1960-05-05

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, all hon. members of this house have been deeply saddened by the news that since we rose last evening death has claimed one of the members of this house, namely William Limburg Houck, the late member for Niagara Falls.
Every one of us recognizes that in the death of Mr. Houck this country has lost a devoted public servant who in his service in this chamber was always animated by the highest purposes. He entered this chamber in 1953 and was re-elected at the general elections of 1957 and 1958. It is no exaggeration to say that he was one of the most popular and most respected members of this house. This parliament is much the poorer for his passing.
The country has likewise suffered a loss in other respects. The late Mr. Houck was not bom in Canada. He had come to this country from the United States. He was educated in that country, and was a graduate of Cornell. He settled in the city of Niagara Falls and over the years had rendered distinguished service not only in his community but in the province of his adoption. He was elected to the Ontario legislature for that riding in 1934 and served as an elected member in the legislature until 1943. From 1937 to 1943 he was a minister without portfolio in the Ontario government and vice-chairman of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario.
In his community also he enlarged his service in the years from 1947 to 1950 when he served as mayor of the city of Niagara Falls. His community, the province, the country and this parliament have suffered a loss that all of us will feel very keenly.
May I be forgiven one personal remark, Mr. Speaker. I had known Mr. Houck personally for many years, and I think I can say that there existed between us a bond of warm, personal friendship. I am sure there are many other hon. members who had
the same warm, personal feeling toward Mr. Houck and who had enjoyed something of the warmth of his friendship and his delightful personal attributes, including his ever-manifest kindness. All of us in that respect are conscious of our personal loss.
On behalf of the government, Mr. Speaker, I extend to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) our special condolences on the loss he has suffered, and I doubt not that I speak for all hon. members of this house, indeed for the Canadian people, in extending to the widow and daughter of our late and highly esteemed member our sincere sympathy in the crushing loss which has fallen upon them.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of our party and on my own behalf I would like to thank the Acting Prime Minister for what he has said, and to express to him our appreciation of the way he has said it.
Our hearts, Mr. Speaker, are heavy and sad on this bright and sunny spring day because we have all lost a very dear friend. As the Acting Prime Minister has said, Bill Houck was a man whose whole adult life was spent in public service to his city; and we in the house remember how he loved his city, Niagara Falls, and how impossible it was for him to make a speech in this house on any subject without bringing Niagara Falls into it. He devoted himself to his city, to his province and to his country; not the country of his birth, as the Acting Prime Minister has said, but the country of his choice. He included in this service-and he himself would put it very high in service-the promotion of friendship and good neighbourliness between his two countries.
Because of his service Bill Houck was greatly admired and respected, and because of himself he was greatly loved. Few men have had more friends, and no man has deserved them more. In political life he was a loyal and devoted member of his party. You could always count on him; but he was no narrow partisan, and his friendly feelings recognized no party line. That, of course, is the way it should be. His interests were as broad and deep as his friendships, and he was always anxious to help in any good cause. He will be greatly missed for a very long time, and will not be forgotten by those who had the great privilege of his friendship.

The late W. L. Houck
Mr. Speaker, I join the Acting Prime Minister in extending to Mrs. Houck, whose quiet and deep affection and loyal and unselfish support sustained him over so many years, and to his family our most heartfelt sympathy in their great loss.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those sad and difficult occasions which come far too frequently to the House of Commons. We have lost a member of this house who was truly beloved by all hon. members in all parts. This man was exceedingly kind in all his relations with members of his own party and with members of other parties in this house. His was a life of unselfish and devoted service to his country, service which ranged from the municipal level as mayor of Niagara Falls and a long and distinguished service in the Ontario legislature to distinguished service over a number of years in the Canadian House of Commons.
It was my privilege-and I feel the better for it, because of my experience-to be among the delegation from this house which went to Washington last year and which included Bill Houck among its members. During that occasion we came to know one another better. We saw him during all the discussions putting forward very sincerely, very conscientiously and very ably the Canadian point of view.
We extend to Mrs. Houck, to her daughter, and to the leader and members of the Liberal party our sincere sympathy. Canada today lost a very distinguished citizen.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I join our leaders in paying tribute to the memory of a deskmate, a good neighbour and a true friend.
Bill Houck gave many years of his life to public service and, as has been said, he served his area well. He served it with distinction and great ability as mayor of Niagara Falls, then as a member of the Ontario legislature and latterly as a member of this House of Commons. Because of his great interest in power development it was very natural that he should be appointed as minister to represent the hydro electric power commission in a former government of Ontario. Born in the United States and graduated from a university there, he was always very loyal to his adopted country and to bur institutions. He was possessed of those fine qualities which made him a friend to everyone.
We all deeply mourn his passing, and I join with all hon. members here in sending condolences to Mrs. Houck and her family.


Mr. J. M. Forgie (Renfrew North):: May I
be allowed to say a few words on this mournful occasion. I am sure it came as a shock
to everyone in this house to hear that Bill Houck had passed away early this morning. We came into the house together in 1953 and shared the same office until his recent illness.
Bill had no enemies; he was gracious, unselfish, kind, no matter whether it was in his private life or in his political life during which he gave commendable service on three levels as has been already stated. May I take this opportunity of expressing my deepest sympathy to Mrs. Houck and the family in this irreparable loss.


Mr. G. H. Douceti (Lanark):: I should like very much to associate myself with those hon. members who have expressed their very deep sympathy in the loss of the late member for Niagara Falls. I had the pleasure of being associated with him over many years in the Ontario legislature and again here in the House of Commons. I can only corroborate those words which were so well spoken by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) and others as to Mr. Houck's outstanding qualities of citizenship and the efforts he put forth while serving as minister without portfolio in the Ontario legislature to co-operate with each and every member of that body.


Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if at this time I did not rise on behalf of the people of my constituency to express my own personal regret and also the regret of my people at the passing of Bill Houck. Bill's riding was very close to mine. He was a very great personal friend of mine and also an active supporter of the interests of the Niagara peninsula. At this time on behalf of the people of Lincoln county I pay tribute to Mr. Houck and extend my sympathy and that of my constituents to his family and friends.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the older members of the house I wish to join with the other hon. members who have spoken and express my sincere sympathy not only to hon. members of the opposition party but to the rest of the House of Commons at the passing of Bill Houck. He came into the house a few years after I did. I have been his warm friend as he has been mine for many years. I am sure all hon. members of the house will miss him very much. At this time I should like to extend my sympathy to his wife and daughter.
(Translation):


Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, may I, on behalf of the members from the province of Quebec, join with all my colleagues who rose in expressing their regret at the passing of my friend Bill Houck. It was given to all of us, at one time or


another, to appreciate his many qualities and, above all, his kindliness. I wish to express the sadness felt by all members from Quebec in this bereavement.
(Text):



TABLING OF LETTERS RESPECTING VOLUNTARY LIMITATION OF JAPANESE EXPORTS TO CANADA

Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies of three letters which I have today received from the ambassador of Japan informing me of certain voluntary export limitations which the Japanese government has decided to impose on shipments to Canada of textile products and stainless steel flatware during the year 1960. The letters themselves are self-explanatory. I would ask the house to give consent to have these letters printed as an appendix to Hansard, if such is the wish of hon. members for their convenience.
If I may I should like to make a few brief explanatory comments explaining the significance of these arrangements, in view of the number of questions that have been put to me in the house from time to time recently by hon. members.
The first letter sets out in detail the arrangements for 1960 in respect of textile products. I can describe these arrangements under four headings. Items 6 to 11, covering cotton fabrics and various cotton products, have been subject to Japanese export restraint for several years now, and it will be observed that for these items the arrangements generally provide for a moderate and orderly increase for the year 1960 as compared with shipments in 1959. There are several exceptions to this, and these occur in the garment items which are particularly sensitive by virtue of the flooding situation which occurred during 1959 for similar items made of spun rayon.
The second category, items 1 to 4, consists of made-up goods of spun rayon which were first brought under export control during 1959. Hon. members will recall that in these items very large increases in Japanese shipments occurred during the year 1959, which created in fact a situation of flooding. For these items the 1960 quota levels are based on the shipments during 1958, and represent a significant decrease from the excessively high levels of 1959.
The third category includes items 5, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, for which controls on shipments to Canada are being introduced for the first time. For these products the quota levels are based on 1959 shipments, plus an orderly increase; with the exception of
5. 1960	3571
Limitation of Japanese Exports to Canada cotton sheets, in respect of which, because of the very large increase in 1959, there will be no change from the level of that year.
The fourth category consists of other secondary textile products on which the Japanese government maintains voluntary controls. Some of these are subject to individual quota control, while others are subject to a general licensing control. The Japanese government has not indicated precise quantitative limits on the shipments of these products to Canada, but it will be observed that in the letter we have been given an undertaking that 1960 shipments will provide for moderate and orderly expansion.
I should also point out that for several categories of garments the former quota groups have been divided into subquotas in order to avoid undue concentration on particular sensitive products.
I should like to say to the house on this occasion that I share the hope expressed by the ambassador of Japan that these controls should effectively preclude any further flooding in textiles, and that Japan in taking these self-restraining measures has helped to pave the way for the further expansion of twoway trade between Canada and Japan on an orderly basis to the mutual benefit of both countries.
May I turn now to make a brief comment on the second letter, which deals with stainless steel flatware. The increases in Japanese shipments of flatware which have occurred in the past few years have been unusually large. The Japanese government has now decided to establish a voluntary control for 1960 which is substantially below the 1959 level of shipments.
The third letter is entirely self-explanatory. It simply reiterates the concern of the Japanese government that a situation should not arise in which third countries are able to expand their sales to Canada by virtue of the fact that Japan has undertaken to limit her shipments of the products concerned.
Finally, I should like to say that consultations are continuing with representatives of the Japanese government concerning the need for export restraints on other products. These include hardwood plywood, rubber-soled canvas and waterproofed footwear, plastic rainwear and several other products.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister's announcement is a good one, dealing as it does with trade between Canada and Japan, in view of the fact that Japan is one of our largest and most important markets and becoming, we hope, larger and even more important.
3572	HOUSE OF
Limitation of Japanese Exports to Canada
In so far as steps have been taken or can be taken to protect our own producers against dumping or unfair competition, there can be no argument against those steps; but, Mr. Speaker, if the Japanese government, by actions which it terms voluntary but which are taken under pressure, adopts policies which create resentment in Japan as being unfair, then if counter action is taken in Japan we in this country would suffer a great deal more than the Japanese would suffer because of the nature of the trade.
We will study these letters. I want to make clear we are not objecting to any steps that can be taken to protect Canadian industries against unfair competition and dumping, but we have to be very careful in connection with action taken against one of our largest customers.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the documents that have been referred to by the Acting Prime Minister demonstrate at least one point, namely that inevitably there has to be a measure of planning in respect to international trade. I thank the minister for having sent over copies of these documents, but I do regret that I received them only about midway in his own statement. It would have been much more helpful, Mr. Speaker, if it had been possible to have these documents at least some time beforehand.
We in the C.C.F. think the government's policy in regard to international trade in general should be one of expanding trade. We think that in the days ahead there must be a tremendous expansion in Canadian trade and in world trade, and we feel that the future role of Canada lies in the direction of taking steps to remove trade barriers. However, we are mindful of some of the difficulties experienced by the industries affected by importations of certain goods. We have sympathy for the workers who are on the streets, who have been displaced. We feel that action which is taken against the dumping of goods into this country is something that is necessary.
We do feel, and feel very strongly, that even with a system of planned trade there is room both for a large increase in exports and for a substantial domestic industry with full employment, which we do not now enjoy.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the house whether it gives unanimous consent to the printing of the documents tabled by the Acting Prime Minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of documents referred to, see appendix.]

On the orders of the day:


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It arises out of the letters he tabled a moment ago in connection with the quota arrangements made between Canada and Japan. As the minister read the letters two questions came to my mind. The first was this. What happens if the quota is exceeded? I understand that under an earlier arrangement, which was far more flexible than this one, the quota with regard to certain of the goods, particularly textiles, was exceeded. Thus, the question I should like to put is, what happens between the two countries if the quotas mentioned in the letter are exceeded, having regard to the item concerning textiles?
The second question is, are the dumping duties superseded by these letters?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer to the first question is that if these quotas were to be exceeded the Canadian government would be entirely free at any time to invoke those provisions of the 1954 treaty of commerce between Canada and Japan under which the Canadian government possesses the right to apply special valuations for duty purposes on imports from Japan. The hon. member will recall the clause, which was written into the agreement by the former government.
I think the second question asked by the hon. gentleman may best be answered by drawing his attention to the final paragraph of the letter from the Japanese ambassador concerning the quantitative restrictions on exports of textiles to Canada. It reads:
In communicating this information to you, I assume that in respect of products listed in the annex to this letter, for which firm quantities are specified. Canada will not, during the year 1960, invoke the provisions of article XIX of the GATT or of the exchange of letters which accompanied the agreement of commerce of 1954 between Canada and Japan.
(Translation):



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, or, in his absence, to his parliamentary assistant.
Does the minister have any knowledge of a statement by Mr. Paul Toupin, director of the scholarships division of the Canada



1SE0

[Stage Direction]
Council, as reported in La Presse of May 4, with regard to commonwealth scholarships, indicating that Laval and Montreal universities will get no part of the million dollars or more to be granted by the Canadian government to 100 or 200 students?
In this statement Mr. Toupin vigorously protests against that injustice.
Can the minister say whether or not the assertion is true, and what action is being considered by the government to correct that situation at once?
(Text):
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs is participating today in a meeting with representatives of the provinces. Notice of the question put by the hon. member for Laurier reached me just before coming into the house.


Lionel Chevrier: I sent it early this morning.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I say that I am not aware on what information the statement to which the hon. member refers purports to be based, but I can assure him that in so far as the commonwealth scholarship program is concerned it is inaccurate to say that the universities of Laval and Montreal will not draw any scholarship holders who qualify for awards under this plan.
The plan provides for what are called inward and outward awards. Those offered by the government of Canada are inward, that is, for students from other commonwealth countries to come to Canada to pursue their studies. It is anticipated that in this category about 100 awards will be made this year and 200 in each of the subsequent years. I understand that from the applications already submitted for this type of award, through selection committees in other countries, a preliminary selection has already been made by the Canadian committee, and that it is quite probable that several of the successful candidates will pursue their studies at Laval, at the University of Montreal and also at the University of Ottawa.
In the case of inward awards, there are no payments made to Canadian universities except nominal amounts to cover actual administrative expenses. The scholar pays his own tuition fee from the amount of his grant.
With regard to outward scholarships, students from any university in Canada are eligible to apply, subject to the conditions agreed upon at the Oxford conference in the summer of 1959 and taking into account the 79951-0

Inquiries of the Ministry requirements of the governments of the countries offering the scholarships. These governments are responsible for deciding on the number of awards offered to Canadian students and for the payments to successful Canadian candidates. The final selection rests with those committees, but I am sure there is every reason to expect that candidates from the two universities mentioned by the hon. member are as likely to win awards as are candidates from other universities in Canada.



REPORTED STATEMENTS ON APARTHEID BY PRIME MINISTER AND SOUTH AFRICAN REPRESENTATIVE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition put to me this question, as reported at page 3537 of Hansard:
I should like to ask whether he can resolve the apparent contradiction between the statement attributed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in London that he had made clear yesterday to Mr. Louw, the South African 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.
Mr. Speaker, I was in telephone conversation with the Prime Minister last evening. He confirmed the newspaper reports that he had shortly after his arrival in London held a lengthy conference with Mr. Louw, at which he put before Mr. Louw very clearly and comprehensively the strong views entertained by the Canadian people and the Canadian government in reference to the policy of apartheid.
So far as the statement attributed to Mr. Louw in the press is concerned, I am informed that this press statement was drawn to the attention of Mr. Louw since it was raised in this house by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday afternoon. I am informed that Mr. Louw has stated that the statement attributed to him in the press was not correct, and that he simply said that it was not a matter for him to reveal what any other prime minister has said to him in conversation. I gather that the substance of what Mr. Louw had intended to convey in the statement he made to the press was that there had been no public discussion or any discussion at the formal meetings of the conference of prime ministers on the subject, but he did not intend to convey any suggestion that he had not been fully acquainted with or that he did not understand the views of Canada as a result of the talk with the Prime Minister of Canada.
3574	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON WINNING OF OHIO STATE AWARDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the socialist sector of the opposition I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the news item in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation won most of the radio honours, and nosed out the United States Columbia Broadcasting System in television prizes, in the 1960 Ohio state awards announced last night? Would the minister care to comment on the success of this Canadian publicly owned corporation in competition with United States free enterprise?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, my attention was not drawn to this. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with its usual modesty, had not mentioned these honours, and I was not aware of them until the hon. member sent me a copy of the newspaper. Hon. members who are interested will find the report on page 10 of this morning's Globe and Mail, and possibly in other newspapers as well.
This is, of course, in keeping with the record the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has established, not because it is a publicly owned organization, Mr. Speaker, but because it had attracted to it many people who have been associated with private business and because it is most efficiently run.
I think this can be said, without prolonging the matter, that the Ohio state awards are recognized as among the leading awards in North America. It is a great tribute to the corporation that it has succeeded in winning so many awards. I note that, according to one paragraph, of the 32 first awards and honourable mentions for cultural, public service and educational programming, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation won 18. The record is one of which we are all proud, and is in keeping with the record which has been established by this corporation on many occasions in the past.



ROYAL WEDDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister inform the house whether it is a fact that


the C.B.C. proposes to send not one but two jet planes to bring pictures of Princess Margaret's wedding back to Canada so they can be shown on the same day? If so, can he say approximately how much that will cost?


George Clyde Nowlan: I have no knowledge of that matter whatsoever, but I will inquire of the C.B.C.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister would care to make any comment on the report that Montreal was not chosen as the site of the world exposition in 1967, and whether the government has any alternative plans in mind for the centenary.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear clearly whether the hon. member is asking a question to the effect that "if" Montreal is not chosen, what would be the government's plan?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker, I was asking whether the Acting Prime Minister had any comments to make following a report that Montreal was not chosen as the site.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, no official report has been received as yet. I am aware of a radio report which may be the source of the hon. member's information, but that is all the information I have had on the subject to date. However, I do expect that in the course of the day there will be an official report from the government's representatives in Paris, and whenever it is received, if the house will permit me to revert to motions at that time, I shall be glad to give the information to the house.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a question of privilege, and it concerns a point which arose out of an answer made by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys yesterday, when I indicated in my question that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys had stated that a contract had been given to Autair Helicopters on the D.E.W. line.
I was mistaken. On looking over the statement made by the minister I find that I was

unfair to him. I have read it over carefully. What the minister did in fact refer to was that pilots of that company had experience on the D.E.W. line. I have information, of course, to the contrary; none the less, I think I was perhaps doing an injustice to the minister, and I want to apologize to him.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister explain to the house why Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not recognize the standards of the Canadian Standards Association and the Canadian Gas Association?


Mr. Speaker:: Did the hon. member give notice of his question?


Erhart Regier: Yes.


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I shall be glad to accept this as notice.


David James Walker: A few moments ago the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked the following question:
Can the minister explain to the house why Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not recognize the standards of the Canadian Standards Association and the Canadian Gas Association?
May I reply as follows. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation does recognize the standards of the Canadian Standards Association and the Canadian Gas Association. The corporation is represented on some 40 committees of the Canadian Standards Association.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct to the Acting Prime Minister a question notice of which was sent to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the minister care to comment on the report that the United States atomic energy commission has plans to set off four nuclear devices in the coastal area of Alaska? Has the Canadian government been informed of any such plan? Will Canada oppose such 79951-0-226i
Inquiries of the Ministry explosions prior to the conclusion of the proposed international agreement on nuclear testing?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Notice of this question given by the hon. member reached me just prior to coming into the house. I am going to suggest with respect to this question that the answer might wait until Monday's sitting. By that time the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) will have returned from Europe, and I think it more appropriate that the answer to this question come from him personally.



