in Montreal during the Canadian Labour Congress convention. 1 must say I met with them for nearly an hour, and I was impressed with the moderation of their approach and the understanding and appreciation they showed of the federal government's position in these matters. However, it is not the government's intention to extend the seasonal benefits at this time.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a supplementary question to ask. In view of the minister's statement, may I ask him what the unemployed in British Columbia are supposed to do after May 15?


An hon. Member:: You asked that the other day.


Harold Edward Winch: And I did not get any answer. Can I get one now?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot expect on the orders of the day an answer to such a broad question.


Harold Edward Winch: This is a matter of great concern. Within 12 days the seasonal benefits end. Is this not a matter of importance on the orders of the day?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not suggesting it is not a matter of importance. If the minister feels he can answer it I will allow him to do so. I would remind the hon. member that we have debated the employment question for at least ten days during this session.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: Seasonal benefits were in effect at all times, up until the fall of 1957, from January 1 to April 15. This government took action to extend those seasonal benefits from December 1 to May 15. In those days when seasonal benefits ended on May 15 there was never any prolongation, and the situation was exactly the same as it is now affecting seasonal employment.


William Moore Benidickson: Unemployment was
never like this.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to direct another question to the Minister of Labour; I do so in view of the fact that seasonal benefits end on May 15. Will the minister file with this house a copy of any contractual arrangement between the federal government and British Columbia on the payment of assistance for the employable unemployed, and any regulations with regard thereto?


Michael Starr: That matter does not come within my department, Mr. Speaker.


Harold Edward Winch: I thought it did come within the minister's department. May I ask that this question be referred to whichever department it comes under?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that there is a procedure for securing the production of documents which would be more appropriate than asking questions on orders of the day.


Harold Edward Winch: I do so because of the fact that the seasonal benefits end within 12 days. If it is not the responsibility of the Minister of Labour, I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether that document will be filed.


Hon. J. W. Monieiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I did not quite get the implication of the question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question might properly be put on the order paper, or be made a motion for the production of papers.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: May I reply to a question which was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Ba-danai). First of all, I may say that the policy referred to as the new policy is not new; it has been in effect for several years now. As a matter of fact this is the third

Inquiries of the Ministry season during which farmers' sons from Hoi- before the Canadian chamber of commerce land will come to Canada to accept employ- in London that this year we shall be able ment on farms here for the farming season, to welcome and absorb into employment many It will be the first year for farmers' sons * tens of thousands of immigrants. If the hon. from Belgium. We expect there will be some lady agrees with that view, will she consort of arrangement for France, but it has sider making public the occupations in which not yet been completed. Any similar pro- these immigrants could be absorbed, so that posal which is formally presented to my Canadians may also have an opportunity of department will be given full consideration, seeking that employment?


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister considering a request of several provinces that greater guarantees be put into R.C.M.P. contracts to ensure that R.C.M.P. reinforcements are dispatched into a province when that province says it has an emergency?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The
minister has had no such request from several provinces or I should say I have had no such request from several provinces as was inaccurately alleged by the hon. member, and am therefore not considering a request because I have not received one.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I was not alleging anything. I just asked a question. The minister has considerable crust to accuse-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is a certain amount of touchiness on both sides of the house today. I suggest that when an hon. member frames a question which implies a set of facts, he takes responsibility for asserting that set of facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Is the minister or are his officials conferring at the present time with representatives of the provinces that have contracts with the R.C.M.P.? If so, are all the provinces represented?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer to both parts of the question is yes.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. May I ask the hon. lady whether her attention has been drawn to a statement the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) is supposed to have made or is reported to have made


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I believe that last year I sent to the hon. member a copy of papers from my department which listed employment opportunities in all sections of Canada. I shall be glad to make the same information available to him this year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Will the hon. lady put that information in simple, straightforward form so that the kind of persons who are seeking employment in this country-of whom there are hundreds of thousands-can understand it readily?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The information is, of course, of a very voluminous nature. The implication my hon. friend has left is that it is not easily absorbed, but after all, he is a very literate person, and I would think that he would be able to digest it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. lady did not quite understand my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think everybody understood the hon. member's question. I suggest that he take a leaf out of the book of the hon. member for Halifax and not only ask the question but give the answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be very happy to do that. I suggest that the hon. lady prepare a list of the occupations and the places where there were employment opportunities available-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: -in a simple form which those seeking employment could understand.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Minister of Justice have a point of order?


An hon. Member:: Not now.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of

the Minister of Justice. Does the minister intend to introduce a bill this session to revise the Expropriation Act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, no final decision has been reached on that point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Minister of Justice whether he agrees with the view expressed by his colleague the Solicitor General, that any law passed by this parliament which is not acceptable to all the provinces is unconstitutional?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not aware of the basis of the assertion made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-


Lionel Chevrier: Read Hansard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and therefore I have no answer to give to that question.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL TAX-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS ACT ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR UNIVERSITY GRANTS  EXTENSION OF INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for the second reading of Bill No. C-56, to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.
Mr. Speaker:: In recognizing the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge), I should advise him that according to our records he has but one minute remaining.
(Translation):


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Megantic):: When we adjourned on April 26 last, I was saying that the Liberal formula for university grants was perfectly in accord with the constitution. However, a group of Quebec Conservatives and the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) were holding to the view that the Liberal formula was anti-constitutional.
Now, under this bill that system of distribution remains the same because nine provinces are said to find it satisfactory. But it has been said that the province of Quebec considers it contrary to the constitution.
Mr. Speaker, there is only one British North America Act and one constitution for the whole country.
How could the St. Laurent formula be in accord with the B.N.A. Act in nine provinces and not so in one of them? And how can the Conservatives, without being inconsistent themselves, support a bill which preserves that formula?
Dominion-Provincial Relations (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
(Translation):


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, on April 13, 1959, and on April 1, 1960, I had the opportunity to express my views in this house on the exclusive rights of the provinces in the matter of education.
Today, I should like to add a few remarks to express the satisfaction felt by the people of Sherbrooke over that new method of financing Canadian universities, and to say a word too about the contradictory and opportunist attitude of the Liberals with regard to this matter. Finally, I will admit that Bill C-56 constitutes an important step towards the gradual return to the provinces of their taxation powers, which will allow them, after having been placed under an economic trusteeship under the Liberal regime, to gradually recover, under the Conservative administration, their constitutional majority and responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Sherbrooke,, the electors, both men and women, whom I represent, the population of the eastern townships or Estrie, are particularly interested in that part of the project which regards the financing of universities.
You are no doubt aware that, since 1954, Sherbrooke has its own university which is an addition to the other Quebec universities, Laval, Montreal, McGill, Bishop, Sir George Williams.
In fact, on January 12, 1954, a bill for the establishment and recognition of the University of Sherbrooke was put on the order paper of the Quebec legislative assembly.
Two weeks later, the same month, the bill was unanimously adopted by the Quebec legislative assembly.
On March 5, 1954, the lieutenant governor of the province of Quebec signed the act, and on November 21, 1957, a Roman decree set up, under canon law, the Catholic University of Sherbrooke.
May I, Mr. Speaker, rapidly mention the names of a few pioneers and founders of that new Canadian university.
There are, first of all, His Excellency Msgr. Georges Cabana, and Msgrs. Maurice Vincent, Irenee Pinard, Napoleon Pepin, Maurice O'Bready; Canons Damien Lessard and Roger Maltais, and the Rev. Fathers Romeo Leroux, Arthur Audet and Paul-Emile D'Arcy.
As to the laymen, I might refer to the Hon. Johnny Bourque, minister of finance
3548	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations of the province of Quebec, who, in 1954, promoted the bill in favour of the Sherbrooke university, Albert LeBlanc, Q.C., batonnier of the Quebec bar, Mr. Armand Crepeau, who infused into the faculty of science all his devotion and efficiency, and who died in harness last year.
There were also Messrs. Jacques Lemieux and Gaetan Cote, Charles-Emile Belanger, Paul Desruisseaux, Q.C., president of La Tribune Ltd., Dr. Rosario Cousineau, and many other citizens of Sherbrooke and vicinity.
At present the new university has four faculties: law, commerce, science and arts. On December 1, 1959, 3,719 men and women students were registered at Sherbrooke university. That is to say, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Sherbrooke and the eastern townships are considerably interested in this legislation because it provides new methods of financing Canadian universities.
When the resolution introduced on April 1 last was discussed, and the debate on second reading of the bill started in this house on April 26, I was astounded by the contradictory and opportunist attitude of the Liberals. Those very people who had built up the pyre to burn provincial rights rose in this house and tried to put out the flames they had fanned. They launched superficially sincere protests. In so short a period, that is since June 10, 1957, we shall have heard the opposition break into the most contradictory songs and intone the most discordant choruses.
Why, Mr. Speaker, does the situation in the educational field, and in others, now reveal itself to be and remain so complicated and difficult to solve? The answer is easy. It is because the Liberals, when they were in power, administered this country, especially since the last world war, in a halting, anticonstitutional and exaggeratedly centralizing way.
What exactly has happened during the last 16 years of Liberal rule? At the start of the last world war, the Liberal minister of finance, Mr. Ilsley, asked the provinces to lease to Ottawa, for war purposes, powers and fields of taxation so that Canada might meet new and urgent needs in the world conflict. Promise was then made to the provinces that those provincial taxes would be handed back to them after the war.
We only have to refer to a resolution on page 1523 of Hansard of 1942 to get the terms of those requirements and promises.


An hon. Member:: Of what year?


