1960-05-11

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Is the civil service commission advertising in the British isles for radio operators for the Department of Transport?
2.	If so, have any steps been taken to provide persons presently residing in Canada with the training required for such jobs?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State):: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part is yes. Nevertheless, such training courses and repeated advertising across Canada have failed to provide the necessary supply of radio operators.


DROWNING ACCIDENT, SECHELT INLET, B.C.
Mr. Regier: 1.	Did the Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigate the accident in which six men were drowned in Sechelt inlet, near Gibson, British Columbia, during a storm on April 13 last?
2.	If so, what were the results of the investigation?
3.	When was the boat in question last inspected by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police previous to the tragedy?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: The answer to part 1 is yes, an investigation was made into the accident and search is continuing for the missing men.
The answer to part 2 is that six men in a boat owned and operated by John Alexander Morrison, 36 years of age, left Morrison's logging camp at 5 p.m. on April 13 to go to Sechelt, British Columbia, some eight miles away. The water was extremely rough with winds of 45 miles per hour gusting to 75 miles per hour. The partly submerged boat was recovered early the following morning. Investigation indicates that the one year old, 15 foot open boat was overloaded and the accident in all probability was a direct result of this factor and the adverse weather conditions.
The answer to part 3 is that the boat was inspected by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on April 4, 1960, and found at that time to be properly equipped.
79951-0-238


PREFERENCE
Mr. McWilliam: Does the government recognize veterans preference in the appointment of postmasters for other than semi-staff and staff post offices?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


R.C.A.F. AIR CREW RETIREMENTS AND DISCHARGES
Mr. Winch: 1.	How many trained air crew officers, including those in command or staff appointments, requested retirement from the Royal Canadian Air Force (a) in the fiscal year 1958-59; (b) in 1959-60?
2.	What was the approximate cost of training these officers?
3.	How many technically-trained enlisted personnel declined to re-enlist (a) in 1958-59; (b) in 1959-60?
4.	How many made other arrangements for discharge from the service?


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: The answer to part 1 is (a) 11; (b) 10.
The answer to part 2 is (a) $816,000; (b) $736,000.
The answer to part 3 is (a) 584; (b) 662. The answer to part 4 is in 1958-59, 41; in 1959-60, 59.


STREET LETTER MAIL BOX SERVICE CONTRACT, CHATHAM, N.B.
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	On what date was the first contract awarded to the present contractor for the Chatham and street letter mail boxes service, Chatham, New Brunswick, and for what amount?
2.	Was this contract renewed? If so, on what dates and for what periods?
3.	Were public tenders called for this service any time after termination date of the first contract? If so, on what dates?
4.	Was this tender renewed by negotiations with the contractor? If so, what were the agreed amounts, in each case?


William McLean Hamilton: The answers are as follows:
1.	October 1, 1950; $1,080 per annum.
2.	No. A new contract was drawn, effective September 8, 1952, deleting service between the Chatham railway station and the Chatham post office. This contract was renewed without tenders in 1956 for a further period of four years expiring June 30, 1960.

Starred Questions
3.	Yes. Tenders were called on May 2, 1960, to close June 3, 1960.
4.	No.


TEACHERS' ISOLATION ALLOWANCES, INDIAN SCHOOLS, NORTHERN ONT.
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	Are Isolation allowances paid to teachers at Indian day schools at Sandy Lake and Deer Lake in northern Ontario?
2.	If not, for what reason?
3.	How far are these locations from the most northern (a) railway; (b) highway?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The answers are as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Sandy Lake and Deer Lake were not listed as isolated posts in the isolated posts regulations issued in June, 1958. However, as a result of recent amendments to these regulations these two locations are now classed as isolated posts. When the teachers were appointed to positions at Sandy Lake and Deer Lake in September, 1959, it was stated in their terms of employment that no isolation allowance was payable. Teachers employed by the department are considered Under contract; therefore no revision of pay and allowances is made during any contract period. However, in the case of these teachers the present contract period expires in August, 1960, and commencing with the new contract period in September, 1960 they will be eligible for both isolation allowance and living allowance.
3.	Sandy Lake is about 200 air miles from the nearest railway at Sioux Lookout and about 120 air miles from Red Lake. Deer Lake is approximately 200 air miles from the nearest railway at Sioux Lookout and approximately 100 air miles from Red Lake.


Mr. Benidickson:: Shameful neglect.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE INVESTMENTS AND BORROWINGS
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	(a) What was the aggregate book value and
principal amount of investments held by the unemployment insurance commission as of March 31, 1960?	(b) what was the book value, principal
amount, rate of interest and date of maturity of each of the investments held by the unemployment insurance commission as of March 31, 1960? (c) what change occurred in the position of each of these investments for each month since March 31, 1959?
2.	Has the unemployment insurance fund made any borrowings since March 31, 1959? If so, what amounts, on what dates, and at what rate of interest?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this starred question requires a detailed reply, and I would ask that the hon. member agree to have it made an order for return.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: If there is no delay.


William Moore Benidickson: I hope it will not be neglected.


Michael Starr: They never are when I have to answer.


Mr. Chevrier:: I have waited several months in one instance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.


TEACHERS' ISOLATION ALLOWANCES, INDIAN SCHOOLS, NORTHERN ONT.
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	Does the government pay isolation allowances to teachers at Indian day schools at locations situated on a railroad, such as at Moosonee, Ontario, and, if so, how much?
2.	When was a day school established at Pikan-gikum, Ontario?
3.	How far is this school from (a) the nearest northern railway; (b) the nearest highway?
4.	Has an isolation allowance been paid to the teacher at the Indian school at Pikangikum, Ontario?
5.	If not, is it the intention of the Indian affairs branch to pay an isolation allowance to the teacher retroactively to time of engagement, and, if not, for what reason?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The answers are as follows:
1.	Yes, if designated as an isolated post under the isolated posts regulations. Moosonee has been designated an isolated post; an isolation allowance of $1,140 per annum for a married employee and $720 per annum for a single employee is payable.
2.	The day school at Pikangikum has been operating since 1953. In addition, since 1949 a seasonal school has been operated during the summer months.
3.	Pikangikum Indian day school is approximately 140 air miles from the railway station at Sioux Lookout, Ontario, which is believed to be the nearest, and approximately 56 air miles from the nearest road connection at Red Lake, Ontario.
4.	No.
5.	Pikangikum was not listed as an isolated post in the isolated post regulations issued in June, 1958. However, as a result of recent amendments to these regulations this location is now classed as an isolated post. When the teacher was appointed at Pikangikum on January 1, 1959 it was stated in the terms of employment that no isolation allowance was

payable. Teachers employed by the department are considered under contract; therefore no revision of pay and allowance is made during any contract period. However, in this case the present contract period expires in August 1960, and commencing with the new contract period in September, 1960 the teacher at Pikangikum will be eligible for both the isolation allowance and living allowance.



SKILLED LABOUR


Mr. Winch: 1.	Has the Department of Citizenship and Immigration done any advertising in the British isles in the past six months inviting immigrants to Canada and outlining employment opportunities in the construction industry, in such trades as carpenters, plumbers, electricians and painters?
2.	If so. has the department had any consultation with the national employment service or the unemployment insurance commission as to the availability of persons trained in these trades now resident in Canada?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The answer to the first part of this question is yes and the answer to the second part is yes.



COAL SUBVENTION PAYMENTS, NOVA SCOTIA AND NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. Batten: What was the total expenditure for transportation subventions on coal in (i) Nova Scotia; (ii) New Brunswick, for the periods (a) April 1, 1935, to March 31, 1957; (b) from April 1, 1957, to March 31, 1960?


Hon. Paul Comiois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, there could be a problem in the wording of this question. Coal subventions are not, generally speaking, paid in a specific province, although they are paid on behalf of coal from that province. This has been drawn to the attention of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's, and I am assured that the figures he wants are the total amounts paid on behalf of Nova Scotia coal and New Brunswick coal during the periods indicated. He has kindly offered to withdraw the question and reword it, but I do not think this is necessary.
With this clarification, the answer to (i) (a) is that subvention expenditures on Nova Scotia coal from April 1, 1935 to March 31, 1957 totalled $66,437,765.54.
The answer to (i) (b) is that subvention expenditures on Nova Scotia coal from April 1, 1957 to March 31, 1960 totalled $28,302,797.86.
The answer to (ii) (a) is that subvention expenditures on New Brunswick coal from April 1, 1935 to March 31, 1957 totalled $491,434.92.
79951-0-238i
Starred Questions
The answer to (ii) (b) is that subvention expenditures on New Brunswick coal from April 1, 1957 to March 31, 1960 totalled $572,188.96.



C.B.C. REPRESENTATIVES, PRESS GALLERY

Mr. Cardin: 1.	Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have representatives in the parliamentary press gallery acting in the capacity of qualified radio and T.V. reporters of parliamentary news on the English and French networks?
2.	If so, what are the names of the representatives and when were they appointed to their present posts?
3.	What is the annual cost of the permanent Canadian Broadcasting Corporation representatives covering parliamentary news?
4.	Since January 14, 1960, has anyone other than the permanent Canadian Broadcasting Corporation representatives acted as parliamentary reporter or interviewer on the news broadcast of the English network?
5.	If so, what were (a) the names of the substitutes; (b) the reasons for not using the services of the permanent Canadian Broadcasting Corporation representative; (c) the additional costs to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in each case?


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, this is a five-part question, and the answers are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Norman DePoe, on temporary assignment as national affairs reporter since January 11, 1960; Tom Earle and Philip Calder, for English; Claude Paulette, French. The latter three have been accredited to the press gallery since April, 1959.
3.	Estimated cost $80,000 for all purposes of national coverage, including salaries, etc.
4.	No, apart from Mr. DePoe whose permanent appointment is pending.
5.	Not applicable.



C.B.C. PARLIAMENTARY REPORTERS, FRENCH NETWORK

Mr. Cardin: 1.	Since January 14, 1960, has anyone other than the permanent Canadian Broadcasting Corporation representative acted as parliamentary reporter or interviewer on the news broadcast of the French network?
2.	If so, what were (a) the names of the substitutes; (b) the reasons for not using the services of the permanent Canadian Broadcasting Corporation representative; (c) the additional costs to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in each case?
3.	On March 31, 1960, was a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation representative for Montreal sent to Ottawa for the T.V. coverage of the budget speech, and if so, (a) for what reason? (b) what was the overall additional cost to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in bringing such representative from Montreal?
4.	Are the functions and status of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation parliamentary representatives of the French T.V. network comparable to

Starred Questions
those of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation representatives of the English T.V. network? If not, for what reason?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is a four-part question and the answers are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Clement Brown, Jean Grand-Landau, Jean-Marc Poliquin. These gentlemen have been used because of their parliamentary experience and presentation abilities, and to take care of work load. Additional cost totals $2,000 in freelance fees.
3.	Yes, a staff man, who is used because of his wide reporting experience. No extra cost except for travel and per diem allowance.
4.	Yes, but a senior position of national affairs reporter, French, remains to be filled.



GEORGIAN BAY AIRCRAFT LTD.

Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Did Georgian Bay Aircraft Limited apply for a class 4 charter commercial air service (with group C aircraft) ?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	With what type of aircraft?
4.	From what bases?
5.	Was the application granted?
6.	If so, on what date?
7.	By virtue of what authority?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes.
With regard to parts 2, 3 and 4, Georgian Bay Airways Limited applied to the air transport board on October 17, 1958 for a licence to operate a class 4 group C charter commercial air service from a base at Belle-terre, Quebec, and on April 27, 1959, applied for licences to operate class 4 group C charter commercial air services proposing to use aircraft of the Cessna 180 type from bases at Fort George, Quebec, South Porcupine and Moose Factory, Ontario.
With respect to parts 5, 6 and 7, the application in respect of Belleterre was granted by board decision, serial No. 1241, dated March 10, 1959, and the application in respect of South Porcupine was granted by board decision, serial No. 1272, dated May 21, 1959, both pursuant to government policy with respect to the licensing of services to be operated with small light aircraft in the group C category.


Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Did Georgian Bay Aircraft Limited apply for a class 4 chapter commercial air service (with group B aircraft) to the air transport board?
2.	If so, was a public hearing held?
3.	Where and on what date?
4.	What was the decision of the air transport board?

5.	Did Georgian Bay Aircraft Limited make a new application for the same service following the decision of the board?
6.	If so, on what date?
7.	Was the application granted?
8.	If so, on what ground?


George Harris Hees: In reply to part 1, Georgian Bay Airways Limited initially applied to the air transport board on April 27, 1959 for licences to operate class 4 charter commercial air services with group B aircraft from bases at Fort George, P.Q., and South Porcupine, Ontario.
With respect to parts 2, 3 and 4 of the question, a public hearing was held by the air transport board at Timmins, Ontario, on October 15, 1959, and the board, by decision serial No. 1359 dated December 1, 1959, denied the applications.
In reply to parts 5, 6 and 7, Georgian Bay Airways Limited reapplied to the board on December 21, 1959, for authority to operate charter services with groups B and C aircraft from bases at Moose Factory, Ontario, and Fort George, P.Q., and with group B aircraft in addition to group C from a base at South Porcupine, Ontario. The applications were granted by board decision serial No. 1370 dated January 21, 1960.
With respect to part 8, they were granted in accordance with government policy in respect of the licensing of services to be operated by aircraft in the groups B and C categories.


Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Who supported the application of Georgian Bay Aircraft Limited for class 4 charter commercial air services (with group B aircraft)?
2.	Who opposed the application?


George Harris Hees: With regard to part 1 of this question, may I say that as the list is quite lengthy, perhaps the house would agree that it could be printed without being read.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Harris Hees: The answer to part 2 is Austin Airways Limited.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to have printed that part of his answer which he did not read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
James Bay Goose Club Ltd.
The Porcupine Chamber of Commerce, Timmins.
Timmins Bon Marche Ltd.
Nick Bren, Timmins.
Mrs. M. V. Charbonneau, Timmins.
Dome Mines Ltd., South Porcupine.