REPRESENTATIONS TO U.S. RESPECTING AGREEMENT WITH INDIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce concerning the surplus wheat agreement entered into by the United States and India yesterday. My question is this. Has the Canadian government, either through formal channels or informally, and either verbally or in writing, made any representations to the United States regarding this agreement?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Perhaps the hon. member's question might be answered by this summary of what has taken place.
In accordance with established procedures, both bilaterally with the United States and by the wheat utilization committee, we have been informed and consulted well in advance by the United States authorities regarding the P.L. 480 agreement with India which was concluded yesterday in Washington, D.C.
This agreement involves the supply of 3 million tons of U.S. wheat per year for four years to meet immediate consumption needs in India. In order to safeguard the commercial marketing interests of other wheat exporting countries, the Indian government has undertaken to purchase on commercial terms not less than 400,000 tons of wheat per year. This commercial quota is open to all wheat exporting countries, and is subject to review annually in the light of India's foreign exchange position. The agreement also provides for the supply of 1 million tons of U.S. wheat and 250,000 tons of U.S. rice per year for four years for a food reserve in India, details of which will be negotiated later in the light of the report of the wheat utilization committee mission to the Far East.
In view of the commercial quota of 400,000 tons, which represents a realistic assessment of what India's foreign exchange position will

Inquiries of the Ministry permit, and the fact that the arrangements for the supply of wheat and rice for the food reserve will take full account of the discussions at the next meeting of the wheat utilization committee, we feel that these provide ample safeguards for Canada's commercial interests. For these reasons we expressed no objection to the United States authorities in respect of this agreement, and indeed we extended our appreciation to them for giving us full and early opportunity for consultations.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether the Canadian government has given any consideration to similar credit sales by Canada? Does not the minister believe that credit sales of this magnitude would go a long way toward clearing up Canada's wheat surplus?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Credit sales of this magnitude certainly would go a long way toward clearing up Canada's surplus position in wheat, but we are hardly able to conduct our affairs on the same basis as the United States, because we have not the same financial resources. However, in the past we have extended wheat to India on a loan basis. That was done in the years 1957 and 1958, and we have made substantial gifts of wheat and flour to the Colombo plan countries. On the basis of those gifts, rupees have been set up in what are called counterpart funds, and that money is then used by the local governments for improvements within their country.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask a further supplementary question. Does the current deduction in Canada's credit sales or gifts of wheat to which the minister referred, as compared to 1957, indicate that Canada is abandoning what was a worth-while policy?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is drawing conclusions that are not warranted. Our policy continues. It was a bit unfortunate that Mr. Patil was unable through illness to be present here today. We intended to carry on negotiations with him concerning the needs of India for supplies of food.


George James McIlraith: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade qnd Commerce. In his statement he said that the 400,000 tons of wheat per year which India has undertaken to purchase through commercial channels represented a realistic appreciation of the exchange she had available. Is he able to tell us what it represents in relation to the purchase of wheat in the last year or two?
IMr. Churchill.]


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would have to get the information on that matter rather than rely of memory, and I will do that for the hon. member.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yesterday the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) asked whether it is a fact that Autair Helicopters Limited have sold their company to another organization.
I have been advised by the air transport board that an offer has been made by another company to purchase the assets of Autair Helicopters Limited, this purchase being subject to the approval of the air transport board.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David James Walker: On May 3 the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) asked this question:
Is the minister aware that in the income tax building in Montreal there is a large room for the parking of employees' cars, and that the department has now decided to charge the employees $10 rent for the parking of their cars?
The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes; this garage is for the use of crown owned vehicles and privately owned vehicles of employees, but no charge is being made for parking privileges in this space.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Does the minister intend to comment upon the reported statement by his parliamentary secretary that Canada's lending institutions have "abdicated their social responsibility"?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The statement to which the hon. member has made reference was made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) who is, I am very proud to say, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. It was made at a meeting in the riding of Carleton on May 2, earlier this week. It was not made

in the course of a prepared speech; it was a statement made in reply to questions which were put to the hon. member at a public meeting.
I do not know whether the hon. member is asking me if I have any association with the statement. The hon. member for Carleton of course is quite at liberty, in his capacity as member for that riding, to express his views on public questions. I may say that the views which were attributed to him and the report in the Citizen of May 3 concerning the answer given by the hon. member for Carleton are quite in line with views expressed in this house by other hon. members on Tuesday evening in the discussion of the supply motion.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have a supplementary question, and it is this. It is on the question of ministerial spill-over in terms of responsibility on the part of parliamentary secretaries. How does the minister conceive that responsibility?


Mr. Speaker:: I find it difficult to understand the hon. member's question. Unless he can make it clear I do not think I can allow it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Then may I put it in this way. I am asking the minister if this is a case where the member was speaking purely as a member of parliament for his constituency and not as a parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understood the first answer, it clearly dealt with the point the hon. member is now raising.


Mr. Garland:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Pickersgill:: I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. I would like to ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member for Nipissing has a supplementary question.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he agrees with the statement made by his parliamentary secretary.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Public Works dealt with this subject very clearly in his remarks on Tuesday evening in reply to various speeches that had been made in the house in the discussion of the supply motion. Views expressed were that the approved lending institutions under the National Housing Act are regarded as having some responsibility in relation to the housing problem. They have a certain status under the act; and the efforts of my colleague, as he reported to the house on Tuesday evening, have been
Inquiries of the Ministry directed toward urging these approved lending institutions to enlarge their participation* their investments, in mortgage loans under the National Housing Act.
I think it is a matter of gratification to all hon. members, and a matter for congratulation to my colleague the Minister of Public Works, that his efforts in that regard are being attended with such evident success.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, do I take the minister's reply to mean that he is in agreement with the statement made by his parliamentary secretary?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is entitled to draw any conclusion he thinks appropriate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance was this, Was this a preview of the Tory planned economy?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister would doubtless like to answer the question, but it seems to me it is an improper one. So far as I am aware the Minister of Finance has not as part of his public administrative responsibility the-whatever it was the hon. member asked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I quite agree with you, sir.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	,
Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General):: Inquiries of the Ministry
I have sent the hon. member several copies of the press releases which were issued in both languages, showing that they were issued simultaneously at 10 a.m. March 24, as well as copies of press reports from 37 French-language papers on this matter.
The hon. member was probably referring to an order form distributed on request to
11,000	stamp collectors across the world, including 800 forms in French. Translation was somewhat delayed, but distribution will be completed today.


Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: I have no question, Mr. Speaker; I merely wish to thank and congratulate the parliamentary secretary to the Postmaster General.
(Text):



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. In his absence perhaps I might direct it to the Acting Postmaster General.
In view of the fact that the first colony of the British empire was founded by John Guy 350 years ago in Cupids, Conception Bay, would the minister advise whether he has given consideration to commemorating same by a special postage stamp?


Edmund Leverett Morris: I will answer this question as parliamentary secretary. The hon. member for St. John's West and the hon. member for St. John's East have also asked me a similar question today. The answer is fhat the Postmaster General will give consideration to the issuance of such a commemorative stamp and I shall be glad to inform all three hon. members as soon as a decision is taken.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance if he will be good enough to advise the house under what authority, with regard to loans by the Bank of Canada to the unemployment insurance commission, it is provided in the order in council of January 19 that the loans be repaid from the proceeds of the sale of government of Canada direct and guaranteed bonds at the sole discretion of the Minister of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, in that mass of
verbiage I have not yet distinguished the question, and I would ask the hon. member to state it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would be very glad to assist the Minister of Finance who obviously, because of his prime ministerial obligations, has not been able to attend to his responsibilities as Minister of Finance. The order in council tabled yesterday provides that the loans be repaid from the proceeds-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I did not ask the hon. gentleman to read the whole order in council. I asked him to put his question briefly and to the point, in accordance with the rules.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance, who is acquiring a facility that is characteristic only of prime ministers, will perhaps allow me to put the question as I wish; that is, to ask him what is his authority for having in this order in council the following condition, that the loans be repaid from the proceeds of the sale of government of Canada direct and guaranteed bonds at the sole discretion of the Minister of Finance. Why does the Minister of Finance disregard the act? Why does he disregard the order of the investment committee?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put his question; he need not argue it now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The authority, Mr. Speaker, is an enactment of this parliament, namely, the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Will the minister indicate what section of the act provides that this kind of condition is to apply at the sole discretion of the Minister of Finance and not the investment committee?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not the act
here, but my recollection is that the section is No. 20 or thereabouts. In any event, it is the section to which I drew the attention of the hon. gentleman last year when he was bringing up this same subject, as he did' in such an irrelevant and discursive way on so many occasions.


Murdo William Martin: I suggest to the Minister of Finance-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a usual prefix for a supplementary question. I hope the hon. member is not going to attempt to resume a debate which was concluded yesterday.


Murdo William Martin: What I am resuming now is a matter which affects the rights-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Murdo William Martin: -the rights of all hon. members, arising out of the assumption by the Minister of Finance of an authority-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will ask his supplementary question.


Murdo William Martin: I was simply
dealing with your own intervention, Mr. Speaker. You asked me a question, and I was replying to it. Will the Minister of Finance tell this house upon what authority he has authorized an order in council to be passed saying that the loans are to be repaid at the sole discretion of the Minister of Finance? What section of the act gives him that authority? I say to him that there is no such authority.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If I may extract the question from the speech which has been delivered by the hon. gentleman, including all his errors in the interpretation of the statute law, may I say that when he asks me on what authority I permitted an order in council to be passed in this form it is necessary to point out to him that under a democratic government the Minister of Finance does not permit the cabinet to pass orders in council. The cabinet, in the exercise of the authority conferred upon it by this parliament under the Unemployment Insurance Act, makes orders in council as it sees fit in accordance with the act, on certain recommendations. In this case the order in council follows a recommendation, and follows it very properly. There are precedents for orders in council in this form, and I commend to the hon. gentleman a better understanding of the processes of true democratic government.


Murdo William Martin: Since this matter is so important I put another question to the Minister of Finance. Will the hon. gentleman indicate in precise language what authority exists in any statute of this parliament whereby such loans under such conditions are to be repaid, not at the instance of the investment committee or of the unemployment insurance commission, but solely at the discretion of the present Minister of Finance, on behalf of an all-powerful and omniscient government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry, but I have not a copy of the Unemployment Insurance Act here. If the hon. gentleman had given me notice of his question I should have been very pleased to bring a copy of
Inquiries of the Ministry the act with me. I do not profess to recall all the provisions of the act in precise terms from memory, but I can assure the hon. member that the act authorizes loans on terms and conditions, and the proper term and condition here was one calling for a repayment at the instance of the minister who, under the statute, and under the order in council promulgated under the terms of the statute, makes the loan. The loan is repayable under the statute to the Minister of Finance, who is the minister who makes the loan, in accordance with the authority I have described.


Murdo William Martin: Ridiculous.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What could be
more natural than that the order in council should make provision for repayment to the Minister of Finance under terms and conditions properly appointed for that purpose?


Murdo William Martin: Out of trust
funds?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman asks why provision is not made for repayment at the instance of the investment committee. How ludicrous. The investment committee, in this case, acts for the borrower. Once again the hon. gentleman has got it all mixed up.


Murdo William Martin: That is the way
the minister treats trust funds.


George Harris Hees: Stick to the pitchfork and give up the pen, Paul.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That should go in Hansard; it is worthy of a minister.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he expects to be in a position to announce to the house the federal program of assistance to Elliot Lake.


Gordon Minto Churchill: An announcement concerning such assistance as may be rendered to Elliot Lake by the federal government will be made tomorrow.



BELL ISLAND, NFLD.    VOCATIONAL TRAINING FOR UNEMPLOYED MINERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (Si. John's Easl):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister state whether the government

Inquiries of the Ministry has received any positive reply to the offer of the federal government, made in a letter from the Minister of Labour to the premier of Newfoundland in October of 1959, with regard to the establishment of a vocational training program for unemployed miners in Bell island, Newfoundland?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I know the deep and continuing interest which the hon. member for St. John's East has in this question, and I can only inform him that up to the present the matter is still being considered by the government of Newfoundland.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question. Would the minister prevail upon the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) to use his good offices and persuade the premier of Newfoundland to get this program going?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it is unnecessary to comment on that question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was rising to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Are persons who are unemployed and in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits permitted to receive such benefits while attending vocational training courses?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member telephoned my office and advised us of his intention to ask this question. The situation is simply this. Under schedule "M" of the vocational training agreement with the provinces, unemployed persons who are registered with the national employment service may be directed to approved training courses and may continue to receive the benefits to which they are entitled by their contributions while attending such courses. This is done in the case of persons for whom no immediate employment is available and who have good prospects of obtaining employment after following such courses.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. gentleman a supplementary question. Would that apply to the miners of Bell island?


Michael Starr: Under the terms of reference, I think so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asking the minister if it does apply to the miners of Bell island at the present time.


Michael Starr: If a training school is established on Bell island and the miners are directed by the local employment office to take these courses, and if their contributions are sufficient to permit them to draw benefits, then of course it would apply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister see that the hon. member for St. John's East is informed of the correct facts so he can pass them on to his constituents?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON REPORTED REMARKS OF PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Acting Prime Minister whether when the Prime Minister said in London that "this year we shall be able to welcome and absorb into employment many tens of thousands of immigrants to Canada" he was making a considered statement of government policy or whether this was merely another vision.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada always makes considered statements of a kind which I hope will be a model to hon. members, including the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Defence. In view of the statement made by the minister during the week on the investigation at Uplands, is the acting minister in a position to make a report?


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, a brief answer to the hon. member's question is that no legal suit has been taken against the commanding officer.
The problem of abandoned and derelict automobiles on service property is not a new one. In this case orders were promulgated in March and April that parking stickers would not be issued to cars not equipped with 1960 license plates. In early April a survey was made of the parking lots on the station, and a number of vehicles lacking 1960 license plates appeared to have been abandoned by their owners. On the 22nd April some 25 automobiles were removed, some to nearby service stations and others which were in very poor condition to the R.C.A.F. dump. While the dump is well posted, indicating that it is out of bounds to trespassers, unauthorized persons did gain entry and removed some parts of these vehicles. I understand the Ottawa city police are presently investigating.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 4, 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. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, before six o'clock yesterday I was talking not so much about party doctrine -because I should like to emphasize that unlike my hon. friends alongside, the party which I support is not hidebound by doctrine -but rather was attempting to point out some principles which guide the party which I support in relation to the subject of dominion-provincial relations.
I pointed out the fact that one of the real reasons why a workable agreement has been brought about between the federal government and the provinces in relation to the subject before us today is that our party, in an atmosphere of good will, has produced an acceptable method. I pointed out that one of the principles our party has always adhered to since its inception, and one of the ideas it has always strongly upheld, is a high regard for local self-agency. I feel this should be emphasized, because I am now talking about the party principles which have guided, perhaps, the two major parties in our country since confederation.
I feel, moreover, that in normal times the Liberal party has adopted centralist principles which do not lend themselves to solving problems of this type. I am sure that today the Liberal party finds itself on the horns of a Hamlet type "to be or not to be" dilemma, and is confronted with a situation in which the Leader of the Opposition is prone to say, "on the one hand" or "on the other hand".
I know I will be accused of asking the traditional question, "How are you going to vote?" But I do ask my Liberal friends how they are going to vote on the bill. On the one hand they must realize that if they vote against it they will be depriving the universities of the province of Quebec of the moneys that will be granted to them under this legislation, and they know they will be voting against a workable method which has been brought about after consultation between this government and the various governments of the provinces. They know this is the case.
On the other hand I asked myself the question, "How are they possibly going to support this bill after days and days of talking
Dominion-Provincial Relations against so many principles which are inherent in it?" I am sure these questions have occurred to the Leader of the Opposition and the supporters who sit behind him, and I repeat that they find themselves on the horns of their traditional Hamlet type "to be or not to be" dilemma.
I now want to go further down the chamber and discuss the attitude of the C.C.F. toward this legislation. I have always known that even after having deserted most of their nationalization policies this party supports a degree of centralization which does not lend itself well to enhancing a good atmosphere in relation to dominion-provincial relations. But now we have another spokesman for the C.C.F., who made in this chamber not long ago what I can only term as one of the most unfortunate speeches to which I have listened since, as a young man, I entered the field of politics.
I ask the Leader of the C.C.F. today this question. When the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) spoke on this bill in this House of Commons, was he speaking for his party; or was he possibly speaking for the new party that-I hear an interruption from behind the curtain which is highly unparliamentary. I ask this question; it has to be answered. Will the leader of the C.C.F. party say that when the hon. member for Port Arthur spoke on this bill he was speaking as the spokesman for his party or for the new party they think they formed recently?
I reiterate, sir, that I know the hon. member, as he so often does, made a speech, and he hopes that some of us will give him the attention he wants. I have actually spoken to my confreres on both sides of the house, and a lot of them feel the silent treatment for him is the best thing, but I propose to give him and his speech a little attention.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help wondering how a man who has seldom set foot in the province of Quebec can discuss any aspect of our affairs as though he was an old hand at it, as he has been doing in this house. I must point out that his speech was no help to national unity or to mutual understanding between the various provinces and the central government. As always the hon. member failed to convey the true feeling of the population in my province.
(Text):
Sir, I called his speech an unfortunate one. As I listened to the hon. member for Port Arthur speak on this bill, sir, I could not help but say to myself that true intellec-tualism is never paraded, but it is made of humbler stuff. I am asking a very simple question basically-maybe it is almost too

Dominion-Provincial Relations simple, but after listening to the hon. member for Port Arthur I cannot help but ask, has he ever read the British North America Act? Does he realize that under section 92 education is given to the provinces and that therefore it is a provincial responsibility?
But no, sir; with his chip on the shoulder of intellectualism he does not realize that life is more than an intellectual proposition. He spoke about things in my province which are deeply felt and deeply believed in. For a man who has very rarely visited Quebec he gave us quite a dissertation on a few of the things that were troubling him. When I was listening to him I could not help but wish that he would use this place more often as a debating chamber rather than a lecture hall, carrying the intellectual load of this house on his massive shoulders. At any rate, I can assure the hon. member for Port Arthur that the English-speaking minority of my province enjoy the fullest and most complete rights. I should like to state that speeches such as his completely misrepresent the spirit of Canadianism which is being fostered by the Prime Minister of this country.
Speeches of this sort do not help national unity as we see it on this side of the house; in fact they hurt it. Sometimes it is very hard to deal with speeches like this; but, sir, did you notice one thing during the speech of the hon. member for Port Arthur? There were subtle influences, sir, subtle innuendos. In his very bland, offhand way he said every member of this house had a bipartisan approach to that expression which we call national unity. He said every member in every party in this house had a bipartisan approach to national unity, and then what did he come up with? He came up with more innuendos in his speech. He went on to imply that my party had taken an entirely different attitude toward French-speaking Canadians and the province of Quebec. This is just another example of the divide and rule technique; and if you think the divide and rule boys alongside me in this house are bad, you should see them on the hustings. There they are much worse; it is just terrible.
In his speech in this house the hon. member for Port Arthur spoke about the speaker who had preceded him. He said he felt the speaker who preceded him on this bill put a narrow and selfish interpretation on the constitution. I ask the hon. member for Port Arthur to be more specific in his criticism of the speaker who preceded him. Perhaps the interpretation the other speaker put on the constitution just happened to be different from the interpretation of the hon. member for Port Arthur. But, sir, is that not the typical socialist attitude toward public opinion? They say, "You might not like the medicine; it

has not been popularly accepted, but by golly you are swallowing it anyway, whether you like it or not." That is the sort of disregard for public acceptance of principle that they have, sir.
Then the hon. member for Port Arthur talked about what he called the Churchill thesis. Let us be very clear about this, sir. I noticed that he did not go into this subject in very great detail, because he knew that details would show up his innuendoes for what they were. Let me tell the house that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) never implied that it would be desirable for the majority party in this house not to have a strong contingent from Quebec. That is the type of divide and rule-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Misquoted again.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member for Bon-avista-Twillingate has now joined the divide and rule brigade. I knew he supported divide and rule in regard to his own province, but now he is joining it on a coast to coast basis.
Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. The inference does not stand up very well when the facts are known, and I put them on the record now. The hon. member for Port Arthur made the following statement: "It really did not need its Quebec supporters." He was there referring to the Progressive Conservative party. Well, in all solemnity I can only say I do not share the views of the hon. member for Port Arthur on national unity, and I do not think very many hon. members in this house share them. An utterance such as this in his speech was not worthy of the hon. member. I know he will shrug it off with his usual-you know what I mean-smile. The fact is, he is on the record; he said it. How is he going to answer it?
This sort of bland intellectualism is fine, sir, but he is on the record. He then went on to suggest that spokesmen for the province of Quebec and the authorities in the province of Quebec have tried to veto things that were acceptable to the rest of Canada. Let us also keep that record straight, sir. Never have spokesmen from the province of Quebec, never have the authorities of Quebec, attempted to impose their views on other provinces in the Dominion of Canada.
He talked about the citizens of my province having a conceit, a superiority complex, about the spirit of Canadianism. How utterly ridiculous. In fact I am at a complete loss for words with which to reply to such a statement. Let me say this.


Mr. Winch:: That will be something, when you are at a loss for words.