Maurice Allard: 1942.
That motion was as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the governor in council to enter into agreements with the provinces respecting the vacation by them of the personal income and corporation tax fields for the duration of the war and to provide compensation therefor, and fiscal need subsidies in the case of certain provinces, annually during the term of the agreement.
But after 1945, contrary to their promise, the Liberals maintained their control over immense sources of income, thus centralizing in Ottawa provincial powers and taxes. In 1956, while they were still in office, the Liberals, through their policy, had managed to centralize in Ottawa 77 per cent of all Canadian taxes, while in 1939, they were getting but 42.2 per cent.
Thus they gradually starved out the provinces and set up that Liberal policy of "Believe or die"; "Give in or die".
Such offhand manner on the part of the Liberals plunged the whole country into deep concern, to such an extent that some sincere and patriotic Liberals denounced their own party. Hon. members should recall part of a statement made in 1952, here in Ottawa, in the other place, by the hon. Liberal Senator Jacob Nicol, as recorded on page 527 of the debates of the Senate:
If you borrow a thing and keep it permanently, It is not borrowing it is stealing; and the right of taxation is being stolen from the provinces.
If I were allowed to address myself directly to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who used to live in the province of Ontario, I would tell him: "You were a member of the Liberal administration which stole the rights of the provinces in general and the rights of the province of Quebec in particular." And still today, Mr. Speaker, if the former member for Montmagny-L'Islet, the Hon. Jean Lesage, had not left his federal seat to roam about temporarily in the province of Quebec, if he were here in the house, I would tell him: "While you were in Ottawa, while you were a member of the Liberal administration, you co-operated with that Liberal administration which stole the rights of the provinces in general and those of the province of Quebec in particular".
In order to spend the amounts of money which they had secured, and with which they did not want to part, the Liberals interfered in provincial fields such as education which, under section 93 of the Canadian constitution, belongs exclusively to the provinces.

By short changing the provinces, the Liberal party had also short changed the universities. All they could do was either accept grants from Ottawa or else go bankrupt. In 1951 all Canadian universities fell for it and were financially compelled to accept Liberal grants. But from 1952 on, Quebec universities became wise to the fact that the Liberals were out to sacrifice the higher principle of exclusive provincial jurisdiction in the field of education and turned down those grants.
That is how the Liberal party, while preaching national unity, introduced legislation aimed at short changing the provinces, at creating differences among them and at confusing Canadian opinion on many issues.
And the same Liberal supporters, now very few in Ottawa and fighting a losing battle in Quebec with Mr. Jean Lesage, would have the present Conservative government solve, within a few short years, the complicated problems created by their own party.
That is indeed a contradictory attitude, lacking in consistency and in sincerity of intentions.
If the Liberals are to vote against Bill C-56 because some of its provisions are allegedly unconstitutional, how can they reconcile their attitude with their dictatorial interference in the field of education when they were in power in 1951 and later on? If, on the other hand, they support the bill, they will be admitting that it is an improvement on their too rigid administration.
Personally I will support the bill, but with certain reservations.
As I said earlier, the alternative formula implied in this bill with regard to grants to universities is an important step toward the gradual return to the provinces of their fields of taxation and of the possibility of application of their constitutional responsibilities. From now on, the provinces, and particularly Quebec, will be able to recover additional revenues and make direct grants to their own universities.
Of course, the bill still includes some restrictions. But we are under the impression that the tide has turned and that, in coming years, this government will make the adjustments which will enable the provinces that wish to do so, to exercise their exclusive jurisdiction in the field of education and grants to education.
Bill C-56 also offers a quite comforting novelty to those who believe that the Canadian constitution still has meaning, for it
Dominion-Provincial Relations suggests to legislators that they make basic adjustments in the fiscal agreements system and prevent the central government from interfering further in the financing of education at all levels.
However, I will have a request to make to the Minister of Finance when this bill is taken up in committee of the whole. But could the minister consider right now the possibility of amending section 9A (b) (ii) by replacing the expression:
-satisfactory arrangements exist in the opinion of the minister- by the following expression:
-satisfactory arrangements, at the knowledge of the minister.
It is true that the act on which this bill is based already gives the Minister of Finance exorbitant powers. Nevertheless it is distasteful that the federal minister should act as arbitrator and be the only one to have a say on the value of the said agreements.
I understand that the minister finds himself in a difficult position because he has to deal with a matter that has been complicated by the Liberals and imbued with their centralizing spirit. That is why we are building high hopes on the forthcoming federal-provincial conference next summer, and on the new legislation that will be passed when the agreements come to an end in 1962.
In conclusion, I shall again state the views I expressed several times in this house and more particularly on April 13, 1959.
There is no doubt that the Canadian economy has developed to a great extent since 1867. We now have a federal government and ten provincial governments.
Almost every one of those governments has the feeling of being sort of strait-jacketed by the vagueness of certain sections of the Canadian constitution whenever they attempt to proceed in various economic areas.
It is then my humble opinion that in order to allow all Canadians to take advantage clearly of our economic development in 1960 and thereafter, the constitution should be amended, with the agreement of all parties interested, in so far as our material problems are concerned.
To amend should here be understood as meaning to elucidate, to particularize, to clearly determine and to adjust to current needs and economic conditions. That should not entail any surrendering or forsaking of rights. One only has to think of the regulations governing the hospitalization insurance scheme or the trans-Canada highway.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
But our constitution is quite clear in one respect, that of education which has been left entirely to the provinces under section 93 of the British North America Act.
Let the central government mind its own business and leave the provinces to their responsibilities. Let us not try to control everything here.
We have enough problems to solve, at both the national and international levels, to keep us busy all the time. Need I say, incidentally, that a very important Canadian industry which exists in my area, the textile industry, for example, faces many difficulties on account of the tide of foreign importations. American industries sold 6 million yards of cotton goods more than did Canadian industries on our own market in 1959. During that year-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Maurice Allard: -imports of Japanese textiles went up 56 per cent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Maurice Allard: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I call the hon. member's attention to the fact that this bill has nothing to do with the textile industry?


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, my sole reason for referring to that industry was to dispel some of the chronic confusion of opposition members. In closing, I was pointing out that here in Ottawa there are many problems, both national and international, that ought to be solved, and that is one of those we should solve by strong and vigorous action.
If we only stick to our own responsibilities, national understanding will be increased and all areas in Canada will be blessed with a balanced progress.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, may I first thank my hon. colleague from Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) who, for once, appears to be of a sensible disposition, that is to say in favour of common sense.


Mr. Johnson:: I get a kick out of listening to you.


Mr. Tremblay:: He was looking at me when he said that.


Augustin Brassard: As I rise to speak on this bill, Mr. Speaker, I need not go into details about the background of the legislation that brought about grants to universities. Like all my colleagues and the other

members, I listened to the very plain, accurate and sensible speech delivered by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier).


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: May I refrain from demonstrating this time?


Augustin Brassard: There is no possible doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal party was and still is in favour of assistance to universities in this country.
It is important that this be very clear in the minds of all members of this house.
I need not insist on the reasons since we have the Statutes of Canada to prove it. Was it not the Hon. Mr. St. Laurent who introduced both the legislation and the formula allowing the payment of grants to universities through the Canadian conference of universities?
Furthermore, I need not praise the Canadian system of higher education. However, I would like to say that Canadian universities train those who will be called upon to play a leading part in the national field. Our universities also have to train our representatives abroad, the officers of our three armed services, our research scientists, etc.
In all sectors of our national economy, university graduates often exert their influence outside the province in which they have pursued their studies. Graduates from Quebec as well as from Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the other provinces are to be found everywhere in our country and abroad. The part universities play, in our country as well as in the other countries, is of national importance. It is therefore essential that professors should receive the salary they deserve in view of the position which is theirs in the education and training of Canadian youth.
The formula submitted to Canadian parliament by the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent constituted only an assistance to our universities without necessarily implying control in the fields of education and administration of our universities.
The Canadian conference of universities- its name has changed since-is composed of representatives of all universities in our country, and if the Quebec government saw fit, during the fiscal year 1951-52, to accept university grants, it was one of the best proofs that those grants did not mean that federal authorities had control over the curricula or the administration of our institutions of higher learning. In proof of this, I shall

quote a statement by Mr. Duplessis himself, which was published in Le Devoir of November 22, 1952:
Mr. Duplessis stated at that time that the government had taken all steps necessary to insure that provincial autonomy be respected in this matter.
He was referring at the time to the agreement between the Quebec government and the federal government with respect to federal grants to universities for the fiscal year 1951-1952.
Here is the rest of the quotation.
He did not say exactly how-
That is, he did not say exactly how autonomy had been respected but he stated-


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Why did he reject them later on?


Augustin Brassard: -but he stated that in the fiscal year during which federal grants to universities had been accepted:
let provincial autonomy be respected-


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Why did he reject them later on?


Augustin Brassard: You know as well as I do that it is because at various periods in our history, we have had elections.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Answer my question.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to make a political speech, but if the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) keeps on asking me questions, I will be compelled to meet him on his own ground which is not higher than himself.
The federal grants to universities were decided upon-


Jean-Noël Tremblay: You do not recall Union Nationale.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: May I-


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker,
may I have the floor?
The hon. members for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) and for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) will have the opportunity-I hope they will take advantage of it-to state their views when I have concluded my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, the Massey commission was appointed by the St. Laurent government to examine the development of sciences, arts and letters in this country. Representatives from all Canadian universities were called upon by the commission to present briefs and express their ideas on federal aid to universities.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
At one point some words spoken by His Excellency, Msgr. Ferdinand Vandry, rector of Laval University, were mentioned in this house. In turn, I would like to repeat here what His Excellency Msgr. Ferdinand Vandry, rector of Laval University told the Massey commission when it sat in Quebec. I shall quote the very words of the Laval University brief and of Msgr. Vandry himself:
French universities in the province of Quebec certainly need financial help from the federal and provincial governments, to develop, as it would be appropriate, the teaching of sciences, arts and letters.
McGill University-just to mention another university in our province-presented on November 4, 1953 a brief to the Tremblay commission, and I would like to quote one paragraph which refers to the constitutional nature of federal grants to universities. I quote:
There is no proof whatsoever that federal university grants are, in any way, encroaching on the autonomy where those universities are located-


Jean-Noël Tremblay: That proves nothing.