Rudolph-McChesney Lumber Co. Ltd..Timmins.
D.	H. Wigston, O.D., Timmins.
Ostrosser and Company.
Timmins Glass Shop.
H.	W. O'Gorman.
Louis Degilie, Timmins.
Robert F. Allen, Timmins.
E.	D. Dobson, Timmins.
Schumacher Hardware and Furniture.
John J. Regan, Timmins.
T. A. Richardson & Co., Timmins.
Tri-Town Motors Ltd., Timmins.
J. W. Spooner, Minister of Lands and Forests, Toronto.
Corporation of the town of Timmins.
Superintendent of Anglican church Indian school administration, Ottawa.
Missionaries at Attawapiskat and Fort George.
R. Hancock, Great Whale River.
Town of Timmins industrial commission.
Gordon Aiken, M.P.
V.	M. Gren, superintendent of the James Bay Indian agency at Moose Factory.
D. A. Wilderspin, manager of the James Bay district of Hudson's Bay Company.
Missionaries at Moosonee, Eastmain, Rupert House, Albany and Old Factory.
Phelps Dodge Construction Corporation of Canada Ltd., Toronto.
Dr. Moore, Indian and northern health services.
W.	G. Penny, Hudson's Bay Co. manager at Great Whale River.
L. R. Berry, field engineer for Joburke Gold Mines Ltd.
J. A. Cousineau, notary, Timmins.
A. Bergeron, Timmins.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Benidickson: I.	(a) what was the aggregate book value and
principal amount of Investments held by the unemployment insurance commission as of March 31, 1960?	(b) what was the book value, principal
amount, rate of interest and date of maturity of each of the investments held by the unemployment insurance commission as of March 31, 1960? (c) what change occurred in the position of each of these investments for each month since March 31, 1959?
2. Has the unemployment insurance fund made any borrowings since March 31, 1959? If so, what amounts, on what dates, and at what rate of interest?


LABOUR FORCE TURNOVER, NAVAL ARSENALS
Mr. Peters: 1. What is the annual labour force turnover in percentages in the four Canadian naval arsenals, Renous, New Brunswick, Bedford, Nova Scotia, Kamloops and Rocky Point, British Columbia?
Motion for Papers
2.	What is the annual percentage of turnover in
each arsenal for the years 1955, 1956, 1957, 1953 and 1959?	.
3.	What percentage of turnover of the labour forces for all departments is considered normal?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 94-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents received by the government or any department or agency thereof since January 1, 1957, dealing with the refunding of estreated bail to Mrs. Anna Badman of Vancouver, British Columbia.
Edmund Davie Fulton: This motion deals with correspondence, telegrams or other documents received by the government in respect of a matter involving consideration of the exercise of the powers of remission, which are exercisable under the prerogative of mercy.
As I explained to the house on May 2, documents of this type are by consistent policy not produced. In the course of consideration of such matters as are involved here, considerable correspondence is normally exchanged, and communications are received by way of letters and reports which often are confidential reports on the person who is the subject of inquiry, including police reports. The entire files are therefore regarded as confidential, since to produce such correspondence and documents would destroy the confidential nature of the exchange and deprive us of the benefit of having an unrestricted expression of views on the matter in question.
For this and other reasons it has always been considered contrary to public policy to produce material such as that asked for in this motion. However, I have indicated to the hon. gentleman, and should like to repeat here, that if it will be of assistance to him I will be prepared to show him the files personally in order that he may satisfy himself that there is nothing improper or unusual in any of the correspondence that is here. In such circumstances I would hope that he might agree to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member willing in the circumstances to withdraw the motion?


Mr. Howard:: I think I cannot do so, Mr. Speaker, because the minister has already answered a question asked by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) in which he gave certain information. The motion in effect asks for additional information related to some individuals whose names are given in the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?

Division


Some hon. Members:: Question.



IMMIGRATION


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, may I ask permission to revert to motions to make an announcement?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister permission to revert to motions to make an announcement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I wish to make an announcement with reference to an amendment to the immigration regulations as they affect the admission of fiancees. Heretofore the fiancee of a Canadian citizen or of a person admitted to Canada for permanent residence was admitted as an immigrant on the condition that he or she would marry the sponsoring fiancee within 30 days following arrival in Canada.
In future fiancees will be allowed entry as non-immigrants under the authority of a minister's permit issued under section 8 of the Immigration Act. Admission for permanent residence will be granted only after they have married.
The effect of this amendment is to provide more flexibility for the handling of fiancee applications and to expedite the granting of permanent residence to fiancees once they have become legally married.


Mr. Jung:: May I ask a supplementary question of the minister. In view of the announcement just made by the minister, can she inform the house whether this applies-


Mr. Pickersgill:: Are we on orders of the day?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member reserve his questions for the orders of the
day?


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to say in reply to the announcement that we are awfully pleased to recognize the ameliorating influence of the opposition on the minister.

On the orders of the day:


Douglas Jung: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I apologize for having tried to ask this question when I did. I am sure the house will forgive me when I say that I momentarily forgot the rules of procedure because of an event which happened yesterday afternoon, namely the birth of twins to my wife.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is forgiven for seeing double today.


Douglas Jung: My question is, in view of the announcement just made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration regarding the relaxation of the immigration rules regarding fiancees, can the minister inform the house whether this amendment will also apply to Chinese and Japanese fiancees, and whether it now will be still necessary for sponsors of Chinese and Japanese fiancees to post a $1,000 bond when submitting their applications?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The answer is yes, it does apply; and the posting of the bond will now not be necessary.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
>
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it a fact that United States U-2 planes have made a series of weather flights over Canada? If so, were such flights made as the result of special arrangements with the Canadian government, which preclude using Canadian bases as take-off points for flights to the Soviet union?
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in answering that question perhaps I can deal with the points raised in one or two related questions, particularly in view of the fact that there was in this morning's Globe and Mail a rather startling headline, "Spy Type of Planes Fly From Canada".
No such planes have ever operated from a Canadian air base. That was made clear by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) in a statement which he issued yesterday afternoon, and it has also been confirmed in Washington today by Mr. Lincoln White as spokesman for the state department. Furthermore, no such plane as the plane described here as a spy type has ever landed in Canada. Apparently the main type of U-2 plane is one which is designed for high flying, and is used for meteorological and radiological sampling. Such planes carry United States air force markings and are flown by United States air force pilots, neither of which fact pertains in the case of the plane which came down in the Soviet union.
One of the planes which is used for meteorological and radiological sampling made a forced landing north of Prince Albert on March 15, 1960. It was on a routine flight, the purpose of which was upper atmosphere meteorological and radiological sampling. It was returning from a point over Liverpool bay near the mouth of the Mackenzie river, and had not proceeded beyond North American air space. The flight in question was one of a series of scientific flights to obtain precise information about clear air turbulence, upper air cloud formations, jet streams and radiation in the upper atmosphere. The aircraft have been unarmed and all flights have been cleared in the normal manner. This is not only a matter of the planes being cleared and flight plans being filed, but also the making of reports during flight and when the plane returns to the United States.
As I have said, one such plane crashed north of Prince Albert on March 15, 1960. There is no question about its bona fides in the case, that it was such a plane and not one engaged in flying over the territory of any other country. I am further informed that these particular U-2 planes do not have the flight range to be able to fly from the United States over Canada and thence over Soviet territory.
I am very glad to have the opportunity to deal with this question this afternoon, because now if ever is the time for cool heads both in the east and in the west. As I pointed out on Monday the aim of the government, and the aim, I am sure, of every member of the

Inquiries of the Ministry house, is to bring about a reduction of tension and eventually complete disarmament. Stories of this kind do not help very much in attaining these objectives.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a supplementary question. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs takes the position that the foreign minister of the United Kingdom has taken and refuses to answer any questions having to do with intelligence, I will understand. Will he say whether he can comment on the existence of any other form of intended intelligence on the part of the Soviet union other than by airplanes; for instance, submarines?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be very helpful for me to reply to a question of that kind.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I noted that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had in his hand, as I have, a copy of the front page of today's Globe and Mail and he was very vehement about certain interpretations there contained.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Moore Benidickson: Based on the same page of the Globe and Mail, I should like to address a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue. All of us noted-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Moore Benidickson: Well, will the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue take up with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the playing down of this prominent article on the front page of the Globe and Mail, when on the eight o'clock news broadcast from Toronto use is invariably made of this page as the chief source of information for the broadcast? Was there some intimation from the ministry to the C.B.C. that this matter should be played down this morning?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of either of the suppositions made by the hon. member in his question.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Inasmuch as seasonal benefits for the unemployed come

to an end this coming Sunday, May 15, can the minister advise the house whether any plans have now been prepared to take care of those who will come off benefits this coming Sunday and who are still unemployed?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I explained this whole situation to the hon. member in answer to one of his questions last week, I believe. I pointed out that seasonal benefits formally ended on April 15, and that those employed in seasonal work are now on seasonal benefits for an additional month.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a supplementary question. As there are thousands who are not going back to employment, what care is going to be taken of them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recall that, as the minister indicated, there was a similar question and exchange about a week ago. I am sure the hon. member does not expect a question of that kind to be dealt with in an oral answer.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question, based on the fact that a delegation-


Mr. Speaker:: It is a matter of declaring policy, and the government has a right to decide when it will declare its policy and not to have to do so in answer to a question.


William Moore Benidickson: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour referring to the extension of seasonal unemployment benefits. I have a press release here which may be too terse, but which indicates that the minister has done something.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Moore Benidickson: I am referring to a press report which, quoting the Minister of Labour, says that he has extended the period of seasonal unemployment insurance benefits. I want to ask the minister whether he has extended seasonal unemployment benefits without informing the house.


Michael Starr: I think the hon. member has reference to what I said to a delegation yesterday morning. I did say that this government has extended seasonal benefits by two months, something that the former government resisted and would not do to help those in receipt of seasonal benefits. This government extended seasonal benefits by two months, and they are now in effect from December 1 to May 15.


William Moore Benidickson: Is there any new extension this year that has not been announced to the house?


Michael Starr: This extension is new? It is two years old.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he would clarify a statement he made earlier today, when he said the government had extended unemployment benefits for two months. Did the minister mean that benefits had been extended or that the period during which benefits may be received had been extended? If so, what extension has been made to benefits, apart from the benefit period?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that any extension of benefits is a matter for legislation in this house. What has been done, if it is not known to hon. members, can certainly be easily ascertained.
(Translation):



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). Is it true that, as of tomorrow, by virtue of a decision reached by officers of his department, hundreds of unemployed will no longer be allowed to wait at the unemployment insurance offices in Montreal, and that those calling there to collect their benefits or apply for jobs will no longer be allowed to queue up outside the building?
(Text):


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the translation was not complete, and I am afraid I shall have to look at Hansard in order to answer the hon. member's question.


Mr. Johnson:: You do not need to answer. He was making a statement.


Lionel Chevrier: The question was quite clear.


Michael Starr: The translation was not complete.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Timmins.


Lionel Chevrier: May I put the question in the English language, since the minister felt that the translation system was not working properly?


Michael Starr: I did not say that. I said the translation was not complete.


Lionel Chevrier: I accept the minister's correction; he says the translation was not
Inquiries of the Ministry complete. I wonder whether I might be allowed to ask the question in English, because I think it is in order. The question is whether it is a fact that a decision has been taken by the officers of the minister's department that beginning tomorrow the thousands of unemployed who have hitherto lined up before the offices of the unemployment insurance commission in Montreal will no longer be able to do so, and neither will they be allowed to stand in line in order to get their benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, if any instructions of that nature have gone out, then of course they have gone out on the direction of the unemployment insurance commissioners. I most certainly will look into the matter and see whether that is true.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware that among the 66 countries showing exhibits at the United States world fair in New York there is no Canadian pavilion, no tourist promotion booth and no Canadian products are individually displayed; and that all this was reported in a Canadian Press dispatch from New York several days ago? Has the minister any comment?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that we are not in a position to exhibit at every trade fair that takes place in other countries. We exhibit at a very large number of them. The expenditure-I am calling on my memory now-is close to half a million dollars for government participation in assisting businessmen who are exhibiting at trade fairs.
This matter can be discussed when the estimates of trade and commerce are before the house. We can discuss the number of trade fairs in which we are interested and in which we participate. Trade fairs are going on in almost every country of the world, and we simply cannot take part in all of them. We are doing a great piece of active work in exhibiting at trade fairs, and the results have been highly satisfactory. The ideal home exhibition in London was one of the best examples of Canadian exhibits at a fair.
If the hon. member wishes to propose, when the estimates of trade and commerce are before the house, that we should expend more money on trade fairs I will perhaps support him.
3780	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry UNITED NATIONS



SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND FOR AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: In view of the renewed interest in economic assistance to the nations of Africa, I wonder whether the minister could add anything to an answer he gave me on March 9, when I asked him whether the Canadian government had discussed with the secretary general of the United Nations his proposal for an African development fund. At that time the minister said he had not had an opportunity of discussing this question with the United Nations secretary general, and I wondered if there had been any discussions between Canada and the secretary general of the United Nations on the establishment of such a fund.


Howard Charles Green: I do not believe there has been, but I shall make inquiries and give the hon. member a further answer at a later date.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is a supplementary question from the supernumerary, but before asking it I must say that this group appreciated very much the reply given by the minister to the question asked by the hon. member for Laurier with respect to United States air force planes leaving and landing in Canada. I agree with him that we all have to do the best we can to work together to create the best possible atmosphere for the summit conference.
Knowing the minister's high regard-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am coming to the question-and appreciation for exactitude, may I say that my question is-


An hon. Member:: Oh, ask it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -some time ago the Globe and Mail mentioned that the Prime Minister was responsible for the aid to Africa program through the establishment of a commonwealth fund. Has his attention been drawn to this morning's Globe and Mail which now states the plan-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has taken enough time now to ask a number of questions. I wonder if he could come to the point and ask his question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am just about to do so. In view of the previous report that the Prime Minister of Canada had originated the aid to Africa program, and the fact that today's Globe and Mail says that Mr. Nkrumah


originated it, would the minister mind informing the house which is the correct version?