William Heward Grafftey: I can only say that the citizens of my province support that spirit of

Canadianism which we have under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, a Canadianism which is not conceited and which does not reflect a superiority complex. I do not want to go into that remark any further, but I think-in fact, I am sure-that all hon. members recognize it just for what it is.
At page 2825 of Hansard the hon. member spoke very generally about the federal government and education. I have read his remarks 10, 11, 12 times and I cannot make head or tail of what he meant. It is not clear to me, and I am sure it is going to have to be much clearer. Certainly, if he is the spokesman for the C.C.F. party, that opinion will have to be much clearer before that party can come up with anything like an acceptable method in connection with dominion-provincial relations and the question we are discussing today.
Toward the end of his speech, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said, we are not Quebecers, we are Canadians.
I suppose this is what we might call good *"bull session" talk, but how ridiculous it sounded on the floor of this house. Now, sir, when I am talking about local pride and self-agency, I am talking about a principle in which the Conservative party believes. Can I not be a loyal citizen of my village of the eastern townships and of the province of Quebec, and at the same time be a good Canadian? I have met a lot of loyal members from the great province of Ontario. Is the hon. member for Port Arthur not proud of the fact he is from Ontario, just as some members are proud they are westerners and just as other members are proud they are maritimers? How ridiculous that statement is. Surely, the love and affection we have for our families and our immediate locale is a part, the seed as it were of our broader public affections. I can imagine the hon. member for Port Arthur going to New York, to the United Nations, and saying, I am not a Canadian. It seems to me that "the one world attitude" does not thus dictate.
He really rose to great heights in talking about the Canadian constitution and dominion-provincial relations in general. Then, you know what he did, Mr. Speaker, he quoted at length from Professor Lamontagne. I can only tell all hon. members that they need only look at the last election results in the constituency in which Professor Lamontagne ran to see the reception his views on the constitution were accorded in my province. In any event, the hon. member for Port Arthur held him up as an expert.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me state this: Today, the party which I have supported, the party which forms the government
Dominion-Provincial Relations of this country, is adhering to its time proven principles. The party of confederation realizes that we have a constitution, that the constitution is more than a piece of paper; by realizing that the provinces have their rights, the party which I support is ushering in a new era of dominion-provincial relations which will enhance that Canadianism on which a greater and more unified Canada will be built.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, as I am not an expert in constitutional law,
I had not intended to take part in this debate, but after listening to the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) I don't think anyone has to be much of a jurist to speak as he did.
His remarks were more in the nature of a tribute of appreciation to the provincial party responsible for his own election; they threw very little light on some points of the constitution.
University grants were established by the government at the request of the universities themselves and following the Massey commission report in 1950, because the universities were in financial difficulty. The St. Laurent government took action on the request at the time of the 1951-52 budget and at that time the house unanimously approved the measure.
In 1956 Mr. St. Laurent amended the act to provide that the funds would accumulate if some universities temporarily refused the grants.
That amendment, like the annual payments into the fund, was unanimously approved by the house. Thanks to the foresight of Mr. St. Laurent's administration, it is now possible for Quebec universities to recover those $25 million of which they have been deprived for the last eight years because of the malady which had been afflicting the leader of the Union Nationale, an autonomy obsession, as the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) said in Winnipeg.
Those university grants were not a mere whim on the part of the former Liberal government; for in the Massey report of 1950 we read the following:
The development of our country from every point of view is dependent upon our ensuring that through adequate training our ablest young people are equipped to carry out the tasks which they will be called upon to perform. Because of their financial circumstances, however, many of those potentially capable of playing an important role in the nation's development are unable, under present conditions, to get the necessary education. A national system of scholarships at all university
3584	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations levels is therefore necessary in our country, and it must be founded upon adequate federal aid for the education of our ablest young men and women.
That same quotation may be found in the 1958 brief on government assistance to education.
First among those who recognized the practical measures designed to implement the recommendations of the Massey commission was Mr. St. Laurent himself, one of the public men most likely to inspire popular confidence, because of his obvious sincerity, of his dislike for opportunists and his recognized competence in constitutional law. Thus were grants distributed through the Canadian Universities Foundation to all universities of Canada during the fiscal year 1951-52.
But, afterwards, the Quebec Union Na-tionale government denied the universities the right to accept those grants offered through the conference, alleging that they were unconstitutional.
For eight years, the Union Nationale government took no apparent step or failed to submit any proposal to solve the problem, if problem there was. It is only on October 16, 1959, that Mr. Sauve, on behalf of the Quebec government, opened discussions with the federal government in order to come to an agreement and to recover the aforesaid $25 million, which has led to the bill now under review.
By virtue of this bill, Ottawa assumes the right to determine the amount of income a province may take out of a provincial tax levied for provincial purposes. Moreover, the federal government assumes as a matter of course the right to recover from equalization payments, any surplus yielded by the new provincial tax in lieu of federal university grants. Finally, the federal Minister of Finance reserves the right to decide whether arrangements made between provincial authorities and universities are satisfactory.
While speaking of the grant system introduced during the financial year 1951-52, the Solicitor General stated, and this is from page 3288 of Hansard for April 26:
-any legislation which finds its place in only nine provinces out of ten and is not acceptable to the tenth province leaves a very grave doubt as to its constitutionality.
Therefore, what the Solicitor General and his Tory friends from Quebec described at one time as unconstitutional must have become a matter admitting of no categorical


answer because he himself admits that it is a doubtful one.
If that is the case, why did the Quebec government, the Union Nationale and the Solicitor General fail to refer the matter to the supreme court? That would have been the best way to show they really meant to give financial assistance to universities.
It would be certainly interesting to hear the Solicitor General's reply to that question.
Incidentally, as I am not a lawyer, mine is only a layman's knowledge of the matter-


An hon. Member:: We can see that.


Jean-Paul Racine: -and because of the Solicitor General's expressed doubt regarding the question of constitutionality, I would much rather approve the attitude of a man of recognized experience and ability, like the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent.
This legislation, designed to replace the former one, is a direct encroachment upon an exclusively provincial field by the federal government.
To use an expression preempted by the Union Nationale, I would say that, never since confederation, had a federal government had the audacity to invade in such direct fashion the administrative jurisdiction of a province.
Never has a federal government dictated to a province how it should spend its budget; yet such will be the result of this.
The federal government is telling the provinces to raise the income tax on corporations from 9 to 10 per cent and to spend the extra revenue on grants. However, if the yield of that tax exceeds $1.50 per capita, the said province is required under this act to hand over the balance to the federal government.
This Tory measure, I repeat, is direct interference in the administration of provincial affairs. And this is the kind of measure which has the approval of that so called autonomist, the Solicitor General, as evidenced by page 3287 of Hansard for April 26, 1960, where he said:
I am happy and proud, as a Conservative cabinet minister and as a member from Quebec, to be able to say we have contributed to this worthy cause by finding a solution to the problem of financial aid to universities.
That worthy cause referred to by the Solicitor General is an encroachment, a violation, and a backward step, to use the terms of Montreal's La Presse.
Refusing to betray the past of the Union Nationale, the Conservative members of the house prefer to betray the rights of the province.


Mr. Tremblay:: What are you saying?


Jean-Paul Racine: To them, whether here or in Quebec, the only thing that counts is power, even at the cost of depriving some of our young people of a university education, when parents earn too little to pay tuition fees that are too high for most families in the working [DOT]classes.
Just to prove my point, let me refer to a table prepared in 1956 by the National Federation of Canadian University Students, on the basis of information contained in reports submitted to the Tremblay commission by Laval University, Montreal university and the Federation des Colleges classiques de la province de Quebec.
The most striking feature, in my opinion, is that 41.2 per cent-therefore almost half- of those students come from the wealthiest social classes which, in the province, form only 10.4 per cent of the working population.
In other words, the children of 89.6 per cent of the population have available for them only a little more than half the university capacity.
During the present debate, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lafreni-[DOT]ere) mentioned, as reported on page 9 of the appendix to Hansard for April 26, that during the period when the provincial government would not accept federal grants, universities had been treated generously since they had been receiving grants from the provincial government. And he went on to say:
To the figures I then mentioned I now wish to add that, since 1945, the Quebec government has paid to universities in my province the substantial amount of $112,036,297.38.
I do not challenge those figures given by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency; he will however not deny, I hope, that those provincial discretionary grants were derived from the taxes paid to the province by Quebec taxpayers.
Nor will he deny that, since the fiscal year 1951-52, the Quebec citizen has been paying a double tax for this purpose, that paid to the provincial government for university grants, and the one paid to the federal government for grants to universities of all the provinces, except Quebec.
Nor can he deny that, if Quebec had cooperated and made constructive suggestions, the amounts spent by the provincial government to replace the federal grants would have been used, over the last eight years, as
5, 1960
Dominion-Provincial Relations a provincial scholarships fund, so as to assist the sons of 89.6 per cent of the Quebec population made up for the most part of workers and farmers, who now account for barely more than half the university registrations.
It is not unfair to assume that, had it not been for the negative attitude of the Union Nationale government, many farmers' and workers' sons could have entered university through an altogether different policy of the Quebec government.
And I am not alone in thinking that the Quebec government's policy was one of no compromise.
I refer now to Hansard for April 13, 1959, at page 2649, to quote a statement made by the Conservative member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) about grants to universities:
That is why if the Quebec government cares to offer a suggestion, to make an official proposal, an appropriate and constructive one, I am positive that this government will consider it with great care and that, eventually, a decent solution will be found in this field.
This is hardly what the Union Nationale government has been doing for eight years.
They preferred to stick to their policy of no compromise; to ride their hobbyhorse of autonomy, a rickety one at that, by the Solicitor General's own admission, as far as the Liberal formula is concerned. However, I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that while this horse paid off plenty at the pari mutuel, in other words was of great help in winning provincial elections, it has handicapped a whole generation of workers' and farmers' sons who could have been helped by the province to the extent of the grants paid by their parents to the central government.
The universities themselves would have been only too happy, in view of their great need, to accept the grants established by the St. Laurent government.
Let me refer to Le Devoir for March 28, 1959 and read a few lines under the heading:
Federal grants must be recovered for Quebec universities
The University of Montreal alumni association and the federation of the Quebec junior boards of trade have again noisily taken up the moot question of education. Both groups call for immediate and positive steps to recover the substantial federal grants that universities and other educational institutions are unable to collect at the very time when their financial plight causes the deepest concern.
But, as was to be expected, Mr. Duplessis cold shoulders such initiatives and is not shy about deploring what he terms university "megalomania".

Dominion-Provincial Relations Two general solutions are suggested: (a) Alumni of the University of Montreal are planning to set up a federation, grouping graduates of all universities in the province, which would become, in Quebec, the counterpart of the Canadian Universities Foundation and could undertake the management and equitable distribution of federal grants, (b) The federation of junior boards of trade proposes, in its brief submitted to Mr. Duplessis, the setting up of a provincial commission on universities and colleges, which would be responsible for the fair distribution of federal and provincial grants.
The suggestions made at the time by those organizations are substantially the same, we have to admit, as those proposed by the Hon. Jean Lesage and the provincial Liberal party. The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) stated yesterday that the Hon. Jean Lesage was a new Duplessis.
In making such a statement the hon. member does not know that the Hon. Mr. Lesage was a member of the Liberal government which instituted those university grants, thus recognizing the needs of those institutions.
Nor, assuredly, has he taken a good look at the provisions of this bill, which constitutes a direct encroachment on the administration of provincial affairs.
Mr. Duplessis was denying universities the right to receive the grants entrusted by the federal government to the Canadian Universities Foundation which, itself, was handing them over to the universities, without any strings attached.
This bill allows for the payment of these grants providing the Minister of Finance controls the province and the amounts paid to the universities, and those are the very conditions which are unacceptable and Mr. Lesage is absolutely right in refusing them, as he expresses the public opinion prevailing in the province.
Going back to the same item of he Devoir which I quoted a while ago, I note that the universities were not always free to state their acceptance of the federal grants.
It is our purpose to act as a buffer, said Mr. Langlois. We want the universities dissociated from the provincial government and we want somehow to express what the universities are not free to say.
Facts show, added Mr. Tellier, that university authorities in Quebec are not willing to speak and whenever they do the opinion uttered is contrary to that expressed off the record.
Mr. Simon Langlois, whom I just quoted, was the second vice president of the Montreal university alumni association, and promotor of the plan is Mr. Claude Tellier.

Some Tory members from Quebec set themselves up as the true defenders of provincial autonomy, under the delusion that the Conservative government is the sole guardian of provincial autonomy.
That is why Mr. Andre Laurendeau wrote in he Devoir for September 9:
First of all, the Diefenbaker government, far from reversing its predecessors' policy, is giving it increased momentum: Canadian universities will receive an additional million from Ottawa ... The first startling fact is the attitude of the central government. During the elections, the Quebec partisans of Mr. Diefenbaker described him as a fierce autonomist. Well, what is he doing in the vital field of education? Precisely what Mr. St. Laurent had done after the Massey report. Consequently, the Quebec Conservatives voted in favour of legislation which had been partly promoted by the Rev. Father George H. Levesque, o.p., a former colleague of Mr. Massey's. What a strange turn of events-
The present legislation proves that the Conservatives want to encroach upon provincial administration, and it is revolting to see all Quebec Conservative members of the Duplessis school now oppose what they have preached in the past. They will vote for a formula of interference in the provincial field, whereas the one they criticized, though doubtful according to the Solicitor General seemed to us Liberals to have no strings attached and to involve no encroachment upon the academic field, since the federal government was making those grants through the Canadian Universities Foundation.
Conservative members from Quebec tried, as they are doing now, to praise the provincial government's action with regard to our people. Now, if we refer to a report by Mr. Paul Doyon published in October 1958, in he Devoir, we find that while those grants were being rejected for doubtful reasons, we were lagging behind the other provinces.
Further on, the article says that the University of Montreal received 36 per cent of its budget from the provincial government.
We can therefore see that the effort made by the Quebec government failed to equal the assistance received by universities in other provinces, because according to the same report, while, for instance, the University of Montreal was receiving 36 per cent of its budget in grants, universities in Ontario were getting 42.27 per cent, when federal assistance was added to provincial grants.
The people of Quebec will certainly realize that the position taken by the Union Nationale and by Ottawa Conservatives

always had and still has no other purpose than to make political capital at the expense of common sense.
So as to define exactly the Conservative position when they profess a genuine wish for autonomy, I should like to quote a few paragraphs from the writings of a public relations man for the Union Nationale and the Conservative party.
That man, a teller of tales about Quebec, said this when dealing with the Quebec Conservatives in a Montreal weekly dated April 30, 1960.
Never in our parliamentary history has the province of Quebec been so little defended by its federal members.
Never was such a weak delegation sent to Ottawa. It will be remembered that, even at the time of Bennett, the Quebec section of the Conservative party was pathetic. And little wonder, for what Quebec member of parliament, whether a minister, a parliamentary assistant or a private member, can boast of having achieved anything worth while?
About the cabinet ministers' lack of influence the item adds:
No, wonder, then, that French-Canadian members have no influence on the government. Prime Minister Diefenbaker has a solid background as a centralizer and an imperialist.
Concerning provincial autonomy the author has this to say:
As for the vital question of provincial autonomy, the Conservative government did not remedy any of the encroachments made by the Liberal government.
Of course, as a publicist for the Union Nationale, the writer is tearing into the Liberal party.
Yet in closing, he refers to the record of the Conservatives in Ottawa, and tells them they will not last out their five years.
The Conservatives are now adoring what they had been denouncing for ten years, and they are prepared to accept this unconstitutional formula and to support it with explanations that are rather lame, to say the least.
You, present Conservative members from Quebec, you, supporters of the Union Nationale, you are being inconsistent; you are bartering the rights of the province for a mess of potage.


Mr. Noel Drouin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy and proud, as a member from the province of Quebec, to take the floor in this house in wholehearted support of this bill. The problem of federal assistance to Quebec universities is one which, for several years, has been causing concern among our French-speaking fellow citizens.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
It is a problem which is now hard to solve. However, during the last federal election, the Conservative party had promised the people of Quebec to solve it. We made that promise and we have fulfilled it. It was a nasty problem, and the solution was not an easy one, but, thanks to the good will of the Quebec provincial government and of the federal government, a happy formula was found. The formula which the then government had proposed was unacceptable. Constituting as it did a direct encroachment upon the most sacred rights of the province of Quebec, it was rejected by the government of that province, by the universities, and by the people themselves. It was legislation that could only harm national unity and jeopardize the friendship which exists between the two great races.
I have no hesitation in saying that while the then government had realized the serious problem which our teachers had to face, the former government thought it could settle everything without taking into account Canadian historical and political realities, that is to say, respect for the rights of both sides. It even tried to make us believe that the province of Quebec was a province like the others. Mr. Speaker, I do say and believe on the basis of history and of the rights which were granted to us, that the province of Quebec is not a province like the others, and this belief goes back to the treaty of Paris, which was an inspiration for the fathers of confederation.
While the tide of battle had made us losers on the Plains of Abraham, we got more honourable terms under the treaty of Paris, whereby France yielded Canada to Great Britain, which, in return, swore on the honour of the imperial crown to respect the traditions, religion and language of Frenchspeaking Canadians in Canada.
Unfortunately, this promising treaty did not bring peace to the country. For close to a hundred years, Canada was in a turmoil, and rights were violated on both sides; it was practically impossible to organize education in a reasonably satisfactory way, or promote prosperity in the country.
Need I again recall in this house that, in 1867, men of good will and of great ability, energy and vision, namely Sir John A. Macdonald and Cartier, gave to the Canadian nation that sacred document, the constitution, under which the powers were divided between the central government and the governments of the provinces, the latter being allowed to

Dominion-Provincial Relations elect a government responsible for shaping its internal policies on the basis of the language, customs and traditions of its people.
That is why its terms are clear and in the constitution can be interpreted in only one way when it deals with education. It is clearly said that this field exclusively belongs to the provinces. If this document brought peace in 1867 and allowed two great races to live side by side, why would it be necessary to amend it in 1960, at the very moment when Canada is showing the whole world an example of harmonious and prosperous coexistence.
No one will venture to deny that the British North America Act is a modus vivendi between French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians. The government at the time, in drafting its formula, had looked the other way to avoid seeing the vivid historical realities of the province of Quebec, with the result that, while the English provinces could receive moneys collected by Ottawa to assist universities, the population of Quebec was taxed like the others but its universities were forced to refuse the gifts from the central power.
There was amazement, outside the province of Quebec, at the fact that year after year the leaders of that province were turning down the gifts proferred by the central power. Our opponents even said that we were backward, bunglers and anti-Canadian. I am even prepared to believe that they are responsible for the ungracious remarks made about us by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), when he said that, when he comes into the province of Quebec, he encounters only a feeling of hostility. I invite him to come over and see me, and I will give him a taste of French hospitality on the very soil where the finest pages of the glorious history of Canada were written and lived.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is the first leader of a Canadian government to recognize that the French language and its related culture are a part of the basic freedoms whose survival it is important to guarantee.
We, from the province of Quebec, realize that people in the other provinces are satisfied with the system which has been in effect so far, but we are offering a compromise which enables a province such as Quebec to grant its universities the advantages it has been forced to deny to them because of its respect for autonomy and constitution. Indeed this
IMr. Drouin.]
formula was not easy to find; it was the subject of much controversy. It is not perfect yet, but thanks to the genius of the Minister of Finance and to the clear-mindedness of the premiers of the province of Quebec- and I want to pay at this time a tribute to Messrs. Duplessis, Sauve and Barrette-this solution has become practicable by way of an increase of the provincial tax on business concerns, which can be deducted from the federal tax, a formula which Mr. Lesage always opposed and fought when he was a minister in the Liberal government.
I have no hesitation in saying that this bill is the best way to solve the problem which brought about a crisis for which the Liberals are largely responsible. That formula enables the province of Quebec to regain its place among the other provinces within the confederation. It enables Quebec universities to prosper in the same way as all the others in Canada. The formula remedies a defect, whatever might be said by Mr. Lesage- who has suddendly become the fiercest autonomist, though it is known that the same gentleman suggested that things be left to the Canadian Universities Foundation which should arbitrate each case.
Mr. Lesage is now burning what he worshipped yesterday, though he had actively participated in creating the precedent which is at the very source of the difficulties we are trying to solve. Mr. Lesage seems to have a singularly short memory. He was a cabinet member in the Liberal government when chapter 29, 4-5 Elizabeth II was passed in 1956. Let him carefully go over the provisions of that act and he will see what vast powers are vested in the Minister of Finance.
What strikes me in this bill is that the minister will no longer have his say on the structure of institutions of higher learning, nor on the requirements for entitlement to grants. It will no longer rest with him to define the terms, as was decided by Mr. Lesage and his friends in 1952.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that those things needed to be told in this house so that the province of Quebec might be considered as it should be.
As for the bill under discussion, I might say, in short, that the present government has agreed to withdraw from a taxation field so that the provincial government may itself collect the moneys to be paid to universities. May I add that universities are the very

basis of a nation's development and that they should be allowed to grow in accordance with their healthiest and jealously guarded traditions.
Such, Mr. Speaker, was the honourable action of this government, and I am certain that Canadians will feel proud because everyone will progress towards his noblest aims.
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: This bill to which we are now giving second reading does two things, and in doing them embodies two principles; and we are dealing, on second reading, with principles. In the first place, it seeks to continue for two more years the modification of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act by which an extra 3 per cent of the federal personal income tax is either paid to or abated in a province under legislation initiated by a Liberal government and passed in this parliament in 1956. That is, it increases the amount of personal income tax available to the provinces under Liberal legislation and increases correspondingly equalization payments.
We on this side are proud of the fact that through this equalization payments principle we have made this law, passed in 1956, a main buttress of the financial strength and the financial autonomy of all the provinces of Canada. Indeed, in all but the richest provinces it is indispensable for that purpose.
Through the equalization principle embodied in this legislation we have made it possible for all the provinces in Canada to provide on a roughly equal basis the essential services which, under the constitution, the provinces alone can provide and which must be provided if there is to be national unity under a federal system.
Naturally we do not intend to oppose or even appear to oppose this principle in legislation designed to continue and, to some small degree, to ameliorate the tax-sharing and equalization principle which was established, despite Conservative opposition, by parliament in 1956.
We have noticed with considerable interest and, indeed, with some satisfaction, that the Conservative premier of Manitoba in his recent budget speech stressed the vital importance to his province of the maintenance of this principle of equalization. We agree with it. We on this side of the house will oppose any weakening of that principle. We will oppose it in this house and outside the house. For that reason we have noted with some concern the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) on April 26 in this debate which is recorded on page 3278 of Hansard. In that statement the minister took some credit for, indeed he
Dominion-Provincial Relations boasted that the government has honoured the legislation introduced by a government representing this party in the House of Commons, the legislation re tax-sharing-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, the agreements entered into under it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Very well, the agreements entered into under the legislation. By implication the minister is taking credit because the government has not repudiated the legislation which made those agreements possible. That is quite a change from the position taken in 1957 during the election campaign when one of the first things government members said they were going to do, we were told, was to replace this kind of legislation with a new deal in federal-provincial taxation arrangements.
Having failed to carry out that promise the minister now makes a virtue out of honouring the agreements contracted under that legislation, this is, to say the least, a somewhat illogical position.
Our concern arises, however, over the minister's suggestion in the statement to which I have referred that some different kind of arrangement might come into effect after March 31, 1962 as a result of the deliberations of the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference. I want to make it absolutely clear that as far as the Liberal opposition is concerned, we do not believe that there is any adequate substitute for equalization and we do not believe there should be any weakening whatever of that principle. That does not mean, however, that the present arrangements could not be modified in details or that if we were in office we would not propose certain modifications based on experience without interfering with the principle involved, the principle of equalization.
Hon. members opposite when they were in opposition advocated a system of allocation of tax fields as opposed to the principle of equalization as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will well remember when he served in this house under the Hon. George Drew. We do not believe that any system of allocation of tax fields alone will provide sufficient revenues to the less wealthy provinces or those provinces with a smaller tax base which will enable them adequately to discharge the functions given to them under our constitution.
We, the Liberals, continue to believe that if the provinces are to have meaningful autonomy-autonomy that really means what it should mean-they must be assured of sufficient revenues to provide approximately equal services to Canadian citizens right across our country. We feel, therefore, that the Minister of Finance in closing this debate

