1960-05-12

MEETING OF CANADA-U.S. INTERPARLIAMENTARY GROUP-U.S. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION

Mr, Speaker:: I expect to have the honour in a day or two to present the report of the third meeting of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group. In the meantime I have the honour to report the receipt from the ambassador of the United States of America of resolution No. S.308 of the Senate of the United States, passed on the 25th day of April, 1960, recording their appreciation of and satisfaction with the exchange visit which took place a few days earlier. By leave of the house I should like not only to table this resolution of the Senate of the United States but also to ask permission to have it printed as an appendix to Hansard today.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of resolution, see appendix]



AUSTRALIAN TRADE AGREEMENT ACT


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-28 (from the Senate), respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and Australia.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of his statement yesterday to the effect that Canadian airfields had not been used by United States planes for aerial reconnaissance flights over Russia, will he comment on contrary statements emanating from Washington and reported in today's Globe and Mail in a news story by Philip Deane?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I dealt with a dispatch by this same correspondent in Washington, and I pointed out the inaccuracies in his statement. I have nothing further to add today. If the hon. member for Laurier will compare the dispatch in the Globe and Mail of yesterday with the dispatch in today's Globe and Mail I think he will see that the same correspondent has merely taken the facts he put in yesterday's report, reduced them a little bit, and put them back again in today's report. This is, in effect, irresponsible and mischievous reporting. I gave the facts yesterday afternoon, and I have nothing to add to them today.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: May
I ask a supplementary question of the Acting Prime Minister, and I apologize for not so addressing him yesterday. In brief, then, this dispatch is incorrect?


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is what I intended to convey by my remarks.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I asked the former acting prime minister a question on May 5, and he said he would bring it to the attention of the present Acting Prime Minister and that I might get an answer on Monday of this week. Since I have not had an answer to date I should like to repeat my question.
Does the Acting Prime Minister care to comment on the report that the United States atomic energy commission has plans to set off four nuclear devices in the coastal area of Alaska? Has the Canadian government been informed of any such plan? Will Canada oppose such explosions prior to the conclusion of the proposed international agreement on nuclear testing?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the project to which the hon. member refers is known, I believe, as project "Chariot". It is part of the United States atomic energy commission's "Plowshare" program for nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes. By its nature such a program would not be secret. A great deal of

Inquiries of the Ministry information about it has, in fact, already been made public. From this information it appears that the particular project to which the hon. member refers is still under study, and that there is no immediate intention on the part of the United States to explode nuclear devices in Alaska.
The opposition of the Canadian government to nuclear tests is well known, and I have reaffirmed it on a number of occasions both inside this house and outside. I agree with what I take to be the implication in the hon. member's question, that nuclear explosions, particularly at this stage, might have a damaging effect on progress of the Geneva negotiations for a nuclear test treaty. The government has always stressed that it was especially important that no country should conduct any further nuclear tests whatsoever pending the conclusion of a treaty on nuclear tests.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
a supplementary question. It is appreciated, of course, that the policy of the government of Canada is against tests, but has the Canadian government indicated to the United States government that with regard to the announcement of Sunday last, as to its intention to carry out certain underground tests, the Canadian government is opposed to that particular decision?


Howard Charles Green: Our opposition is thoroughly well known to the United States authorities. There has been no protest made with regard to this last statement. I am sure the hon. member for Essex East would not want us to be filing notes every day or two as these questions come up, particularly when our stand is very clearly understood in Washington and in the other capitals of the world.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the minister not think that in matters of this sort we should not hesitate to file as many notes as the circumstances warrant?


Howard Charles Green: I honestly suspect, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. member were in my position he would do exactly the same as I would do.


Hazen Robert Argue: In view of the minister's welcome statement, can he say whether the study of a possible nuclear explosion with regard to the Athabasca tar sands has now been terminated?


Howard Charles Green: These are private firms involved in these studies and I do not know whether or not the study is still going on. As the hon. member will recall, the government has taken a firm stand against these explosions.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. With the tourist season rapidly approaching, does the government propose taking any action to offset the unfavourable publicity that has resulted throughout the United States from the action of our chartered banks in charging an extra discount on United States coins?


Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The government has already participated in plans with the Canadian tourist association and the banks in order to try to reduce the effects of this publicity, to point out to the people of the United States some of the facts with regard to the law of supply of money, and also to adopt policies this summer that will alleviate this situation.


John Richard Garland: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Have any representations been made by the government to have the chartered banks discontinue for the summer season at least their current policy of charging extra discount on United States coins?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was not too
clear on the first part of the question.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the supplementary question goes beyond the administrative responsibility of the government. As I understand it the chartered banks are acting on their own initiative, and there is no legislation which gives administrative responsibility to the government.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct to the Acting Prime Minister a question based on a news story in today's Montreal Gazette. Is it now the policy of the Canadian government to seek a further conference of commonwealth prime ministers at an early date as a possible method of avoiding a crisis within the commonwealth on South Africa's policy of apartheid?