Augustin Brassard: I hope that the paragraphs-


Jean-Noël Tremblay: That is no proof at all.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I hope that Msgr. Vandry's words do prove something.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Msgr. Vandry made another statement.


Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I call upon your good sense to calm these people.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I deem it my duty to draw your attention to the fact that the interruptions of the hon. member for Roberval reveal that if great men did come out of our universities, there came out also learned idiots.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word about the point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not think it is necessary to carry on this discussion any further, because the point of order raised by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) is irregular. He simply took the opportunity to make a remark.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
I thought he would raise the matter of interruptions in his point of order. The rules of the house provide that hon. members may not interrupt the one who has the floor, and may ask him questions only after having asked him permission and having obtained it.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to go on with my remarks about the point of order raised by the hon. member for Cochrane, or if you are of the opinion that the point of order is irregular, I should like to raise a point of order myself, to draw your attention to the fact that during the debate on the resolution which preceded this bill we have seen the same attitude, about the interruptions, on the part of the Conservative members from the province of Quebec who, apparently, do not like what we, on this side of the house, say.
I believe, as you said earlier, that if the hon. members have some questions to ask, they should first ask permission to the member who has the floor; otherwise, they should cease their interruptions because we will adopt the same attitude when they speak. I am sure that you will readily see the merits of the point of order, because if this practice goes on, there will not be in the continuation of this debate the order and discipline that, I am sure, you would wish to have.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of the point of order-


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to point out that the remarks that have been made during the speech of the hon. member for Lapointe were not political at all. They are familiar interruptions which are merely aimed at pointing out certain deficiencies in his speech. And the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has, as usual, taken advantage of it to play mean politics.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we
might solve this difficulty if the hon. member for Lapointe would agree to answer our questions or to give us the exact references when he quotes, for instance, Msgr. Vandry or the rector of McGill University.
The only interruptions I made during the speech of the hon. member for Lapointe were meant as approvals because I am always pleased to hear him-


Jean-Noël Tremblay: So am I.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I am always pleased to hear him and listen to him. However, I have decided to withdraw my approvals when he wanted to pay undeserved compliments to the hon. member for Laurier.
If the hon. member for Lapointe would only agree to give us the correct references, I am sure the interruptions would cease.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Chambly-Rouville has raised another point of order, but I can only take up one at a time. However, I do not think I need repeat what I said a moment ago, before the hon. member for Laurier raised this point. The rules are quite clear. A member who has the floor should not be interrupted. Permission can be asked to put a question to him, but it is his privilege to refuse to grant that permission. I ask the co-operation of all members for the orderly conduct of our debates.
I recognize the hon. member for Lapointe.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, this will probably be news to my hon. friend from Chambly-Rouville, but if he cares to read the brief submitted to the Massey commission by Laval University, he would find the very wording of the statement I have just made for the record.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: On what page?


Augustin Brassard: I sometimes
wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the Conservative members from Quebec are too lazy to read the briefs that were submitted. I read them, but I am not going to give him the reference, as I am sure that he would learn a great deal if he took the trouble of reading them.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: I read them over and over again.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: All I wanted to obtain from the hon. member from Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) was the exact reference of his quotation.


Augustin Brassard: You will find it in the brief.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: That I know; I read it in connection with the Tremblay commission in 1954.
But Mr. Speaker, I will not accept any suggestion that I have not read the brief or that Conservative members are too lazy to read such briefs and keep up to date.

It is time the member for Lapointe gave a loyal answer to our questions.


Augustin Brassard: If there are people in this house who cannot give me a lesson of loyalty, they are the Conservative members from Quebec. The best proof that the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) did not read the brief I mentioned is the fact that he said that it was submitted to the Tremblay commission, whereas it was, in fact, submitted to the Massey commission.
We have heard many speeches-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I never made the statement attributed to me by the hon. member for Lapointe.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, is this an attempt to apply closure?


Mr. Balcer:: Tell the truth.


Mr. Bourgel:: Don't you dare talk about the truth.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville raising a point of order or a question of privilege?


An hon. Member:: Of privilege or of whim?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I did not say that I had studied the brief submitted to the Tremblay commission. I said that I had studied the brief for the purpose of the Tremblay commission. That is different and I ask the hon. member to withdraw his statement.


Augustin Brassard: I will not; when you read Hansard tomorrow, you will see that I was right. I have a speech to make here, Mr. Speaker; I wonder if this is some kind of a gag they are trying to force on me-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: You are not important enough for that.


Augustin Brassard: I shall not say what I have in mind. During the debate on this legislation, we heard, among others, a speech by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion).
Before saying what I think of his remarks, may I say that I have great regard and admiration for the hon. member for Bellechasse. I admire him very much and I think that what has been written about him in a certain Montreal weekly is downright disgusting.
If there is a Conservative member from Quebec who would deserve to be a cabinet
Dominion-Provincial Relations member, it is the hon. member for Bellechasse, and I say this even though I do not share his political views.
At the outset of his speech on this legislation, the hon. member said-and, for the information of the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, this quotation may be found on page 14 of the appendix to Hansard of April 26, 1960:
In consequence-though it may displease those who do not share my opinion, and with all due respect for the views of others-I want to confirm once more, at the very beginning of my remarks, that federal grants to our institutions of higher learning in this country are obviously inconsistent with the imperative principles of our constitution and contrary to the rights, powers and obligations which are an exclusively provincial field.
In short, the hon. member for Bellechasse told us, in a somewhat mitigated form, that federal grants to universities are unconstitutional.
This bill contains Mr. St. Laurent's formula, a formula, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, that did not impose any condition on the provinces nor on the universities. On the other hand, the present legislation, in addition to the St. Laurent formula, contains certain conditions.
In the first place, it is the federal government that is telling the Quebec and other provincial governments who want to take advantage of that legislation how a tax can be levied by a province for a provincial purpose.
In the second place, the federal government itself decides how part of the tax will be used to meet that provincial purpose.
Third, as the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) pointed out a few moments ago, the Minister of Finance of the federal government is to be the ultimate judge with regard to the distribution and use of that provincial tax, levied within the limits of the jurisdiction of Quebec and other provinces wishing to avail themselves of the act.
The hon. member for Bellechasse also mentioned on several occasions in this house that he had much apprehension with regard to precedent in British law.
Now, in spite of this fear and apprehension, he is still urging his Conservative colleagues from the province of Quebec to support this bill, and for two reasons.
We have inherited a situation created by the former administration, says he-and I

Dominion-Provincial Relations repeat, the former administration-and the legislation we are about to accept as a solution, at this time, will only be temporary.
I would have liked to repeat here, Mr. Speaker, the remark made to me by someone who has never had university training, and who was talking to me about the attitude of the hon. member for Bellechasse, but I will tell him about it privately.
The fact remains that the attitude of the Conservative members from the province of Quebec-


Jean-Noël Tremblay: It is a matter of discretion.


Augustin Brassard: The discretion of the member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) is precisely what I am leery about.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: What about your friends-


Augustin Brassard: I am amazed, not to say flabbergasted, at the present attitude of the Conservatives from Quebec and of the representatives of the Quebec government.
For years, they made provincial autonomy their battle cry, for obvious political purposes.
It was a mock autonomy, an inactive but convenient autonomy which helped them beg for votes.
The Conservatives from Quebec, at a conference a few months ago, asked, urged, the government to find a formula. Why were they urging the government to find a formula? This is due to the fact that they were feeling out public opinion in our province and discovering that the population had enough of seeing them play politics with a principle such as that of autonomy.
The Conservative government in Ottawa has always proclaimed its respect for our constitution. It developed a formula or rather, according to the press, the former premier of Quebec, Mr. Sauve, for whom I had the greatest respect, submitted a formula verbally -and one can easily understand why the proposal was made verbally.
But, the most astonishing point is that this legislation, as I said a moment ago, not only includes the St. Laurent formula, which the Quebec provincial government rejected absolutely at all times, but even goes a step further in that it compels Quebec to return to Ottawa part of the money to be collected under provincial legislation for provincial purposes, and if it does not compel the province to return the money to Ottawa the federal government will see to it that the compensation is made.