Dominion-Provincial Relations should tell the house whether the government still advocates substituting for tax-sharing and equalization the kind of allocation of tax fields which he and hon. members of his party talked about when they were in opposition or whether they consider themselves bound by the assurance given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the province of Manitoba during the election campaign of 1957 that a Conservative government would maintain the principle of equalization in federal-provincial fiscal relations.
This is a perfectly clear and straightforward issue on which the people of this country and their representatives here in parliament are entitled to know the position of the government. If there is any doubt whether this government intends to maintain the principle of full equalization, that doubt should now be removed. Meanwhile, the present bill if it is passed will assure the continuance of the Liberal policy of tax-sharing and equalization as already modified since 1958, from year to year, by the present government. It will continue it for a further two years. Because we believe it is in the national interest to do this and because indeed we are the initiators of this principle in legislation, naturally we intend to support the second reading of a bill which embodies this principle. How could we do otherwise?
But there is another principle in this bill and it deals with federal grants to universities. The principle here is simply whether the federal government should help in this regard. The principle is not the formula or the method of doing it though, of course, that might make the application of the principle either impracticable or undesirable, or both. This principle of federal aid to universities was, of course, laid down by legislation introduced in this house by a Liberal government in 1951 and, as has already been pointed out more than once in this debate, passed unanimously. We still, of course, strongly believe in this principle just as we are more convinced than ever, even more than we were in 1951, that higher education in this country needs federal aid which should be available to every university in every province. The need is now demonstrably greater than it has ever been and so here again we will support the principle of the bill although we do object to certain provisions, as my friend the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and other hon. members on this side have made clear, and as we shall again make perfectly clear in committee. To take any other stand on second reading which deals with principle would be contradicting our whole previous position as indeed some of my hon. friends opposite will be doing to theirs if they support the bill.

This bill seeks to place university grants which have been paid up until now by virtue of the annual Appropriation Acts-and it is well to remember and emphasize this as has already been done in this debate-under statutory authority. It will enshrine them in legislation which will continue for two years under an amendment to the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act while seeking to provide a statutory authority for the university grants instituted by the government of Mr. St. Laurent. We must not forget that. Whatever happens to the alternative, this particular formula remains now in the legislation.
But the bill also seeks to provide an alternative method of making federal financial assistance available to the universities within any province in which the provincial government desires to adopt it and makes the necessary arrangements for that purpose, with the federal government.
We should recall, as I have already done, Mr. Speaker, that grants to universities under the existing formula were approved by all members of the house in 1951 and not a single member of the house, including a single member of the opposition at that time, opposed that bill.


Mr. Balcer:: There was no vote.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not a single member of the opposition opposed the bill. It was open to any member of the opposition who objected to the bill to get up and vote, and not a single member did that, not even the present Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer).


Lionel Chevrier: He did not say a word.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When a bill of this kind passes through the house without a vote it passes through the house unanimously. Any member opposing the bill can get up and oppose it and call for a vote. At that time in the debate no question of constitutionality was raised by my hon. friends opposite, including the Solicitor General. At that time this particular formula was accepted in the house. It was approved by all the provinces, including Quebec, and it was approved by all universities that were to benefit from it, most of whom have already benefited from it and before long perhaps they will all benefit from this formula because of the amounts that have accumulated under it.
Only later was there a change of heart in Quebec; only later, in 1957, was that change reflected in this house in a shadowy kind of way by the present Solicitor General but by no one else on the treasury benches. Even during this particular debate, in so far as we can gather from what has been said and

what has not been said, no member of the treasury benches except the Solicitor General challenges the constitutionality of our formula. The Solicitor General admits this. Nevertheless, in spite of what has been said by some of his colleagues and what they have not said, he thinks-and he has, of course, the right to think, and some of the Conservatives from Quebec in this house also think-that this provision, which has been in existence now for some years, is against the constitution. It is against the constitution, even though they will vote for it, presumably, when this bill comes up for a vote.


Léon Balcer: It applies to all provinces; yours applied to only nine.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, indeed, it applies to all provinces but, according to the Solicitor General, it is only unconstitutional in its application to Quebec. It is quite valid and constitutional so far as the rest of Canada is concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: That is a new doctrine.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Therefore, the Solicitor General will vote for it under this new, this amazing, this really revolutionary doctrine of the divisibility of the constitution.


Léon Balcer: May I ask a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Léon Balcer: Does the Leader of the Opposition call legislation that is absolutely unacceptable to one province good legislation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will come to that later. Of course, we want legislation to apply and to be acceptable to all provinces.


Léon Balcer: So do I.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not dealing with that; I am dealing with the Solicitor General's point that this provision is now unconstitutional but the rest of the legislation, including the formula which his government is introducing, is constitutional, also that the part that he considers unconstitutional in its application to Quebec is perfectly valid in its application to the rest of the country. What kind of constitutional doctrine is that? I call it the divisibility of the constitution and it is something new in constitutional law. If we take that doctrine seriously, then indeed this country would be in danger of tragic disunity, almost of Balkanization; where we could have a constitution divisible in this way in order to make parts of legislation acceptable to one part of Canada which are not acceptable to other parts of Canada and put them all in the same bill. Surely no one wants that kind of disunity, that kind of Balkanization, as I have called it. I am
Dominion-Provincial Relations sure no one in this house wants that but this disunifying idea-and that is certainly what it is-we can oppose and we can oppose it strongly without coming into conflict with another essential view which we hold that there must be full and unreserved recognition of every provincial right under the constitution.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is contrary to what you have been preaching all the time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend may reserve his speech for a subsequent occasion unless he has an intelligent question to ask me which I will do my best to answer.
This is not inconsistent with the complete, absolute recognition of provincial autonomy within our federal system or, if you like, with diversity in unity, and the necessity for it in our federal system.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You want to deprive Quebec of $25 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Down, Fido.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Peewee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps that intervention will save me from making any other kind of reply to the interjections I am getting.
I go on to say-and this is a serious matter; perhaps my hon. friend will treat it seriously although that may be difficult indeed-that on no other basis can our federalism, our unity and our nation survive. We on this side have been saying this for years; not only saying it for years but acting on it for years.
So far as I am concerned, since I have been the leader of this party-and I have before me statements from speeches which I have made on this subject not only in Quebec but in all parts of Canada-I have insisted that only on that doctrine can our nation survive as a united nation.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You have been preaching another doctrine in the other provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: We cannot have a debate within a debate here. We must respect the rights of the hon. member who has the floor.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is going to be awfully difficult for my hon. friend, who is so sensitive about this subject, to keep quiet but I hope he will do his best under your admonition.
Under that doctrine there must be no interference, direct or indirect, explicit or implied, with the rights of the provinces, especially in the field of education. I will go further, as indeed I have already gone further outside the house and I have statements here which will verify that. While the rights of all provinces must remain unimpaired, I think it must be

Dominion-Provincial Relations admitted by every fair-minded Canadian- and most Canadians are fair-minded-that the province of Quebec has a legitimate and special preoccupation with, and perhaps a special responsibility for the preservation and the strengthening of those rights.
After all, she is the guardian of a culture, of traditions and of a language which are not that of the majority but which should be considered as part of our national heritage by every Canadian, whatever his race, his religion or his language, in whatever province he may live. We will never have complete national unity in Canada until all Canadians accept this position, not as a regrettable necessity but as a positive and unique asset in our national development.
Quebec, therefore, has, and must have in the nature of things, a specialized and recognized concern with education. Nor can it be a source of anything but regret in this house and outside this house when a division occurs between any federal government and any government in Quebec over the validity and acceptability of any step taken or any proposal made by the central government to assist, without any strings attached, the provincial government in the discharge of its responsibilities in the field of higher education. When there is such a difference or such a division, and when it is removed by agreement, all Canadians should be able to rejoice in that removal. But, Mr. Speaker, this means, indeed it must mean that the agreement is a sound and wise one and does not bear within itself the seeds of future trouble and future division.
For that purpose, any formula or any agreement designed to remove any differences and bring about an arrangement must first be applicable in its terms to all provinces so that there will be no unfair discrimination, indeed no discrimination of any kind. Second, it means the arrangement must ensure that it will be used for the purposes intended, and that it is satisfactory for these purposes to the universities as well as to the governments concerned. Third, it must be of undoubted constitutional propriety.
It is on this last ground that we on this side have grave doubts, grave concern, about the alternative formula proposed in this bill. Indeed, we find it very difficult to understand how those who refuse to accept the present arrangement in regard to aid to universities, which, it must not be forgotten remains in the bill, can accept without question or without any misgivings the constitutional propriety of this new formula. I ask, Mr. Speaker, would those who objected in earlier years, and objected so bitterly, to the arrangement we put forward, would they


in those years have considered this to be a satisfactory alternative arrangement? To ask the question is to answer it.


William Heward Grafftey: I answered it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend has answered a lot of questions in the house these days. I only regret I was not here to hear his answer on this very important problem. Indeed, he has become, in very short order, the conscience of the house.
The two principles in this bill which I have ventured to mention we strongly support now as we have over the years. As we are now voting on these principles, naturally we will vote for the bill on second reading. When we discuss this bill in committee we will do our best to have the offending section implementing one of these principles removed, and to have it replaced with something better, of permanent and accepted value, something which will not only help to meet the urgent and increasing needs of higher education, which we all admit, but do it in a way which will unite rather than divide us.
(Translation):


Mr. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory notes of Bill C-56 provide for alternative arrangements for the payment of grants either by Canada through the Canadian Universities Foundation, or directly by a province to institutions of higher learning, which grants are now paid under the Appropriation Act.
We know that the spirit of the 1953 act, passed by the Liberals, which defined the terms "university", "student", "university graduate", "university level", had not met with the approval of the universities, which since 1952 have been refusing any direct grants, because they rightly claimed that such a formula was a direct encroachment by the federal government on our system of education.
Mr. Speaker, the attitude of university leaders on this question was logical, unequivocal, clear and precise. But the Liberal government, disregarding their attitude, kept on claiming that university grants were constitutional, and by that very fact, kept on imposing upon the province of Quebec a system of grants which was repudiated not only by the government of the province of Quebec but also by the whole population, and on several occasions.
Since 1952, the Liberal government had been applying to Quebec universities the principle of "believe or die", by letting very

substantial amounts of money accumulate in the fund of the Canadian Universities Foundation, hoping thereby that some day our universities, being discouraged, would weaken to the point where we would make them accept that centralizing formula.
To be sure, the financial plight of our universities has been such that at one time the matter became a problem of cultural survival on a national scale. Our universities lacked the financial means of paying their professors the same rates of salaries as did universities in other provinces. That is why, for some years we were in the sad position where professors were leaving our Quebec universities to work in other more lucrative fields.
That situation, of course, could not go on indefinitely. In the last election campaign, Conservative members from the province of Quebec had promised the population that they would, with the co-operation of cabinet ministers, seek a more acceptable formula for our universities, one taking into account all cultural and racial factors of the problem, so as to prevent, on the national level, a discrimination which had lasted long enough. The sustained efforts and initiatives of Quebec premiers, implemented by their positive representations, and supported by the understanding of the present cabinet, finally produced results which for the moment are satisfactory and which, I repeat, were accepted by the population of the province of Quebec as a whole. Bill C-56 certainly contains certain imperfections; yet it is, to my mind, a constitutional recognition of the fact that education is an exclusively provincial field under section 93 of the British North America Act.
As we all know, the Quebec provincial government during the last session, passed some legislation to assist our universities, either by increased grants, or by underwriting loans to our universities by means of a consolidated fund, so as to further their development.
I think we should immediately establish a marked distinction by saying that the legislation now before us is not supplementary to other acts passed by the provinces with regard to education. Those are completely different provisions which are not mutually subordinate and they apply in altogether different fields.
In his speech of April 26, 1960, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier)
Dominion-Provincial Relations made much of the terms which were allegedly being imposed upon any province wishing to benefit under this legislation. Mr. Speaker, it requires a somewhat fertile and perhaps slightly deranged imagination to see in Bill C-56 facts that do not really exist. We should remember that this is fiscal legislation and that there is no question of a divided jurisdiction.
Now, where does it say in the act that, in order to exercise its jurisdiction on university education, a province must comply with any terms stipulated by this legislation? Clause 9A does not mention any. On the contrary, that section eliminates all terms imposed by the unamended part of the act or by various acts or procedures authorizing the Minister of Finance to decide who will receive grants awarded under the 1951 or 1954 formula. Nobody will find in clause 9A a single word which could lead to believe that the government of Quebec must obtain authorization from Ottawa to proceed with the direct financing of its universities.
On the contrary, we find that there is parallel action on the part of those governments. The first one, i.e. the government of Quebec, passes certain legislation guaranteeing exclusive action on its part with regard to the financing of education at the university level. Whether Bill C-56 is passed or not, it will in no way modify existing conditions in Quebec under the new provincial laws.
The object of this bill does not directly affect university financing. It merely concerns the deduction of certain taxes paid by Quebec corporations to the Quebec government and which are earmarked for university grants according to the province's own free choice.
The yield of the new tax, of which every Quebec corporation is exempt, is in no way limited by this legislation. Indeed, my colleague, the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Dorion), proved it the other day by indicating that Quebec universities will receive $1.75 per capita whereas the 1951 formula, amended in 1958, only provided for $1.50 per capita. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the present legislation authorizes a province to give more than $1.50 to its universities, if the province so desires.
All Bill C-56 does is to recognize given facts determined exclusively by the province. Instead of perpetuating a confusion which was created by the Liberals in 1951,
3594	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations this government is offering every province the possibility of financing its university education directly by assigning to this purpose an additional 1 per cent of the corporation tax. It can therefore be said that this legislation offers a possibility of flexible administration which could not be found in the rigid provisions of the 1951 act which forced the provinces to accept federal grants or to deprive their institutions of higher learning of such grants. As I said, the theory of "believe or die" was contained in the 1951 formula which imposed those terms, whereas the one provided under clause 9A eliminates them and replaces them by an option.
However, we must admit that the federal government, under the statutes, cannot give grants to universities nor allow any deduction higher than the amount provided under those statutes. This is no longer a matter of education but of taxation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what, exactly, is provided in the fiscal arrangements act? Any provincial income tax, or corporation or succession duties tax, will be subject to an exemption of so much per cent, according to the tax in question.
Bill C-56 exempts Quebec corporations of the whole additional 1 per cent which they will have to pay under freely imposed provincial legislation. It could just as easily have exempted that provincial tax up to the extent of $1.50 per capita only, or about 0.8 per cent.
In adjusting its equalization payments, either upwards or downwards, according to what the province will get, Bill C-56 follows exactly the same principle under which, in its other sections, it exempts provincial tax in a given proportion.
Unless the tax-sharing arrangements act is considered as absolutely unconstitutional, we must admit that the federal government has just as much right to adjust its equalization payment by setting a maximum amount as it can by a maximum deductibility percentage.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier was the first one to give us an example of such procedure. He was a member of the cabinet-and so was Mr. Lesage-which did not recognize the 1 per cent Quebec corporation as deductible. As this provincial tax, held non-deductible by the Liberal government, yields a few million dollars a year, the federal treasury has always deducted the amount of that provincial tax from its equalization payments.


I wonder if, like the hon. member for Laurier, we are not inclined to recognize as a debt to the federal government the equivalent of a provincial tax.
If it is fair and constitutional to deduct the income derived from the Quebec corporation tax from equalization payments due to Quebec, it is as fair and constitutional to deduct from those same equalization payments any amount levied by Quebec in addition to what the federal government is authorized, by statute, to earmark for university education.
I believe that on this question the hon. member for Laurier is in a dilemma. Either he must admit that he has unfairly treated Quebec under the fiscal arrangements act adopted by the government of which he was a member, or else he must admit that his fine distinctions do not hold good, that his argument is completely reversed, and his whole speech of April 26 last was merely designed to confuse a very clear issue.
The attitude of the federal government towards a problem which has long held the attention of Quebec taxpayers, shows that this government has taken a serious step, and is giving some indication that it will be ready, when circumstances permit, to gradually withdraw from the provincial taxation field and thus respect the Canadian constitution.
Therefore, in my opinion, as evidence of its recognition of the fundamental principle that the province is exclusively responsible for education, this government has not required, in order to grant that deductibility, that the province of Quebec first sign an agreement with the federal government in order that the taxpayers of that province might be in a position to take advantage of that 1 per cent exemption on corporation tax.
Mr. Speaker, in the last debate on this matter, we witnessed a flagrant contradiction in the attitude of the Liberals on this problem. It is particularly hard to reconcile the moving appeal of the hon. member for Laurier against what he terms an encroachment on the autonomy of the provinces, with the centralizing views that the Liberal government always displayed on this most important matter of education.
In support of his arguments on what he described as respect for the autonomy of the provinces, the hon. member for Laurier quoted from a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of the Attorney General of Nova Scotia et al versus the Attorney General of Canada et al. He particularly drew the house's attention to the following excerpt, and I quote:
Neither the parliament of Canada nor the legislature of any province can delegate one to the

other (to be exercised by that other as a parliament or legislature, as the ease may be) any of the legislative authority respectively conferred upon them by the British North America Act and especially by sections 91 and 92 thereof.
He also quoted from page 391, in which Mr. Justice Estey, among other things, had this to say, and I quote:
Moreover, the provisions of the British North America Act contemplate these legislative bodies will, at all times, in the exercise of their sovereign jurisdiction, act as principals. There is no express provision nor is there any other provision under which it could be reasonably implied that these bodies were intended to act as agents one for the other.
In a word, Mr. Speaker, the conclusion is that the federal government cannot rent to the provinces its taxation rights, no more than the provinces can rent their own taxation fields to the federal government.
The Conservatives have always supported this principle and reaffirmed that the theory of the fiscal agreements made by the Liberal government with the provinces was a rental of powers and, consequently, that those fiscal agreements were illegal and unconstitutional.
When he quoted that excerpt from this decision of the supreme court, the hon. member for Laurier condemned the whole theory of fiscal arrangements with the provinces entered into by his government since 1940, and it would be ill-advised for him now to lead us to believe they respect autonomy when his government took the liberty for so long of sabotaging the whole fiscal system clearly established by the Canadian constitution.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, nearly all newspapers of the province of Quebec have criticized the hon. member for Laurier for his failure to use this autonomist argument at the right time when he was a minister in the Liberal government.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: He was not in Quebec at the time.