Howard Charles Green: The conference is still under way in London. I believe it will terminate tomorrow, and I expect that the Prime Minister will be reporting to the house on Monday.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister; I am sure he will recall our interest in a matter of returns of parliamentary papers. Earlier this session I indicated that 50 per cent of the failures last session to comply with orders for returns related to one particular department. Yesterday there was tabled a return to a motion of mine which was passed early in the session of 1959, being motion No. 5 dated April 15, 1959. The return, as hon. members can see, is not unduly voluminous. The last item in the return is a letter dated April 10, 1959.
I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister, in accordance with the assurance of the Prime Minister will inquire into this matter and see whether there cannot be more expedition shown in recognition of the opposition's rights in these matters.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to look into this. May I say we have tried very hard to improve on some of these bad habits into which the former government had fallen.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask what action has been taken or is contemplated with respect to the recommendation of the restrictive trade practices commission for certain restraining orders against Zinc Oxide Company of Canada Limited, and Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company Limited arising from the report of that commission regarding the production and sale of zinc oxide.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to give me notice yesterday of his intention to ask this question. I must apologize for not having obtained the full information. My recollection is that the report was referred to counsel and that on the advice of counsel no action was taken. I will be glad now to get a further report and give a fuller answer. I am sorry I did not get it for today.
12, 1960	3809
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



ATLANTIC PROVINCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the information given to this house yesterday by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with regard to advertising in the British isles employment opportunities in certain trades, would the minister take into consideration the advisability of notifying the national employment offices of the Atlantic provinces in what parts of Canada opportunities exist for carpenters, plumbers, electricians and painters in order to enable those offices to find jobs for a large number of our 125,000 unplaced applicants who are qualified in such trades?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding in this matter is that the placement section of the unemployment insurance commission continually disseminates information about the areas in which certain people are required, depending on their classification, trades and knowledge. This exchange of information is carried on throughout the offices from one coast to the other at all times.



WIDENING OF SCOPE OF COMMITTEE DEALING WITH ELLIOT LAKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his role as the saviour of Elliot Lake. Would the minister tell us whether the speculation about the committee's scope being widened to include Bancroft and Uranium City is true, and how this is going to fit into the operations of the committee?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true. It will fit in admirably because these areas deserve the same consideration as Elliot Lake.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say when the report from this committee may be received by the government?


Gordon Minto Churchill: An announcement will be made in due course, and action will be taken as it appears possible. Quite a bit of discussion has been going on with various business firms that are interested in the area. Decisions cannot be made solely by the government; action

Inquiries of the Ministry must be taken in consultation with those firms. These things are going ahead, and we have hopes that quite a bit may be done tor the areas that are affected.
As I mentioned earlier, the effort has to be made by the four groups concerned; the area itself, the mining companies and the two governments, this one and the government of the province of Ontario. We are finding excellent co-operation among all groups.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could relate his remarks to Uranium City, Saskatchewan. The survey is to be for the three of them, but I took it that the minister's remarks related to Elliot Lake.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Uranium City, Saskatchewan, has been under consideration in the same way as the other two areas. Two representatives from Uranium City were in my office two days ago presenting a well-reasoned brief in moderate language, and I hope representatives of the government will visit Uranium City in the very near future to make contact with the people of that area.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of Agriculture, with regard to an announcement made today by the chairman of the agricultural stabilization board concerning the support prices for cattle and lamb, whether he is in a position to offer an explanation for the lower support given to lamb this year?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: I had expected the hon. member would have asked me to give an explanation of the higher support given to cattle this year, but he has chosen to go in the other direction. The explanation in each case is the same. As the hon. member knows, there is a mandatory support at 80 per cent of the level of average prices for the past ten years. That produced the two figures which, in pursuance of its obligations under the act, the stabilization board has released.



LAKE NIPISSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: With the
inflow of water into lake Nipissing substantially in excess of double the outflow, can the Minister of Public Works give an assurance that everything possible is being done to


minimize the danger of flooding and damage to the properties of the people who reside in that area?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): I wish to thank the hon. member for Nipissing for his question, and to say in reply that we have control of the dams forming the exit from lake Nipissing and that we are keeping an hourly watch, night and day, to try to control the situation as best we can. At the present time we are controlling it to the extent that we have almost flooded lake Nipissing; the east end of the lake is flooded. This is just a matter of too much water. Never in 30 years has precipitation been so great. It is really what the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) might call a vice majeur or an act of God, and in the circumstances we are doing all we can to control it.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance, because recently he was, as we all realize, the best acting prime minister-for a day or so-that we have ever had. Could the hon. gentleman indicate whether there has been any progress, and if so with what results, in the matter of setting up the equivalent of a Hoover commission for Canada along the lines announced in the speech from the throne, No. 2, by the Prime Minister?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I am sure that when an announcement in this regard is appropriate, the Prime Minister will be pleased to make it to the house.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to give the house a report on the investigation into the crash landing of a Super Constellation aircraft at Malton last February 10?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. I am advised by my officials that certain technical aspects

are still under investigation. It has therefore not been possible to complete a report on this accident.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: May I take this opportunity to answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Port Arthur regarding small boat regulations. No amendments or new regulations respecting licensing of small craft or their operators are contemplated for this boating season. It is proposed to raise the matter at the annual small boat conference to be held in Ottawa next fall under the auspices of my department. These conferences are attended by representatives of organizations and by private individuals interested in small boat safety.
Recommendations resulting from these conferences are submitted to departmental officials for consideration, and if accepted every effort is made to place them before the governor in council or before parliament, as the case may be, prior to the commencement of the next boating season. At last year's conference a system of voluntary licensing for small boat operators was suggested by my department, but the question was held over for further study. We are hopeful that at the next conference a system of voluntary licensing for small boat operators may be acceptable. It is important that the department should have the support of the boating public before proceeding with such a scheme. Departmental officials will be holding discussions on the matter with various boating organizations during the coming season.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May
I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house how the invitations to this conference are sent out, and whether the question of life saving equipment will be discussed at the conference?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, speaking offhand I would say invitations are sent out to everybody we would know of who would be interested. If the hon. member knows of some individual or organization which has not been invited in the past and would like to be invited, if he will let us know we shall be glad to send an invitation. I feel sure that lifesaving equipment will be discussed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What efforts have been made during the last boating season to get better police co-operation
Inquiries of the Ministry from other authorities in so far as the regulations that now exist are concerned, enforcing them across the country in the boating field?