I should say, to use an expression in favour with some Quebec members, that, from the constitutional standpoint, this is one of the most questionable pieces of legislation we have had since confederation.
As soon as the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) had made his speech, I very politely asked him a question to which he replied also very politely. I would like to remind him of it at this stage. I said, as reported on page 18 of the appendix to Hansard of April 26, 1960:
Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. member for Bellechasse? If the hon. member for Bellechasse deems it completely constitutional to levy a provincial corporation tax for educational purposes, how can he explain that the federal government should, under the same bill, have the authority to compel the province of Quebec to return a portion of the same tax. Is that provision in the bill not the very contradiction of Mr. Cahan's statement?
The member for Bellechasse replied:
I am willing to assume that the hon. member has paid close attention to what I said. However, he leaves me with the impression that either I did not make myself clear or he misunderstood me. I rather believe that I was not quite clear.
At the beginning of my remarks, I very definitely stated that in my opinion the federal government is not allowed under the constitution to subsidize universities. I said that we were faced with an accomplished fact and that we try to evolve a temporary solution through a compromise. That is my view on the bill now before us.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Conservative members from Quebec who will speak after me-and the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) will certainly be one of them-to tell us if the former premier of Quebec has ever accepted any compromise as far as the provincial autonomy of his province is concerned.
The Hon. Mr. Duplessis is known to have rejected federal university grants, except for one year, as I said a few moments ago. On the other hand, his minister of youth and welfare, the Hon. Paul Sauve, used to accept with open hands subsidies for technical and professional education, and annual grants for the maintenance and administration of his schools. Now, when federal grants were related to the building or installation of schools, they represented up to 50 per cent of the cost.
And when was any minister from Quebec heard telling the people of my province that the building costs of our technical and professional schools had been paid fifty-fifty by the federal government and the government

of Quebec? We were always led to believe, as we are being now, that those were princely gifts from the provincial government.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, saying, when a school or a hospital or any public building is erected in some riding that it is a gift either of the federal or the provincial government, is misleading the people. Indeed, it is not a gift. It is merely a question of providing for the needs of the people where the building will be erected. And that is what I have always admired in our former prime minister; he never said that he was distributing gifts, but; "We are returning to the taxpayers part of the taxes they paid to the federal government".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Augustin Brassard: What the Hon. Mr. Sauve accepted between 1945 and 1958, i.e. 50 per cent of the construction cost of all technical and professional schools in the province of Quebec, amounts to more than $6 million. Much has been said about autonomy in our province but, meanwhile, words were contradicted by deeds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Augustin Brassard: We have heard before of grants to universities, Mr. Speaker, and by others than the federal government. Grants to universities have been awarded by the Quebec government to other institutions of higher learning in other provinces. I do not deny the right of the province of Quebec to help our fellow citizens in the other provinces. But what strikes me, again according to the principle of autonomy of our people in Quebec, is that the same Quebec government has awarded grants to institutions in other provinces. If the government of the province of Quebec had been logical and consistent with its theory on autonomy, it would have awarded those grants to a Quebec patriotic organization which would have handed them out to the interested people in the other provinces. No one would have been able to accuse the province of Quebec of interfering in the educational system of the other provinces, if it had followed that procedure.
Coming back to the agreements now being considered, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the correspondence exchanged between the Prime Minister of Canada and the last two premiers-I repeat, the last two premiers-of the province of Quebec. On December 14, 1959, the Hon. Mr. Sauve, in an answer to the Prime Minister of Canada, asked this:
Dominion-Provincial Relations
You are suggesting that the adjustment be made out of the equalization payment. At least I suppose so, because it would be the only way to do it.
You would oblige me by saying if that is what you have in mind.
Here is what the Prime Minister of Canada answered to the Hon. Mr. Sauve on December 22, 1959:
The difference between the product of the additional 1 per cent tax exemption and the $1.50 per capita for the population of your province will be adjusted in such a way that the fiscal position of the federal government remains unchanged. In other words, should the 1 per cent tax exemption yield more than $1.50 per capita, as will be the case, the federal government will deduct the amount in excess of equalization payments now being paid to the province of Quebec by the federal treasury in accordance with the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act.
For instance, if the new formula were applied on the basis of 1959 figures, the federal treasury would lose, and the provincial treasury gain, about $9,250,000 as a result of the change in the corporation tax. On the other hand, university grants based on $1.50 per capita, applied to the province of Quebec, would amount to $7,500,000. The difference of $1,750,000 would be deducted from the equalization payment payable to the province of Quebec which in- 1959 will amount to about $67,000,000.
There is another point on which I would like some clarification from the Conservative speakers who will rise after me. The Quebec legislature passed an act to raise from 9 to 10 per cent the corporation income tax before the federal government had introduced its own legislation. The provincial authorities knew at the time what were the three conditions laid down by the federal government concerning the use of provincial income tax.
I am at a loss to understand on the basis of what sincerity the Quebec government failed to mention in its legislation the conditions imposed by the federal government in order to dispose of a grant established by a provincial legislation for a provincial purpose.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Quebec provincial legislature as well as the federal authorities, entered into a tacit agreement before the Canadian parliament had expressed its views on the subject.
If this legislation had been introduced under a Liberal administration, with the restrictive clauses it contains, I am sure that Mr. Duplessis and all his supporters would have had a real picnic at the expense of the Liberal administration of the time.
In his speech on the federal grants to universities-and I want to say a few words about the remarks of the hon. member for

Dominion-Provincial Relations Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion)-the hon. member also expressed the views of a man who had been a student of constitutional law and who, according to him, was one of the most enlightened minds of his days; I mean Mr. Cahan, secretary of state in the Bennett administration. As did the hon. member for Bellechasse, I quote the following:
The provincial legislature will come to exercise, year by year, the Junctions of a municipal council which is dependent, in matters of finance, upon the benefactions which it receives from the federal treasury. The dominion government will hold the purse, and financial control will gradually extend to the exercise of legislative and administrative control.
Well, I believe the formula being proposed to us ties in fully with the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Bellechasse, and for the following reason: the province of Quebec will have to reimburse, or the federal government will deduct from the equalization payments, the excess amounts of taxes levied on corporations for provincial purposes.
I would not like to express an opinion neither officially nor oif the record on the constitutionality of the federal grants to universities because there are great jurists who hold different views on the matter. But I should like, however, to make a comparison. The special grants of $25 million which the federal government pays to the maritimes are not paid from a special tax levied throughout the country. Those special grants of $25 million are taken out of the federal treasury, like the university grants, as they were under Mr. St. Laurent's formula.
And there is another question I might ask myself about Quebec autonomists. There is, in the Department of Finance, in connection with federal-provincial relations, a municipal grant division. Municipalities, Mr. Speaker, in the eyes of the federal government, do not exist. The federal government does not recognize legally what a municipality is, because municipalities exist only by virtue of a delegation of powers from the provincial governments; and yet, grants are directly made to municipalities; cheques are made to the order of the municipalities. Those cheques are not sent to municipal officials, through the provincial government, they are sent directly to the municipalities of our province, and of all the other provinces of Canada.
How can you explain that the Conservative members from Quebec, who are so deeply

concerned with autonomy, have never raised the matter here in the House of Commons?


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Completely beside the
point.


Augustin Brassard: I admit, Mr. Speaker, that for the hon. member for Roberval, that is beside the point. In fact, I am sure of it.
There is another problem on which I should like an explanation, either from the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, who often does not know what he is talking about, or from the hon. member for Roberval, who never knows what he is talking about.
The bill before us deals with an agreement between the federal Minister of Finance and the Canadian Universities Foundation. The two contracting parties are the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Canadian government, and the Canadian Universities Foundation. What is involved in the bill? The authorities of the federal government are asking the Quebec authorities to abide by an agreement between the Minister of Finance and the Canadian Universities Foundation. They ask that of the authorities of the province of Quebec, who are not parties to that agreement. I should very much like to hear the thoughts of the hon. members for Chambly-Rouville and Roberval, if they are capable of any thoughts, on this particular matter.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: A low type of wit for a
protege of the Union Nationale.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, in going to work for the Quebec government, I never thought I had to sacrifice my freedom of thought for the rest of my life. I never denied having worked in the department of highways for two years. I never denied having received assistance, but I had to work for it. And, once again, I still feel as I did at the time that I was not being committed in my way of thinking for the rest of my life.
When the Canada Council or the federal government make grants the recipient does not have to state whether he is going to be a Liberal or a Conservative for the rest of his life.
As reported in Le Devoir of July 20, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) said in this house on July 18, 1959, concerning university grants:
And, the member went on to ask, even If the former government and the present government

always paid out the grants with no strings attached, what guarantee do we have that such will always
be the case?
The former administration never attached conditions to the financial aid to universities, but, today we study this bill which sets three essential conditions to the grants which are paid from federal revenue to Quebec universities.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how the Conservative members from Quebec will explain their reasoning and, to make sure the hon. members for Roberval and Chambly-Rouville understand what I mean, how will they explain their inconsistency.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: We will ask that for you of the provincial minister of highways.


Augustin Brassard: No doubt we will witness and quite soon, Mr. Speaker, an event which will enable the people of Quebec to express their opinion.


Mr. Parizeau:: We already know the result.


Augustin Brassard: The member for Lake St. John (Mr. Parizeau) says he already knows the result. I cannot make fun of him right now; I will wait till June 23 to do so.


An hon. Member:: He laughs longest who laughs last.


Augustin Brassard: It is then that will break out the revenge and the justice of people fed up by public men who are in politics only to satisfy their thirst for power.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that the Liberals not only are in favour of grants to universities, but instead of merely saying it, they proved it by positive action. They seldom talked about autonomy in the Canadian House of Commons, but they respected it. What surprises me most in this debate is that the sponsor of this bill did not utter a word yet about the serious problems pointed out by the hon. member for Laurier in his clear and unambiguous speech, and which reflected our doubts and our fears concerning this measure.
Should the Minister of Finance decide to take part in this debate, I hope he will reply in detail to the serious and well-founded objections raised by the hon. member for Laurier.