Martial Asselin: We wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the autonomist speeches the Liberals are making today are not inspired by their regrets for the things they neglected to do in the past to safeguard the Canadian constitution, or if they are allowing themselves to be carried away by the electoral considerations which have been set forth for some time by the Liberal leader in the province of Quebec.
However, the Liberal opposition members should remember that the province of Quebec does not believe in this time-serving argument they cling to while all their past actions
Dominion-Provincial Relations have been a continual challenge to it, when they wanted the taxpayers of the province of Quebec to admit that their legislation concerning fiscal arrangements was constitutional.
Mr. Speaker, the bill under study has also a provisional aspect. In fact, as we all know, in 1962 there will be a complete revision of the whole fiscal system established between the provinces and the federal government by the Liberals. Even if this bill is less than perfect, it remains that we have only two years to experience its constitutional effects and, in 1962, the authorities concerned will be free to accept it permanently or to reject it if its constitutionality is seriously questioned.
The Conservative party has taken a serious step, Mr. Speaker, and deserves to be thanked for it.
It is an acceptable solution and is worth taking the risk, if any, up to 1962.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should ask ourselves what is the solution put forward by the Liberals to avoid this so-called encroachment upon the autonomy of the provinces.
In all the speeches made by Liberal members, no exact solution was indicated. They apparently persisted in returning to the old Liberal formula. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Laurier, in his closing remarks, pointed to this more clearly than the others had done. He was quite right in replying to the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) that: "The poison is in the tail"; in cauda venenum, is what he replied to the hon. member for Port Arthur when the latter stung him by suggesting that the purpose of his speech was to help Jean Lesage, who was trying to make this bill an election issue.
If we carefully go over the conclusions of the speech of the hon. member for Laurier, on page 3284 of Hansard for April 26, 1960, we can immediately see that the poison is indeed, in the tail end of his speech. Here is what the hon. member said:
*-we are also in favour of the university grants paid out of the federal treasury, which were started by a Liberal government, and distributed through the Canadian Universities Foundation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is precisely that formula that was rejected on several occasions by the province of Quebec, because it was regarded as a direct intrusion of the federal government in the field of university education.
Whether the federal government gives money to the universities directly or through
3558	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations the Canadian Universities Foundation, the taxpayers of the province of Quebec have never accepted this formula; first, because it is not in accordance with our constitution, and also because it cannot meet our cultural and ethnic needs.
The Liberal party does not offer any other alternative; even today, it wants to hang on to its centralizing doctrine though Quebec authorities condemned it on several occasions.
Some Liberal members also complained that no positive offer had been made to change the financial position of universities, similar to those made to the Conservative government. It was useless to formulate any, as even today, the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge), following in the footsteps of the hon. member for Laurier, vigorously again stated that the only possible solution to help finance universities are direct grants to those institutions paid out of the federal treasury. Where can we find consistency among those members?
Whereas, those same members used to denounce the rigid attitude of the Quebec premier, Mr. Duplessis, on the very controversial question of university grants; whereas they liked to repeat that the province of Quebec was like any other province and took great pains to have the Liberal university grants system recognized as constitutional they are, Mr. Speaker, brazenly burning today what they formerly reverently worshipped.
The autonomist doctrine of Mr. Duplessis which was formerly absurd according to some hon. members, is today the leading argument advanced by the Liberals to state that this bill represents an encroachment upon provincial autonomy. Never, at any time, have the Liberal party been the defender of provincial autonomy in this house. Today, it borrows that expression to serve the political interest, and arguments of a member who sat in this house with the reputation of being in favour of centralization, of a representative who took pleasure in wilfully denouncing the justified claims of the province of Quebec in this field.
But today that former member, Mr. Speaker, is the Liberal leader in the province of Quebec and he was obliged to shed his skin, because he has to please the voters in that province if he wants to sit one day in the Quebec legislature. But, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that the province of Quebec is not composed of misled but of
tMr. Asselin.]

comprehensive and grateful people who have, on various occasions, seen through the actions of the Liberal party when that party had a chance to solve the problem just as the Conservatives finally did.
Of course, the Liberal opposition is disappointed. During the last election, they challenged the Conservative members with regard to the absolute impossibility of settling our university problem. But, thanks to the understanding of the Conservative government and of the Minister of Finance, and in accordance with the promises made by the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the city of Quebec during the 1958 campaign, all Canadians, whatever their origin, their language and their religion, will be equal partners in a free democratic country.
It is no surprise that in view of that discriminatory situation that the province of Quebec had been exposed to for a number of years with regard to grants to universities, the Prime Minister and the members of the cabinet have been able to find a temporary formula that is acceptable to the authorities of the province of Quebec. This realistic compromise, as it was described by the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) on April 26 last, will have healthy results. To mention only a few, let me quote from an article by Clement Brown, parliamentary correspondent for Le Devoir, who wrote on April 28 last:
The logic of the absurd or insoluble problem: What will be the effect of the Fleming bill? The first, and most obvious, is on the credit side: it stops, at least for a time, any collective pressure for additional interventions by Ottawa in the field of education financing.
The second effect of the Fleming bill is to assure to the province of Quebec the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction in the field of education and educational grants. That positive result in the constitutional field is offset by serious restrictions, not on a taxation right, but on the yield of a particular tax.
And further down, he went on to say:
Another result of the Fleming bill is that it opens the door to the dislocation of the fiscal agreement system, in the sense that it makes their provisions more flexible. The provinces can exercise their fiscal jurisdiction, but only on the precise scale provided for by the deductibility clause. That looks to us like a step forward, because it allows the provinces to achieve a greater awareness of their constitutional responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I think this parliamentary correspondent has summarized the whole situation in a nutshell; there is no need to go into further detail.
So, I will be proud, as a Conservative member from the province of Quebec, to give wholehearted support to this measure introduced by the Minister of Finance, because,

with my colleagues, I am convinced that it will reaffirm to the provinces their exclusive right in the field of education and will also give our universities the means to develop intellectually and culturally, in all fields under their jurisdiction, so they can make a better social and cultural contribution to the whole nation.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a rather complex one. On the one hand, we hear some members say that the former system was unconstitutional and irregular and, on the other hand, we hear experts who claim also that this proposal is unconstitutional and irregular.
But, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) introduced his resolution he came to the house with a cheerful and even arrogant air, I even believed for one moment, that he was to introduce something which would be so clear, so definite, that not one member in this house could find any fault with it.
He reminded me at that time of Chanteclerc who believed that without his crowing the sun would never rise and that the night would last forever.
As I was recently rereading his Ode to the Rising Sun, I could not help repeating these final lines spoken by Chanticleer:
Je recule, ebloui de me voir moi-meme tout vermeil, et d'avoir, moi le coq fait lever le soleill
That was indeed the impression the Minister of Finance gave me at the time and which he gives us usually when he introduces something in the house.
What did the minister tell us? He dealt at length with grants to universities, as if they were his idea; but everybody knows that grants to universities are a Liberal achievement. In fact, it was the Liberal party which, in 1951, established grants to universities and I remember that when the Conservatives and the Liberals approved it, this legislation was unanimously adopted. But the fact remains that it had been thought up by Mr. St. Laurent, after he discussed it with the authorities of the different provinces.
It is a Liberal legislation we adopted at the time, that we are approving today and that we continue to approve.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: But put into force by a Conservative government.


Alexis Pierre Caron: We feel that the federal government has not only the right but the duty to assist our institutions of higher learning.
79951-0-227
Dominion-Provincial Relations That is why, as indicated by previous speakers and particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), we are certainly and without any hesitation going to vote in favour of the principle of the bill providing for assistance by the federal government to our universities and colleges.
The Minister of Finance also said that the 13 per cent personal income tax exemption would be continued, which is nothing new, but merely the continuation of what already existed.
He also mentioned a 1 per cent additional exemption on corporation taxes, limited however to $1.50 per capita. Contrary to what was going on under a Liberal administration, that raises a difficulty. We made grants to universities through an organization of their own choice with no strings attached. They received the money which was distributed on a per capita basis and the universities were free to use it as they pleased.
In this case the federal government allows a deduction of 1 per cent but not exceeding $1.50 per capita and any amount above that must be repaid by the provincial government. In this regard, an act was passed by the government of Quebec during the last session but there was no provision in it for a repayment to the federal authorities. If a provincial government fails to repay the excess amount received the Minister of Finance may deduct an equal amount from the equalization payments due to that province. If that is not unconstitutional I say it is an injustice to the provinces. The province is authorized to collect moneys, but if the amount is too high it must be repaid. In my opinion-I am not a lawyer, I know that I may be corrected if necessary-this is an injustice, because the provincial government levied an additional 1 per cent tax, to the extent of $1.75 per capita of the amount derived from the additional 1 per cent collected by the government.
And the minister thought he had discovered a formula. Everybody knows that it is not him but the Hon. Mr. Sauve who discovered it. It is the Hon. Mr. Sauve who submitted that formula, but it is the Minister of Finance who succeeded in including their restriction that we find irregular and that should be taken out. Even if Mr. Sauve had accepted this restriction, I maintain that it would be unconstitutional just the same

Dominion-Provincial Relations because neither the premier nor the government of a province has a right to be guided in its legislation by a government of another province or by the federal government. All our provincial governments are autonomous and have rights, privileges, and responsibilities and they must act accordingly.
That is why the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) who is a brilliant lawyer, a fine counsel, could not help answering, when the member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) asked him what he thought of this aspect of the measure, that it was a compromise; he did not say that it was absolutely perfect legislation which could be accepted as some Conservative members have just said.
Moreover, he added that he was hoping for something better for the future. Thus it was not clear even in the mind of this lawyer and if it was not clear to him who is attempting to rescue the government from its predicament, how could it be clear in the minds of the others who study it objectively in order to pass legislation which would be acceptable to the governments of all the provinces.
Besides, if one accepts this principle as being legal, I understand that should a province refuse to repay the surplus collected, the federal government could reimburse itself from the equalization payments going to Quebec. Do you not see the injustice of this system? If the government of Ontario or the government of British Columbia, who do not get an equalization payment, were to collect the 1 per cent tax, as it is their right to do, and then refuse to repay the surplus to the federal government, the latter would be unable to recover from the equalization payments the amount it claims from these provinces. Where there is a way to recover because there is an equalization payment, only the poor provinces will be compelled to repay. This would come to be if not an illegality, at least a flagrant injustice for the provinces and I maintain that the federal government has no right to take such action.
Furthermore, I am relying mostly on arguments put forward in an authoritative way by the member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier) when he quoted from decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, especially that in the case of the Nova Scotia government versus the attorney general and troops


and Cape Breton. These decisions show quite clearly that the provincial governments are not entitled to transfer their powers, even to the federal government, because the federal government in Canada is not supreme. Such was the intention of the fathers of confederation so that the rights of the minorities would be duly respected in each province, and especially the rights of the Quebec majority as regards the rest of Canada. The governments cannot-


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Certainly.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Does he not think that the Liberal federal government made an enormous mistake when it sought to subsidize the universities, especially when one knows how minorities are treated in certain provinces?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I shall come back to this later on. I do not care to answer right now since I must come back to it, but an answer will be given in due course.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It would be too embarrassing just now.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Do I still hear the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard)? Hearing him, one would think we were under the Union Nationale in Quebec.


An hon. Member:: A parrot's tone?


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Quite an embarrassing question.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I also hear the member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) who puts in his word. He is used to talking from his seat rather than standing up. When he stands up, he continues to let out a stream of words disorderly arranged trying to express his thought but he never succeeds.
I wonder if I could find some expression fit to describe my hon. friend if I looked up the authors. Oh, here it is: "Le malade imaginaire" (The Imaginary Invalid). But that would not do, for there is nothing imaginary about his ills. Perhaps I could use-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: -"Les precieuses ridicules" (The Romantic Ladies).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask the hon.
member for Hull to come back to his speech?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I intend to come back to my speech, but not to stand for all the interruptions from that fellow-


An hon. Member:: He is sick.


Some hon. Members:: Oh. oh.


Alexis Pierre Caron: -for you could hardly find words to qualify that kind of person in this house.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for
Hull is sick.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Talking of sick people, there is one there. It shows in his face.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I shall go back to tending my sheep, and let the ram go on his way.
The Conservatives made quite a fuss over the opinions expressed by Mr. Duplessis, not in the first year, but after he had accepted the grants for 1951-52. Then they proceeded to make an issue out of the matter of constitutionality, claiming that education was essentially and at all levels a responsibility of the provincial government. In the meantime, the universities were going bankrupt.
Again recently, that is on April 20, the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), assistant to the Minister of Justice, who, in the absence of the Minister of Justice was presumably speaking on behalf of the Minister of Justice, told us some rather astonishing things.
First, Mr. Chairman, who has the floor?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask hon. members not to interrupt the member who has the floor? Order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: And the Solicitor General made this statement, as recorded on page 3285 of this year's Hansard:
People outside the French province, wondered when they found that, year after year, Quebec leaders were turning down federal grants. Our opponents went so far as to describe that attitude as "segregationism" but it was the Liberals, with their anti-constitutional formula, who applied a policy of intellectual segregation with regard to Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, could we find a less serious argument? The Liberal government, in 1951, had found a formula to make grants to universities. Universities had asked them and had accepted them; those of Quebec as well as those of all other provinces. The heads of the Quebec universities rejoiced in 1951 when the formula was announced. But who refused it? Did the government in Ottawa refuse to grant to the province of Quebec 79951-0-227J
Dominion-Provincial Relations the advantages which were granted to other provinces? No, the Quebec government placed itself in this segregationist position by refusing the offers made by the federal government.
Later, a little further on the same page, the Solicitor General said:
At that time the Liberals did not dare to launch a straightforward attack against the Hon. Mr. Duplessis and his autonomist policies. They relieved their feelings by attacking the province of Quebec of which Mr. Duplessis obviously had become the living symbol.
And further yet, he said:
That attitude of national disunity and misunderstanding on the part of some Canadians with regard to the others, may, in all fairness, scarcely be blamed on the C.C.F. which has never taken root in Quebec-unlike the Liberals who were only maintained in power for 22 years thanks to that province.
Well, Mr. Speaker, to say that we did not dare to criticize the premier of the province of Quebec is absolutely untrue.
He was criticized, strongly criticized by all federal members at least, because of his uncompromising stand and because he made out of the question of autonomy a political issue which did not exist after all.
Further down the same page, the Solicitor General said this:
That is why it was unanimously rejected by the government, the universities and the population of Quebec-
It is entirely untrue. The Quebec universities accepted it, requested it, asked for it. But in view of the dictatorial stand of Mr. Duplessis, the authorities of Quebec universities were compelled to refuse because they were secretly threatened with losing the provincial grants.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This is an insult to the Quebec universities.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are insulting the universities of Quebec.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This is an insult to the Quebec universities.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I ask a question?


Alexis Pierre Caron: No, I am not accepting any questions.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are insulting Quebec universities.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon.
member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) speaking to a point of order?

Dominion-Provincial Relations


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I object to the remarks of the hon. member for Hull; I believe that it is an insult to the universities in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have said, time and again, that differences of opinion are not a sufficient reason to rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Hull has the floor.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I say and maintain that the universities had accepted the grants because they had asked Mr. St. Laurent for them, and that it was only because of a dictator's threats that the authorities were later forced to refuse them. And today although the bill has not yet been adopted in Ottawa, the universities have accepted and received the $25 million which were lying in Ottawa coffers.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Prove it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: And the Solicitor General added:
-but we offer an alternative, a realistic compromise allowing a province, such as the province of Quebec, to grant to its university population, the benefits which it was forced to refuse because of its scrupulous respect for the constitution and for autonomy.
Mr. Speaker, the others never referred to an unconstitutional legislation, they never challenged, nor requested the Quebec government to challenge in court the constitutionality of the 1951 act. They made speeches and said it was unconstitutional, but they never took the means to have it decided who was right and who was wrong.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, if we read again the Quebec resolutions, the Charlottetown resolutions and the London resolutions which preceded the signing of the confederation act, and I do not want to go further in this matter because the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) dealt with it, we see that the fathers of confederation never intended to seek a safeguard for anything else than primary education. Besides, the 1867 act says it has to do only with primary schools. Here is what we find at section 93 (2);
All the powers, privileges and duties at the union by law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the separate schools and school trustees of the queen's Homan Catholic subjects shall be-
In Canada, at the time of union, they talked about school trustees. Therefore, it is the schools that are under the responsibility of school boards, I mean the primary schools. Secondary schools were added just a few years ago.

But this does not cover classical colleges and seminaries, at all; they belong to the clergy-independently of the Quebec government-which has established its own curriculum and does not have to seek directives from the Catholic committee of the council of education to tell them what they should teach.
And the universities are independent universities, chartered by the government; they have a completely independent administration, and they too are autonomous. All those institutions are therefore independent, under the law and the constitution.
It is therefore clear that the intention of the fathers of confederation was to protect primary schools, which were under the direction of school boards. Again, that does not cover, in any way, shape or form, institutions of higher learning.
Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that we call it six o'clock?
(Text):
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):
Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned at six o'clock, I was dealing with the views of the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) and, to my mind, his opinions rather come into direct conflict with those of the other cabinet members. For instance, I do not recall that since 1951 any minister of finance has, even once, maintained that university grants under the formula we established at that time were something irregular and anticonstitutional.
As a matter of fact, Mr. St. Laurent, who was a recognized authority on constitutional law, had studied the question and had come to the conclusion that those grants were not anti-constitutional.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I would rather accept the opinion of Mr. St. Laurent than that of the hon. Solicitor General. Indeed, I am not the only one to think so. All present ministers from the province of Quebec who have not spoken on the matter voted to maintain the same principle of university grants.
As I said before six o'clock, institutions of higher learning, such as the seminaries, which are owned by the clergy, the classical colleges and the chartered universities, do not ask the province which subject matters they should teach; and' they receive from the provincial government the grants necessary to