George Harris Hees: We are always making every possible effort to get all the co-operation we can from all policing authorities.



REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO ACCIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Fortin (Monimagny-LTsIei):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I regret that I did not send him notice, and he can answer tomorrow if he wishes. I am going to ask my question in French so that he may have some practice in spealdng French.
(Translation):
Is the minister aware that last Tuesday night, a ship was involved in an accident and ran aground a few miles off Quebec?
It was reported in La Presse yesterday that the captain of the ship involved in the accident had refused or neglected to seek the services of a licensed pilot.
I therefore ask the minister whether he is aware of this fact and whether his department intends to investigate the matter?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to take this question as notice. I shall answer it tomorrow.
(Text):



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister now in a position to advise the house as to the number of loans made by all approved lenders in the first four months of this year?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question by the hon. member for Nipissing, the requests that have come to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for insurance from approved lenders, that is life insurance companies, trust companies and loan companies other than banks, up to May 6, 1960, amounted to 4,023 loans; up to May 6, 1959 they amounted to 5,737.
It will be interesting to the house to learn that in the week ended May 6 there were 668 approved loans as against 576 in the same week last year, so that the number of lenders are stepping up their participation

Inquiries of the Ministry materially. I should add, however, that the banks made only a nominal effort to participate in this enterprise.


William Moore Benidickson: I should like to ask a supplementary question. The Minister of Public Works has indicated that the banking contribution was a nominal one. Can he indicate specifically what their contribution was? And having in mind my question to the minister, when we were discussing legislation in this field, as to their contribution, will he indicate at what point he might perhaps review, as he promised, the role of the banks in this field?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the debate on housing was terminated some time ago. I know my hon. friend on his infrequent returns to the house likes to raise it again. I should be glad to reply to these questions during the discussion of my estimates. In the meantime, the policy of the government in regard to housing and also in regard to loans for houses is under constant review. To date the participation of the banks, as my friend must know from the reports which are made from time to time, has amounted to 34.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Public Works. Has any reason been given by the banks to the departmental officials, or has any effort been made by the departmental officials, to find out the reason the banks have dropped participation in this housing field by about 90 per cent over last year?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, we have had no official information from the banks as to why they are not participating. Of course the hon. member for Timmins is aware that the interest rate under the Bank Act is limited to 6 per cent, and any Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loan would be governed by that existing rate of 6 per cent; whereas other approved lenders are allowed to charge 6| per cent. That, no doubt, would be some indication of one of the reasons the banks are not participating. As a matter of fact I think all parties in the house were agreed- at least I have not found anybody to say otherwise-that the banks should not have their rate under the Bank Act increased to 61 per cent.


Murdo William Martin: Can the minister inform the house whether his department has approached the banks in this matter in an effort to see whether the limit of 6 per cent is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has already asked that question, and it seems to me he is now trying to put his question in

terms of what might be called an argument, that might lead to a debate, which would be improper at this time.
(Translation):



INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, before directing a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence, I wish to welcome him on his return to Canada. I should like to ask whether he has any comments to make about his trip to Paris with regard to the world fair which was supposed to be held in Montreal.


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Levis for his words of welcome on my return to the house. I feel that all necessary comments have already been made on what took place in Paris with regard to the 1967 world fair.
All I wish to say is that all those who dealt with this matter-delegation members as well as public relations officers-spared no effort in the performance of their duties and surely Canada can feel proud of the fact that everything was done with the greatest possible amount of fair play, at least on their part.
(Text):



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) asked me a question which I declined to answer at the time. The question was as follows-


Paul Joseph James Martin: You did answer it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, you did.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The question was:
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?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister answered no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: To the inquiry as to whether I would make a statement I replied "no". The hon. member then asked whether I would make an inquiry to see if any such directive had been issued by the treasury board. I have done so and, Mr. Speaker, no such directive has been issued by the treasury board. The matter has not been before the treasury board. However, on further inquiry I found that a directive was issued by the government motor vehicle committee, which is an interdepartmental committee.
I concluded, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member's question was prompted by a question and answer in the standing committee on estimates on May 10, and here I think the former deputy minister of national health and welfare, now the deputy minister of citizenship and immigration, spoke under a misunderstanding. In that respect he was asked as to whether-


Mr. Pickersgill:: I am rising on a point of order. Surely it is contrary to the rules of this house to refer to the proceedings-more particularly to quote the proceedings-of a committee before that committee has made a report.


Lionel Chevrier: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let me make clear at once that I have no intention of reading the proceedings of the committee; I was simply wishing to point out at the present time what appeared to be the origin of the misapprehension of the hon. member for Essex East in this respect. In fairness to him I think the misapprehension was based upon-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Don't worry about the member for Essex East.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -the statement made by the deputy minister, which was not quite accurate; and, as we all know, the deputy minister would not intentionally make an inaccurate statement. I would want to say that-


Mr. Speaker:: In order to dispose of the point of order, it is not usual to refer to or use or quote in the house the proceedings of a committee until it has reported. I daresay the minister will be able to deal with the matter without doing so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. I have indicated the reason for this passing reference, Mr. Speaker. As far as the contents of the directive are concerned, perhaps I should say it indicated that departments should give serious consideration to the use of compact
Inquiries of the Ministry cars, that is to say the new small cars, in place of larger cars where the smaller cars may serve the purposes of departments.
The hon. member for Essex East then proceeded to ask this question:
Will the minister see that the direction is negated at once, because obviously it is at serious variance with the interests of Canadian workers?
I think the hon. gentleman is under a misapprehension. This directive is not applicable to imported compact cars. It applies to compact cars of Canadian manufacture, so it cannot be said that the directive does any harm to Canadian workers employed in the automobile industry. It is intended that departments should examine the possibility of achieving economies in the purchase price and cost of operation of motor cars where it is found that the smaller or compact cars will meet their requirements.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Finance in his compact reply, may I ask the Postmaster General to explain why, in the light of this answer, a foreign-made truck carries the mail from the Ottawa post office to Uplands airport?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Such transport is done by contract with an independent trucking company, which is quite free to use the vehicles it has in its service.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, my only purpose in rising a moment ago was to ask whether the 40-minute rule applies to ministers answering questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Vancouver South begin again, please? I think the first part of his question was lost.