Egan Chambers: The Montreal Star did.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker,
some people say that there is nothing seriously objectionable about this bill. Let me
Dominion-Provincial Relations reply right now to the remark just made by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Chambers), because I also read that article.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the real objection, the serious objection we have to this bill, is the fact that, by federal legislation, the provincial government is compelled -and I am not referring only to that of Quebec, I refer to any other provincial government of Canada-if it wants to take advantage of that legislation, to hand back to the federal government part of the taxes it intends to levy through some legislation of its own, taxes that are levied for provincial purposes. That is the serious objection we have to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that no one in Canada is more in favour of help and assistance to universities than the members of the Liberal party of Canada. I repeat-I am happy to do so because it will never be repeated enough-there are people here to whom it is necessary to repeat that truth before they even begin to understand-


An hon. Member:: That is quite apparent.


Augustin Brassard: They have to be told over and over again before they even begin to understand. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, nowhere in Canada can be found better support for university grants than among the Liberal party. The Liberal administration has proved it, and the Statutes of Canada are there to prove it also.
Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to hear the hon. members for Chambly-Rouville and Roberval tell us, in a way that everybody will understand, what they think of the serious objections to this legislation that were raised by the hon. members for Laurier, Gatineau and other ridings.


Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention whatsoever to embark upon an extensive discussion-


Mr. Eudes:: What a pity.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -of the legislation now before the house. As a layman, I would like, however, to make a few remarks and say what the people think of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help pointing out to you, that since the bill was introduced in this house, Liberal members have tried to make a lot of noise so that people might possibly forget the benefits which will accrue
3558	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations to the people as a result of this bill. After all we must admit that, as a result of talks between members of the federal Conservative party and members of the Union Nationale who make up the provincial government in Quebec, an amount of $25 million held in trust by the Conference of Canadian Universities will now go to the citizens of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I can understand my friends in the Liberal party looking to the conclusion of our discussion with bitter apprehension, especially as it is taking place when they are getting ready to launch a campaign to help their friends of the provincial Liberal party in view of the election on June 22 next. They knew they would meet with defeat, but after this last minute unkindest cut of all, that defeat will only be more blatant.
Our good friends from the Liberal party were worried about the way the members on the government side were going to act when this legislation was discussed.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that opposition members, particularly Liberal supporters, display worry about us. They were quite worried on June 10, 1957 and March 31, 1958. In my opinion they did not have the least ground for worry.
We came here with very definite duties to perform. During the election campaign we promised to solve the problem of university grants, and we have indeed solved it in the end. We are not so vain as to claim that the bill is perfect, only opposition members, or Liberal party supporters, having any claim to perfection.
As we merely belong to the class of ordinary human beings, we can only do our best and our very best, knowing that past events and those to come on June 22 next will show that we have the fullest support of the province of Quebec, whether Liberal members like if or not.
We have to admit the facts. If my hon. friends opposite must go into mourning, they may be assured of all my sympathy.
At this stage of my remarks, I wish to refer to certain press reports dealing with the matter of assistance to universities.
In the Thursday, March 3, 1960 issue of Lc Courrier of St. Hyacinthe, under the heading "Excellent news for universities and colleges", an article read:
The Hon. Antonio Barrette, Quebec premier, and Yves Prevost, provincial secretary in his cabinet,


have just given excellent news to the province of Quebec concerning university and secondary education.
Speaking in the legislature last Thursday, the premier said he was confident that Quebec universities and colleges would be able to collect the $25 million that have been held for them by the federal government for several years, and that they had been unable to claim for reasons known to everybody.
"We believe, said Mr. Barrette, that the $25 million in federal grants to our universities will come back to the province".
He added:
"As soon as I have received a final answer (from Ottawa) I will be glad to inform the house.
In the same paper, under the title "Political news", it was stated:
The rights of Quebec concerning universities are recognized.
Ottawa's offers of grants to the universities of the province will not be renewed, and the federal government recognizes the exclusive rights of Quebec in this field.
Those are a few statements I would ask my Liberal friends to read and reread and meditate, because if there is one person in the province of Quebec whose job is to look after the interests of the province, surely it is its present premier.
Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, I should like to quote from a few articles published in L'Enseignement, the official mouthpiece of the Corporation des Institu-teurs et Institutrices Catholiques de la Prov-vince de Quebec. On page 10 and 11 of the March 1960 issue, I find the following headings:
$2,421,000 grant to normal schools and home economics institutes. Financial freedom for our educational institutions.
And underneath, the following subheadings:
$20,000,000 to the universities
$10,000,000 more to school boards
$6,122,000 to classical colleges
$340,000 to certain cultural and art societies
And in concluding, and to clear up any doubt which might still be entertained by the Liberal members, I should like to quote the last paragraph of an article which appeared in he Droit of April 26 and in which Mr. Jean-Marc Poliquin, commenting on Bill C-56, concludes in this way:
However, one thing remains, and that is that Bill No. C-56 protects an essential right of French Canada. From that viewpoint alone it deserves the support of the Quebec members.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I want to say again that we are not through

with the noise coming from the opposition benches, since they have been instructed from higher up to do whatever they could to try and make the people forget that we owe it to the Union Nationale on the one hand and to a Conservative government on the other hand if the question of university grants has been settled to the satisfaction of the people of Quebec after having been outstanding for some ten years, and that $25 million have been handed over all at once, to the institutions of higher learning in the province of Quebec.
Again, I offer my sympathy to my poor friends in the opposition, and I tell them: Give it up as lost.
(Text):


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is something significant in this bill that struck us in the C.C.F. Here for the first time, at least in recent history, we have been able to come to an agreement on a very thorny problem in this country. For the first time, apparently, the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec have been able to reach an agreement on one of the most important subjects affecting the citizens of Canada regardless of the province in which they live. I refer to the problem of education.
I recall many times in the past how the Liberals used to pillory a former premier of the province of Quebec, Premier Duplessis. He was the fly in the ointment, the reason why that province would never take advantage of the many proposals put forward by the federal government. It was obvious to many in this country why he would not co-operate. It was more profitable politically to cry wolf in the province of Quebec when it came to any agreement with the federal government. It was also obvious for many years that the Quebec government was far more interested in votes than in agreements with respect to this problem.
We now see another strange phenomenon coming about. We see that we have a new Duplessis growing up in the province of Quebec. I have here a copy of an article taken from the Globe and Mail of April 14, which reads in parts as follows:
Quebec Liberal leader Jean Lesage said today that he will denounce the current federal-provincial agreement on the financing of university grants if his party takes power at the next general elections.
I do not know if he intends to denounce it only if his party takes power or if he
Dominion-Provincial Relations intends to denounce it in any event. As I understand the legislation, it does not ram anything down anybody's throat. It is merely permissive legislation allowing the minister to enter into an agreement with any province that desires to do so. Why denounce the agreement only if the party comes into power? The article continues:
Mr. Lesage said that the right given in the bill to the federal Minister of Finance to approve any arrangement between the provincial government and the universities constituted a most dangerous precedent in the field of provincial autonomy.
Shades of Duplessis. I have studied this proposal and fail to see how anybody could construe as a dangerous precedent in the field of provincial autonomy the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has the authority to approve an arrangement between the provincial governments and the universities. Surely this is under provincial jurisdiction. If they reach an agreement who is treading on whose toes if the federal government is authorized to approve it? Another portion of the article reads:
Mr. Lesage said that this policy of federal-provincial fiscal relations would constitute a major theme of the Liberal campaign during the next two months.
The Union Nationale will be attacked for not sticking to the autonomist position taken by Duplessis and Sauve in their relations with Ottawa.
Why did we hear the Liberals for so many years attack the position taken by Mr. Duplessis if they are now going to attack his successors for not following the position he took? What kind of monstrous farce is this?
For many years there has been a great game in this country played by politicians. The game consisted of making one political speech in Quebec and a different one in any other province. With the advent of television and the establishment of the C.B.C. in Canada the game is not as easily played as before because speeches of importance are telecast from coast to coast and one cannot indulge in double-talk and give both sides of the picture. This is particularly true with respect to the subject of education.
I submit that for 92 years we have coasted and quibbled with regard to education and I think it is time we stopped. This first agreement on the question is a good starting point and that is why the C.C.F. intends to support the bill on second reading.
I invite hon. members to consider how many qualified students have been denied opportunities for education in years gone by. Why? Because education has been a

Dominion-Provincial Relations political football kicked back and forth between the federal and provincial governments each saying it was the responsibility of the other. And because all the provinces could not agree, it was a good way of washing one's hands of the subject. I invite the house to consider the human resources that have been wasted as a result of our washing our hands of this problem.
Of course, we have been very lucky. While we have never tried to meet the problem or provide adequate opportunities for education to our students as they grew up, fortunately our educational system was no worse than the systems in other countries and so we had no real problems to face up to. But times are changing very rapidly. One has only to consider automation to realize that the standards of education which were adequate 10 or 15 years ago are no longer adequate today.
This afternoon we had an exchange between the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), I believe, with regard to unfilled job applications. I think there is something in what the minister said about many positions being unfilled at this time. Why is this so? Because our workers have not got the educational qualifications to fill them.
What are we doing about it? We are playing petty politics instead of getting on with the job. How many of our students are demanding educational opportunities today while we sit here and kick this matter back and forth? I see that the Quebec election battle is going to be fought on the basis of the same old worn out excuse on which elections in Quebec have been fought for the last number of years. Do we realize, Mr. Speaker, that while we indulge ourselves in these political antics immigrants coming into this country are better qualified to fill jobs than our own people born and raised here? Do we realize that this situation is going to worsen unless we stop bickering and playing petty politics and get on with the job of increasing educational facilities and educational opportunities for our children?
Last but far from least, Mr. Speaker, are we going to sit back and ignore the warnings from behind the iron curtain that were so well put before the house by two members on the government side last year? Can we afford to do this? Are we still going to quibble and play party politics?
The British North America Act sets out very clearly provincial and federal rights

with regard to education but unfortunately it does not set out the responsibilities as clearly as it should. It is the responsibility of each province to provide educational facilities and because some provinces are richer than others it is the responsibility of the federal government to see that each province is able to carry out its educational responsibilities. As I said before, in the past there has been no over-all agreement. We have been content to pass the buck back and forth. The attitude has been, anything for an excuse, let us shut our eyes and avoid the inevitable for a few years longer and maybe we can win another election by doing so.
I say that we have a far greater responsibility with regard to this problem. I say that this welcome step is the first step we have seen for a good many years in this field. I say it is time that provincial and federal elected representatives started to place national and human interests ahead of immediate political ambitions. I say it is time that we got on with this welcome first step and go on from here to even greater steps in the future. (Translation):