Howard Charles Green: I am sure the hon. member is not trying to take any credit away from Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the proposal for a fund to assist Africa was not made by the Prime Minister of Canada but by the prime minister of Ghana?


Howard Charles Green: I am surprised that the hon. member is trying to take the credit away from Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the minister aware of the fact that I proposed this on March 9?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether, in the light of the action forecast in another place, the government would consider asking this house to join with the other place in an inquiry having to do with exploring the possibilities of maintaining and extending a high level of employment and thereby-I am putting my own interpretation on it-reducing unemployment.


Michael Starr: From time to time in the past committees on other matters have been set up in the other place, and in most cases have served very useful purposes. This committee in the other place has been set up on the initiative of the other place. My feeling is that they will approach the matter without bias and perform a good service in respect of the subject being considered. Consequently I feel that the matter should be left in that position.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon.
member is inquiring into a matter of policy, not a matter of information or fact. He is asking the government to declare a policy with respect to the discussion of this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, sir; I was not asking the minister to declare any policy, I was asking if the government would ask this house to join in an inquiry. I should like to ask a supplementary question of the minister, and it is this. Does he suggest that the members in this house who represent the people will approach that question with bias?


An hon. Member:: You would.


Mr. Speaker:: This is one of those questions which make an assertion rather than asking a question. I will permit an answer if the minister can give a factual answer to such a question.


Michael Starr: I did not imply that at all, but evidently the conscience of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate bothers him in that respect.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he will review the proposed amendments in Bill No. C-58, that is the bill relating to the Combines Investigation Act, in order to determine whether the proposed amendments are incomplete; and if so would he withdraw the bill and resubmit it?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely the proper time to discuss a matter that is on the order paper is when it is called.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he can advise the house whether any consideration is being given to the provision of financial aid to municipalities which, after May 15, wll have to assume heavily increased commitments for welfare because unemployment seasonal benefits end on that date.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I think the hon. member must be aware that provision has been made by parliament, at the request of the present government, for the sharing with the provinces of unemployment assistance on an equal basis, without any of the threshold provisions that limited that kind of aid under the former government. He must be aware also that very extensive provision has been made through the large grants under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act for the assistance of the provinces and, through them, the municipalities.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a supplementary question. I think the minister misunderstood me. I am completely aware of the commitments of the federal government and of the 50-50 arrangement between the federal government and provincial governments with regard to
Inquiries of the Ministry the care of the employable unemployed. But in view of the situation which arises on May 15 may I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have already intervened when the hon. member was asking a supplementary question of a similar character. I fail to see how any good purpose can be served by trying to debate a matter of policy of this kind on orders of the day.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not debating. I want to ask a question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I must ask the hon. member to resume his seat.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister say whether a directive has been issued by the treasury board or any other government body instructing departments of the Canadian government to buy small cars instead of big ones? I am asking this question because of the serious unemployment problem that confronts the automobile industry.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the minister not going to answer the question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said no, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the minister not-


Mr. Speaker:: I just recognized the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the minister has said that he is not aware of such a direction, will he not take notice of a statement in today's Globe and Mail attributed to the deputy minister and saying that such a direction exists? Will the minister see that the direction is negated at once, because obviously it is at serious variance with the interests of Canadian workers.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Some day, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will ask a question not accompanied by a speech or a harangue, but he has not learned to do so yet. He asked a question a moment ago, and I answered his question.


Lionel Chevrier: You have a lot to learn.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not anything to learn from the hon. gentleman.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, you have.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not seen the newspaper report to which the hon. gentleman has referred. I will, of course, look at it. I attempt to keep in contact with what is done in the treasury board, but I do not profess to be in contact with every decision of every government board and every government department.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Treasury board comes under you, and you should know.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If it is something falling under the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, the hon. member can be assured that the Minister of Finance will be prepared to take his proper responsibility in that regard.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell the house why his technical assistance program has not resulted in the training of sufficient radio operators to meet the demands of the Department of Transport?


Mr. Grafftey:: That is a statement not a question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question assumes a fact and asks for argument under it. I do not think the hon. member's question is within the proper scope of oral questions. If he has a matter of fact to inquire into I will permit him to do so.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On the point of order which you have raised, Mr. Speaker, may I say that it is not an assumption of fact. It is based on a fact which was given here by the government in answer to a starred question, the fact being that advertisements for radio operators had to be placed in the United Kingdom because there were not sufficient available here after advertisements had been issued for them.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the hon. member's question still asks for an expression of opinion on a set of facts which he asserts, and in that sense is likely to introduce an argument rather than to elicit information.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I want to know the reason.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Timmins.



TIMMINS, ONT.  REQUEST FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the severe flooding in Mount Joy township near Timmins, which has caused the Red Cross to declare it an emergency area, and in view of the fact that over 300 families have had to be evacuated from flooded homes, can the Acting Prime Minister say whether the government is giving consideration to some financial assistance, in conjunction with provincial and local authorities, for the maintenance and rehabilitation of the victims of this unfortunate disaster?


Howard Charles Green: I am sure all members of the house have learned with a great deal of regret of this disaster in the Timmins area, and would wish to have sympathy extended to the people who are suffering. The regular course to follow in such cases where there is a national disaster is for the province to make an application. Of course, if such an application were made very careful consideration would be given to a request made by the province.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the imminent further danger of a major disaster if dams should give way on the Mattagami river above Timmins, could the minister say whether his department is prepared to supply assistance promptly to the area?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the department would be prepared to provide assistance if a request came through the normal channel, which would be from the provincial government to the general officer commanding the area who is located at Oakville and who has the necessary resources available to render such assistance.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. L. Spencer (Essex West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. There has been a delay in the completion of the public building at Windsor, and I am inquiring of the minister whether he is aware of this delay and whether he can give the house the reason for it?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I want to congratulate the hon. member for Essex West on the assiduous manner in which he takes care of the interests of Windsor. In reply to his question I would say it was only last night that the construction company temporarily stopped operations on the new federal building there, owing to some problem in connection with partitioning. We hope that operations will recommence on Monday next.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the minister whether he received my communication along the lines of the question put by the hon. member for Essex West?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I was quite surprised that I did not receive any communication from the hon. member.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister advise the house whether the national employment service has employment opportunities for carpenters, plumbers, electricians and painters and, if so, in what parts of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The inquiry is properly one for the order paper, unless the minister has the information at hand.


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have not.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister say what progress his department is making in developing licensing regulations for small craft, and whether his department have reached the stage where any amendments or new regulations will be introduced for this boating season.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I believe the progress we are making is very good and very satisfactory. I will speak to those in my department responsible for this matter and give the hon. member an answer tomorrow.
Dominion-Provincial Relations GRAIN



REPORTED INTENTION TO MAKE ADDITIONAL ACREAGE PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Would he comment on a Canadian Press dispatch in the Regina Leader-Post of May 5, which states:
The federal government Intends to make another acreage payment to western grain farmers before the end of the year, an authoritative source said Wednesday.
I am wondering whether such decision has now been made.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, any decision on this point will be announced in due course.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-56, to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act-Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) -Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Amendment of agreements.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before you give your ruling, I had not intended to say anything on the point that was raised until the second intervention by the Minister of Finance, but it seemed to me-and I am not taking issue with that at all at the moment- that in his second intervention the minister assumed that the general discussion which Your Honour ruled would be in order had been completed. I simply wanted to point out Your Honour that there were a number of hon. members on this side of the house who wished to participate in that general discussion before we discuss the details of clause 1.


The Chairman:: The point of order which was raised last night came about when the hon. member for Gatineau was speaking, and I took the view that his remarks at that time should be addressed to clause 2 of the bill when we came to examine that clause. The remarks which were made on that point of order revived the previous question of whether general debate could take place on clause 1 of the bill in committee. I have examined the question and I find that there are not many precedents or many very explicit decisions on the matter.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
May I say first that if the practice has been to allow a general debate on clause 1 of a bill, it is not strictly in accordance with the rules because the procedure is to study in committee the bill clause by clause only. Of course, as all hon. members know, discussion in committee has to be strictly relevant. Therefore this is a practice which has grown over the years, but it has been indicated in some instances that this discussion should be of a particular nature.
Hon. members will realize that it is easier to say what it cannot be than what it can be. First, it cannot be the same as that which took place on second reading because we have to apply the rule of strict relevancy as provided by standing order 59, paragraph 2. It may not be the same, either, as that which takes place in the normal way when we discuss the bill clause by clause, because then we would be repetitive. I may say that I would have to object to any comments which would normally be addressed to the discussion of a clause, and that is the view I took when the hon. member for Gatineau was speaking.
As to what exactly can be discussed on clause 1, when we have a discussion in general terms, I should think that the nature of the bill might change the possibilities. When it is a new act comprising several clauses, I should think discussion on the general bill in general terms could refer, for instance, to the format or plan of the act or its drafting. By these remarks I do not want to limit the discussion to these points; I am just giving an example. On the other hand, an amending act may sometimes not offer the possibility of a very wide discussion on clause 1. In the present case, to me the general discussion provided on clause 1 would be rather limited.
I have accorded some latitude up to now, but if the remarks are directed to the way the bill is drafted in a particular clause- reference to some terms in a particular clause-I would think those remarks should be made when we come to the clause in question; otherwise we would have repetition. It is not my intention to prevent free discussion of the bill but simply to have as orderly a discussion as possible.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, yesterday when I was discussing clause 1 I made, a number of points. There was one, however, which I had not had the opportunity of making and I did not want to insist upon additional time for making it. Then I abided by the wish of the committee to retire after I was given the opportunity to say a few words in conclusion.
[The Chairman.]
I do want now at this stage to reiterate another point and at the same time make a new point dealing with clause 1. I think your ruling will allow me to do it, but before I proceed I should like to draw your attention to clause 6, subsection 3, of the tax rental agreement which is now under discussion under clause 1 of this bill and which in effect allows the minister, with the approval of the governor in council, to enter into an agreement amending or extending the terms and conditions. If one looks at clause 1 he will see that about the middle of the clause now under discussion and toward the end reference is made to a province:
-described in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 9A,
This therefore brings into operation the words that were discussed last evening such as "in the opinion of the minister" and "in accordance with the terms and conditions, and so forth
I assure you, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to abuse that interpretation which I put on clause 1 because I do not intend to deal with the point I have in mind at any length, but I simply lay that as a basis to substantiate what I think is the position Your Honour took last evening and that which you are taking now.
The other matter which we on this side of the house feel is of great concern to us and which I am sure should be of concern to all hon. members of the committee but more particularly to hon. members from the province of Quebec is the attitude that is being taken or has been taken on this bill by the government of that province. Here I want to deal with the correspondence that was exchanged between the Prime Minister of Canada and the various premiers of the province of Quebec, correspondence which I say took some considerable time to be tabled because the notice of motion which I put on the order paper on a certain date was not returned until many months thereafter although I had on more than one occasion asked for the submission of the correspondence.
I believe this correspondence should be of great importance to the committee because neither in the correspondence nor any of the statements made did the Prime Minister of Canada at any time mention that the federal government would require that the arrangements between the province and the universities would have to be-and these words I place in quotation marks-"satisfactory in the opinion of the Minister of Finance," and that they would have to comply with the terms of the agreement made between the Minister of Finance and the Canadian universities foundation.

It is true, on the other hand, that the Prime Minister in the correspondence made it quite clear that the excess of the provincial tax over the $1.50 per capita would be deducted from equalization payments or any other payments due to the province. The premier of Quebec did not accept that condition at any stage in the exchange of correspondence which I should like to put on Hansard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, it is quite obvious that the hon. gentleman is doing the same thing as he did last night. He is proceeding now to discuss the provisions of clause 2 of the bill. The point the hon. gentleman is raising now is related to the provisions of clause 2 of the bill. It has nothing to do with clause 1.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the only point I wish to make is that in view of your ruling it has been decided, I think, that there can be a general discussion. What I am dealing with is a general discussion of the clause but I have gone a step further and have said that clause 1 incorporates clause 2 when there is reference in the latter part of it to a province described in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 9A. Therefore it is not possible to discuss this clause intelligently without reference to section 9A. I therefore submit with deference that on both counts-on the count that you yourself found there should not be prevented a general discussion of the clauses and on the count of the reference I have made to the special clause which I am not going to discuss in detail-I should be allowed to proceed.


Jacques Flynn: I will allow the hon. member to continue for the time being. I must warn him, however, that later on when we come to clause 2 if I find out that his remarks now were directed to clause 2 I will not be able to let him repeat what he is now saying. Because the hon. member said he cannot discuss clause 1 without reference to clause 2 I will allow him to proceed for the time being.