Ernest James Broome: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. With regard to the best interests of Canadian workers and the purchase of automobiles, will the minister take into consideration the fact that the province of British Columbia is dependent to a great extent upon export trade, and that the interests of our workers are just as important as the interests of the workers in Windsor or Oshawa?


William Moore Benidickson: Some Japanese trade, too.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has produced an argument, but not at the right time or place.
3814	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. L. D. Creslohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question tor the Minister of Finance with reference to the reply he gave as to the directive concerning compact cars. Can he tell the house whether that directive also applies to cars in use by ministers?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Ministers of the crown are not provided with transportation at the expense of the treasury. Many years ago ministers were deprived of any such transportation, and they are now responsible for providing their own.


Mr. Winch:: Two thousand dollars a year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: All members of the house enjoy an expense allowance.


Mr. Caron:: Does the minister believe that the $2,000 a year is not to meet the expense of a car?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was provided some years ago, I think actually about 28 years ago, when the use of a motor car and chauffeur therefore provided for ministers of the crown was withdrawn. The so-called transportation allowance has remained at $2,000 in the meantime. I do not know whether the hon. member would care to say how far $2,000 would go today in providing for a full year's use of a motor car, its running expenses and a chauffeur.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has he been able to obtain information respecting the question I asked yesterday on the orders of the day?


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have looked into the matter that the hon. member for Laurier brought to the attention of the house yesterday on the orders of the day, and I have information from the regional office in Montreal to the following effect.
No change has been made or is being made or is contemplated in the practices or procedures in dealing with claimants in any of the Montreal offices of the unemployment insurance commission. I understand that the question asked by the hon. member was based on an advertisement published in a Montreal newspaper and paid for by the Liberal party as part of their propaganda in the forthcoming provincial election.
[Mr. Speaker.)

I should like to inform the hon. member for Laurier that I do not appreciate his efforts to involve the unemployment insurance commission in this political situation, nor do I consider them helpful so far as unemployment is concerned. I might add that the photograph which appeared in the advertisement was taken early in the morning before the office opened.
I make these facts available to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, in case he is not aware of them.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. gentleman at once that I based my question-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a statement to make it should be as a point of order or privilege.


Lionel Chevrier: I make it as a question of privilege. The minister has stated that my question was based on a political advertisement of the Liberal party-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is entitled to comment on the statement made by the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: -which statement, Mr. Speaker, is entirely erroneous. When I asked the question yesterday I held in my hand, to be seen by everybody here, a statement which appeared in he Devoir and I put my question to the minister in French. There was no picture and no advertisement. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Liberal party, and the minister should know that I asked the question for information. Furthermore, the unemployment situation in Montreal is very serious at the moment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: -and the minister is not doing nearly as much as he should be doing.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member went a bit beyond his question of privilege. I did not hear the last of what he said, and I daresay the reporter did not either.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government has made any progress in the

negotiations with the provincial governments with respect to the representations by the welfare council regarding health and welfare care for refugees sponsored privately during world refugee year and, if so, whether he can give any report to the house?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I will have to make inquiries about that question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister would permit me to ask a supplementary question. Would the government give consideration to the possibility of having this residual care undertaken by the federal government if it is not possible to reach agreement with the provinces?


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, the whole broad question is under consideration.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-56, to amend the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act-Mr. Fleming (Eglinton)-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Amendment of agreements.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, at just about the time of adjournment last evening I was prepared to put a question to the minister. I should like to ask the question at this time but before doing so, in order that there might be no misunderstanding, perhaps I could just refer the minister to two lines of his statement which are to be found on page 3802 of Hansard of May 11, 1960:
They decided they would proceed with their program of legislation regardless of what might be the outcome of the discussions with the federal government.
I take that to mean that, notwithstanding what was going to be put in the bill now under consideration, the provincial government of Quebec would proceed on their own with their own legislation. A little later in the same paragraph the minister said, referring to the meeting which he had with Mr. Barrette:
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.
I wonder whether the minister would give us a little more clarification on that. Did Mr. Barrette tell the Minister of Finance that
Dominion-Provincial Relations he was satisfied with this bill? I take it that the bill now under discussion was shown to him, that he saw it, and I ask the minister what Mr. Barrette's reaction was, whether he declared himself satisfied with its content.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I made a very ample statement on this subject yesterday, going far beyond anything that is required, doing so only under protest because of the fact that so much latitude had been allowed. I considered the entire proceedings were out of order. I think I have made quite an ample report on the discussions to which reference has been made.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, although the minister vigorously criticized the fact that I referred to a portion of two letters, he then proceeded to put on Hansard-which was a very extraordinary thing and took over 30 minutes-all the correspondence that took place between the two levels of government. What I am asking him now is a matter which has reference to some of the correspondence which he put on record. The minister has not answered the question. Surely we on this side of the house are entitled to know whether, in his discussions with the premier of Quebec, the premier was shown the contents of this bill, and whether he gave his approval of its contents.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I read the correspondence yesterday and placed the full information on record, whereas the hon. member had jumped around between two or three letters making some selections from the correspondence. I refer him to the letter which I read yesterday, dated December 14, 1959, from the late Premier Sauve, in which he said:
As I mentioned to you last October, the Quebec government has decided to request the provincial parliament, during the present session-
-to do certain things. "Has decided" I draw those words to his attention. There are similar expressions elsewhere. The present bill was not in existence at the time, although we were well aware of what the bill would contain when introduced, and the legislative intentions of the two governments were discussed in a very understanding manner.