lessen education costs in our province. That is why it was thought necessary to offer those grants.
The confederation act-I am satisfied on that score and will remain so as long as it has not been proved otherwise beyond all doubt- aimed at protecting the schools under the school boards in order to safeguard the French minority in Quebec at that time.
I am not the only one to think so. Mr. Cyril James, a professional educator, who is remarkably conversant in that field, and is a scholar of repute, said, as reported in the French version of Hansard on pages 544 and 545, as follows:
There is no control of education, no infringement of provincial autonomy in the grants.
Neither the members of parliament who voted unanimously for the grant, nor the universities of Canada which were equally unanimous in accepting it, entertained the remotest idea that the federal grant carried any implications of control.
The possibility of any future danger to provincial rights is obviated by the presence of a provincial representative on the joint federal-provincial commission which administers the grants, it added.
Further down, he went on:
-"it has never been suggested that in making such gifts, the donors were legislating with respect to education"-
Similarly, while the Quebec government cannot legislate with regard to education in France, it none the less contributes generously to the Canadian students' house in Paris "and provides equally generous scholarships for students wishing to study in French universities."
Finally, he concluded:
"It is difficult to see how the legality of such federal grants can be questioned without similarly calling into question a wide variety of governmental practices, provincial as well as federal, which have been part of our accepted tradition for many years."
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that the province of Quebec, which I congratulated at the time for this action, granted $50,000 to the University of Ottawa, and made other grants to the St. Boniface college and to a university in the maritime provinces? I say it was perfectly entitled to do so; it even had a duty to support French institutions outside the province. However, had permission first been sought from the government of the province to make these grants? No, that was not necessary.
Here is a statement by the Hon. Sidney Smith, the former president of the University of Toronto:
Dominion-Provincial Relations
(Text):
Answering any argument that education is a provincial matter and therefore the federal government should keep out of it, he produced statistics which showed that 20 per cent of the 100,000 living alumni of the University of Toronto are in other provinces. The university is therefore making a national contribution. The same is true of all other Canadian universities.
(Translation):
Therefore, there are interchanges of students between universities, that is to say, there are young people coming from Ontario to Quebec, while others from Quebec go to Ontario, or from Quebec to the maritimes and from the maritimes to Quebec.
The fact is that the whole process is national in character, and the federal government was right in establishing the grants.
When one claims that something is irregular and illegal, one has to prove it. So I suggest to these people who claim that the grants as given under the Liberal formula were illegal, that they still have to prove it.
The thing to do, instead of trying to play politics with this, would have been for the Quebec government to go to the supreme court, which would have decided whether it was regular or irregular, constitutional or unconstitutional.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time that the Ottawa government has been giving grants.
I see here in a report presented by Mr. Enfield, a former member for York-Scarborough as recorded on page 157 of Hansard, that the amounts for education granted by the federal government in various provinces, in Quebec as well as in the other provinces,
were as follows:
British Columbia	 $2,989,000
Alberta	 2,261,000
Saskatchewan	 1,862,000
Manitoba	 1,437,000
Ontario	 7,228,000
Quebec	 2,952,000
New Brunswick, as well as all provinces, received grants and accepted them.
That is not something new either. Let us go back over the history of the grants made to the provinces:
In 1913 Sir Robert Borden gave $10 million to the agricultural schools.
In 1919 Sir Robert Borden gave $10 million to assist technical schools.
In 1939 the Right Hon. Mackenzie King had $4,500,000 voted as assistance to youth.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
In 1942 the dominion government voted $51 million under the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act.
In 1951, $7,500,000 were voted as assistance to universities.
The province of Quebec accepted the grants and they were considered as constitutional.
The Solicitor General contends that they are anti-constitutional, but the Minister of Finance deems them constitutional.
Let me add that not one minister from Quebec tried to say that the subsidies granted under the Liberal formula were anti-constitutional.
The Solicitor General also had this to say concerning the bill before the house:
Its purpose is to render constitutional Liberal legislation on assistance to Quebec universities.
And in what way is it attempted to make this legislation constitutional?
Under the Liberal administration there was legislation providing for assistance without any strings attached. Universities were told: "Here are millions of dollars, you may do what you wish with them. This money is yours and you can use it as you see fit". There was no condition.
However, the very same people who refused millions from Ottawa accepted the millions of Mr. Rockefeller, accepted gladly all the millions coming from elsewhere, but the millions given by the Canadian government were refused. It was solely for the purpose of playings politics and the Solicitor General has attempted to play politics with this question of Quebec provincial autonomy that has never existed and does not exist with regard to university grants.
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is a lawyer. According to the Statutes of Canada, the Solicitor General is the assistant to the Minister of Justice, and when he made that statement, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) was absent. So, the Solicitor General was speaking as Minister of Justice when he said:
Mr. Speaker any legislation which finds its place in only nine provinces out of ten and is not acceptable to the tenth province leaves a very grave doubt as to its constitutionality.
Mr. Speaker, this legal pearl comes from a lawyer. I am not a lawyer, but when I hear such a statement coming from a lawyer, I wonder if the bar is very proud to have him as a member.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) has criticized the principle of federal assistance. He said that the $25 million the Liberals had allowed to accumulate for the province of Quebec were a Tantalus cup which would force the universities to accept them.
Without the intervention of the federal government, the universities of the province of Quebec would still be hard up, and it is because Ottawa intervened to make grants to them that the government of the province of Quebec reconsidered its position and decided to do something to help them.
Mr. Speaker, according to the authorities of these institutions, it is Ottawa which is responsible for that and not the government of Quebec.
And when they talk of a Tantalus cup, what should we think of this attitude of Mr. Duplessis which led the heads of the universities to believe that if they accepted the federal government grants, they would not get any from the provincial government. Oh, Mr. Duplessis did not say it in those words. But it was quite clear, and the universities understood the attitude of the dictator and they refused the grants to please the ruler of the roost in the province of Quebec.
Will the Solicitor General ever understand that for many years the Quebec government has greatly hindered the development of our universities by preventing them, for political motives, not to say for motives of petty politics, to accept the grants offered to them by the federal government?
The hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. English), I think, said that it was a fight between Ottawa and Quebec. That is not true. It was the fight of Quebec against Ottawa. That is all. It was the fight of the Union Nationale party against the Liberal party in Ottawa. And in support of my statement, you will note that since the Conservatives came into power in Ottawa, not one Quebec Conservative has dared criticize the policy of the federal Conservative government. Under the Liberal administration, everything the Liberals did was wrong; today, everything the Conservatives do is right because the Conservatives are in power.
Well, Mr. Speaker-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I think that when Mr. Sauve came, he very distinctly changed the situation which existed in Quebec. For instance, he tried to find a way-whether

we consider it constitutional or not-of recovering those $25 million which I mentioned a moment ago.
Mr. Duplessis merely said: "No, autonomy forbids it". Mr. Duplessis claimed-
(Text):


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


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Hull allow a question?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. gentleman's time has expired.
(Translation):


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, about the speech we just heard, I might say, quoting Montalembert, that in the applause with which it was greeted, it got its reward and punishment. What the other Liberal members had not had the courage to say or had been wise enough to keep silent about, fearing their electors, the hon. gentleman who spoke before me expressed quite plainly with an assurance which is invariably the lot of ignorance and self-conceit.
I only want to quote this: education within the meaning of the B.N.A. Act applies only at the primary level. In that unwise statement you have the substance of Liberal thought on the problem of education in Canada. If the provinces have no jurisdiction in the field of education beyond primary teaching, nothing prevents the conclusion that the central government may look after the other levels. Therefore, there is nothing to prevent it from paying all kinds of grants to secondary colleges and universities under whatever conditions it chooses to impose. This admission is important, at a time when federal and provincial Liberals are about to launch in Quebec their hypocritical autonomist offensive. We thank from the bottom of our heart, the old man from Hull for having told us the true Liberal thinking. His opinions are in full agreement with those already expressed by Mr. Maurice Lamontagne; in fact, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) has denounced the autonomy problem, saying it does not exist and that it has never existed. It is a good thing to know. That will have to be said outside this house.
The speech we have just heard-
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The hon. gentleman attributed the views expressed by my friend the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) to someone outside of the chamber. I believe that procedure is against the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Dominion-Provincial Relations


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was going to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that my friend the hon. member for Hull made his own speech from a few notes whereas it would appear to the average observer that the hon. gentleman who is now making his speech is reading every word of it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I should also like to say a few words on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). I just want to add that the hon. member for Hull this afternoon made many statements about things concerning which he did not know anything and the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) is refuting them.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear the allegation made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). As I understood the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay), he drew attention to a similarity between what had been said by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) and somebody outside the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Speaker; my point of order was-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is rising on a point of order which I wish to hear.
(Translation):


Jean-Noël Tremblay: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order was not that, Mr. Speaker. My point of order was that the hon. gentleman who is now addressing the house appears to be reading a document.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a point of order, of course. Hon. members know that it is not the usual practice of the house to read a speech verbatim from a previously prepared document and I trust the hon. member for Roberval will observe the practice. (Translation):


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the hon. member for Hull denied the problem of autonomy when he said, among other things, that the problem has never existed and does not exist.
In that, he was only repeating the antiautonomist writings of Maurice Lamontagne, who just happens to be the official thinker of the Liberal party. May I add that it was a good thing to know, and that he should be heard outside the house. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that he has been heard in the past.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
However, the speech of the hon. member for Hull would have amused me right to the end had it not included such serious insults to the leaders of our universities in Quebec. They have just been accused of knuckling down to every political pressure by refusing federal grants to universities. The member for Hull ascribes to the rectors of our universities some shabby designs and some rather dark preoccupations. He thus insults His Excellency Msgr. Maurice Roy, chancellor of Laval University, as well as all our educators who, after deep reflection, decided to refuse the federal grants because, like former premier Duplessis, they saw in this measure a very dangerous precedent. These words will have to be recalled to the citizens of the province of Quebec, to all alumni of our universities who are justly proud of their alma mater and respectful of the men who taught them in the universities and who gave them, by their integrity, the best examples for their life. So, I want to protest now against the shameful remarks made by the member for Hull and deny categorically that our bishops, our rectors and our educators had surrended to lowly political pressure.
Mr. Speaker, when they started this debate on Bill C-56 and on grants to universities, the Liberals failed to mention the principles which inspire them and which have always led them in their centralizing endeavours.
Those principles, you have them set out on page 239 of the book by Maurice Lamontagne, Canadian Federalism, which, as everyone knows, is the bible of the centralizers.
Mr. Lamontagne wrote this:
At another level, one might wonder how long it will be possible to deny the federal government the right to play a part in the field of education and culture, when in fact it cannot help intervening.
Those are quite consequential premises which, unfortunately, are absolutely false, based as they are on a postulate which in fact begs the question.
Mr. Lamontagne starts by wondering about the part which the federal government would eventually be called upon to play in the field of education and culture. He seems to contend that the central government is bound to come into that field.
But at this point comes in the postulate on which is based' Mr. Lamontagne's argument.
Why is it, in the mind of the official thinker of the Liberal party, that one day the federal government will havea right to play a part in the field of education and culture.
Mr. Lamontagne answers straight off: it is because
-in fact it cannot help intervening.
[Mr Tremblay.]
The author of the breviary of centralization who may have some notion of what we call in legal terms the force of precedent, bases his whole argument on a de facto situation which he seems to consider as normal and taken for granted.
He gives examples, and I quote:
When a government has an exclusive jurisdiction on radio and television and must carry out its responsibilities in the field of the films, how can it be denied the right to concern itself with education and culture?
The illustration is rather badly chosen. Moreover, it concerns facts which will have to be reviewed sooner or later. For when the direct attacks by the central government on the exclusive rights of the provinces in the field of education are repealed once and for all, nothing will prevent the struggle to be continued in those sectors which were too quickly believed to be the responsibility of the central power.
In any case, to mention them in order to justify the federal government looking after the needs of our educational institutions, is to sidestep and try to confuse the issue, because one has not enough courage to face conditions as they are and to ask, as one should, the real questions: "Is the federal government entitled to look after education? And if that responsibility is not under its jurisdiction, why should it try to assume it?
That is how the problem should be put.
We know by now how the Liberal party answered those questions. After having stressed and solemnly stated that education was a provincial field, the spokesmen of that party then made some reservations, more particularly that universities are not within the traditional definition of education. That is a considerable limitation of the educational field and a refusal to admit that, in practice, universities are at the summit of a structure of which they are the ultimate perfect completion.
I would like to quote here part of a brief submitted by the University of Montreal to the Tremblay commission in 1954, which says:
We do not want any interference in the field of education, and we think that current university grants constitute such interference. In other words, we firmly believe-as we think that everybody else in the province of Quebec does too- that education is and must remain under provincial control and, that university teaching is part of the educational system; and we do not wish that system changed.
In drawing such a distinction between the various education and official academic levels, the Liberals were paving the way to greater encroachments.
But what is a university? Must we see in institutions of higher learning only technical

schools for the teaching of practical knowledge in specialized trades and professions? Must we give up the fine and great definition of universities, as understood by the ancients who considered it as the "mother of arts and science, and the source of all education"? Must we not consider any more the university as the ultimate level, the summit where education is being perfected? The Liberal contention knows no limit when it wants to deprive the universities of its basic role of co-ordinator in the field of education. What do those distinctions amount to which have been made between the various levels of education, primary, secondary and superior, if they are pot the various floors of a building whose summit is the university, both the summit and the foundation, because it is thanks to it that the education of an organized human community may go on improving and developing.
If help to universities is not help to education, universities must, from now on, be deprived of the role which they have never ceased to play as inspirators in all sectors of science, letters and arts, as a reference point and supreme master. One word only from the former member for Stormont today was sufficient to suppress the main function of universities, which is to preside over the manifold extension of knowledge which, added to directives and necessary guidance constitutes the traditional means of education.
But the Liberals have for long given up definitions. When definitions bother them, they ignore them and say they are not accepted as they used to be. That's what they did with the definition of education: they have restricted its scope at the primary level to justify the encroachment of the federal government upon the field of education because, in fact, assistance to universities, as it is practised today by the central government, covers both the university field proper and the secondary one, if we consider the structure of universities according to the American and Canadian pattern, according to which university begins at the senior matriculation level. And it is here that we realize the glaring ignorance or bad faith of those who state, like the former member for Stormont, that university grants are constitutional.
They ignore definitions as well as the facts they represent since, in this case, they deny the university its ordinary role and traditional function.
They conclude, with assurance, that assistance to universities is the responsibility of the federal government because it is not help to education. How simple it is.
79951-0-228
Dominion-Provincial Relations
However, the truth is more complex. In the matter of grants to universities, the actions of the Liberals were not taken with such ease and facility. The thinkers on the payroll of the Liberal party had to put forward their greatest intellectual efforts to invent a formula designed to dress up in philosophical language the anti-constitutional manoeuvre of the Liberal party.
However, in referring to the subterfuges of the Massey commission, it is easy to see that the Liberals did not immediately find the elegant explanation given to us last year by that new Quebecer, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), to the effect that the Liberal party favours federal grants to universities because aid to universities is not aid to education. To reach that explanation, it was necessary to set up the now famous distinction between culture and education: and our self-styled philosophers finally settled the question by resorting to fine distinctions, with the help of a man who, though previously an unshakeable autonomist, compromised his "natural inclinations" once he became a royal commissioner, in favour of a thesis which was soon to be used by his political co-religionists to help the federal government meddle in the affairs of the provinces.
I immediately emphasize the contradiction into which the new convert from Laurier threw himself when he made the following statement last year, as recorded in Hansard for July 18, 1959. Having attempted to ascribe to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) an interpretation of the expression "grants to universities", the new Liberal messiah from Quebec expressed the view that the federal government should never consider financing education on the primary and secondary level. He made the following assertion with his usual solemnity when addressing his recently adopted province of Quebec, and I quote:
As far as I am concerned and I am sure not to be the only one on this side of the house to find myself in this position, I cannot accept that interpretation of federal grants to universities. I cannot accept that interpretation because it would justify federal assistance to secondary and primary schools. I want to make it very clear that X am and always will be strongly opposed to such federal grants.
I bear no grudge against the hon. member for publicly confessing today some feelings that he always managed, with infinite discretion, to keep for himself in the days when he lived outside the province of Quebec. However, I cannot believe he does not realize that the formula of grants to universities put forward by his party involves aid at the secondary level, because if you look at the American form of university organization, such as we find in English language Canadian

Dominion-Provincial Relations universities, you find that the university level starts at what corresponds to the matriculation grade for Canadian universities of European type. Thus, faculties of arts in American-type universities correspond, in our own universities, to the higher levels of the humanities. It is easily seen, therefore, that the argument in favour of grants to universities based on a definition of universities is unsound, because the type of university I have just referred to involves both the higher and secondary levels of education.
The former member for Stormont will forgive me if I emphasize the dilemma in which he placed himself. Either he knew nothing about the organization of Quebec universities and, in that case, he did not take essential precautions before voting with his government for legislation authorizing it not only to encroach upon the field of university education, but also the field of secondary education, because, as I have just stated, in American-type universities, students pursue studies which in the province of Quebec in particular, are made in college; or the hon. member was aware of this particular problem of university organization and deliberately accepted to take part in this huge quibble the sole purpose of which was to bring federal power into provincial affairs.
(Text):


Mr, Speaker:: Order. As I understood the hon. member through the interpretation, he referred to another hon. member as having deliberately acted so as to perpetrate a fraud. I think the hon. member will recognize that the imputation to a member of a deliberate action of that kind is contrary to the practice of this house and I would ask him, if I have correctly understood him, to revise what he has said.
(Translation):


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I put the question in the form of a dilemma, with no intention whatsoever of imputing motives to the hon. member for Laurier. But after considering the facts, I am forced to wonder, along with the people of the province of Quebec, if the hon. member actually put the problem in the appropriate terms.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the explanation the hon. member gives is not satisfactory. He is not entitled to make the assumption that an hon. member's conduct


would be of the kind which he has ascribed, and I would ask him to modify what he has said.
(Translation):


Jean-Noël Tremblay: I believe there is a matter of language involved here. I did say, and I repeat, that it seems to me the hon. member for Laurier did not set out the problem as he should have; without crediting him with ulterior motive, I have the right, as a citizen, to wonder if this politician did really put the problem in the terms in which it should be put.
And, Mr. Speaker, if I may continue, I have said that we have every reason to believe that the Liberal members did not quite understand the problem of federal grants to universities. Under the Liberal concept, as evidenced by a speech to which I referred earlier, the hon. member for Laurier said, according to page 6374 of Hansard of July 18, 1959:
Since they were established in 1951, we have always said that such grants were constitutional.
Please note the force of the expression: "we have always said-" It should be added, Mr. Speaker, that he kept saying it despite the facts, despite history, despite the constitution and the experience acquired since even before the constitution, as was so ably demonstrated by my colleague for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion). What facts, what authors, what authority can the former member for Stormont and his co-religionists adduce in support of this claim? They initiated unconstitutional measures and, at the same time, they assumed that by crying out that they were right, this would justify them, in the eyes of the public, for violating the principles of the constitution for betraying history and plunging the Canadian confederation into a crisis which now, thanks to the Conservatives, seems to be abating. I have too much respect for the judgment of the Cornwall statesman to believe he relies on the whimsical explanation of the member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) who claimed, not so long ago, that university education was not under the jurisdiction of the provinces because there were no universities in 1867. He was quite wrong in saying so because Laval University, of which he is no doubt an alumnus, was founded in 1852, and because, no later than 1868, the Quebec government expressed its intention to take its responsibilities not only in the field of higher education, but in that of arts, science and humanities.
The first speech from the throne made at the first session of the legislature of the

province of Quebec included the following.
I refer to the Journals of the Quebec legislature, volume 1, pages 4 and 5:
The constitution has entrusted you with great interests and conferred upon you serious duties in the fields of justice, education, civil and municipal organization, public welfare, assistance to sciences, humanities and the arts, public development, including that of our vast forests and very important mines, in the fields of the development of our social resources, of immigration, of colonization, of police, and in general, in the fields of civil legislation and property rights.
And further on, the speech says:
The development of public education and the culture of science, literature and the arts have, in our times, become not only means of national progress and prosperity, but also, next to religious matters, the clearest manifestation of true civilization.
In that respect, the former province of Lower Canada has already made efforts which have been rewarded by remarkable success. So, with the commendable ambition of keeping us abreast of other nations, the former government had a survey made of the various educational systems used in Europe together with the literary and scientific institutions of the old world, with a view to introducing into ours what they might still be lacking. This is a serious matter which will soon have to retain the full attention of my government.
The budget speech of that year in the Quebec legislative assembly repeats just about the same thing. Let me quote from page 22 of the special edition of the budget speech delivered by the Hon. Mr. Dunkin on February 14, 1868:
A total of $392,190 is shown under the heading "Public Education". As 1 said before, about $25,000 of the total logically belongs to the civil government. And for the purpose of this statement that is where it was placed. I should point out that the balance includes three items, $68,000 for higher education, $4,000 for schools in the poorest municipalities and $2,000 for teachers' old age retirement fund, a total of $74,000 for the 12 months only, for those accounts are to be paid only once a year before the next meeting of the legislature. A new item of $12,000, about which I shall give more details later on, has been introduced for agricultural education.
There are under the same heading four literary and scientific institutions which receive a customary $3,000; then the usual amount of $2,000 is awarded to the commission on arts and manufactures; which makes a total of $5,000. The agricultural schools of Ste. Anne and l'Assomption receive $1,200 each; which brings grants for the whole agricultural field to a total of $14,400.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the centralizing undertaking of the Liberals in the field of education has known two stages:
1.	Introduction of university grant legislation;
2.	Creation of the Canada Council.
The two pieces of legislation could hardly be dissociated, as they are major links in a policy of centralization in the field of education which is, in itself, only one aspect of 79951-0-228J
Dominion-Provincial Relations the general centralizing policy described in Mr. Maurice Lamontagne's book which I mentioned earlier in my remarks.
I shall not recall here the various phases of the patient and astute struggle led by the federal government for the purpose of acquiring the exclusive provincial jurisdiction with regard to education. It might be enough to mention that the authors of the Tremblay commission report mentioned the milestones of that undertaking in book I, pages 95 and following, and in book II, page 227 and following, of that report.
I shall however more particularly mention the name of two members of the Massey commission, the same men whom Frangois-Albert Angers mentioned in his now famous article in VAction Nationale of November 1951, entitled:
Two models of irresponsibility: prime minister St. Laurent and commissioner Levesque.
The article mainly denounces the manoeuvres of those two men who were to become the great promoters of the centralization recommended, in matters educational, by the Massey-Levesque commission.
At the time the Liberal party was launching its great centralizing offensive some reasons and justifications had to be found. The views of the province of Quebec were too much feared in those days to state offhand as the new-Quebecer of Stormont did last year that university grants "were in accord with the constitution". They had to proceed with due caution. Pretexts and reasons had to be found which looked intellectual and even scientific.
A distinction was made between culture and education. It was to solve all difficulties and refute every objection. By resorting to that trick, everything which was in some way or other outside the questions specifically discussed in school programs was declared a cultural matter and therefore said to be under federal jurisdiction. Outside a specified zone which was called plain or academic education, a vast field was established, which was labelled the cultural field and comprised everything regarding the improvement of the individual and of society. Such a vast concept had to entail a very wide jurisdiction and what authority was better able to assume responsibility in this respect than the central power?
The concept of the university had to be redefined. Universities, because of the part