Lionel Chevrier: If Your Honour rules me out in that respect, I will have no fault to find. I now wish to place on record the correspondence that took place between the Prime Minister and the premier. However, since this correspondence has taken place the premier of Quebec has stated on two different occasions-on one occasion in Montreal and on another in Joliette-that there was no understanding or agreement between his government and the federal government about the new arrangements provided in this bill.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
In a letter sent by the Prime Minister of Canada to the premier of Quebec dated February 2, 1960 here is what was said, and I quote:
My dear Prime Minister,
I appreciate the constructive suggestions contained in your letter of January 21, and believe that they provide the basis for discussions which will assure agreement on the several aspects of grants to universities.
I am glad to learn that your government agrees to the general principle for settlement of the problems and if further clarification is needed to secure agreement in detail-
I underline those words, "if further clarification is needed to secure agreement in detail". I continue:
-I feel that the best course to adopt would be to have early discussions between representatives of the two governments. If you are agreeable to such discussions I shall name the Hon. Donald M. Fleming to represent the federal government, and I await your reply as to when such a meeting can be arranged.
A reply came from the premier of Quebec under date of February 5, 1960, the second paragraph of which reads as follows:
The suggestion which you make that I should meet the Hon. Donald M. Fleming, acting as representative of the federal government, and the speed with which you have replied to my letter allow me, I presume, to anticipate that very soon you and I will be in a position to announce that the already expressed hope of a settlement regarding the grants to the universities has been realized.
I repeat:
to announce that the already expressed hope of a settlement regarding the grants to the universities has been realized.
Having said that, I hasten to add that we all know that the meeting between Mr. Barrette and the Minister of Finance took place but nothing transpired from the discussion. I asked the minister on the orders of the day in the house to make a statement in respect to this. If the minister wishes I have the questions and answers which I could place on the record. However, the minister refused to say anything. He said on that occasion, in effect, "wait until the bill and the resolution which is already on the order paper come before parliament and you will then see for yourself what is in that piece of legislation." There evidently comes to mind the question which is raised by this correspondence: Was there an agreement in detail secured at the meeting as the Prime Minister hoped in his letter? Thus far we do not know.
One thing is certain, however, and it is this. No announcement was made in that respect either by the Prime Minister of Canada or by the premier of Quebec save and except the announcement which was made by the Prime Minister outlining the terms under which this legislation would be brought forward many months ago, a part of which

Dominion-Provincial Relations I have already put on the record during the discussion of the resolution. Neither was there any announcement made or agreement reached, as stated by the premier of the province of Quebec in his letter.
The premier of Quebec on two occasions, I said, made it quite clear that no agreement and no understanding had been reached between his government and the federal government. Here I should like to put on record a statement appearing in Le Devoir of May 9, 1960, which can be found at page 6 and which reads as follows:
(Translation):
Mr. Barrette said that there was never any question of an agreement with Ottawa, but a decision taken by an autonomous government to settle a thorny problem. Thus, by proudly expressing our will, we finally succeeded in recovering for Quebec $10 million in taxes every year, and the $25 million lying dormant in Ottawa coffers.
We even got the federal government to admit that it will entirely vacate the field of education, thus finally winning out after years of struggle.


Mr. Tremblay:: That is sheer nonsense. (Text):


Lionel Chevrier: The statement made by the premier of Quebec, which appears in Le Devoir of April 20, 1960, at page 6:
(Translation):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: You have a good prompter.


Lionel Chevrier: During last session, we passed seven measures for education. One of those acts raises from 9 to 10 per cent the tax on corporation profits and enables us to increase grants by $10 million. We hoped that the federal government would grant an equivalent exemption to corporations, but it was never a condition and there never was any agreement. The federal government has clearly recognized the right of the provinces and we were able to collect $10 million at no cost at all to Quebec taxpayers.
Now, listen to this:
... without entering into any agreement, and by an autonomous government.
So no agreement was entered into between the two governments.
(Text):
Therefore, the committee is entitled to know what took place at the meeting between Mr. Barrette and the Minister of Finance. In his letter which I quoted earlier Mr. Barrette said he hoped an agreement would be reached. That was before his meeting with the Minister of Finance. Now long after the meeting has taken place he says there has been no such agreement or no understanding reached with Ottawa. Hence we are entitled to know from the Minister of Finance what transpired at that meeting. Were the terms of this bill made known to the premier of the province of Quebec? What was the reaction to

the terms? We have, of course, thus far the version given to us in this house by the Solicitor General who spoke on an earlier occasion. He told us what took place between the Quebec premier and the Minister of Finance. What he said is to be found at page 3286 of Hansard of April 26, 1960, and I quote:
(Translation):
A few days before his death, Mr. Duplessis stated that he would be in a position to submit, in October, a positive proposition to the ministers from Ottawa. It was the Hon. Paul Sauve who submitted that positive proposition. Federal ministers discussed it with Mr. Sauve and, at the time of his tragic death, only a few details remained to be worked out, which was done during a private interview between Mr. Antonio Barrette, Mr. Sauve's successor, and the Minister of Finance, sponsor of the bill which is now before us.
We have kept our word admirably, because Premier Barrette himself believes that this bill is consistent with the terms of Mr. Duplessis' proposal, which was submitted again by Mr. Sauve, and later by Mr. Barrette himself.
(Text):
According to the Solicitor General there was complete agreement between the Quebec premier and the Minister of Finance when they met in Quebec city and the Quebec premier accepted all the provisions of this bill. There is, therefore, a complete and direct contradiction between the Solicitor General on the one hand and Mr. Barrette on the other, and we on this side of the house, although we are entitled to know what the position is, do not know which of the two interpretations to accept. If we accept the interpretation given by the Solicitor General, who by the way was not at the meeting in Quebec, then it means that the Quebec premier has accepted the provision that the arrangements the province would make with the universities would have to be satisfactory in the opinion of the minister, as set out in this clause. I cannot believe for one moment that the premier of the province of Quebec, who poses as a great champion of provincial autonomy, has accepted this condition. It also means, if we accept the version of the Solicitor General, that the Quebec premier has accepted to become bound by the definitions to which I referred earlier of a university student, university level and university degree as determined by the Minister of Finance in his agreement with the Canadian universities foundation. Here again I cannot believe that the Quebec premier has accepted this condition, which is a serious limitation upon the sovereign right of the province guaranteed under our constitution.
Again, if we accept the Solicitor General's interpretation, it means that Mr. Barrette has accepted that a share of the provincial revenues would be deducted by the federal

government as a debt due Canada, as set out in the terms of this bill. Neither can I believe that-


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of
order, again we are having a repetition of the same thing as we had before and which is turning this discussion into, if I may say so, a very disorderly proceeding. The hon. member is referring to clause 2 all the time and he is discussing the specific provisions of clause 2. Now, what does this mean? It means that it will not be open to any hon. member in this house to correct the errors in which the hon. gentleman is now engaging without equally breaking the rules of the house.
It is one thing to permit a general discussion; it is a very different matter for the hon. gentleman, taking advantage of that cover, to proceed to discuss in detail the language in the specific provisions of clause
2.	With great respect, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman all the way through has just been taking licence and advantage of the rules of this house. I believe this licence has never been accorded to any hon. member before and it cannot be accorded to him without serious damage being done to the rules of this house and the rights of every hon. member.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may, I thought your ruling had been quite clear a while ago, but in case the Minister of Finance is not aware of the terms of his own bill I bring to his attention again, as I did earlier, that we are dealing with an amendment to clause 6 which has reference to tax rental agreements and that the last part of this brings into operation clause 9A, which is the second clause of this bill, parts of which I have been discussing not in detail but in general. I submit, sir, with deference, that I should be allowed to carry on.
I was at the point of saying, when I was interrupted, that neither could I believe that the Quebec premier-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
before the hon. member goes on to slur over the point and pursue his cheery way, may I suggest again that the hon. member is not engaging in a general discussion; what he is doing is engaging in a specific discussion of the specific terms of clause 2 of the bill and, with great respect, I think he should not be permitted to break the rules of the house in that regard.


Lionel Chevrier: Could I be allowed one other comment? The minister, if he has no objection to what I am discussing, should, it seems to me, on the first clause allow it to be discussed. He rose repeatedly last night, as he 79951-0-239
11, 1960
Dominion-Provincial Relations is rising now, not on a serious point of order, it seems to me, but in order to stop the discussion. When we get to clause 2 the Minister of Finance will put forward another reason why, under clause 2, I cannot deal with the matters I am dealing with now. I know him too well. He is very proficient at raising points of order, but I submit again that I should be allowed to proceed because I am strictly within clause 1 in accordance with the ruling made by the Chair.


Jacques Flynn: I have already expressed my views generally with respect to this matter. I am not convinced that the question the hon. member is now discussing, namely the existence or non-existence of an agreement between the premier of Quebec and the Minister of Finance, would be in order in the general discussion under clause 1.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would you hear argument on that point?


Jacques Flynn: If the hon. member will permit me, I gave permission to the hon. member for Laurier to proceed after he explained that he could not discuss clause 1 without referring to clause 2. He may have strayed away a little from the ruling I gave but at the point he now is I assume he will soon complete his argument and I think we will save time by letting the hon. member finish.


Lionel Chevrier: The chairman is quite right. I had arrived at the point where I was about to conclude when the minister interrupted me. I was about to say that also on the third' point could I believe that the premier of Quebec had accepted the condition contained therein. I want to add that if the account given by the Solicitor General does not correspond to the facts then we must accept the statements made by the Quebec premier as to what really did take place.
The only reference to federal action made by the Quebec premier has to do with the tax abatement of 1 per cent referred to in the letter I mentioned a moment ago, and this provision is not even in the bill. The Quebec premier has never referred to the condition contained in this bill. As far as the premier of Quebec is concerned, this bill does not exist. He says that no agreement, no understanding, has been reached with the federal government. Therefore if we accept his interpretation of the facts the federal government in introducing this bill is imposing a unilateral arrangement in a province that may well be unacceptable to that province. Because of the two contradictory interpretations of negotiations directly related to this bill given by the premier of Quebec and the Solicitor General, surely the house is entitled
3788	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations to get from the Minister of Finance a complete and detailed statement of what transpired between the two men at the Quebec meeting.
(Translation):


Mr. Cardin:: Mr. Chairman, I am convinced there is not a single person in this house, or in the province of Quebec or in the country, who is not genuinely happy to know that Quebec universities, just as universities in other provinces of Canada, will at long last be getting funds they really need to meet their financial obligations. That was the single and only purpose of the Liberal legislation on this subject since 1951. Yet it is precisely against the principle of federal grants to universities that the Quebec Conservatives in this house, and the Union Na-tionale, have been fighting the Liberals tooth and nail.
Mr. Chairman, may I point out to the house that the members who yesterday accused the Liberals of indulging in politics over this matter have never lived in the province of Quebec. So let me remind those hon. members and all their colleagues that for nine years the Conservative members and the Union Nationale have been calling the Liberals centralizers and charging them with violating the constitution; with-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. Perhaps his remarks were a preliminary to the problem he wants to discuss, but so far, he has not dealt with the bill itself; in fact, I would say the speech he has just made, specially for the last remarks, was completely unrelated to the bill. His speech was in the nature of those that may be made prior to the second reading of a bill. I would therefore ask him to deal generally with the terms of the bill before us.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: As you were saying, Mr. Chairman, my remarks were preliminary in nature. However, the purpose of my whole speech is to find out why it is now possible to reach an agreement with the province of Quebec for the benefit of universities, when such an agreement has always been rejected in the past.
It also seems to me there is a little bit of confusion in the recommendations, with all due respect to you, Mr. Chairman, about what is in order and what is not. My hon. friend for Laurier (Mr. Chevrierj is told he is giving too many details, and when I


want to discuss the reasons which allow the introduction of this bill, you tell me that I am out of order because I am straying a bit from the subject.
May I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that all I am trying to do is to show that this bill is possible only because of the change of attitude of the provincial government and of the members we see here in this house.
May I also say this: Your Honour knows quite well that, for many years federal grants to universities have been the subject of a great deal of discussion in the province of Quebec, and therefore I do not believe it would be out of order to allow, at this stage of the debate, the greatest possible latitude in this matter.
Besides, how can we reply to all the arguments which were raised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), last night, if we cannot do it on the first clause?


Jacques Flynn: That is just what I was trying to point out to the hon. member. As a matter of fact, I mentioned it when I expressed my views on the point of order raised at the start of the sitting. Discussion on clause 1 of the bill cannot be the same as on second reading. Discussion on second reading deals with the principle of the bill, and though general debate is allowed in committee on clause 1, it does not mean that the whole debate on second reading may be repeated, because it would give an opportunity of answering all the speeches which were not followed up on second reading. Frankly, I think that the hon. member could have spoken on second reading as he is doing now; yet, recalling the whole history of federal grants to universities at this stage of proceedings does not seem to me consistent with standing orders according to which discussion must be strictly relevant to the section under study.
Of course, I do not intend to apply standing orders too harshly. I trust that the hon. member, with all his experience, knows as well as I do what I have in mind when I want to apply the rule mentioned in paragraph 2 of standing order 59. He may not have had the opportunity of expressing his views on second reading, but that would not be a reason for me to change the standing orders at this time. As to the tolerance that the chairman has shown with regard to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) - I do not want to make any comparisons; I gave an explanation at the time but I do

not think that the decision could apply in the case of the hon. member for Richelieu-Yercheres (Mr. Cardin).
(Text):


Leon David Crestohl: On the point of order which you have raised, Mr. Chairman, may I draw to your attention something which, perhaps, you are overlooking in subsection 2 of standing order 59, on which you have relied a great deal. Let us read it slowly:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant-
Relevant to what?
-to the item or clause under consideration.
There are two matters upon which the subsection says we must keep an eye with respect to relevancy. It does not say relevant only to a clause. If the subsection simply read that speeches must be relevant to the clause, then your rulings would be perfectly sound when we were dealing with a particular clause. However, the words in this subsection 2 say that speeches must be relevant to two things, to the item-and it does not say "and clause", but it says "or clause". You may draw a distinction. I submit very respectfully that the relevancy must be to an item or a clause.
I repeat, only for emphasis, that if we were dealing now with clause 2 or clause 3 of the bill, then under the rule of relevancy speeches should be relevant to that. However, the rule gives latitude and says speeches must be relevant to an item. What is the item we are now discussing? We are now discussing an item, clause 1, under which a general discussion is permitted. I respectfully submit for your consideration that you should put some interpretation on the wording of this rule of relevancy to the effect that relevancy can be with respect to an item, which is wider and gives greater latitude than a clause.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Surely, Mr. Chairman, this is the most preposterous argument that has ever been addressed to the chairman of a committee of this house.