Lionel Chevrier: Then do I understand from the minister's last answer that while the bill was not ready and was not shown to the premier of Quebec at the time, he was told of its contents?


Donald Methuen Fleming: He was told of the legislative intention of the federal government in its approach to this question.


Maurice Bourget: May I pursue that question and ask the Minister of Finance whether Mr. Barrette at any time told the minister that

Dominion-Provincial Relations this new compromise, new formula, call it whatever you like, was acceptable to the province of Quebec?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. gentleman is still labouring under a misapprehension, or else he did not follow what I endeavoured to convey yesterday. I stressed yesterday that the premier of Quebec had made it quite clear that the provincial government already had a legislative program with respect to matters affecting education and grants for that purpose in Quebec, and taxes for that purpose. I referred in my remarks yesterday to the three measures which, with others, were then pending before the legislature of Quebec. I indicated what the premier had said, and his remark was in accord with the position that had been taken by the late Premier Sauve in his correspondence, that it was the intention of the Quebec government to proceed with that legislative program regardless of what course of action might be taken in this parliament in relation to the whole subject matter of federal grants to universities.


Maurice Bourget: That is quite correct; I think the minister is talking about the legislation that was passed in the local legislature. We are asking about the new formula that is embodied in the bill. I understood that this new formula was put in the bill to satisfy the province of Quebec. I believe we are entitled to know from the minister whether the province of Quebec approved of that formula as it is embodied in this bill. This question has nothing to do with the four or five bills that were passed in the local legislature.
1 shall repeat my question. Has the premier of Quebec, Mr. Barrette, at any time, orally or in writing, accepted the formula as it now appears in Bill No. C-56?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have had no correspondence or communication with Premier Barrette on this matter over the past couple of months. I have had no communication from him with respect to the terms of this bill now under discussion. I pointed out yesterday that in the light of the action the legislature took at its recent session, there is no question whatever that under this bill the province of Quebec would fully qualify as a prescribed province, and therefore the federal tax abatement with respect to the federal corporation tax on federal taxpayers in the province of Quebec would apply to the 10 per cent rate of tax as it has hitherto applied to the 9 per cent rate. I believe that is quite clear.

The steps taken in the Quebec legislature have gone far beyond the terms of the measure now under discussion.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Levis, following up the question that was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier, keeps asking if there has been some agreement on this matter. I think, if I may say so, they are labouring under some misapprehension in this regard. This bill does not depend upon some agreement between governments. All this bill does is provide an alternative method of meeting the problem that has arisen because legislation of this parliament up to the present time provided federal grants to universities on a direct basis.
In the case of a prescribed province the situation is this. Here again, Mr. Chairman, I say that I am speaking on this subject at this point under protest, because I think this whole discussion is not referrable to clause 1 of the bill but to clause 2. However, I have been pressed on this matter repeatedly and hon. members go on taking hours discussing it on clause 1. I am therefore going to say this about it under that protest.
This method does not involve or hinge upon agreements between governments, any more than the equalization payments under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act depend upon agreement between governments. These equalization payments are paid to the province of Quebec, which has entered into no agreement with the federal government in pursuance of the provisions of this act. Those are payments that are made under the provisions of this act even in the case of provinces that have entered into no agreement whatever with the federal government.
Similarly, in the case of a prescribed province under the amendment now proposed, there is no contemplation of an agreement between the federal and provincial governments in that situation. All that the bill is dealing with in that situation is in relation to a federal abatement of a federal tax payable by federal taxpayers in the province of Quebec. That is clearly a matter for federal legislation and clearly a matter of federal jurisdiction beyond any question.
Then there is provision for the accounting at the end of the year so that the charge on the treasury remains the same. Accordingly, in the case of a prescribed province-again taking the case of the province of Quebec- if at the end of the year it is found, as undoubtedly would be the case, that the federal tax abatement exceeds the equivalent of $1.50 per capita of population, the difference

will be deducted by the federal government from the federal equalization payment provided under the terms of this federal legislation, namely the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act.
Hence, Mr. Chairman, you see there is no contemplation of any agreement. Nothing of that kind is involved, any more than there was with respect to the provision made for equalization payments.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the minister has
made it quite clear that this bill is to provide an alternative. Am I right in assuming that is what the minister has said?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: And the minister has also said there is no contemplation of an agreement. In other words, I think what the minister has in mind is that the province would proceed with its own legislation and Ottawa would do likewise, the one in its field and the other in its field. But although the minister keeps repeating that there is no agreement, the correspondence shows otherwise. The letter written to the premier of Quebec by the Prime Minister of Canada states as follows:
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-
And so on. Hence the Prime Minister of Canada certainly had in mind that there was to be an agreement in detail. The reply which came from the premier of Quebec certainly indicates the same thing, because in his letter to the Prime Minister of Canada of February 5, 1960 he states as follows:
-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.
So the Prime Minister of Canada had in mind an agreement and the premier of Quebec had in mind a settlement. If we go a step further, from the words of the Solicitor General here in the House of Commons on at least two occasions we realize that Mr. Barrette, the premier of Quebec, had approved these arrangements because-and I quote from page 3286 of Hansard of April 26, 1960 where the Solicitor General states as follows:
(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.
(Text):
Hence it cannot be both. Here the Solicitor General, by implication, clearly states that this is taking up the terms of the proposal of
12, I960
Dominion-Provincial Relations former Premier Duplessis. I do not think there can be any doubt about that matter. Therefore, in view of what the Minister of Finance has said, I think the committee should know whether or not the premier of the province of Quebec agreed to the conditions as set out in this bill, and more particularly in clause 2.