Mr. Louis Fortin (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief, because what is well understood can be expressed in few words.
The problem of federal subsidies to universities is one of vital importance in my province, and has been for close to 20 years. It involves, as we all know, an intrusion of the central power into the provincial field. Under section 93 of the B.N.A. Act, only the provincial legislatures have jurisdiction in educational matters. It can be truly said that until the publication of the Massey report on June 1, 1951, the federal government had never committed a constitutional sin in that respect.
The Massey commission, which on the whole did quite a good job, suggested in its report that the federal government should make a financial contribution to the work of universities every year. The commissioners put it that clearly. That was reason enough for the Liberal government of the time to accept this unwarranted suggestion, and shortly after, it started making annual inroads into the field of education.
From that point of view, it can be said that the government which preceded the present government was a second offender and persisted in its constitutional sin. There were ministers in Quebec who defended such a



I960

[Stage Direction]
policy. Among them, I would mention the former minister of northern affairs and national resources, Mr. Jean Lesage, who in the meantime has changed his tune and is trying to go into reverse. However, a choice replacement was found in the person of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who has been making sudden and occasional T.V. appearances in Quebec. Let me say, however, that I think his national patriotic speeches have a hollow sound: he is a bit like a banjo player in a symphony orchestra.
To set the problem in its proper perspective, it must be remembered that very few countries enjoy the advantages of two cultures. In that respect, Canada is a privileged country.
In fact, because of historic events which have made Canada what it is today, we enjoy French culture with all its beauty, its richness, its dignity and its greatness. At the same time, we enjoy Anglo-Saxon culture in all its beauty, its richness, its dignity and its greatness. Each in their own sphere, French speaking and English speaking Canadians can benefit by developing their cultures whose full flowering can only enrich our national heritage.
To get this full flowering, Quebec universities, which are the guardians of French culture in America, need greater financial assistance. And who could legally give it to them? We find the answer in section 93 of the British North America Act: Only the provincial legislatures, since they have exclusive jurisdiction in the field of education.
I do not think there are right minded people, with the exception, perhaps of the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge), who would say that universities are not included in this field. If this is a responsibility of provincial legislatures, they need adequate financial means to discharge it. So, what did the Quebec government do in order to be able to give financial assistance to our universities? During its last session, the Quebec legislature raised the corporation income tax by 1 per cent. The sums produced by this increase will enable Quebec universities to receive the financial assistance they are entitled to. The present federal government, always anxious, and may I repeat that, always anxious to respect the autonomy of the provinces, refuses to remain any longer, against the will of the province, in the field of education, and will grant a similar deduction from its own tax. In other words, the federal
Dominion-Provincial Relations government is gradually withdrawing from a field which is not its own, and which was invaded in 1951 by the Liberal government.
On behalf of the citizens of Quebec, I commend the present federal government for showing great understanding and an admittedly fair mind.
I know you will realize, Mr. Speaker, that the member for an historic county like Montmagny-L'Islet, wants to pay a disinterested tribute to the man who is now the premier of the province of Quebec and who, today, picks the ripe fruit of the long and difficult struggles led by his illustrious predecessors. Yet, I am sure that, if the Quebec government had formerly been able to count on the comprehension and co-operation of the Liberal government, it could have settled the problem quite as beneficially. Because of its arrogance and stubbornness, the Liberal government found itself, so to speak, in an extremely difficult position. How many great men fought all their lives, and even died, before reaping the fruit of their efforts.
Mr. Speaker, about a week ago, the hon. member for Laurier honoured us with a visit. He spoke on television, in a program entitled: "The Nation's Business". Besides, one finds that he is about the only Liberal member to appear on the French network. I do not blame him for wanting to make himself known among our people but his frequent appearances might suggest that he is somewhat hard to sell.
The last time he appeared on television the hon. member for Laurier told us that Bill No. C-56 was the worst encroachment on provincial autonomy. He said that by this Bill No. C-56 the federal government was saying to the legislature: "You will increase the corporation tax by 1 per cent. The hon. member knows very well that this is not true. If he does not know, let him examine the text of the bill and study it carefully. If he knows that he is not speaking the truth, why does he come to the province of Quebec and say things which are, to say the least, contrary to the truth? The fact is that the Quebec legislature voted its bill increasing the corporation tax without being the least concerned with what the federal government would do. The Hon. Antonio Barrette formally said so in Montreal, on April 19 last. To avoid double taxation and, as I said, out of regard for the autonomy of the provinces, the federal government will grant a 1 per cent deduction on its own tax. I wonder who could criticize it for that?
[Stage Direction]
Dominion-Provincial Relations
I listened earlier with great interest to my very good and long time friend, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard). He said, at one point, that the proof that grants to universities are constitutional and legal is that they were accepted in 1951 by the province of Quebec.
Let me remind him of a minor principle of law that he must have learned when he was a law student in Quebec. He says that in the matter of evidence one must of necessity abide by the principle of preponderance. Correct, the province of Quebec tentatively accepted university grants the first year. However, when the province refused them the following year, and has refused them ever since, the preponderance of evidence is to the effect that it had come to the conclusion that the experiment made in 1951 had not proved to be a useful compromise under those conditions.
I also heard the hon. member exclaiming while speaking about his late protector Mr. Duplessis, that he had never accepted any compromise. Let me tell him that there is one very simple reason why the then premier of Quebec never accepted any compromise; it is because he knew how dangerous it is to compromise oneself with a Liberal government.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, may I tell you that we breathe more freely in our province since the government of Quebec can rely on the comprehension and the co-operation of the federal Conservative government.
The era of liberal arrogance and of the "take it or leave it" attitude of Mr. St. Laurent is now a thing of the past, and we already see on the horizon a future full of splendid promises which will represent a precious contribution to the full achievement of that national unity which we desire and which will enrich our national life and make it worthy of the most noble traditions-as the Prime Minister of Canada stated when General de Gaulle visited our country-of both our mother countries, France and Great Britain.
Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, there are two proposals in the bill now before this house. The first one has to do with an increase from 10 to 13 per cent in the provincial share of personal income tax. It will be recalled that the increase came into effect in January 1958 and was announced by wire to the provinces. The object of this bill is to keep the increase in force up to March 31, 1962 or for two more years.

The second proposal concerns arrangements on grants to universities, concerning which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) stated that the amendment is to provide for the payment of grants to universities equivalent to $1.50 per capita in each province.
Let me state forthwith, as did the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) on April 26 last, that I am in favour of the first proposal. However, I think it proper to point out that, since the Conservatives came into power three years ago, nothing was changed in the Federal-Provincial Tax-sharing Arrangements Act, except the 3 per cent increase in private income tax which enables us to say that under the Conservative administration we have autonomy at 3 per cent.
Since June 1957, three federal-provincial conferences have been held, but each of them almost uselessly because every time the premiers and the ministers of finance of the ten provinces went back empty-handed. I am not the only one to make this statement. An editorial in Le Soleil, for October 17, 1959, was entitled:
Useless Conference.
The article reads as follows:
Gathered in Ottawa to discuss with the federal Minister of Finance problems concerning the taxsharing arrangements, the ministers of finance of the ten provinces of this country and the few premiers who came along with them, went back empty-handed forty eight hours later.
If they had any hopes before entering the conference room, they did not keep them long. Mr. Fleming hastened to tell them they would not be getting anything more because the country's financial situation made it impossible.
The article goes on to say this, and rightly so:
Was it really necessary to disturb all those people? Would it not have been simpler to cancel the conference and to inform each provincial minister of finance by mail to expect nothing more from the federal treasury? In this way, there would have been no loss of time, no wasteful expenditures, no useless travelling.
The representatives of the provinces did not hide their disappointment and their displeasure.
We are being told that another federal-provincial conference has been set for next July, on the 25, 26 and 27. However, judging from past conferences and the statement made by the Minister of Finance on April 26, 1960, as recorded in Hansard page 3278 of that day:
The matters to be submitted to the conference will concern financial relations between the dominion and the provinces in the period following March 31, 1962.