Leon David Crestohl: It may seem preposterous to the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no item before the committee at this time. The standing order from which the hon. gentleman has read is one which binds committees of the house. Committees of the house address themselves to the clauses of a bill and items in the estimates. The rule is uniform. If the committee is dealing with estimates, discussion must be strictly relevant to the item under consideration. If the committee is dealing with a bill, then the discussion must be strictly relevant to the particular clause of the bill that is under discussion.
79951-0-239i
11, 1960
Dominion-Provincial Relations


Lionel Chevrier: Not under clause 1 or item 1 of the estimates.
(Translation):


Mr. English:: Mr. Chairman, I am not as experienced as the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl), but I really think that we discussed the principle of the bill before its second reading. We now have to consider each clause of this bill and if the hon. members who had the opportunity of speaking during the debate on second reading start a new discussion on the principle of the bill, when clauses 1 and 2 are under consideration, we shall have to answer them and thus engage in an endless discussion.
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: I have indicated before, and this is in reference to the remarks by the hon. member for Cartier, that if we were to apply the standing order strictly we could not even allow a debate in general terms on clause 1 because the rule is that when we study a bill in committee there is no other way of studying it except clause by clause. It is only the practice, therefore, that has allowed some latitude on clause 1, and because it is only the practice I think hon. members should restrain themselves as to the nature of the general discussion that they can proceed with under clause 1.
Now as to what is proper within the rule of strict relevancy and the practice which allows a general discussion, in my opinion, should be left to a great extent to the discretion of the Chair because otherwise it is not possible to conduct an orderly debate. I have up to now accorded great latitude to the hon. member for Laurier because he was making a point that he could not discuss under clause 1 without referring to clause 2. However, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres is not even discussing the terms of the bill. He is discussing the history of university grants, and that is a proper subject for discussion on second reading. I certainly would not be applying the rules as they should be applied, or even the practice, if I were to allow the hon. member to continue this line of discussion.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, you just mentioned that I was not discussing the terms of the bill. I understood that was exactly what I was not supposed to do, discuss the terms of the bill. What I was trying to do was to discuss the whole question of university grants. I must admit also that what inspired me to speak in this particular debate was the speech made by the Minister of Finance last night. I had no intention of participating in the debate until then.

Dominion-Provincial Relations


Jacques Flynn: Order; may X draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the speech to which he is referring was made on second reading of the bill, not in committee. It is not proper, therefore, to reply to the minister because that was a debate on the principle of the bill and now we are in committee.
(Translation):


Mr. Caron:: Don't you think, Mr. Chairman, on this matter-


An hon. Member:: Here is the light.


Alexis Pierre Caron: May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that when members opposite are speaking, I never interrupt them and I should like them to show me the same courtesy.
Don't you think, Mr. Chairman, that more latitude should be allowed, especially after what the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) has just said?
Mr. Chairman, if the ruling you have just made were irrevocable, this would constitute, in my opinion, a serious injustice towards opposition members, because no one could reply to the atrocities committed by the Minister of Finance. In fact, yesterday, at the end of the debate on second reading of the bill, the Minister of Finance said the worse inaccuracies and atrocities, to which it would be impossible for us to reply if-


Mr. Asselin:: What section of the standing orders are you referring to?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am referring to the practice which has been prevailing up to this day.


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member for Hull knows very well that someone must always have the last word.
The hon. member knows very well that at the end of the debate on second reading, before the minister who introduces the bill takes the floor a second time, the Speaker or chairman must warn hon. members that the minister will close the debate, and I imagine that those words have a certain meaning. Moreover, it is obvious that a debate must always come to an end; that is the reason why the discussion held at the second reading stage cannot be resumed in committee.
Again, it is not a matter of preventing hon. members from expressing their views. However, the fact remains that if hon. members refuse to co-operate with the chairman of the committee in the enforcement of standing orders, it will be at their own expense.
It has just been suggested that I have been too lenient with the hon. member for Lau-rier (Mr. Chevrier), and that I should therefore show the same leniency to other hon. members.

That, I think, indicates to every hon. member how important it is to abide closely by the standing orders.
I feel that hon. members should co-operate more closely with the chairman while exercising their privileges in accordance with standing orders.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, you are a relatively new member of the house. You were not here when the Minister of Finance-


An hon. Member:: What has that to do
with it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and the Secretary of State for External Affairs and Mr. Drew sat on this side of the house and when this kind of latitude was allowed invariably on every bill on which the opposition wished to exercise it. Those speaking in the opposition were not harassed by constant points of order from the then minister of finance because he did not like the contribution that was being made. What we are being subjected to in this chamber by the present Minister of Finance is a shocking form of running closure, the like of which has never before been attempted.


Jacques Flynn: In my opinion some of the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate were out of order.


An hon. Member:: As usual.


Jacques Flynn: With reference to the previous practice, I may say that I have consulted Hansard of 1956 and 1953 and I note that there was some discussion as to this problem we have here. Mr. Speaker Beaudoin then intimated that discussion in committee on clause 1 could not revive the debate on second reading. I may refer the hon. member to page 3992 of Hansard of May 16, 1956 when the chairman, Mr. Robinson-it was not Mr. Speaker	Beaudoin-stated as
follows:
This is a matter which raises a difficult problem in view of the fact that we are governed in committee by the strict rule of relevancy under standing order 59 (2). The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra in his remarks, I believe, used the word "rule" and he also used the word "right". I cannot concede that there is any "rule" allowing a broad debate such as he apparently has in mind, in view of the very clear language of standing order 59 (2).
I might say that in my personal opinion we are governed by the relevancy rule.
And so on. Mr. Beaudoin, when he was the chairman, on February 2, 1953, as found in Hansard at page 1551, stated as follows:
Hon. members will realize that the general discussion cannot extend beyond the two clauses

which are in this amending bill. It cannot be a repetition of the general discussion which took place on the principle of the bill on second reading.
As I said, if we were to apply the rule strictly, there would be no general debate on clause 1. It is only possible by practice and, I would say by some tolerance which the Chair has shown up to now. I would ask hon. members to realize that if the procedure allowed repetition of the debate on second reading, the committee stage would have no meaning at all and I do not see why the rule would provide for study in committee.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: When I rose I had something very definite and very concise to say and something which I think is completely related to the discussion we are having and something which I think is important. However, Mr. Chairman, if your ruling is that I cannot speak about it, the only thing I can do is to resume my seat. I have no intention of of speaking about a provincial election.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Laurier, in the documents he has brought before the committee today, has indicated clearly something which it seems to me must be cleared up before the committee can in any decency be asked to continue with the consideration of this bill. Everybody knows that the purpose of clause 1 and clause 2 of this bill is to introduce into the legislation of this country a new scheme or an alternative scheme for paying to or for making available certain money for universities. Everybody knows that. It was stated by the Minister of Finance as one of the two purposes of the bill. Everybody also knows as a matter of practical effect that this second scheme, this alternative, is of no interest to any province or the government of any province except one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How do you know?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Everybody knows that; it is a matter of common knowledge. If the minister has some secret information he has not disclosed to the house, he ought to disclose it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the meantime you are making a statement out of your imagination and not based on fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the meantime I have the floor, Mr. Chairman, and I am speaking on the bill. As I said, everybody knows, so far as there is any public knowledge, that there is no interest in the alternative scheme in any province except one and that province is, of course, the province of Quebec.


Mr. Speakman:: The provincial election.
Dominion-Provincial Relations


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not our fault that that there is a provincial election, although it may be that the government introduced this bill because there was a provincial election.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: More closure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is not a point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will you permit the chairman to make the ruling?
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has just now taken upon himself to make an assertion and to attribute motives. That is something that is forbidden in the plainest terms by the rules of the house. It is time that the hon. member learned something of the rules of the house and learned to obey them.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say this? Last night I was taken to task rather severely by the Minister of Finance. What for? I was taken to task because when I made a particular statement here in this chamber, another hon. gentleman made a statement in the province of Quebec concerning elections and from that he concluded that there was an understanding between the two of us. What could be more political than that charge? It was a clear insinuation of something which is not true and an insinuation which I throw back at him at this moment. He now rises on a point of order which is not a point of order at all in order to say that my hon. friend is guilty of the same thing. Does the minister want me to read out to him what he said to me on the occasion to which I have referred?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I want the hon. member to obey the rules of the house for one thing.


Lionel Chevrier: If you want me to obey the rules of the house, you must obey them yourself.


An hon. Member:: Address the chairman.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I would ask hon. members to restrain themselves a little bit so that we may have an orderly debate. The point of order raised by the minister had reference to an imputation of motive by the the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate but I think it was a reference to the government generally and I do not think it had reference to any hon. member but-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was attributing motives.

Dominion-Provincial Relations


Jacques Flynn: -to the government generally. I do not think the rule with regard to imputing motives would apply in a case when it is addressed to the government or a party in general. I would therefore allow the hon. member to continue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I would go further than you have gone and say that I made that interjection only because an hon. member behind me here who is a supporter of the Minister of Finance himself introduced the subject of a provincial election. I had no intention of speaking about a provincial election and I have no intention of speaking about a provincial election.
I will do the Minister of Finance the honour of saying that I believe he was quite sincere last year when he said he wanted to solve this problem. I have always thought he was quite sincere in wanting to solve this problem, just as I think my hon. friend from Laurier was quite sincere last year when he also said in the same debate he wanted to solve this problem and when he put forward a solution to the problem which is consistent with provincial rights. If I said anything in this particular which offended the tender susceptibilities of the Minister of Finance I withdraw it, because I have never doubted his sincerity or patriotism in this matter any more than I think he should question that of any other hon. member. I think every Canadian who is worth his salt wants to solve this problem, and I have always thought so.
I do not think it is very becoming in the Minister of Finance or in some other hon. gentlemen opposite to suggest when we are trying to uphold the constitution of our country that we are doing it for any other motive than the proper motive that any hon. member ought to have in this house. I have been very careful in every word I have said at every stage of this debate to avoid any kind of insinuations of that sort and I ask any hon. gentleman to scrutinize what I have said. I have never said anything about what motives may have actuated any provincial government because I do not think it is our business in this house and I do not intend to do so.
The hon. member for Laurier has brought up a problem here, and there is no sense in asking us to pass a bill that is not going to achieve the objective which the government and the rest of us have in mind. If this bill is not going to solve the problem; if instead it is going to constitute a further problem for the future and if, as we believe, it is of very doubtful constitutionality and is undoubtedly an invasion into normal provincial affairs, as we believe it is, we think it ought to be debated seriously, without insinuation or innuendo, on its merits.

We were told by the Solicitor General the other day in the passage read by my hon. friend, which I will not repeat, that the premier of Quebec and the government of Quebec agreed in advance to this bill and this scheme.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I never said that. If the hon. member wants to quote my speeches let him read them from Hansard, not create them from his imagination.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very well: I do not want to be unfair. Perhaps when some of the hon. gentlemen opposite calm down I will read it because, as I say, I do not want to be unfair in any particular to the Solicitor General.


Michael Starr: What is the page in Hansard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In Hansard page 3286 April 26, 1960. This is the Solicitor General speaking and it is the passage which was read a few minutes ago by my hon. friend. I will read it again:
(Translation):
A few days before his death, Mr. Duplessis stated that he would be in. a position to submit, in October, a positive proposition to the ministers from Ottawa. It was the Hon. Paul Sauve who submitted that positive proposition. Federal ministers discussed it with Mr. Sauve and, at the time of his tragic death, only a few details remained to be worked out, which was done during a private interview between Mr. Antonio Barrette, Mr. Sauve's successor, and the Minister of Finance, sponsor of the bill which is now before us.
We had claimed, under the Liberal administration, that it was possible to settle this problem in a constitutional way and to the satisfaction of the premiers of all the provinces.


Roland Léo English: It is indeed unfair not to take a cabinet minister's word and to give preference to an item published in the press.
I have here a copy of Montreal-Matin which says quite the opposite.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to read the article published by Montreal-Matin-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but the question raised by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) did not refer to the minister's statement, but to the accuracy of a newspaper item which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) was quoting. The hon. member for Chambly-Rouville was speaking on a question of privilege.


Roland Léo English: I rise on a question of privilege also. The subject matter was an article published in he Devoir which had been previously quoted.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
This is an accurate report of the meeting at Joliette according to Montreal-Matin; and it says quite the opposite.
Can we not, therefore, accept the minister's word?


Mr. Loiselle:: The Union Nationale gospel.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: The hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Loiselle) should keep to politics on the municipal level.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Surely I had the floor and I was seeking to reply politely to a question asked me very politely by the Solicitor General and I think I should be allowed to reply to that question without all these interruptions which have nothing to do with that question.
Here is the account which appeared in the newspaper Le Devoir of the speech made by the premier of Quebec in opening his campaign:
(Translation):
Mr. Barrette said that there was never any question of an agreement with Ottawa, but a decision taken by an autonomous government to settle a thorny problem. Thus, he said, by proudly expressing our will, we succeeded in recovering for Quebec $10 million in taxes per year and the $25 million lying in Ottawa coffers.
We even got the federal government to admit that it will vacate the field of education, thus finally winning out after years of struggle. (Text):
That is what Mr. Barrette said and here is what the Solicitor General said on April 26, as reported on page 3286 of Hansard, where he was speaking in French: (Translation):
We have kept our word admirably, because Premier Barrette himself believed that this bill is consistent with the terms of Mr. Duplessis' proposal, which was submitted again by Mr. Sauve, and later by Mr. Barrette himself.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Where is the contradiction, then?
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the Solicitor General does not think that that was a clear statement, clearly intended to convey the impression that the premier of the province of Quebec was satisfied with what was going to be brought before this house, it certainly conveyed that impression to my mind and it conveyed that impression to the mind of my hon. friend, and it seems to have conveyed that impression to the minds of all those hon. gentlemen here who applauded the Solicitor General.