The Chairman:: Shall clause I carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Finance. I have been following this debate with great interest and it seems to me there are one or two questions which, if completely replied to by the minister, would give us the satisfaction of knowing something that obviously we do not know from what the minister has said. Can the minister say this? In view of the fact that he had a discussion with the premier of Quebec, although it is clear that he did not show him the bill because he said it was not ready, is it clear that the provincial premier knew that the province would have to impose a tax of at least 1 per cent on corporate income? Can the minister say whether there is any doubt as to whether the premier had an appreciation in that particular?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the premier of the province of Quebec did not know that, because it is not a fact.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is nothing here that says the province of Quebec must impose an additional tax.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It certainly does.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The province of Quebec, in the exercise of its constitutional rights, chose to increase from 9 per cent to 10 per cent the provincial tax on corporation profits. It is an incident of the present bill, if it is enacted by parliament, that in the case of a prescribed province the principle of tax abatement provided in the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act throughout its life will apply in that circumstance to a 10 per cent rate rather than the 9 per cent rate.
What could be simpler than that? Nobody has told the province of Quebec that it must do anything. The province of Quebec does not accept dictation from anybody. I hope the hon. gentleman, who was a member of the last government, has learned that lesson sufficiently. I can assure him that this government will never be putting before parliament any legislative proposal, any suggestion or any course of action that involves, directly or indirectly, or by any stretch of the imagination, any attempt at dictation to any province.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.

Dominion-Provincial Relations


Lionel Chevrier: I wish the Minister of Finance would clear up one point for me. He has said that the premier of Quebec did not see the bill. Is that a fact? The Solicitor General says he has.


Mr. Balcer:: No, no. On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I never said at any time that the premier of Quebec had seen the bill or approved it. I would like the hon. member for Laurier to withdraw his remark.


Lionel Chevrier: I will not withdraw.


Mr. Johnson:: Withdraw or prove it.


Lionel Chevrier: Just a moment. I am going to put on the record the words of the Solicitor General.


Léon Balcer: Please do.


Lionel Chevrier: What I have said is that the Minister of Finance stated that the premier of Quebec did not see the bill, but that the Solicitor General-


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. gentleman would be good enough to give my statement in full. I was speaking as of the time of our meeting, and the question that was put to me was whether at that meeting the premier of Quebec saw the bill. I pointed out that the bill was not fully drafted at that time. I do not know what the premier has seen since. He does not consult me about his reading habits.


Lionel Chevrier: No, but my hon. friend raised his point of order when I was attempting to explain the statement I had made earlier. I was interrupted by the Solicitor General, who objected to what I had said. I now propose to again put on Hansard the exact words of the Solicitor General. I think I understood the Minister of Finance aright when he said that at his earlier meeting, before the bill was drafted, the premier of Quebec had not seen it. Is that not correct?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I said before the bill was fully drafted. I was asked if I had shown the premier the bill at that time, at our meeting in February. I said no, that the bill was not fully drafted. We discussed the legislative intentions of the government in reference to this project.


Lionel Chevrier: The Solicitor General has not taken that position but the very opposite one. I do not want to be unfair to him in any way whatsoever. I want to put on Hansard what he said, because there can be no other inference from these words but that the premier of Quebec had approved the bill; and at two places on page 3286 of Hansard of April 26, 1960 does that appear, wherein the Solicitor General said:
(Translation):
It was the Hon. Paul Sauve who submitted that positive proposition-


(Text):
That can mean nothing other than the one mentioned in the correspondence between the premiers and afterwards included in this bill. I continue:
(Translation):
It was the Hon. Paul Sauve who submitted that positive proposition.
(Text):
We all know that. I continue: (Translation):
Federal ministers discussed it with Mr. Sauv6 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.
(Text):
Is there anything clearer than that? Is that not indicative of the fact that the premier of Quebec approved of the bill? Not satisfied with that, the Solicitor General goes a step further and states:
(Translation):
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):
I do not understand the French language or the English language-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: -because the translation indicates the same meaning-unless that is the meaning to be derived therefrom. In my opinion there is no doubt but that the Solicitor General has indicated by that statement that Mr. Barrette approved of the bill.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, for the last two or three days the hon. member for Laurier has come across with about fifteen different interpretations of the same sentence I uttered on April 26. Every time I have had to ask the hon. gentleman to come back to the text; but after coming back to the text, the moment he has finished reading the sentence he has always concluded with some extraordinary statement which does not conform with what I have said.
I never said in this statement that when Mr. Barrette met the Minister of Finance he had seen the bill, or that the minister had shown him the bill and Mr. Barrette had said it was a good one and gave it his approval. I do not know at all whether Mr. Barrette has seen the bill. Perhaps I should say I did not know at that time, but I know now that the Minister of Finance states that the premier had not seen the bill. I am taking the word of the Minister of Finance. I would like the hon. member for Laurier to stop placing on my words interpretations that do not conform with the truth.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the Solicitor General answer one or two questions in connection with the statement he has made; because as 1 read it he said:
(Translation):
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.
Was Mr. Duplessis' proposal to the effect that the province of Quebec would be bound by the agreement?