Dominion-Provincial Relations they played and because of their traditional functions, were supposed to belong to that super zone where central power may freely play.
After having disposed of the academic problem, it was also established that, for all practical purposes, the federal government should have a sovereign right of control with regard to all cultural matters and that such heavy responsibility could hardly be left only to provincial governments.
Therein, precisely, lies the misunderstanding, the error or the fraud. Those who were later on to become, in words if not in deeds, the promoters of a double culture, were forgetting that culture, according to the very definition they were giving of it, requires certain conditions and does not grow out of nothing.
In fact, it presupposes a certain climate, a certain environment. As a matter of fact, it is the result, the product and the most perfect achievement of a whole set of civilization factors.
Of these factors, the most important, the only essential one, is education. How can the advocates of dual culture claim to encourage the expansion and the progress of one culture in particular if they made this one culture subject to rules common to the two and if they seek, through a unified educational system, to cut off this culture from its living and fruitful sources?
Therein lies however the claim of the wise men from the Massey-Levesque commission. While pretending to promote a vaster form of national culture and to help spread French and English cultures, they want the central government to control these cultures and impose standards which, in the long run, would cause the original characteristics of each of these cultures to disappear.
What is, in fact, the objective advocated by the centralizing Liberals? The abolition of provincial sovereignty in matters of education and its transfer to a central power whose action could only be an effort towards levelling control of education at any level by the central power amounts to setting up a bureaucratic system which, to eliminate administrative difficulties, would impose programs that would do away with the destructive aspects of education in each province.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that every Canadian province must be anxious to retain full responsibility for education. Because education, and the system that serves to express distribute and expand it, is a provincial heritage enriched by experience gained over the years, and it illustrates the philosophy and distinctive characteristics of each province.
In the provinces with an English-speaking majority, even though the culture vehicle is


the same, that culture takes on the particular characteristics of the province, it reveals a background of tradition, customs and beliefs that perpuate the traditions, beliefs and national customs of those who built the province. Education, the responsibility for which belongs to each particular province, is a sure safeguard for the individual characteristics of every province. It thus goes on developing and enriching a body of traditional wealth, something which could not be done by a unified federal system of education.
What is true of education in provinces with an English-speaking majority is just as true, and even more, with regard to the province of Quebec and to the large French groups distributed across Canada. If French culture is to enjoy the greatest respect-as I am sure it does-as one of the most lively and dynamic cultures of the present day, there must also be a particular respect for the institutions that maintain and develop it in America, all the more so because that culture is an absolutely unique phenomenon in the North American context.
Canada would be all the poorer if French culture, which is one of its original features, should disappear. We have outlived the days when racial quarrels could be rekindled and where any excuse could be used to support the assimilation of one ethnic group by the other. Now is the time for a modus vivendi based on a respect for the facts of history and for the outcome of long political struggles.
It is proper to recall here the principles which guided the fathers of confederation when, after years of fierce and difficult struggles, they realized that both ethnic groups should try to find a modus vivendi whereby each respective group would have every opportunity to grow and develop freely.
Those principles were not discovered overnight; the light came only gradually, after a long search. And when Sir John A. Macdonald suggested a legislative union, it took all the persuasive powers of Georges-Etienne Cartier to convince him that such a form of union would not settle the old problems arising from the irreducible opposition between the two racial groups. Macdonald had to yield to the views of Georges-Etienne Cartier, just as today the Conservative government has yielded to the views of those who favour the strictest autonomy for the provinces.
There are those who will say that our government has not immediately settled the problem. That is true, but it started working on it as soon as it gained power. It sought

advice. It made suggestions. It listened to those that were made to it. It was able above all to learn from the facts and, instead of ignoring the province of Quebec, it started negotiations and agreed on a solution. The progress may have been difficult, I agree, but it was marked from the beginning with a persistent good will from which the whole country will now benefit.
This attitude stands in strange contrast with that of the Liberal party. It is useless to recall the heavy past of 1941, 1945, 1949, 1951 and the years preceding June 10, 1957.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I imagine it will surprise no one in the chamber when I say that I do not intend to follow the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) in his academic wanderings. Nor do I intend to break the rules of the house, as he did, by attributing his words to someone else. I cannot think that anyone would have any pride of authorship in what the hon. gentleman has said and on reflection I doubt whether even he will. I do think, sir, that the unworthy insinuations that he made about my colleague the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) need no reply. Those of us who have had an opportunity, as have most of us in this house, to compare the conduct and the contribution to the public life of this country of my hon. friend from Laurier and the hon. member for Roberval will draw our own conclusions.
1 hope to be able to say what I have to say in an entirely different tone and to deal with the bill before the house and with the arguments that have been put forward, particularly by the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Balcer), in respect of one part of this bill and, indeed, in respect of both parts of this bill; but before I do that I do want to make two or three general observations. The first is that it does seem to me that-and it is very natural that this should be so and I am criticizing no one in this house by saying this-because of the much greater emotional and perhaps political interest in the question of university grants-that is, in one province -we in this chamber are losing sight of the fact that the more important of the two aspects of this bill, important though the universities are and important though university grants are, is the maintenance and the extension of the principle of equalization. Without equalization, sir, I would remind the hon. member for Roberval and those associated with him; without the $50 million a year of equalization, or whatever the amount
Dominion-Provincial Relations is that is paid by the vote of this parliament out of the treasury of this country into the treasury of the province of Quebec without any strings attached; paid as a result of Liberal legislation which was accepted by the late Mr. Duplessis in the year 1956; without that Liberal legislation, there would be very little autonomy today in the province of Quebec because the treasury would be empty.


Egan Chambers: Are you running in Quebec, too?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This fact should not be forgotten by these gentlemen who are delivering these academic discourses. There would be no university grants from the federal government or the provincial governments if we did not have these equalization payments which have been paid to nine provinces out of the ten. It is true that Ontario does not get any equalization payment because she could stand on her own feet. However, for the province of Quebec, there is $50 million or $60 million which is paid as a result of this act introduced by Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Harris in 1956, an act which was denounced in this house and voted against by the present occupants of the treasury benches, but which was accepted by Mr. Duplessis.
These are the facts. This is part of our history that hon. gentlemen opposite will find it very difficult to obscure, even to the electors. I want to say something more about this matter of equalization, sir, before I conclude my speech because it is, as I say, very important to some of the other provinces as well as to Quebec.
I should like to say something as well, in view of some of the arguments that have been advanced in this debate so far, but I am not going to put forward any new ones of my own-


Egan Chambers: You have not got any.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is quite right, I have not got any new ideas. However, I have the ideas of Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Harris which are the only ideas that this government can put forward because they have not got any of their own.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: And they were rejected by the people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very proud of the fact that Mr. St. Laurent laid such a good foundation that this government, which denounced the foundation when it was being laid, cannot find anything to put in its place and has to continue it. This whole measure amounts to just that, except for one relatively small part, and that relatively small part is, in our opinion, of very doubtful legality.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
There would be no university grants about which anybody could argue in this house or in the legislature of Quebec or on the hustings in Quebec if Louis St. Laurent had not been prime minister-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This is false; this is not true. There were some grants long before that. You do not know anything about your history.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: Even your own members are protesting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; some hon. members are becoming so vocal it is impossible for me to hear the speaker who has the floor. I hope I will not have to intervene more forcefully.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I regret very much that I have such a feeble voice, and I will do my best to make myself heard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is to proceed he must have the attention of the house. A debate cannot be carried on when many members are shouting from both sides of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was saying there would be no federal university grants for us to be debating this evening if Mr. St. Laurent had not, as head of the government, in the year 1951 put an item in the estimates to pay 50 cents a head of the population of each province to the institutions of higher learning in each province, without any strings attached whatever. I might say when that was done Mr. St. Laurent was highly commended for doing it-I am going to use here a term I think I have rarely ever used before about a political opponent-by my hon. friend from Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), for whose honesty and patriotism I have the greatest possible respect. There was not one word from Mr. Drew; there was not one word from the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming); there was not a peep out of the Solicitor General in criticism of university grants at that time.
What is more, when these grants were made they were accepted by all the universities in the province of Quebec through a special commission that was set up at Mr. Duplessis' request, a joint commission composed of the minister of finance of Canada and the minister of finance of Quebec, and they were paid jointly by this commission for one year. Now, why, if it was all right to do it that year, it ceased to be all right in the year 1952 I do not profess to know. I do not intend to intrude in provincial politics by attributing any motives.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All I say is that it was not
the St. Laurent government, and it was not the parliament of Canada, that denied these grants in 1952 to the universities of Quebec.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It was the universities themselves.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. and
noisy member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard)-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -could make his own
speech.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: And who knows all about the universities; you do not know anything about them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am saying that this was the situation at that time. The situation was that in the year 1952 these grants were no longer accepted by the universities of Quebec, but only after the joint commission, which had been set up between the federal and provincial government of Quebec-which was unique and which did not exist in any other province-was dissolved by the government of Quebec and not by the government of Canada.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Because Quebec was not a province like the others.


Augustin Brassard: I should like to speak to a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) is speaking to a point of order.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I only wish to say that we have listened very carefully while the hon. member for Roberval read his speech.
I am wondering if there is not some misunderstanding about the Canadian House of Commons. I think that certain members here believe that we are in Quebec.
I would like you to maintain order, so that we may hear the speech of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I rise on a point of order. (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot speaks, I may say I am not sure I understand what the precise point of order is that the hon. member raised. Perhaps he could tell me the complaint he raised.


Augustin Brassard: What I said was this: We listened very carefully and very attentively to the speech delivered by the

hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay). Since the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate (Mr. Pickersgill) has started his speech he has not been able to make himself heard in this house because of the interruptions from hon. members on the government side.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I should like to say a few words on the same point because the hon. member for Lapointe said a while ago that we were confused as to what was going on in Ottawa and in the legislature of Quebec. I think this is an insult to the province of Quebec and to the members from the province of Quebec because I think if there is one institution in Canada that works for the maintenance of-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: I am not aware of having insulted the province of Quebec, although I might have insulted members of the Union Nationale.


An hon. Member:: We shall know later.
(Text):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If there is anything that works for the maintenance of order in Canada, it is the government of the province of Quebec. I think it is an insult to the province of Quebec to say such a thing.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should resume his seat. The hon. member who has just spoken has strayed away a bit from the point of order. The point of order itself is a general one. It is a point of discipline actually. As the hon. member who has the floor has indicated, emotions seem to have been aroused by this debate. No one hon. member and no one section of the house is wholly to blame. I have intervened for the benefit of the hon. member who has the floor and I will do so again if there is further disorder. I ask hon. members kindly to restrain their emotions until their turns come to speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Having listened to the
admiration expressed by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot for the legislature of Quebec and knowing that there is an opportunity for people to get into that legislature, I think there are some of us in this house who would not mind if he tried to do so.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: We would be very successful, too.


Mr. Speaker:: One of the difficulties about this debate is that discussion has been altogether too much about the responsibilities and jurisdiction of the legislature of the province of Quebec and not enough about the jurisdiction of this parliament whose bill is before the house.
Dominion-Provincial Relations


Mr. Johnson:: Will the hon. member permit a small question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I am referring to the statement he made a moment ago to the effect that any people who like to get into that house, implying any Conservative member wishing to be elected to the legislature of the province of Quebec, could do so. Does he intend to imply that anyone who runs as a Union Nationale candidate in the province of Quebec will get elected?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member who just asked the question perhaps did not hear what I have just said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I regret very much not being able to answer the question but I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
When I was briefly interrupted I was saying that the university grants, which were established by the St. Laurent government and which were accepted by the universities of Quebec from the joint commission of the federal and provincial governments in 1951 or in the fiscal year 1951-52, were not subsequently accepted by those universities after that commission was dissolved by the provincial government. For what reason that was done, I do not know. But from that time onward it was a source of regret to every member of the government of Canada, and to every member to whom I ever talked who supported the government of Canada of that day in this parliament, that a method could not be found of meeting this difficulty.
It is well known that in 1957 a step was taken by the government of that day, again on the initiative of Mr. St. Laurent, to have these grants paid not directly out of the treasury of Canada but by the national conference of Canadian universities or a foundation established by that national conference, in order to remove even the last faint vestige of the suggestion that there was any attempt, direct or indirect, to assert any kind of jurisdiction because these voluntary gifts were made by parliament.
When the equalization payments are accepted by the treasuries of the ten provinces or the nine provinces that accept them and that is every province that is offered them- the only one that does not get one is Ontario; and they are gratefully accepted by all treasuries now, especially by Quebec- I have never heard anyone argue that the provision of those equalization payments is an assertion by this parliament that we have control over the legislature of that province. I have never been able to understand-nor do I think have any of my hon. friends been able to do so-why anyone

Dominion-Provincial Relations should have any ground for the view that the payment to a free university in a free country of money voted by the parliament of Canada was anything more than a gift or that in any conceivable way it could exercise any jurisdiction over that university. I do not deny for one minute that such legislative jurisdiction as exists in this country over the universities is vested in the provincial legislatures and in them exclusively. But my idea of a university grant and the idea of every true liberal-and I am not using that word "liberal" with a capital "1"; I am using the word "liberal" with a small "1", the kind of liberalism that would be understood by the hon. member for Greenwood-is that a university should be free, that it should not be under the thumb of any government, federal, provincial or municipal. It was because no man ever respected the liberty or the rights of others in the whole history of this country more than did Louis St. Laurent that it was possible for him to do as he did.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not attempted to allocate the blame but I am looking about for the principal offenders. When I find them I shall be obliged to mention names.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had not intended to say this, Mr. Speaker, but I think the time has come when it is very hard for any member sitting on this side of the house not to draw attention to the fact that when hon. gentlemen opposite speak, and particularly the backbenchers opposite, they are allowed to be heard in this house. But when members of the opposition speak with any force at all in this house it becomes increasingly difficult for them to get a hearing-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is not true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -as any comparison of my speech with that of the hon. member for Roberval who spoke immediately preceding me will, I think, show. Having said that, I do not intend to make further reference to the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) rising on a point of order?


Mr. More:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have heard the charges made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) about interruptions. May I say that it is just a week or so ago that the hon. gentleman who is making those charges made 62 interruptions from his seat without rising. I therefore think it ill behooves him to make general charges of that kind.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member who had the floor did not, in my opinion, show the best judgment in making the comments he made, unless he did so by addressing them to the Chair as a point of order. Otherwise he encourages interruptions which are not related to any specific point of order. Hon. members in the house appreciate the problem. This debate has been an extended one and there have been heated arguments. I am sure that all hon. members would like to get it concluded. That objective can be accomplished only if the debate proceeds in an orderly way. I have not attempted to allocate the blame. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that there has been widespread interruption. It is far from my intention to take the role of a scold. However, I ask the co-operation of hon. members throughout the rest of this debate, request that they listen with reasonable attention and that if they wish to interrupt they rise in their places and secure the consent of the Chair or hon. member who has the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say that I think the hon. member for Regina City had a point.


Mr. Kucherepa:: Confession is good for the soul.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was going on to say that in 1957 when this new method of making the payments to the universities was adopted it was adopted not because of the situation in Ontario or in Prince Edward Island or indeed in any other of the nine provinces. It was adopted in the hope that this procedure might remove the difficulty or the susceptibility that was felt by many people-and honestly felt- in the province of Quebec. It is a susceptibility which is very understandable, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said this afternoon.
That is the kind of thing which, if we are realistic at all in trying to conduct the affairs of this country on a national basis with fairness to everyone, we have to pay due regard to. We were very disappointed indeed when that device did not have the result that was hoped for. I must say I was pleased, and I said so in the house when this measure was first brought before us by the Minister of Finance at the resolution stage. I said I was pleased, and I think everyone in the country who cares about these things at all was pleased that it appeared that a method had been found to overcome this susceptibility about federal aid to universities.
It so happens that when the bill was finally brought before us and we were able to examine the method by which the present government is seeking to do what Mr. St. Laurent sought by various devices to do

we found that there are very grave doubts indeed about whether it conforms with the constitution of Canada which it is our solemn duty in this house to uphold. We have no business to be making laws in this house which are beyond the powers of this parliament if we do so knowingly. When my hon. friend from Laurier, in that magnificent speech he made the other day, pointed out what the difficulties were, he was not for one minute suggesting, nor was anyone on this side of the house suggesting, that we do not want to see this problem solved. After all, these university grants were started by us and we want all the universities in Canada to have them. We are also glad that the Solicitor General is a convert to our view of this matter because he opposed these university grants rather mildly in 1957. He did not actually vote against them but he opposed them.
A good many hon. members who are supporters of our political opponents in the province of Quebec and who opposed us in the 1957 and 1958 elections also attacked these grants and said they would have an end of them when they came into this parliament. Now what have we here before us tonight? We have before us tonight a bill which continues absolutely literatim and verbatim the St. Laurent formula.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is not true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact we all know that that is the formula that is going to be followed in the case of nine provinces out of ten. So that when the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) says that is not true he evidently has not read the bill because the bill contains, as the Minister of Finance told us in his opening speech very categorically and correctly, a continuation of the existing formula of paying university grants. It also provides a suggested alternative which, in our opinion, is probably beyond the powers of this parliament validly to enact and which, whether it is beyond the powers of this parliament validly to enact or not, certainly interferes in provincial jurisdiction in several respects, and the St. Laurent formula which is also being continued by this bill interferes with it in no respect whatsoever. That is the difference.
What does this bill say? I am not going to read the clauses because the rules do not allow me, but in the general terms in which the minister explained it to us it says that the province could impose a tax of 1 per cent on corporation incomes in addition to the tax that it is now imposing, and that the federal tax will be abated by that 1 per cent if-
Dominion-Provincial Relations and it is the "if" that matters-the province pays to the universities grants equal to $1.50 per head according to a scheme that is laid down by an agreement between the Minister of Finance and the universities federation in which that province would not be participating. That is to say, the scheme that is to be followed by the province which accepts this alternative is a scheme that is laid down by an agreement between the Minister of Finance and representatives from the other provinces, but not from that particular province. It is imposed upon them.
Furthermore, it says that if more is collected from the 1 per cent levy than $1.50 per head of the population of the province, the excess has to be paid over to the government of Canada or will be deducted from the payments to the province under this act.
That is palpably and obviously an interference with the performance of the government, and indeed an interference with things which have been done by the legislature of the province. It is an interference laid down by this parliament to be carried out by the Minister of Finance. It makes the Minister of Finance a sort of university dictator in the province that accepts this alternative system. He lays down the rules for that province and that is what happens. That is why my friend, Mr. Lesage, who is the leader of a great political party in the province, has said it is not acceptable.
Members of the government say that they have solved the problem. They have not solved the problem as long as the new scheme is not acceptable to all the people any more than the old one appears to have been. So that the problem is not solved by this legislation even if it were valid, and it does seem to me that our first duty as legislators is to determine whether or not it is valid and to be thoroughly satisfied on that point. That is what we are paid for. That is what we are sent here for. That is our solemn duty in this parliament.
The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) made a speech yesterday and I had a lot of sympathy with what he said and I would like to recall one passage to hon. members. As reported at page 3559 of Hansard, he said:
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 must say that was my first reaction when I heard of this entente. I think that was the first reaction of any person of good will,

Dominion-Provincial Relations that if the problem could be solved it would be a good thing for Canada, a good thing for Quebec and for the universities. I say that still and I believe it will be solved. I believe we can find a solution which will be a good thing for Canada, which will be a good thing for Quebec and which will also uphold the constitution of Canada.
The Solicitor General in his speech the other day did express some views with which I find it impossible, sir, to agree. I do not intend to deal with them at length, but the most important statement I think the minister made is to be found at page 3285 of Hansard for April 26 where he said:
(Translation) :
In their formula, the Liberals had overlooked historical facts, so vivid in the province of Quebec, with the result that even if English-speaking provinces could obtain the millions collected by Ottawa to provide assistance to universities, the people of Quebec were being taxed like all the others while its universities were compelled to turn down the largesses of the federal government.
(Text):
I should like to ask the Solicitor General to tell us who forced them. Who forced them? Not this parliament; not the government of Canada; not the universities federation. Indeed, there was no force at all.


Léon Balcer: Respect for the constitution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then the minister went on to say-and I will continue to quote, unless the minister wants to give his own interpretation about who exerted the force-
(Translation) :
People outside the French province, wondered when they found that, year after year, Quebec leaders were turning down federal grants. Our opponents went so far as to describe that attitude as "segregationism" but it was the Liberals, with their anti-constitutional formula, who applied a policy of intellectual segregation with regard to Quebec.
(Text):
I think it would be very wrong for me to discuss the question of whether there was any intellectual segregation forced on Quebec and, if so, by whom. That is not my business, and I do not intend to talk about it. But if this parliament has been enacting unconstitutional laws then it is my business, just as it is the business of the Solicitor General and of the Minister of Finance. I wish to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the principal legal authority in this house on the day he made this speech-I say this because the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) was away that day -the Acting Minister of Justice told us in his speech that the bill which is now before the house was unconstitutional.


Léon Balcer: I said, your formula, not ours; we have improved yours.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot believe that the Solicitor General of Canada, one of the leading lawyers in the country, has not read the bill before the house, because the St. Laurent formula, as the Minister of Finance told us, is in this bill in its entirety. It is the main thing in the bill, and it is going to be accepted by nine provinces, though an alternative is proposed. But if that formula is unconstitutional it should not be put into the bill by a minister who believes it is unconstitutional and who happens to be one of the legal advisers of the government.


Léon Balcer: It does not make Quebec a reserve, as you were doing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is incumbent on the Minister of Finance to tell us if he agrees with the view expressed by his legal colleague-his learned colleague-that this bill which the Minister of Finance is asking parliament to accept is unconstitutional.