Léon Balcer: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Léon Balcer: Can you tell me at what time Premier Barrette said he was not satisfied?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: That is right; get your helpers to work.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand a copy of he Devoir of Monday, May 9, reporting Mr. Barrette, presumably textually, a newspaper of which I doubt hon. gentlemen opposite would question the reliability. If they do want to question it let them go ahead. If they suggest that this newspaper deforms the news, then that is their suggestion, not mine.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I take exception to the statement of the hon. member in relation to his remarks about the authenticity of this newspaper's articles. He is referring to the authenticity of certain remarks of their editors or their reporters, not the authenticity of the paper itself and of all their reporters. I would ask the hon. member to stick to his contention and not go beyond it.


Lionel Chevrier: You are better sitting down than standing up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, that was so obviously not a question of privilege.
The premier of Quebec says there is no understanding, nothing whatever, and the Solicitor General says this is a magnificent example of understanding. It is very like that new, third constitutional theory we heard from the Minister of Finance last night. It is a kind of mysticism that plain, simple people cannot understand.
Coming back to the point, I say that before we are asked to approve clauses 1 and 2 of this bill that incorporate this new scheme we should be told by the government whether or not this scheme is satisfactory to the present government of the province of Quebec and in what fashion the federal government learned it was satisfactory to the provincial government.
This is something which must be unparalleled in our parliamentary history. We are asked to enact legislation to meet a problem in one of the ten provinces. We are told by a minister here in the house that this meets the problem, that he knows it meets it, and that the provincial government has said so. We are told by the premier of the province of Quebec that there is no understanding whatsoever. It should be impossible for any government to come into the house and ask hon. members to take a position of that sort. Can anyone imagine Mr. St. Laurent doing a thing like that? Can anyone imagine what the Minister of Finance would have said if Mr. St. Laurent had tried to do it?


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Another flag.

Dominion-Provincial Relations


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister would have been draped in two or three flags. This is beyond my comprehension. The lack of frankness throughout this whole business is appalling. We could not find out at the resolution stage what was in the bill and when the bill came down it was a great shock to many of us. Now we cannot find out what took place between the premier of Quebec and the Minister of Finance and we have no means of knowing whether or not this bill will meet the problem. It seems to me the minister should settle that question at once and I suggest to the hon. gentleman that just for once he deal with the question and not indulge in one of the irrelevant harangues to which he is so attached.


An hon. Member:: Like the one you are making now.
(Translation):


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, as usual,
our friends opposite are trying to play on words and to raise a cloud of dust and smoke around that question.
I should like simply, for the moment, to deal with that so-called contradiction which exists only in the minds of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill)-between my words and those of the Quebec premier. If you read what I said, you will note that I mentioned the fact that Mr. Duplessis had stated he was in a position to submit a concrete proposal to the ministers in Ottawa. Then, I spoke about that concrete proposal and said that it was Mr. Sauve who had submitted it, and that finally, Mr. Barrette felt that the bill was in keeping with Mr. Duplessis' proposal. I always referred to it as a proposal.
The hon. members opposite are basing their argument on the report of a columnist of Le Devoir who wrote that Mr. Barrette stated that there had been no question of an agreement with Ottawa.
We do know that what Mr. Barrette meant was that the question of grants to Quebec universities, which have been deprived of them for too long, is now in process of being settled, and in such a way that the federal government will not encroach upon provincial autonomy in matters of education. We do not require the province of Quebec to sign any agreement whatsoever. We allow the province of Quebec to adopt the legislation it wishes; we do not oblige Mr. Barrette to sign or to ask anything; through our legislation, we allow any province to act according to principles of autonomy in matters of education.
[Mr. Brassard (Lapointe) .J

That is what Mr. Barrette meant. And that is what he said. I repeat, there is absolutely no contradiction between what I said here and what Mr. Barrette said a few days ago.


Mr. Leduc:: Mr. Chairman, last night I asked the same question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in order to find out definitely whether or not there has been an agreement. I was very happy to hear the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) tell us that the Quebec government has settled the problem. That is true, it is quite true, and I commend the Quebec government for passing the appropriate legislation during its last session.


Léon Balcer: Try to get together on this.


Rodolphe Leduc: And in Quebec, the Quebec Liberals all supported those pieces of legislation.


Mr. Pigeon:: Why does Mr. Lesage denounce the legislation?


Rodolphe Leduc: They supported the legislation suggested by Mr. Barrette. Why? Because all those bills had previously been put forward and recommended by Mr. Lapalme.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Why did Mr. Lesage denounce that bill?


Rodolphe Leduc: And now that the legislation has been passed in Quebec, the province of Quebec has no need for the alternative plan placed before this house. The proof-


Léon Balcer: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Rodolphe Leduc: Yes.


Léon Balcer: Does he mean to say that the Liberal members in the Quebec legislature feel that the federal government should not offer deductibility in this case, and that Quebec corporations should be subject to double taxation? Is that what he means?


Rodolphe Leduc: There is no need for the principle of "deductibility" to give fair treatment to the province of Quebec in the matter of grants to universities. The proof is that the Quebec government, after passing this last bill, discussed the matter with the universities and told them to go to Ottawa and collect the $25 million that Mr. St. Laurent and the Liberal party had set aside for them.


Jacques Flynn: Order. It may be in order for the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc)

to reply to the speech made by the Solicitor General, but he did more than that. He has strayed from the subject. Until then, it had been a matter of determining whether the bill, as drafted, was acceptable to the province of Quebec, which might have been relevant to a certain point in the discussion of clause 1. But he is clearly moving away now from the required relevancy at this stage of the proceedings.


Mr. Ledue:: Mr. Chairman, I want to respect your ruling. However, I would like the Minister of Finance to give us an answer, to tell us whether or not there actually was an agreement.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: What difference could it make to you?


Roland Léo English: Mr. Chairman, a few days ago I heard the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) refer to Le Devoir and even read an article from that paper; today, I again listened to a reading of this same article by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill).
If those hon. members were allowed to quote a newspaper report in the house, I honestly believe that I also have the right to read what has been reported about the meeting held in Joliette last Sunday by the Hon. Antonio Barrette. Here is what the newspaper said:


An hon. Member:: It is the paper Montreal-Matin.


Roland Léo English: You quote from Le Devoir because it suits your purpose; so you cannot blame me for quoting the article from Mont-real-Matin.


Augustin Brassard: What you are saying is odius for Le Devoir.


Roland Léo English: You said it yourself, my friend. So, here is the article:
The premier made this statement while taking to task Mr. Jean Lesage and his two attendants, the three of them former federal members.
A second choice.
"Do you think, he said, that Mr. Lesage, would be the leader of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I will remind the hon. member for Gaspe-but first I ask him to resume his seat-that the article quoted by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate (Mr. Pickersgill) dealt with a statement concerning the possibility of an agreement between the Quebec government and the federal government. If the hon. member for Gaspe wants to quote an item which would prove a statement to the contrary, or a different one, I have no objection, but he may not quote any part of a statement which is not relevant to what we are considering now, and within the limits just indicated.
Dominion-Provincial Relations


Roland Léo English: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I am doing. The name of Mr. Barrette has been mentioned. As the names of Mr. Barrette and Mr. Lesage were mentioned, I think it is my duty and my privilege to quote Mr. Barrette. Are hon. members ashamed of my referring to Mr. Lesage?
And this is precisely what was said, Mr. Chairman:
Instead of taking advice from his representatives, Mr. Lesage went to see Mr. Lionel Chevrier in Ottawa. He wanted to continue the traditional "federal clique" which, at the time, had wanted to impose-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I fail to see the relevancy of the item quoted by the hon. member for Gaspe. He might perhaps now discuss the bill according to the directions I gave.


Roland Léo English: Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what I was coming to. I did not want to be accused of quoting only what suits us, I wanted to quote the whole item. They always quote what suits them; so I wanted to quote the whole article. I am coming to what I wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman, and I may have taken too much of a roundabout way, but I hope that you will allow me to conclude my quotation so that what I wanted to say may be easier to understand.
To my mind, Mr. Chairman, I am in order in doing so.
Mr. Barrette stated that the provincial government, in all letters exchanged with Ottawa on the matter, never mentioned any understanding or agreement.
In this whole matter of understanding and agreement, this is what happened. The Hon. Mr. Barrette, jointly with the present government, merely came to the conclusion that was the most practical in the interests of our universities. It had to come to that, because the province of Quebec could not always be satisfied with receiving gifts from the federal government; it had to get its share of the taxation field. What was being done by the Liberal administration of our hon. friends opposite was an injustice. The moneys are now levied as corporation taxes at the rate of 1 per cent. This means that the Quebec government is now collecting what it had been unjustly deprived of by the Liberals. That is just what the Hon. Mr. Barrette meant. That is exactly what he meant by an agreement between the federal and the provincial governments.
And our hon. friends opposite, wishing to carry on the policy of the former Liberal

Dominion-Provincial Relations regime, want the province of Quebec to kneel down again, and continue to refuse the share which is due, in all justice, to Quebec universities. But today it is not necessary to bow, because we have received and obtained exactly what had been taken away from us, that is to say we have recovered our taxation power in the province of Quebec. That is why, Mr. Chairman, our hon. friends opposite are against this bill.
(Text) :


Lionel Chevrier: Is the Minister of Finance going to raise a point of order?
(Translation):


Roland Léo English: Instead of talking and delaying the adoption of the bill, they should rise and thank the Minister of Finance and the Conservative government for having given the province of Quebec what their party had taken away from it in the past.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised that the Minister of Finance, who is an expert in procedural matters, did not raise a point of order during the speech made by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. English). He is more prone to raise points of order when we have the floor.
However, I did not rise for that purpose, but to say a word about what the Solicitor General said a moment ago. In trying to reply to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, he referred to a so-called contradiction we have established or tried to establish between what he said and what the Quebec premier said. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is not a so-called contradiction, it is a real contradiction. According to what the Solicitor General said, which is recorded in Hansard-and I will not repeat it, because it is already there-it is not a so-called contradiction but a real contradiction that exists between the Solicitor General who says there is an agreement and Mr. Barrette who says there has been no understanding or agreement or whatever you may call it.


An hon. Member:: You are all mixed up.


Lionel Chevrier: And you went further
when you said a moment ago that we are not forcing Quebec to sign anything. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that neither did the former government force Quebec to sign anything, and if it is true-


Léon Balcer: May I-


Lionel Chevrier: Wait. I am answering your question.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: He is a bit mixed up; he will recover.


Lionel Chevrier: If it is true that you did not force the province of Quebec to sign anything under the agreement between the Minister of Finance and the Canadian universities foundation, the fact remains that the agreement is incorporated in the bill, which makes the province of Quebec subject to the agreement. As a result, the province of Quebec is bound by the agreement, in addition to being bound by the definitions of the expressions "university", "university level", and others about which we heard so many complaints from the hon. members for Bellechasse and for Charlevoix (Messrs. Dorion and Asselin) the other day.
Does the Solicitor General wish to ask me a question?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask the hon. member for Laurier to show me, in the parts of my speech that he quoted, where I said there had been an agreement- and I stress the word "agreement"-between the government of the province of Quebec and the federal government?


Lionel Chevrier: Very well, Mr. Chairman. In two places-


Léon Balcer: I ask the hon. member for Laurier whether he can indicate where I made such an assertion.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I shall answer the question of the Solicitor General.
First, let me refer to page 3286 of Hansard for April 26, 1960, in the middle of the second column, which reads as follows:
Federal ministers discussed it with Mr. Sauve-


Léon Balcer: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: -and at the time of his tragic death, only a few details remained to be worked out, which was done during a private interview between Mr. Antonio Barrette, Mr. Sauve's successor, and the Minister of Finance, sponsor of the bill which is now before us.
Then, Mr. Chairman, what happened is that the federal ministers-the Solicitor General being absent-after discussing it with the late premier and the present premier of the province of Quebec, reached a conclusion except for a few details which were clarified later on.

As for the other place where the Solicitor General-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Was there any agreement?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. members want me to answer the Solicitor General's question, I should be given an opportunity to do so.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: You started on the wrong foot.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not in a predicament, you are.


An hon. Member:: They are the ones who are in a predicament.


Lionel Chevrier: The other place where the Solicitor General stated what I asserted earlier is a little further, on the same page, that is page 3286 of Hansard of April 26, 1960. I quote:
We have kept our word admirably, because Premier Barrette himself believes that this bill is consistent with the terms of Mr. Duplessis' proposal, which was submitted again by Mr. Sauv6, and later by Mr. Barrette himself.
What can those statements indicate if not that there was an agreement, an arrangement between the two government leaders?
And now, Mr. Chairman, since the Solicitor General asked me a question, I would like to ask one to him in turn.
If the Solicitor General still claims, against all comers, despite his statements I just quoted and that he had put on Hansard, to the effect that he did not make that assertion, I will ask him this: Did the premier of Quebec accept the bill that we are now discussing? If he did, on the basis of what information did he do so?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, as I said a few moments ago, and this is the advantage of our legislation, we are not forcing the province of Quebec to sign any agreement whatsoever, we are leaving her entirely free and we are not at all encroaching upon her autonomy.
The legislation proposed by the Quebec government has been unanimously adopted in the Quebec legislature, which indicates that it has been approved by all the Liberal members of the province of Quebec. As far as we are concerned, we have submitted our bill to this house; it has been unanimously approved by all the hon. members.
Those two pieces of legislation have solved the problem of the universities in the province of Quebec. It is the adoption of those two measures that will enable young univer-79951-0-240J
Dominion-Provincial Relations sity students in the province of Quebec to share in benefits that were unavailable to them under the legislation of the previous government.