Léon Balcer: Not at all, Mr. Chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: Bound by the agreement contained in the bill? Was that Mr. Duplessis' proposal?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I repeat, there has been no agreement between the province of Quebec and the federal government. No agreement was necessary. The province of Quebec adopted its own bill, and then we proposed ours. We said this yesterday, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) repeated it.
I appreciate that the hon. member would perhaps prefer that there would be one, but those are the facts. We are demanding nothing from the province of Quebec. The province has already adopted its own bill, whereas crurs has not been adopted yet.


Lionel Chevrier: Do you want to answer?


Jacques Flynn: Order.


An hon. Member:: He cannot explain the situation; he does not understand anything.
Another hon. Member: He does not want to understand.


Jacques Flynn: After listening to the remarks of hon. members, I must say that all along the discussion has dealt with section 2, which is not relevant to section 1 of the bill, any more than it is to the general debate that can be allowed on section 1.
Furthermore, I would remind some members that standing orders do not allow continuous repetition of the same arguments. I would ask the hon. members to stick to a discussion that is relevant to section 1.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that members are not allowed to keep coming back to the same question but, on the other hand, are some Conservative members of the province of Quebec-not all of them, fortunately-allowed to act in the unseemly way they are now doing, in this house?
79951-0-241
Dominion-Provincial Relations


Jacques Flynn: I do not know just what the hon. member for Lapointe has in mind. If he has some definite situation to point to, I will give my ruling in the matter. For the moment, I would ask committee members to confine their discussion to consideration of section 1 of the bill.


Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Chairman, may I point out that the hon. member for Lapointe has, perhaps unwittingly, described the Liberal members.


An hon. Member:: Clever, as always.
(Text):


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, we are discussing clause 1 of the bill, which allows some latitude, and we are trying to stay within that latitude. I understood the Minister of Finance to say that this bill cannot and does not impose on the province of Quebec the necessity of increasing its taxation. That may be very clear, but is it not a fact that unless there is an increase-


Jacques Flynn: Order. The comment of the hon. member has no reference to clause 1 but has direct relevance to clause 2. I will not permit any discussion along those lines until we have disposed of clause 1.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on clause 1, on which Your Honour permitted the Minister of Finance to read all the correspondence and on which therefore, I presume, hon. members of the opposition are equally free to discuss what is in the correspondence, I should like to put one or two questions to the minister and I will put them all together before he answers.
The Minister of Finance and the Solicitor General have both told us in the last few minutes that there was no agreement of any kind with the province of Quebec-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I have already indicated that I thought the discussion up to now had not been relevant to clause 1. My view is that we should conclude this discussion and complete consideration of this clause before we take up that matter. I say to the hon. member that he will be able to take this up on clause 2.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With respect last evening the Minister of Finance read the whole of this correspondence into the record. Surely the opposition is not to be denied the right to refer to this correspondence. My point is not related directly to clause 2 but to clauses 1 and 2 taken together, the whole scheme of an alternative, and I submit that this is a very serious abridgement-


Jacques Flynn: I am not denying the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate the opportunity to discuss the correspondence when

Dominion-Provincial Relations we come to clause 2, but my decision is that it is not relevant to clause 1. When we come to clause 2 I will recognize the hon. member and give him the right to discuss the point he has just raised.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
(Translation):
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the unanimous vote recorded after the debate on the principle of the bill has indicated that every member of this house supports the principle of federal grants to universities.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: That is not true.


Lionel Chevrier: The house is also unanimous in the matter of the distribution of federal grants by the Canadian universities foundation to universities outside the province of Quebec. While the Quebec Conservative members consider this St. Laurent formula unconstitutional, they support its application in every province except Quebec.
There is no longer any unanimity on the subject, however, when we come to the second method of distributing federal grants-which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has just described as offering an alternative- found in clause 2 of this bill. We, in the Liberal party have repeatedly stated in the course of this debate that we are firmly opposed to this new arrangement, for a number of reasons.
We said we opposed it because we think there are serious constitutional objections.
Indeed, if Mr. St. Laurent's formula has not been accepted by the province of Quebec, it is our contention that the new arrangement put forward by the federal government is even less acceptable.
We regard this new arrangement as a dangerous precedent, and a step in the wrong direction. That was our position on the second reading of the bill, and we have somewhat anticipated it at the resolution stage. We are now convinced that section 2, now under study, is a threat with respect to Canada's constitution.
However, we are not just going to oppose this new arrangement; we also want to be realistic and to suggest a solution to an alternative which we think is unacceptable, and to a difficulty we consider very serious and which, I dare say, raises a very touchy problem.
In a speech I made in this house on July 18 last, I suggested that federal grants be
[The Chairman.]
distributed to the universities in a province through a provincial board or council of universities, set up for such a purpose by the provincial legislature. In fact, others had made the same suggestion previously, and I am sure it would be well received by Quebec universities.
In a brief submitted to the Tremblay commission on March 4, 1954, Laval University, after suggesting the setting up of a provincial board of universities and of a provincial universities fund, made this statement, which I find on page 83:
We might even add that, when an agreement is finally entered into between the provincial and the federal governments with regard to the sharing of taxation fields, it may be possible for the provincial government to accept federal grants to universities. Because of the provincial character of this commission, it seems that those grants would not constitute an unwarranted interference of the federal government in the field of education.
Besides, I wish particularly to point out to the Conservative members of the province of Quebec who took part in this debate, the part of the brief indicating the wisdom of Mr. St. Laurent's formula and, according to me, the wisdom of the amendment that I intend to introduce.
But I shall go further and say that the association of Laval University professors, in submitting its brief to the Tremblay commission, took exactly the same stand and asked that federal grants be paid into a provincial university fund.
As far as the University of Montreal is concerned, if its recommendation was not precisely along those lines, the considerations it submitted to the Tremblay commission with regard to federal grants clearly indicate that the university would have strongly objected to the new arrangement now suggested by the government.
There is no doubt that the distribution of federal grants by a provincial university council exactly meets the wishes expressed by the universities and the people of Quebec connected with them.
Such a formula has various advantages especially when compared to the new arrangement established under that clause. Later on we will have the opportunity to point out those advantages when we discuss the amendment we propose to submit.
Those advantages eliminate the difficulties pointed out in the letter of the Prime Minister of Canada to the premier of Quebec, and the objections raised in several quarters in the province of Quebec as a result of the statement of the Prime Minister, when parts of those letters were published.