We must therefore conclude that no change will be made in the tax-sharing arrangements between the dominion and the provinces before March 31, 1962.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Conservative party gave us to understand during the electoral campaign of 1957 and 1958. The present Prime Minister said at St. Patrice de Beaurivage, in the province of Quebec, on May 30, 1957, according to a report in the June 1, 1957 issue of the daily newspaper Montreal-Matin, and I quote:
The head of the Conservative party tackled another serious problem: that of fiscal federal-provincial relations. "Everybody admits", he said, "that relations between Ottawa and the provinces are bad, and that they are not satisfactory either to provincial or to municipal administrations. The federal government is rich, but the provinces and the municipalities are poor, and they cannot continue to assume their responsibilities.
"To resume the attitude of our party", he stated. "I repeat what I have said at the start of the election campaign: We guarantee provinces and municipalities a greater share of the money raised by taxes.
We shall thus give provincial governments the means of shouldering their important constitutional responsibilities and of furthering the development of our natural resources."
I might, Mr. Speaker, quote many other statements along this line, made by the Prime Minister and his candidates about fiscal arrangements during the 1957 and 1958 elections; but I think that the one I just mentioned will be enough to show that the Conservatives always acted grandly in their promises but rather poorly when it came to carrying them out.
Is it not pitiful to see a government, which, with the help of its friends in Quebec, organized two campaigns against the fiscal formula of the St. Laurent government, doing absolutely nothing today but modify some figures very slightly, which the Liberals might have done too, as one of the main merits of that formula was the possibility of periodical adjustment of standards according to the needs of the hour.
The greatest sin of the Conservatives is not their present reluctance to solve the fiscal problem; it is the boldness with which, for the sole purpose of grabbing power, they made to the people, in two elections, extravagant promises they are now unable to fulfil.
Nothing is easier to understand than the reason why the Conservative government does not solve the fiscal problem: it is because the Liberals have solved it as much
Dominion-Provincial Relations as they could, at the time, and the Conservatives are absolutely unable to find a more efficient and fairer formula than that adopted by the Liberals.
Through work and intelligence, the St. Laurent government had developed a fiscal formula which was severely criticized by his opponents, but will remain in force as long as a better one has not been found, and none is yet in sight.
On this subject, I should like to quote from an article by Gerard Morin, which appeared in Le Droit of Ottawa for July 8, 1959 under the heading: "No new contribution from Duplessis at the conference." This refers to the conference of the committee of Canadian finance ministers and treasurers, held in Ottawa in early July of the same year. I quote:
It seems that the federal Conservative government, which in principle is friendly to the government of the same party in Quebec, is not an inch closer to an agreement with Mr. Duplessis than the former government. In fact, the Conservatives have made no change in the Liberal doctrine of tax agreements, which the present Quebec government has always described as a centralizing doctrine.
Mr. Duplessis, in his Monday night press conference boasted of having repeated the same thing he had said for about 15 years in Ottawa, that-
And this is for the information of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard).
-that Ottawa was robbing Quebec.
And to a reporter who asked Mr. Duplessis if he had made constructive suggestions to the conference. he answered with his usual wit: "When someone robs us, nothing is more constructive than to claim back the amount that was robbed."
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, those words were said not only at the time of the Liberals, but after the provincial treasurers' conference held early last July. Our Conservative friends, more particularly in Quebec, are therefore-* after this last remark of their political idol in July 1959-unable to claim that they have brought about any change in the formula set up by the Liberal party, which they denounced so loudly and which they were to change so quickly. They therefore have to admit their complete failure on that point. It was indeed stated by Lorenzo Pare, parliamentary correspondent of L'Action Catho-lique, in a report published in that paper on November 26, 1957, the day after the first federal-provincial conference, and I quote:
If some people still pretended to believe that the coming of the Diefenbaker government would bring about a reversal of fiscal and financial policy in Ottawa, the end of the system of grants to the provinces and a new concept of constitutional relations; the illusion they nurtured would have disappeared yesterday.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
Not only does the centralization of the three major taxes remain the basis of federal policies, but those policies are more immediately directed to the fields where provincial jurisdiction was until now undivided.
Mr. Speaker, I do not say that the formula advanced by the Liberal government was perfect and that no changes should be made to it. It should certainly be studied again with a view to improving it and to making it more suitable to the needs and conditions which have changed tremendously since confederation days. But such a complex problem in a country like ours, cannot, to my mind, be solved as long as we do not decide to approach it with an open and constructive mind and acting with reason and frankness. It seems to me, that on such a vital question, we should all have a common ideal, to work for the greatness and advancement of our municipalities, provinces and our country as a whole.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the second proposal included in this bill, that is, the one concerning university grants.
It has been pointed out during this debate, and even in previous debates, that, for several years, higher learning in Canada has been faced with a very serious financial situation, which was approaching a state of crisis, in the sense that it could no longer fulfil its role in this field. I think I can say we are unanimous on this point.
Faced with such a situation, the government of Mr. St. Laurent rightly decided to help solve that crisis. Therefore, during the 1951 session, it arranged for the adoption of yearly grants to universities, on the basis of 50 cents per capita. Those federal grants to universities were accepted by all parties then sitting in the house, and afterwards by all provinces. Furthermore, those grants, as we know, are made directly to universities recognized as such by provincial governments.
After allowing the universities of the province of Quebec to accept that assistance for the first year only, the provincial authorities in my province withdrew that permission in 1952, under the pretext that they were afraid it was a first encroachment upon the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial legislatures in the field of education.
All members who were sitting in this house in June 1951, when that assistance was announced and adopted on the thirtieth of the same month, will recall that the leaders of the two major parties, while recognizing the

jurisdiction of the provinces in the field of education, admitted that the formula was constitutional. Mr. St. Laurent, in announcing the measure, said this, as recorded on page 4278 of Hansard tor June 19, 1951, and I quote:
I might add that in making these recommendations to parliament it is intended to avoid any possible suggestion that we are interfering in any way with the policies respecting education in the respective provinces.
On the thirtieth of the same month, in the discussion on item 690, which dealt with grants to universities, here is what he said, as recorded on page 5021 of Hansard:
What is intended is that all the institutions, authorized by provincial legislatures to grant degrees, would be recognized as of university level
Now here is what the then Conservative leader, Hon. Mr. Drew, had to say, as recorded on page 4278 of Hansard for June 19, 1951:
Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members generally will welcome any measure of assistance given in this way to the universities of Canada... on behalf of the party X have the privilege to lead I proposed some time ago that these grants should be made as soon as possible-
Mr. Speaker, I think those words clearly show that there was perfect unanimity on the federal government's right to award grants to universities. As you know, such grants were unconditional and in no way contrary to section 93 of the constitution, which provides that: "In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education". In voting that estimate, parliament in no way claimed the right to legislate in the field of education, or to determine the curricula or define the school attendance requirements to which their citizens would be subjected.
Nor did it impose a direct tax in the province in order to obtain revenues for school purposes. All the federal government was doing was to offer grants to universities from the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
It seems to me that, under the circumstances, I can join with others, even if I am not known as an authority in this field, in saying-


Maurice Allard: May I ask a question to the hon. member?


Maurice Bourget: I have no objection. I will first finish my speech and, once I am through, I will be glad to answer your question.
Therefore, I can say with many others, without being an expert in constitutional matters, that those federal grants had no effect whatsoever on the autonomy of the

universities or the provinces. Besides, it is because of that same right that the federal government makes equalization payments to provincial governments, helps in financing hospital construction, helps in technical and professional education, these latest grants having been accepted by the province of Quebec from 1945 to 1958.
Why then would the grants paid to the universities by the Liberals be bad, while the others I just mentioned are accepted? If the Quebec government believes that those grants which have been paid for nine years, now, are unconstitutional, why did it not challenge their legality before the courts?
This question has to be answered by the Conservative members.
In his speech of last April 26, the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) said this, as reported at page 1 of the appendix to Hansard of that day:
Besides, why should we have entrusted to provincial governments the exclusive power of looking after education, if the educational system had been the same in all the provinces which were to become members of the confederation?
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is agreed that the fathers of confederation placed education under the exclusive control of the provinces, probably with a view to safeguarding both English and French cultures. But to this moment, nobody has shown yet that the federal grants to universities, as conceived by the St. Laurent government, could be a threat either to the French culture or to the English culture, or even to the various religions in Canada.
Let us talk now about the new system proposed by this government. I feel that it would be useless to repeat the sound arguments presented by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) in the remarkable speech he made on that question, last April 26. He made it clear, I think, with references to various legislations and judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada, that certain parts of this bill can constitute the worst interference ever attempted by a federal government into the affairs of a province.
Besides, he is not the only one to entertain such views. I have here an editorial written by Mr. Gerard Filion in the Montreal newspaper Le Devoir of January 16, 1960, which reads as follows:
The Diefenbaker proposal, it should be remembered, is worse in its principle than the Liberal government's formula. That one, at least, set no conditions to universities or to provinces. Money was paid out and that was all. Whereas Mr. Diefenbaker is willing to have the provinces collect a certain amount of money, provided that it be used a certain way and not beyond certain limits.
79951-0-225
Dominion-Provincial Relations
I also have another item from Quebec's Le Soleil, dated December 18, 1959, which has the following heading:
The Diefenbaker proposal is deemed unacceptable by the Montreal chamber of commerce.
May I now quote a few paragraphs from an item headed:
Direct Interference
Furthermore, it brings about direct interference by the federal government in provincial matters by telling the provinces how they are to use their own tax money. It is, therefore, no uncertain breach of a constitutional principle to which Quebec holds fast.
One could even say that by accepting the method suggested we should be worse off than before. Federal grants to universities at the present time, though questionable from the constitutional standpoint, involve no interference in provincial jurisdiction.
It might well be pointed out at this time that the Conservative party arrived at this solution only after two years and a half in power, and yet its own supporters in this house called it a poor arrangement and an imperfect formula. I rather think that if those involved and all the students in the province had not pressed the government into action and, moreover, if this had not been a provincial election year, the Conservative party would have kept on distributing university grants according to the St. Laurent formula.
I also wonder how the Conservative members from the province of Quebec who consider Mr. St. Laurent's formula as infringing upon provincial autonomy can vote for the bill in which that same formula is included.
In an article written in the newspaper La Presse by its Ottawa correspondent Mr. Amedee Gaudreault on January 25, 1960, I read this:
The bill including the Diefenbaker formula concerning federal grants to universities, after the letter sent by the Hon. Antonio Barrette to the Prime Minister of Canada, is expected to force the 50 federal conservative members from Quebec to do some soul-searching in comparison to which the hesitations and abstentions of last year on the fiscal agreements and the trans-Canada highway will seem trifling.
Mr. Speaker, I find it strange, like many people from the province of Quebec, that Mr. Duplessis' followers in this house can talk about compromise when autonomy is concerned, because Mr. Duplessis always said that he would never permit autonomy to be crucified even on a golden cross.
If for many years the Union Nationale leaders and their friends from the province of Quebec had cast aside petty politics and emotionalism and had shown more common
3566	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations sense and especially more frankness, they would not have to accept today such a humiliating compromise.
I need not point out, Mr. Speaker, in closing my remarks that the Liberals' attitude towards federal grants to universities has not changed.
They are in favor of those grants unconditionally. Whether they are distributed by the Canadian Universities Foundation or, as the member for Laurier suggested, by a provincial council of universities, is of no importance, but I raise serious doubts as to the constitutionality of the formula introduced in this bill.
I hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) will clear up the serious doubts raised about the constitutionality of some clauses of this bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. member permit a question?
Will the hon. member vote for the bill or against it?