Mr. Deschatelets:: Could you answer the question now?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, could I pursue my remarks a bit further-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Answer the question.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, could I go on with my remarks regarding the matter that was being discussed a moment ago-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Before doing so, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Lionel Chevrier: No, because I do not think that the hon. member is in earnest.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Considering the source of this remark, it is not so important.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member is a
joker in this house. That is why I cannot take him seriously.


An hon. Member:: You have been making jokes for 20 years.


Jacques Flynn: I shall ask the hon. member for Laurier to withdraw the expression he just used and which, to my mind, certainly goes beyond the limits set by standing orders.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Chairman, if
the expression I used in any way annoyed the hon. member to whom it was attributed, I withdraw it, and just repeat what I said earlier, that is, that I cannot take his interruptions seriously.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I forgive the hon. member for Laurier for having projected himself.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to go on with the discussion which took place a few moments ago between the Solicitor General and hon. members from the opposition.
Mr. Chairman, the Solicitor General has stated that the province of Quebec did not have to accept this bill.
Therefore, if my understanding of his reply to my question is correct, the premier of Quebec has not accepted the bill. And the Solicitor General even went further when he said: "We are not forcing anything on the province of Quebec".

Dominion-Provincial Relations
Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the Solicitor General to the fact that under clause 2, Quebec is in fact bound by the agreement reached between the Minister of Finance and the Canadian universities foundation. In fact, under the very provisions of the bill, the agreement is incorporated in the bill. Moreover, the definitions of the expressions "university level", "university", etc., about which there have been so many complaints from hon. members-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Laurier once again, but if my memory serves me right, he dealt with this matter yesterday. Furthermore, it seems that it had been agreed that we would not resume this discussion before we came to clause 2. Consequently, in order to allow for an ordered discussion of the bill, I must unfortunately call him to order.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, if I was out of order, it is because I wanted to reply to the Solicitor General who said that the province of Quebec does not have to accept this bill, whereas I claim that it is bound by this agreement. However, if you do not want me to deal with this matter, I shall not insist, because I shall be able to talk about it when we come to clause 2.


Léon Balcer: And I shall be able to reply.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, since the Solicitor General says he will be able to answer me, why does he not reply now to the arguments I raised on three different occasions, that is, on the resolution-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Because he is asking you a question, and you do not want to reply. When you are in a spot, you say all kinds of nonsense.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the Solicitor General has replied to none of the arguments which I raised on behalf of the opposition.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Charlevoix, like several others from the province of Quebec, has bitterly complained of the fact that I had not dared open my mouth when I was a member of the cabinet.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: That is true.


Lionel Chevrier: -and that I had never said anything-


An hon. Member:: What a confession.


Lionel Chevrier: -but I was not even in the province of Quebec at the time. However, there are in the present cabinet, four ministers from the province of Quebec, and three of them have not yet taken part is this debate. If the argument of the hon. member for Charlevoix applies to me, who was not in the province of Quebec at the time, it must apply even more to those who have not yet taken the floor during this debate.


Martial Asselin: I must say that the hon. member for Laurier is making up for it now, but that the population does not believe him because he is late.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think we are again straying from the question. I therefore ask the hon. members to give us a little more co-operation, so we can achieve a little more progress.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When the member for Laurier rises in this house to speak on behalf of fellow citizens of the province of Quebec, of whom he is a representative, there are shouts from all around, he is interrupted, he is said to be a liar and told that he has no right to meddle with the business of the province of Quebec, even if he represents a Montreal constituency. Is Montreal not in the province of Quebec? And, when he dares rise against those who do not see the danger there is in this bill, to point out the danger to which they themselves referred to on two occasions during this debate, while one of them even found fault with the wording of a certain clause, they complain of his behaviour.
So, Mr. Chairman, if I do one thing, I am wrong; if I do another, I am still wrong. Therefore, when is a member entitled to rise and speak for his colleagues of the province of Quebec, as the hon. member for Laurier has done?
In conclusion, I ask the Solicitor General once again where he got his information. I asked him if the Prime Minister had accepted the bill, and he answered that he had not. I shall go further and ask him, on the basis of what information did he make that statement earlier?
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, had hon. members opposite indicated a desire for a more detailed review of the discussions and correspondence between the government of Quebec and the federal government which preceded the introduction of the resolution antecedent to the present bill, the proper place of course to have made that

request was in the discussion on the resolution. It is at that stage that such matters are properly discussed. It is, I believe, quite improper to raise the question here in the discussion in committee on the details of the bill. After all, the procedure in this house in providing opportunity for discussion on the resolution in committee is designed to afford hon. members the opportunity to obtain all the information that they may require in order to deal intelligently with the bill that is to follow.
I have been asked this afternoon to discuss the negotiations or, more aptly, discussions with the late Premier Sauve and latterly with Premier Barrette of Quebec. I gave an outline of the course of those discussions, Mr. Chairman, when I introduced the resolution. The hon. member for Laurier this afternoon extracted two brief excerpts from the correspondence and gave the impression that something in the nature of a formal agreement was to ensue. Of course that is quite a misleading impression. There was extensive correspondence, and that correspondence has been tabled. There are half a dozen letters in which the plan that is now embodied in the bill under discussion was outlined and was clarified. When I met Mr. Barrette after the letters which were read by the hon. member for Laurier were exchanged it was for the purpose of clarification.
In view of the fact that this question has been raised now and although I have had to take issue with the way in which it has been raised and the course that has been pursued by hon. members opposite, I am going to read the correspondence in full. I regret that it has become necessary to do that because it is lengthy. In view of the flights of imagination here this afternoon on the part of hon. members opposite, the time has come to bring them back down to earth. On December 9, 1959, the Prime Minister of Canada wrote a letter to each of the provincial premiers. It was in identical form, and this is the form that went to all premiers:
My dear Premier:
The government has decided to recommend to parliament legislation providing for an alternative basis for payment of federal grants to universities.
No change is proposed for those provinces which choose to continue the present system of grants.
Parliament at the coming session will be asked to provide that at the request of any provincial government which undertakes to provide additional grants to its universities on a scale equivalent to the present federal grants of $1.50 per capita, the provincial share of the yield from the federal income tax on corporation profits earned in that province under the provisions of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act will be increased from 9 per cent to 10 per cent. This would be in lieu of federal grants to universities in such a province. Where the loss of revenue
Dominion-Provincial Relations
to the federal treasury will exceed the university grants of $1.50 per capita in the province concerned, a deduction equivalent to the difference will be made by the federal government from other payments being made to the province under the provisions of the act. If 1 per cent of the yield from the corporation income tax in the province is less than the grants of $1.50 per capita, the federal government will pay the difference to the provincial government for the benefit of the universities.
Subject to the amendment of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act by parliament, any provincial government which has rented the corporation income tax field to the federal government under agreement pursuant to the provisions of the act will, if it desires to adopt the new arrangement respecting university grants, be enabled to amend its agreement in so far as the corporation tax is concerned and resume its collection of that tax on the foregoing terms.
In summary, the grants will be available to the universities in the same amounts and on the same formula of distribution as at present and be subject to the normal increase in the aggregate on the basis of increases in population.
This new arrangement will, if parliament approves, come into effect on April 1, 1960, and remain in effect for a period of two years until the conclusion of the current five-year tax agreements ending March 31, 1962.
I do not need to read the replies to that letter except the one from the late Premier Sauve of Quebec, in the light of the discussion this afternoon, as requested by hon. members opposite. Premier Sauve's letter was dated December 14, and it reads:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I did not fail to communicate today to my colleagues of the executive council of the province the letter which I received last Thursday and which you had addressed simultaneously to the prime ministers of the ten Canadian provinces, eight of which, in pursuance of agreements, ceded to the federal government, for a five-year period and in exchange for annual subventions, their right of taxing the income of corporations. 1 also acquainted them with the text of the statement which you had made over the television network and which you had been good enough to forward to me.
Your desire to formulate an alternative to the present system of federal grants to the Canadian universities which would be more closely in accordance with the letter of the British North America Act greatly pleased my colleagues as well as myself. We are also very happy to note that your letter shows that you are planning again to think over the federal government's policy in this matter, in the light of the discussions which will have to take place on the bearing and the nature of the fiscal relations between the federal authorities and the provinces after March 31, 1962.
The only question which now arises is accordingly the consideration of a temporary modus Vivendi which would remain in effect only for the two ensuing fiscal periods pending the decisions which we will be called upon to take and which will apply from March 31, 1962 onwards.
Clearly the greater part of your letter is intended for the provinces which have rented their rights and I accordingly believe that it would be necessary to define its meaning and bearing for our province. This is my conclusion after reading your letter, the text of your statement and after the conversations which I had with yourself and with your finance minister, the Hon. Mr. Fleming.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
As you are aware, since 1955 the provincial government allocates to the university institutions situated within its territorial and constitutional jurisdiction, annual grants on a basis and for amounts approximately equal to the subventions paid by the federal parliament to the Canadian universities' conference and earmarked by the latter for the Quebec universities.
As I mentioned to you last October, the Quebec government has decided to request the provincial parliament, during the present session, to set these grants on a permanent basis by adopting legislation which would make available to the provincial university institutions, proportionally to the number of their students, an annual sum equal to $1.50 per capita of Quebec's population. If the provincial parliament, in the free exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, should decide to adopt such legislation and to secure the funds necessary for carrying it out by an additional tax on the income of corporations (a field of taxation which is open to the provinces in pursuance of the constitution), I understand that your government would no longer request the federal parliament to vote credits for grants to the Quebec universities but would recommend that for a period of two years it should increase from 9 per cent to 10 per cent the deduction from the federal tax which would be allowed in this field to the Quebec taxpayer. In order that the loss to the federal treasury should not exceed the amount which it would be called upon to disburse for the payment of the grants to the Canadian universities' conference, you suggest that the adjustment should be made out of the equalization payment. Such at least is my presumption, inasmuch as it seems to me the only item from which such adjustment could be made.
Would you please confirm whether such is in fact your intention?
I note that no mention is made of the amounts accumulated in trust and which represent the total of the grants which our universities did not claim. Inasmuch as your letter was addressed to the ten provinces, I understand that it would not have been appropriate to refer to these amounts. This, however, is another aspect of the problem which you have inherited and which will also have to be considered.
I shall feel in duty bound to communicate to my colleagues your reply as soon as it reaches me and to consider it with them.
Yours very truly,
Paul Sauve
To that letter in which the late Premier Sauve was asking for further clarification of the original proposal of the Prime Minister of Canada in the light of its particular application to the province of Quebec, the Prime Minister of Canada on December 22 wrote this reply:
My dear Prime Minister:
X acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 14th concerning the new alternative plan outlined in my letter of December 9th in relation to federal grants to universities.
My letter, as you point out, was addressed in identical form to the premiers of the ten provinces, since the new basis is available equally to all of them. I am glad now to avail myself of the opportunity presented by your letter to indicate in greater detail how the plan would apply in the case of the province of Quebec, which has exercised its right to collect its own corporation tax and not to rent this field to the federal government in pursuance of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act. In this connection I have taken

due note of the statutory grants and the increased grants which you have asked the Quebec legislature to provide for the universities of your province.
If the legislature of Quebec chooses to adopt the new plan and the federal legislation is amended by parliament in the manner proposed by the government then for the next two fiscal years, commencing April 1st, 1960, and ending March 31st, 1962, the following terms will be in effect:
(a) If the legislature of Quebec should choose to raise the provincial corporation tax to 10 per cent or more of corporation profits, corporations liable thereto will be allowed an abatement of 10 per cent, instead of the present 9 per cent, against the federal tax on corporation profits;
(b)	The grant of $1.50 per capita of population which the federal government has with the sanction of parliament been providing for universities would cease so far as the universities of the province of Quebec are concerned;
(c)	The difference between the yield from the 1 per cent additional tax abatement and the $1.50 per capita of population of your province will be adjusted so that the fiscal position of the federal government remains unchanged. In other words, if the 1 per cent tax abatement exceeds the equivalent of $1.50 per capita of population, as it will, the federal government will deduct this excess from the equalization payment now being paid to Quebec out of the federal treasury in pursuance of the provisions of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act. By way of illustration, if the new formula were applied to 1959 data the federal treasury would lose and the provincial treasury would gain about $9,250,000 from the change in corporation tax rates. On the other hand, the university grants on the basis of $1.50 per capita if applied to Quebec would amount to about $7,500,000; and the difference of $1,750,000 would be deducted from the equalization payment to Quebec, which in 1959 will be approximately $67,000,000.
The foregoing plan, as above indicated, would apply to the next two fiscal years. As you point out, no express provision has yet been proposed respecting the amounts accumulated in trust for the universities of Quebec and which they have not claimed. This sum has now reached approximately $25 million. Assuming that agreement is reached with respect to the payments for the next two years, we should be glad to discuss with you the proper disposal of these accumulated moneys.
I trust that the foregoing observations will sufficiently clarify the federal government's alternative plan with respect to university grants.
As I pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that letter was written on the twenty second day of December, 1959. It was received by the late Premier Sauve but his death intervened before any reply was sent. However, on January 21, 1960, Premier Barrette wrote the following letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
It was only a few days ago that I had the opportunity of examining the letter which you addressed on December 22nd last to the Honourable Paul Sauve respecting the grants to the universities and I did not fail to submit your communication to my colleagues of the executive council.
I note your statement to the effect that, as the Honourable Mr. Sauve indicated in his letter of December 14th, the alternative solution suggested by your government was submitted simultaneously to the ten Canadian provinces.
I accordingly presume that, in regard to the province of Quebec, your letter could only serve as