Léon Balcer: I never said that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: These are the words I read, the precise words of the minister, I do not see how the hon. gentleman can get away from the words he used here.
The same formula is in the item the government brought forward last year, in the Appropriation Act, and the year before that. Does the hon. gentleman mean that for three years he has been bringing forward unconstitutional laws? He says this is an anticonstitutional formula. Well, it was in the Appropriation Act of 1957-58, 1958-59, and
1959-	60, besides being in the estimates of
1960-	61, to be taken out by this bill if this bill passes.
This is what the principal legal adviser to the government here in the house that day said was unconstitutional. This is a pretty state of affairs. Now that the Minister of Finance has been exalted above his station, and is Acting Prime Minister, I should like him, when he replies, to tell us if this is a new conception of collective responsibility, a new conception of the collective responsibility which a properly constituted government under our British system has for the acts it performs and the measures it brings before parliament. I take this position because here we have the Minister of Finance bringing in a bill, while his colleague, the Solicitor General, tells us that the bill contains provisions which are unconstitutional. This seems to me to be an extraordinary state of affairs.
I wish to turn, now, to another of the legal opinions-no, this was a political opinion-of

the Solicitor General. The hon. gentleman to my left laughed a little too soon that time. Here I am reading from Hansard for October 18, 1957. I am reading in English simply because I happen to have the English volume here; I am reading a translation of a question which Mr. Breton, the very distinguished member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm at that time, one of the most learned members in this house-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is why the people of his riding defeated him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Breton put the following question to the Solicitor General, as will be found in Hansard on page 129:
When sitting in the opposition, the hon. Solicitor General, has on various occasions, given expression to the well-known thought that federal subsidies are unconstitutional-
He was referring here not, of course, to university grants, but to the equalization payments which, apparently, the Solicitor General also thought were unconstitutional but which he has joined his colleagues in continuing for three years since he has been a member of the government and which he now wants us to continue still further. Perhaps I was hasty in saying this was not a legal opinion, because the record continues:
The opinion which he voiced then was shared in every way by the government of the province of Quebec. In view of the proposed federal-provincial meeting on fiscal matters, could he tell us now if he will oppose the subsidies which his government seems to be preparing at this time?


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


Mr. Remi Paul (Berihier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, ever since Bill C-56 has been under consideration there has been in this house an election atmosphere created under the guidance of one of the Liberal leaders in Quebec, Mr. Jean Lesage, a nefarious centralizer who has been making the hon. members of Her Majesty's official opposition blind or at least pretending to be.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has made an unwarranted attack upon a member of the Queen's privy council for Canada, using language which, I believe, is contrary to the rules of this house. (Translation):


Rémi Paul: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate referred a moment ago to what was said by the brilliant member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm under the Liberals, Mr. Breton.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
Well, I want to quote the ex-Liberal member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) and to comment upon his attitude.
Then, I do not think that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was justified when he interrupted.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker. The hon. member, as I heard
the interpretation, referred to a former member of the house and a privy councillor as nefarious. That was the translation. I have forgotten what the additional epithets were. May I remind him that the bill before this house is a bill which has to do with federal action and not provincial action, and that it will not be in order if his purpose is to discuss political figures in the Quebec provincial election. It is not in order to do that. I would ask the hon. member to reconsider the terms which he used.
(Translation):


Rémi Paul: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word "nefarious" to replace it by the word "notorious".
I can understand the concern of Liberal members from Quebec who are sitting in this house and who have put their confidence in the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who, from time to time, appears on Quebec television-and, he is about the only one who does so-to preach the great Liberal doctrine which, according to him, is the only one able to solve all national problems, and especially to safeguard the autonomy of the provinces, particularly in matters of education.
I intend to speak very briefly about Bill C-56, and far be it from me to consider a legal text to analyse the constitutional implications of section 93 of the British North America Act.
I will simply put a few questions to the Liberal members of the official opposition, in order to judge, by their attitude, of their sincerity in discussing this bill.
Do the Liberals admit that education, at all levels, and under section 93 of the 1867 act, belongs exclusively to the provinces? Section 93 is quite clear on that point. Only the provinces are entitled to legislate in matters of education, which implies, therefore, that they have the exclusive right of levying funds to support schools and universities.
The hon. member for Laurier should give us an explanation of the policy adopted by his party when, on January 9, 1952, order in council P.C. No. 123 defined the terms "students" and "universities" for the purposes of implementing the federal act providing for assistance to universities.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
What was the definition given to the term "university level"?
As far as a province Is concerned, a program study stage more varied than that which is generally accepted in the provinces as entrance condition to university.
The situation became seriously endangered, and those conditions and terms forced the province of Quebec to refuse the federal grants.
In the province of Quebec, such encroachment on the part of the federal government on the field of education could not be accepted, because universities and affiliated classical colleges are their own masters with regard to their education program and enjoy the fullest autonomy. This freedom of action allows them to retain for our educational system its own distinctive character, which is so much in keeping with the traditions of the people of Quebec.
Considering that Canada has a dual culture, the French culture which is so rich, so beautiful and so noble and the Anglo-Saxon culture which is characterized by its beauty, dignity and richness; considering that educational programs and systems are based on either one or the other of those cultures, depending on the racial groups for which they were meant it was extremely dangerous for the preservation of the French fact, of the French language and of the French culture to agree that the definition of the words "student", "university" and "university level", as set out in order in council No. 123, be the same across the whole country.
It is then that we saw the late Hon. Maurice Duplessis, premier of the province of Quebec, take a strong stand. He fought aggressively for his people and the Almighty recalled him at the top of his glory September last, before he could even reap the profit of the great battles he fought against the centralization of the federal Liberal party, of which were members at the time the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and the ephemeral leader of the Quebec Liberal party, Mr. Jean Lesage, former member for Montmagny-L'lslet.
And it is those people who today, with regard to Bill C-56, talk about encroachment upon the autonomy of the province of Quebec. The former member for Montmagny-LTslet is very ill-advised to proclaim himself, in the province of Quebec, the champion of autonomy and education, because he supports today what he criticized formerly, and his sincerity is only equalled by a personal ambition dictated by the proud wish of becoming premier of his province.
There is many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip as Mr. Jean Lesage won't be long in finding out.


Liberal members of this house should put education before petty politics. We must first consider the problem of education if we want our young students, the citizens of tomorrow, to have all the educational facilities which will enable them to play their part in the political life of our country, a highly social part.
The Liberals believed and above all hoped that the Conservative government would fail to find an area of agreement, a solution acceptable to the province of Quebec. The matter of university grants is not definitely solved by the present bill, but it recognizes that the provinces have an absolute right to levy taxes for educational purposes and to be able to discharge the responsibilities devolved upon them by the constitution. The time for the gradual return to the provinces of their taxation fields has come and soon, the present government will give back to the provinces the privilege to exercise their exclusive jurisdiction as regards education and grants to education.
During the last federal elections, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) had promised a happy solution to the problem of university grants. The Canadian people and the people of Quebec have trusted him and today the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) by his bill is fulfilling this electoral promise.
I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the premier of the province of Quebec, the Hon. Antonio Barrette, for the strong stand he has taken in order to help our educational institutions and our universities in the province of Quebec. His government did not care to know what the federal government would do and, without knowing if Ottawa would accept the 1 per cent increase of the corporation tax for educational purposes, enacted a law whose constitutionality is recognized by Bill C-56 introduced by the Minister of Finance.
In order to avoid double taxation and to respect provincial autonomy, the federal government through Bill C-56 grants a deduction of 1 per cent on its own tax. Is that the breach of provincial autonomy mentioned by the member for Laurier and the exmember for Montmagny-LTslet? The latter would have done much more for his people had he taken the same stand which he advocates to-day when he was sitting in this house. What will be the attitude of the Liberals concerning Bill C-56? If they vote against the bill, we will come to the conclusion, (1) that they are opposed to the

integral maintenance of section 93 of the act of 1867; (2) that they blame the present government for being careful not to encroach upon provincial rights in the field of education; (3) that they blame the province of Quebec for recovering the sum of $25 million to assist higher education in Quebec; (4) that they prefer to help their little friend Jean Lesage than to serve the interests of education; (5) that they were and still are centralizers and continue to promote the "believe or die" or "take it or leave it" policy of the previous prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent; (6) that they have definitely no regard for provincial autonomy.
On the other hand, if they support Bill C-56, we shall conclude, (1) that they were not in earnest when they stated their argument on autonomy; (2), that they attempted to distract the people of Quebec in order to make them forget that the matter of university grants was settled through understanding, co-operation and absolute respect of provincial rights, between the Union Nationale government, on one hand, and the Conservative government, so efficiently headed by the Prime Minister, Mr. John Diefenbaker, on the other hand; (3), that they criticized this bill for five days for publicity purposes to finally approve it out of undue deference to public opinion.
In concluding, on behalf of the population of Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere, I extend my heartiest congratulations to the Minister of Finance. And on behalf of educators, students, teaching institutions of my riding, I thank you, the Minister of Finance.
I shall support this bill and I vote for it, because it constitutes another step toward peace, harmony and true national unity in everyday life.


Mr. J. P. Deschaielets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the debate on Bill C-56, which amends the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.
According to pages 3279 and following of Hansard, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) made a complete historical survey of the matter of grants to universities, and his masterly speech covered the period from the request for financial assistance of Canadian universities to the Massey commission to the 1956 amendments which doubled those grants and charged the national conference of Canadian universities with their distribution.
I will briefly recall from this historical survey of the question only the essential facts.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
In 1950, and everybody knows this, the Canadian universities were in a disastrous financial situation-equivalent to a case of national urgency-which then required immediate solutions. We recall that in 1950, the universities themselves felt it was the duty of the government to help them.
So they explained their urgent needs to the Massey commission. The latter made a report on this matter to the federal government and urged it to revise the credits voted in aid to universities.
In the 1951-52 estimates, the special vote which provided direct grants to universities came from the consolidated revenue fund, not from a direct tax.
I must point out, Mr. Speaker, that those grants at the time were received with eagerness not only by all Canadian universities, but also by all political parties in the house, as well as by the government of the province of Quebec at the time, including the premier.
Those grants to universities initiated in 1951-52 either were constitutional or not.
If they were unconstitutional, why then were they approved without restriction by all political parties, by all provincial governments, including the Union Nationale and Mr. Duplessis?
If, on the other hand, the direct grants to universities were constitutional in 1951 and 1952, according to the Union Nationale and Mr. Duplessis, why did they become unconstitutional for them in later years?
We are all free to draw our own conclusions. My opinion is that in 1952 and 1956, which were election years in the province of Quebec, the Quebec government at the time deemed it expedient to entertain a constitutional myth for purely political purposes, feeling it was much more advantageous to use those expedients than solve the problem of the Canadian universities.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members of the province of Quebec were elected, among other reasons, because of formal promises they made to the electors in that province. Our Conservative friends undertook, if elected, to find a formula by which no federal grant would be paid to universities. And now Bill C-56 is before this house.
Not long ago I was reading thoughts by Euripides and I remember this Latin quotation which, I think, applies to this case: Quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat.
Those whom God wishes to destroy He first deprives of their senses.

Business of the House
Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration is in two parts, one of which is basically wrong, dangerous and anti-constitutional. That part is precisely that which is known as the Diefenbaker section.
On the other hand, there is in Bill C-56 a part that is good, and it is precisely the part taken from the act passed by the Liberal government of Mr. St. Laurent.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to call it ten o'clock?
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what the business will be for tomorrow? I wonder whether the house leader can indicate what business we will be taking on Monday and other days of next week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will consider the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. On Monday we will start with item No. 14 on today's order paper, which is a motion to set up a select committee to consider the procedure of the house. If it is concluded it will be followed on Monday by the budget resolutions.
On Tuesday, we will continue with the debate on Bill No. C-56, to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act. If that is concluded, we would follow with budget resolutions. Tentatively, I am suggesting for Wednesday consideration of a bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code, which will appear for first reading on tomorrow's order paper. I think that is as far as I can go at the present time, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Are federal steamship subsidies provided to any companies for services between other parts of
Canada and the province of Newfoundland?
5, 1960	3619
Question
2.	If so, to what companies, for what services and in what amounts?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The Canadian maritime commission advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2 (a) Gulf and Northern Shipping Company Ltd., of Charlottetown, P.E.I.; (b) between Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland (Charlottetown, Pictou and St. John's); (c) jointly with province of Prince Edward Island. Federal subsidy, $72,000.



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Room 701, Metcalfe building, 88 Metcalfe street,
Ottawa 4, Ontario, Canada,
April 29, 1960.
The Honourable Donald M. Fleming,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
As you well know, careful consultations have been going on between the two of us, as well as between the staff of the Canadian departments concerned and my embassy, as to the size of quota to be voluntarily applied by Japan for export to Canada of commodities which might injure or threaten to injure the Canadian producers of such or like products.
I am happy to inform you that as a result of these consultations, my government has decided to apply voluntary export quotas on textile goods as set forth in the annex to this letter for the year 1960.
You are aware that in addition, the Japanese government also maintains voluntary export control on other secondary textile products. These are listed in the final page of the annex. In respect of these items it is the intention of the Japanese government to establish export quotas for the year 1960 which provide for a moderate and orderly expansion on the basis of 1959 shipments.
It is noted that these measures, as set forth in the annex, are taken by the Japanese government on its own accord in order to conform with its established policy of gradual increase of Japanese exports on an orderly basis with a view to avoiding undue injury to the domestic industry of importing countries.
You will also note from the annex that many new items have been included under control and almost all items, at least all important items, of the secondary textile goods-nearly 100 per cent of the total Japanese export to Canada of garments or 77 per cent of secondary textile goods-will be covered by these measures. It is the opinion of my government that these controls will effectively preclude any further flooding in any of these categories of goods.
I take this opportunity to renew my firm belief that by setting up these self-restraining measures, we have been able to pave the
way for the further expansion of two-way trade on an orderly basis, to the mutual benefit of both countries.
In communicating this information to you, I assume that in respect of products listed in the annex to this letter, for which firm quantities are specified, Canada will not, during the year 1960, invoke the provisions of article XIX of the GATT or of the exchange of letters which accompanied the agreement of commerce of 1954 between Canada and Japan.
Yours sincerely,
Toru Hagiwara, Ambassador of Japan.
See pages 3622 and 3623.
Other secondary textile products on which voluntary controls are maintained
1.	Woollen sweaters, pullovers and cardigans.
2.	Woollen knitted gloves and mittens.
3.	Paper caps, paper hats and hat bodies.
4.	Silk and silk rayon mixed scarves and mufflers.
5.	Rayon gloves and mittens.
6.	Bed sheets other than cotton.
7.	Bed spreading all fibres.
8.	Pillow cases other than cotton.
9.	Woollen coats and slacks.
e.g. suits, trousers, skirts, dresses, coats, etc.

[Stage Direction]
Room 701, Metcalfe building, 88 Metcalfe street,
Ottawa 4, Ontario, Canada.
April 29, 1960.
The Honourable Donald M. Fleming, Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
As you well know, careful consultations have been going on between the two of us, as well as between the staff of the Canadian departments concerned and my embassy, as to the size of quota to be voluntarily applied by Japan for export to Canada of commodities which might injure or threaten to injure the Canadian producers of such or like products.

I am happy to inform you that as a result of these consultations, my government has decided to apply a voluntary export quota in respect of stainless steel flatware for the year 1960. Total shipments of this product to Canada for the year ending December 31, 1960 will not exceed 1,150,000 dozen pieces.
I understand that Canadian firms are likely to place orders with the Japanese industry to supply approximately 150,000 dozen pieces for the "premium" or "giveaway" trade. Accordingly it is expected that as in former years a significant quantity, within the quota, will be absorbed by shipments to supply the "premium" business.
It is noted that this measure is taken by the Japanese government on its own accord in order to conform with its established policy of gradual increase of Japanese exports on an orderly basis with a view to avoiding undue injury to the domestic industry of importing countries.
In communicating this information to you, I assume that in respect of this product Canada will not, during the year 1960, invoke the provisions of article XIX of the GATT or of the exchange of letters which accompanied the agreement of commerce of 1954 between Canada and Japan.
Yours sincerely,
Toru Hagiwara, Ambassador of Japan.

[Stage Direction]
Room 701,
Metcalfe building,
88 Metcalfe street,
Ottawa 4, Ontario, Canada.
April 29, 1960.
The Honourable Donald M. Fleming, Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:-
In the course of the consultations respecting Japanese voluntary export restraints I referred on several occasions to the problem of shipments from third countries to Canada of products for which Japan has undertaken self-restraining measures. I would like to take this occasion to remind you once again that the Japanese government attaches the utmost importance to avoiding a situation where third countries are able to expand their sales to Canada of such products by virtue of the fact that Japan has undertaken to limit her shipments. Should it transpire that such diversion of trade were taking place I would assume that your government would take the necessary steps to correct the situation. In any event I would like to reserve the right to raise this point with you again should developments make this necessary.
Yours sincerely,
Toru Hagiwara Ambassador of Japan.
[Stage Direction]


Voluntary quotas on the export of Japanese textile goods to Canada for the year 1960
Item	Fibre
Description
Quantity
1	Spun rayon	Blouses	 124,000 dozen
Shirts (including dress and work shirts and sport shirts)..	186,000 dozen
Total Blouses and shirts	 310,000 dozen
Note There is provision for a 10 per cent swing from one subquota to the other (see explanatory notes), but the total of the two subquotas will not exceed
310,000	dozen.
2	Spun rayon	Trousers and outer shorts	 94,000 dozen
Other garments in the coats and slacks group (including skirts and woven underwear)	 50,000 dozen
Total coats and slacks	 144,000 dozen
Note These quota amounts are to apply to shipments in the period April 1, 1960 to December 31, 1960.
There is provision for a 10 per cent swing from one subquota to the other (see explanatory notes), but the total of the two subquotas will not exceed
144,000	dozen.
3	Spun rayon	
Knitted wear	
140,000 dozen4	All textile fibres	
Elastic braid
500,000 lbs.
5 All textile fibres
Elastic webbing, woven
482,000 lbs.
6 Cotton
Cotton
8 Cotton
Blouses	
185,000	dozenSport shirts	
215,000	dozenBlouses and sport shirts	
400,000	dozenDress and work shirts	
95,000	dozenTotal blouses and shirts	
495,000	dozen
Note There is provision for a 10 per cent swing between the two subquotas for blouses and sport shirts (see explanatory notes), but the total of the two subquotas will not exceed 400,000 dozen.
Trousers and outer shorts	 80,000 dozen
Other garments in the coats and slacks group (including skirts and woven underwear)	 245,000 dozen
Total coats and slacks	 325,000 dozen
Note There is provision for a 10 per cent swing from one subquota to the other (see explanatory notes), but the total of the two subquotas will not exceed
325,000	dozen.
Knitted wear	 330,000 dozen
9 Cotton 10 Cotton
Damask table cloths	 1,100,000 square
[Stage Direction]
 yards
Pillow cases	 180,000 dozen
11 Cotton	 Fabrics	 25,500,000 square
[Stage Direction]
 yards
Note The Japanese government will use its best endeavour with Japanese producers and exporters so that within the quota gingham and velveteen will be shipped at least to the extent of actual 1959 shipments of these items.

Voluntary quotas on the export of Japanese textile goods to Canada for the year 1960-Concluded
Item	Fibre	Description	Quantity12	Cotton	Sheets	666,000 pieces13	Synthetic	
(other than spun rayon)	Blouses and shirts (including dress and work shirts and sport shirts)	50,000 dozenNote Should total shipments of synthetic shirts and blouses in the 12 months ending December 31, 1960 exceed 50,000 dozen, the excess will be charged against and deducted from the quotas established for 1960 for cotton and spun rayon blouses and shirts.	14	Synthetic	
(other than spun rayon)	Knitted Wear	75,000 dozen
15	Synthetic	 (other than spun rayon)	, Coats and slacks (including skirts and woven underwear)	45,000 dozen
		Note Should total shipments of synthetic coats and slacks in the 12 months ending December 31, 1960 exceed 45,000 dozen, the excess will be charged against and deducted from the quotas established for 1960 for cotton and spun rayon coats and slacks.	
16	All textile fibres		. Bedspreads		600,000 pieces
Explanatory Notes.
1.	With the exception of Item 2, relating to spun rayon coats and slacks, all of the quotas apply to total exports in the 12 month period ending December 31, 1960.
2.	The Japanese government will use its best endeavour to urge Japanese producers and exporters so that quota shipments will be spread fairly evenly over the year, with due allowance for the fact that the demand in Canada for some of the quota items is seasonal in nature.
3.	Where there is provision for a 10 per cent swing between subquotas, the maximum transfer will be 10 per cent of the subquota to be increased by the transfer. For example, in the case of cotton coats and slacks, the maximum application of the swing provision could result in shipments of (a) trousers 88,000 dozen; other garments 237,000 dozen, or (b) trousers 55,500 dozen; other garments 269,500 dozen.
4.	In connection with the 10 per cent swing provision, and also more generally the Japanese government will use its best endeavour to urge Japanese producers and exporters so that there will be no undue concentration on any item within the quota categories.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 6, 1960