Maurice Bourget: The Minister of Finance asked the same question of the hon. member for Laurier.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And I am waiting for an answer.


Maurice Bourget: Be a little patient. He made an altogether intelligent reply-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: An altogether absurd reply.


Lionel Chevrier: Just like you, you are absurd yourself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member answer my question?


Maurice Bourget: The Minister of Finance must note that I put a question to him. He did not answer the hon. member for Laurier.
I shall also tell him this. Remove the doubts about the articles which according to those who know the constitution, seem to give rise to serious objections about the constitutionality of certain sections of this act. Besides, I am not the only one to hold this view. My friend the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) showed it this afternoon when he spoke on the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You don't know what to answer now.


Maurice Allard: Will the hon. member allow me a question?


Maurice Bourget: Certainly.


Maurice Allard: If the hon. member for Levis claims that the federal government has a right to subsidize Canadian universities, could he tell the house on what specific sections of the British North America Act he is basing his opinion?


Maurice Bourget: There are not any at all. And the hon. member for Sherbrooke did put this question before. There is no more provision in this regard in the constitution than there is for authorizing equalization payments to the provinces according to the formula adopted and maintained by your government and which was so intelligently established by the Liberal party that was in power before the present government.


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) who today not only shoulders his own responsibilities but also those of Prime Minister. The hon. member realizes that we have a constitution. In contrast with the Liberals, he recognizes that provinces have rights of their own. Moreover, he does much to unite the main elements which constitute our nation and to improve the conditions existing between our central government and provincial governments.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the least surprising, for the Conservative party, under the present leadership of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, has done a lot since confederation, and is still doing a lot, in order to ensure a better understanding of provincial rights and to maintain good will between the central government and all provincial governments.
(Text):
It would seem to me that in a day and age when government is becoming larger and larger at all levels, federal, provincial and municipal, and when the government itself at each of these levels is, perhaps, intervening in our daily lives to a greater and greater extent, we in this House of Commons should devote great attention to what are generally described as dominion-provincial relations.
I have not as yet reached the exalted position, which it seems to me some of the hon. members alongside me have reached, of quoting past speeches that I have made in this house, but I would simply like to say that I pointed out during the budget debate that one of the real differences which divide the two main parties in this chamber relates to dominion-provincial relations.
I pointed out in my speech on that occasion that our party places a great deal of emphasis on what is termed, for lack of a better expression, local self-agency. This idea has a universal application to Conservative principles. I fully realize that we cannot import into Canada political doctrines from nations abroad, but we do not all have to be students of history to look at the problems of the Liberals in the United Kingdom and the trouble the opposition had there not so many

years ago. I do not intend to embark on a Port Arthur type lecture in this House of Commons. Nevertheless, we realize the trouble the United Kingdom got into at the end of the last century when the Liberals over there tried to centralize affairs in London. Again, I am not suggesting you can import political doctrines, but it would certainly seem to me in the light of modern past experience in this country that the Liberal party, even though hon. members of that party do not like to admit it, have inherited a great deal of the whig's centralizing traditions of the past.
Only the other day the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) was asked down in Washington why the Liberal party was turned out of power. He gave as his answer that the Canadian people became bored with perfection. I am certain that many hon. members on this side of the house at least are going to have a great deal to say about the remark made by the Leader of the Opposition perhaps in a moment of carelessness, outside the borders of this country. Let me reiterate right now: I see nothing that smacks of perfection regarding the Liberal party's attitude and performance in relation to dominion-provincial relations as such.
I well remember during the last session of parliament that the Leader of the Opposition showed notable chagrin and was extremely annoyed when an hon. member on this side of the house brought up the fact that in order to unite this country in a true fashion we had to recognize the fact that various provinces had different attitudes. In other words, the word "diversity" was used. The Leader of the Opposition was highly annoyed that the subject had even come up in the House of Commons. His annoyance was heightened by the fact that we suggested that everybody should recognize the diversity of the provincial elements making up this country from coast to coast. Let him be annoyed and chagrined but the facts are these, that the divide and rule policies and programs carried out by the Liberal party in this house and throughout the country during the past years and that party's centralist tendencies leave absolutely no room for the recognition of provincial diversity. As a matter of fact the centralist tendencies of hon. gentlemen opposite-and this is an important principle to get over and underline during this present debate-tend to dragoon Canadians in the name of uniformity.
I would be the first to admit that during the war years and post-war years we had emergencies and semi-emergencies with their obvious accompanying centralizing effects. We do not have to read many periodicals and indeed we have only to look abroad to see 79951-0-225J
Dominion-Provincial Relations that certain political leaders and statesmen are trying now to create emergency or semiemergency conditions in order to centralize powers.
The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) often wonders why I changed my political allegiance. I can only say to the hon. member that I was never one who subscribed very much to the Howe theory of eternal emergency with its centralizing effects, another concept which I think hon. members alongside do not like to have brought up again and again, but I believe the time has come when they have to admit the basic policies that they adopt in relation to the problem of dominion-provincial relations. We know of one hon. member of the other place who mentioned the fact that his party adopted a policy of pragmatism and expediency and this applies to their attitude in this field.
I do not think the Canadian people will ever forget the debt they owe to the opposition of that time for their performance during the emergency powers debate not so many, years ago when complete powers forever were asked for in this Canadian House of Commons-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend remember that on that very occasion the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) disgraced himself to his lasting disadvantage?


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, that is a misstatement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see two hon. members standing.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Your Honour should have been here a while ago to see the circus we had in your absence when hon. members were interrupting from all sides of the house.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I must reply to the effect that the hon. member for Essex' East has made another of his famous misstatements of fact with regard to the Minister of Finance.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member stated the truth.


William Heward Grafftey: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, my veracity has been challenged-


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, no.


William Heward Grafftey: Well, I withdraw the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless it is interesting for me to note that apart from the present formal debate we are having in this House of Commons, it is usually the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate

Dominion-Provincial Relations (Mr. Pickersgill) who sallies forth into the waters of dominion-provincial relations. I have noticed that not too many of the hon. members on the front benches of the official opposition-not even the hon. member for Essex East with his usual expertise-has ventured forth into these waters.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Essex East has been sick.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think he is still sick.


William Heward Grafftey: I believe it was during the resolution stage of this debate that the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) brought the following set of facts. to the attention of hon. members of this house. He said that when the Liberal party was in power and was advocating the acceptance by the provinces of university grants all hon. members supporting the party of which I am a member said they were no good and that this should not be done. Today the hon. member claims that the present government made up of hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party is advocating the acceptance by the provinces of university grants and now we say they are all right. To a large extent the statement made by the hon. member is correct because during the time of the Liberal reign they tried to superimpose their will on the provinces with a take it or leave it attitude. There was no acceptance method worked out through consultation with the provinces. Just as they forgot the people of the country, they forgot the necessity of consultation on questions of this real and grave importance. Today the difference is that an acceptable method has been worked out by consultation with the provinces-


John Whitney Pickersgill: By telegram.


William Heward Grafftey: -by a party that realizes the provinces have their constitutional rights. That is the difference, Mr. Speaker. For that reason I will admit that a lot of what was said by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iber-ville-Napierville was correct, but I want to tell the hon. member why today we are in essence supporting this bill as opposed to the attitude we took while in opposition.


Murdo William Martin: It is because you have a strong whip.


William Heward Grafftey: We have a very excellent whip, Mr. Speaker, who is appreciated and enjoyed by all hon. members of this party of which I am a member. I suggest he perhaps does not use the same dragooning techniques that characterized some of the whips of the previous Liberal administration because I understand that in past days the backbench members of the Liberal party in this house were not too much encouraged by Mr. Howe to get up and express themselves to any extent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How many dissenters are there in the hon. member's party now?


William Heward Grafftey: Pardon?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, if he would name the dissenters there are in his party right now, apart from the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) who has been practically kicked out of the door.


William Heward Grafftey: We are a united team, Mr. Speaker, going ahead together in the best interests of our country. May I call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what the business is for tomorrow and Friday? I understand it was announced yesterday and I presume there is no change but I wonder if the house leader would be good enough to indicate what we might be doing next week.


Mr. Churchill:: Next week's program, Mr. Speaker, I think could be more properly announced tomorrow night. For tomorrow, Thursday, this debate will continue. If it is terminated we will take the budget resolutions. On Friday we will take the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask whether since last night any consideration has been given as to when the debate on the abolition of capital punishment will continue?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The date will be announced in due course.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 5, 1960