I960

[Stage Direction]
a basis for the negotiations initiated between your government and ours with a view to finding a solution to the thorny problems which you inherited and to avoid increased taxation for the corporations operating in the province of Quebec.
The universities and the government of the province of Quebec having refused the sums offered by the federal government because they could not recognize to the latter, under the British North America Act, the authority to participate in the formulation of a policy concerning education, the government of Quebec must accordingly reaffirm its position on this subject.
In order to make available to the universities the funds which they require fully to play their part and to meet their obligations, the province of Quebec has decided to exercise its right of raising from 9 per cent to 10 per cent the tax on the profits of corporations. We are relying, as you stated in your letter of December 22nd last, on your assurance that the federal government will allow to such corporations an equivalent abatement as from April 1st, 1960 and this for the two years' period ending on March 31st, 1962.
The grant of $1.50 per capita which the federal government offers to the universities through the Canadian universities' conference will accordingly cease in so far as the province of Quebec's universities are concerned.
After a further consideration of our universities' requirements, the province of Quebec has also decided, subject to the approval of the legislature, to provide for them, in addition to the considerable appropriations already included in its budget for the 1960-61 fiscal year, additional grants substantially in excess of $1.50 per capita, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations between the federal government and Quebec's provincial government.
We understand, as the Honourable Paul Sauve indicated in the letter which he addressed to you on December 14th last, that if adjustments must be made, your government and ours will come to an agreement on this subject.
Inasmuch as the entire problem of the fiscal relations between the federal government and the provinces must be re-examined as a whole before April 1st, 1962, it is fully understood that this agreement is temporary and that it will remain in force only during the next two fiscal periods beginning on April 1st, 1960.
My colleagues of the provincial cabinet and myself hope that we shall soon be in a position to announce that, in so far as the contributions offered by the Canadian universities' conference are concerned, your government and ours have come to an agreement recognizing the provincial government's exclusive jurisdiction in this sphere.
As regards the amounts which have been accumulated in trust or otherwise and which represent the total of the grants which our universities did not claim, we are prepared to initiate with you such negotiations as may be necessary in pursuance of the legislation which will be submitted to the Quebec parliament during the present session.
Yours sincerely,
Antonio Barrette.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister permit a question on the context of that letter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I complete the reading of the correspondence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is just a short question. I was just asking the minister whether I correctly heard him read from the premier's
Dominion-Provincial Relations letter a reference to an agreement. If he did so, will he read that sentence again? I did not catch it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is on the record. The hon. member's colleague has a copy of the letter there. The next letter was written by the Prime Minister of Canada on February 2, addressed to Premier Barrette and reads as follows:
My dear Prime Minister:
I appreciate the constructive suggestions contained in your letter of January 21, and believe that they provide the basis for discussions which will assure agreement on the several aspects of grants to universities.
I am glad to learn that your government agrees to the general principle for settlement of the problem and if further clarification is needed to secure agreement in detail I feel that the best course to adopt would be to have early discussions between representatives of the two governments. If you are agreeable to such discussions I shall name the Honourable Donald M. Fleming to represent the federal government, and I await your reply as to when such a meeting can be arranged. %
To that letter, the premier of Quebec replied on February 5, as follows:
My dear Prime Minister,
I have just received your letter of February 3rd in reply to the communication which I had recently addressed to you regarding the negotiations undertaken a few weeks ago between your government and ours on the subject of the grants to the Quebec universities.
The suggestion which you make that I should meet the Honourable Donald M. Fleming, acting as representative of the Federal Government, and the speed with which you have replied to my letter, allow me-I presume-to anticipate that very soon you and I will be in a position to announce that the already expressed hope of a settlement regarding the grants to the universities has been realized.
Subject to a few hours' notice, I shall accordingly be very happy to meet the Honourable Mr. Fleming at his convenience at Quebec if it can be arranged.
I might be able to meet your representative in Montreal, but I could hardly state for certain when such a meeting could take place inasmuch as I am continually retained in Quebec during the session, which is now reaching its most active period.
If the Honourable Mr. Fleming is prepared to come to Quebec I should be extremely thankful if he would accept my invitation, and I would reiterate that for the reasons which I have just explained I am very sorry to be unable to meet him half-way.
Sincerely yours, Antonio Barrette
That is the complete correspondence between the two governments. There is nothing else at all in writing between the two governments.
Following receipt of that final letter from Premier Barrette-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question about the correspondence he has

Dominion-Provincial Relations read? Could the minister tell us, just as a matter of fact, whether the announcement by the Prime Minister that Mr. Barrette forecast in his last letter was ever made?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is a little impatient and is anticipating. I am giving an account of the discussions.
Following receipt of that final letter from Premier Barrette I went to meet him in Quebec. I was very happy to go to Quebec for that purpose. By that time, as hon. members are aware, the government of Quebec, in exercise of its constitutional rights, had already introduced into the legislature of Quebec that government's program of legislation. That program was introduced without any attempt to secure leave on the part of anyone else, and there never was any reason that it should. The province of Quebec is a sovereign province. The legislature of Quebec is, within the provisions of the British North America Act, a sovereign legislature and the government of Quebec exercises at all times its right to submit legislation to the legislature of that province without seeking leave or licence on the part of anyone else in the world. That is precisely what the government of the province did. As indicated in some of the letters which I have read, that was a decision taken by the Quebec government.
They decided they would proceed with their program of legislation regardless of what might be the outcome of the discussions with the federal government. The meeting which I had the honour of holding with Premier Barrette in Quebec, therefore, offered an opportunity on my part for acquainting myself in greater detail with the effect of the bills then standing before the legislature of Quebec, having been already introduced there. It also afforded an opportunity on the part of Premier Barrette to be given full information as to the intention of the government of Canada in relation to the legislative proposals which are now embodied in the bill under debate in this committee.
There is no secret about anything; there is nothing mysterious about it. I have given to the committee everything that has been exchanged in writing between the governments and I point out that both governments understood the legislative intentions of the other, and each proceeded in the exercise of its constitutional rights and in obedience to its constitutional responsibility. That is the position in which the matter stands.
So far as the legislature of Quebec is concerned, I am sure hon. members are aware that the bills which were then standing


on the order paper of the legislature were subsequently adopted in that legislature and received royal assent on the tenth day of March. Those bills provided for several matters, several facts of interest. Bill No. 60 provided for an increase in the provincial corporation tax from 9 to 10 per cent of the corporation profit. Bill No. 3 made provision for a sinking fund out of which capital grants might be made to the universities of Quebec to assist them with their building program. Bill No. 58 provided for payment of continuing grants equivalent to $1.75 per capita of the population of the province, and those amounts are distributable each year among the universities and institutions of higher learning of the province on the basis of student enrolment.
It is quite clear, therefore, that this program which was undertaken by the government of Quebec entirely on its own, of its own volition, and approved unanimously by the legislature of Quebec in the excer-cise of its sovereign rights, became law regardless of what this parliament chose to do with the federal legislation. This legislation to which I have referred is the law of the province of Quebec passed by the legislature of that province in exercise of its constitutional rights.
That program of assistance to the universities of the province has won the widest possible acceptance in the province of Quebec. It has won acclaim and the highest approbation from the presidents of the universities of that province, and it is quite clear that it goes far beyond the terms upon which the federal government, in light of the legislation in the bill now under debate in this committee, is permitted to increase from 9 to 10 per cent the abatement as against the federal tax.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the position. Not only is it perfectly clear that in light of the bill now under debate the province of Quebec has fully established its position as a prescribed province, but it has gone beyond that and done so in exercise of its own constitutional position, its own constitutional rights, and upon its own decision.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question, but before doing so I would like to preface it with this statement. During the course of the last few minutes the minister has been talking to us about a number of bills in another place, and we are not concerned with them at the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is six o'clock. Apparently we have not unanimous consent to proceed.

(Translation):


Mr. Parizeau:: Great comedian.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I hear the same objection on the other side of the house that I made a moment ago, and I now rise on a question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: There is no question.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, there is. I have been accused of being a "farceur", and told to sit down, and because of the interruption which was made and the statement I made, I would ask that the same treatment be meted out to me as I meted out to the hon. member.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I did not hear that word but I am sure that if it has been pronounced the hon. member concerned will immediately withdraw it.
(Translation):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Sit down, joker.
I said first, sit down joker. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) was already seated. If he thought those remarks were addressed to him, I apologize and I withdraw them.
(Translation):


An hon. Member:: Touche.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader what the business is for tomorrow and perhaps at this stage he could give some indication as to what the business will be on Monday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I find it easier to announce on Thursday night the business for the next week.


Lionel Chevrier: That is satisfactory.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will continue the discussion of Bill No. C-56 to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act followed by the three remaining budget resolutions. If the house were to make progress on those we would then take Bill No. C-57, an act to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act which is now in the committee stage. If the three items I mentioned were to be cleared up this week it would represent a very fair week's work.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Question

[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. Mcllrailh: 1.	What are the charges made to employees In
the public service of Canada under the group surgical-medical insurance plan for (a) basic benefit of $9 per day; (d) basic benefits with hospi-of $3 per day; (c) basic benefits with hospital benefit of $9 per day; (d) basic benefits with hospital benefit of $12 per day?
2.	What are the charges made to persons entitled to pensions based on service in the public service of Canada for (a) basic benefits; (b) basic benefits with hospital benefit of $3 per day; (c) basic benefits with hospital benefit of $9 per day; (d) basic benefits with hospital benefit of $12 per day?
3.	What are the provisions of the major medical expense benefit available to employees in the public service of Canada?
4.	What are the provisions of the medical expense benefit available to persons entitled to pensions based on service in the public service of Canada?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1.	Single employees (a) $1.35, (b) $1.75, (c) $2.83, (d) $3.29.
Employees with one dependent (a) $3.65,
(b)	$4.70, (c) $7.62, (d) $8.85.
Employees with more than one dependent (a) $4.35, (b) $5.82, (c) $10.47, (d) $12.37.
2.	Retired public service employees and retired members of the forces:
Single applicant (a) $3.40, (b) $4.60, (c) $7.84, (d) $9.22.
Applicant with one dependent (a) $6.86, (b) $9.26, (c) $15.74, (d) $18.50.
Applicant with more than one dependent (a) $8, (b) $10.65, (c) $18.17, (d) $21.32.
Widows of retired public service employees and widows of retired members of the forces:
Widow only (a) $3.79, (b) $5.11, (c) $8.67, (d) $10.18.
Widow with dependents (a) $4.83, (b) $6.38,
(c)	$10.87, (d) $12.74.
Widows of active public service employees and widows of active members of the forces: Widow only (a) $2.23, (b) $2.71, (c) $4.05, (d) $4.61.
Widow with dependents (a) $3.96, (b) $4.82, (c) $7.72, (d) $8.89.
3.	Major medical expense benefit:
This benefit provides for payment of 80 per cent of the amount by which the total eligible expenses of a participant during a calendar year exceeds the sum of: (i) the
amount paid under the surgical expense benefit and the diagnostic expense benefit in respect of the participant and (ii) the amount of the deductible.
Deductible-The deductible is the amount which the participant is required to pay in full before payment can be made under the major medical expense benefit. For a single participant this amount is $25 per calendar year; for a participant with dependents the deductible is $25 per calendar year for each member of the family except that-
(a)	the maximum deductible in respect of expenses arising out of an accident involving more than one member of a family will be $25 for any one calendar year, and
(b)	the maximum deductible for all members of a family collectively will be $50 for any one calendar year.
Maximum benefit-The maximum amount payable under the major medical expense benefit is $5,000 in respect of any one individual during such individual's lifetime. If, after at least $1,000 of benefits have been paid in respect of any individual, evidence of recovery satisfactory to the insurer is submitted, the individual maximum of $5,000 will be reinstated.
Eligible expenses

Eligible expenses include reasonable and customary charges for: physicians' and surgeons' services, including the services of radiologists, psychiatrists and other specialists; services of any nurse graduated from a recognized school of nursing who is not ordinarily resident in the participant's home or is not a member of the participant's immediate family; services of physiotherapists and psychotherapists; drugs and medicines prescribed by a physician and dispensed by a licensed pharmacist; bandages and surgical dressings; artificial limbs and eyes (except their replacement), crutches, splints, casts, trusses, braces; provided the accident or circumstances originating the condition which required the items took place while the person was insured; radiation therapy; blood transfusions; professional ambulance service, when recommended or approved by a physician or surgeon, or any type of transportation service when required in case of emergency, to the nearest hospital qualified to provide treatment for the injury or sickness; provided that in the opinion of the insurer the use of such service is justified; rental of wheel chair, hospital bed, iron lung, or other durable equipment, required for temporary therapeutic use; provided that in the opinion of the insurer such rental is justified; oxygen and its administration; services for conditions resulting from pregnancy which are not covered by the surgical or diagnostic expense benefit because of their association with pregnancy; dental services and

supplies administered by a dental surgeon for treatment of accidental injuries to natural teeth, including replacement of such teeth, or for the setting of a jaw fractured or dislocated in an accident, in excess of the charges payable under the surgical expense benefit; services and supplies other than those enumerated above which may be included at the discretion of the insurer.
4.	Medical expense benefit:
This benefit provides for payment of 80 per cent of the amount by which the total eligible expenses of a participant during a calendar year exceed the deductible.
Deductible-The deductible is the amount which the participant is required to pay in full before payment can be made under the medical expense benefit and is applicable to each individual in each calendar year. For
Question
a single participant this amount is $25 per calendar year; for a participant with dependents the deductible is $25 per calendar year for each member of the family except that-
(a)	the maximum deductible in respect of expenses arising out of an accident involving more than one member of a family will be $25 for any one calendar year, and
(b)	the maximum deductible for all members of a family collectively will be $50 for any one calendar year.
Eligible expenses-are defined as reasonable and customary charges of licensed physicians for calls at the patient's home, at the hospital or at the doctor's office in connection with treatment of injury or illness, but do not include charges for surgery, post-operative care or treatment, drugs or dressings, or treatment in respect of pregnancy.

Thursday, May 12, 1960