First of all, the amendment offers a very great advantage in that unlike the new bill, the new arrangement, the new alternative suggested by the government, it does not raise any objection of constitutional nature.
As a matter of fact, with that formula, the federal government would in no way interfere in relations between the provincial government and the universities. In other words, the provincial government would remain completely free, as it should be, to deal as it chooses with the universities of its own province, something which it would not be able to do under the circumstances, particularly under clause 2 of this bill.
Moreover, if the formula we are suggesting were accepted, the federal government would not have to claim part of the provincial tax raised for provincial purposes.
And what is more important-and I wish to emphasize this particularly-if the amendment I am about to introduce were accepted, the federal government would no longer have to define the words against which so many objections were raised by Conservative members from Quebec, i.e.: "university", "university level", "university degree" and "student", federal definitions which our hon. friends opposite not only objected to but described as interference in the educational structure of a province.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, with federal grants being distributed by a provincial council, the administration of Quebec universities would be completely protected against all interference from the federal government. Indeed such a formula would have the advantage of guaranteeing greater independence to the universities of the province of Quebec, and diversifying their sources of revenue.
In short, the amendment I am about to introduce would do away with paragraph (b) of section 1 and with section 3, which would be replaced by the solution I have just outlined, that is, the payment of federal grants to a provincial council of universities.
The amendment is quite simple. I believe it would have the approval of the universities, would wipe out the objection that we, on this side, have raised against the bill and, in addition, would make it more acceptable to all.
(Text):
I therefore move the following amendment to clause 2:
That all the words presently appearing in section 9A(l)(b) of clause 2 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
79951-0-241J
Dominion-Provincial Relations
"(b) Provincial universities council means a corporate body established by act of the legislature of a province to receive and distribute the grants hereinafter referred to, and composed of representatives of the institutions of higher learning in that province."
That all the words presently appearing in section 9A(3) be deleted and the following words substituted therefor:
"The minister, with the approval of the governor in council, may on behalf of the government of Canada, pay to a university council established in any province for any fiscal year commencing on or after the first day of April, 1960, for the purpose of making grants to institutions of higher learning in that province an amount calculated by multiplying the population of the province for the calendar year ending in that fiscal year by one dollar and fifty cents."


Jacques Flynn: Before I put the motion, are there any hon. members who wish to speak to the validity or disability of the amendment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I should like to submit to you that this amendment is not in order and it is not in order for various reasons.
Having regard to what was the approved principle of the bill, I do not think this amendment is acceptable because it will introduce into the bill an entirely new principle. The house by unanimous vote on second reading approved the principle of the bill, the principle being that there should be such an amendment of the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act as would provide by way of tax abatement to federal taxpayers in a prescribed province an additional abatement in certain cases where the province in which they reside makes certain provisions within its own constitutional authority in respect of universities in the province.
This amendment introduces an entirely new principle. This is the kind of amendment that can only be introduced by way of amendment on second reading of a bill. What should have been introduced at that time- if hon. members opposite wished to introduce an amendment that would be in order -would have been an amendment to set up a contrary principle, a well recognized procedure on motions for second reading; but they did not choose to do that. There was no amendment introduced on second reading. This would introduce an entirely new principle. The principle of this amendment, as I apprehend it, is that the Minister of Finance would be called upon to make payments to some organization in the province which has never been mentioned in this statute thus far.
That, Mr. Chairman, is an entirely new principle. It would be read as not according with the principle that the house approved on

Dominion-Provincial Relations second reading and, therefore, I contend that on, that ground this amendment is out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: It is contained in clause 2 of the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is not the
only ground, Mr. Chairman. Let us look a little further. This amendment would propose a number of changes in clause 2 of the bill. It would strike out all the words appearing in section 9A (1) (b). That is to say, it would leave in clause 2, section 9A (1) (a) which defines "foundation". It would strike out clause (b) which contains all the provisions of the bill respecting a prescribed province, both the means of determining what is a prescribed province and the provision made for tax abatement in the case of a prescribed province.
There is substitution of the definition of a council that has never been mentioned in this legislation before. This is to take us completely outside the sphere of the present legislation into another realm entirely.
Then the amendment would leave in clause 2, subsection (2), being payments to the Canadian universities foundation in the case of a non-prescribed province. Then it would make a change in clause 9A (3). That clause at'the present time is the one which provides that in the case of a prescribed province the miftiSter may recover on or after the first day of April, 1960 any excess over the sum of $1.50 per capita, and similarly may pay where there is a deficiency. These are provisions that relate to a prescribed province.
That provision would be left in the bill, but the previous section, subsection 9A (1) (b), which contains now a provision with respect to a prescribed province, would be left in the bill. There would then be a contradiction in the bill.
But let us look even further. A new provision is proposed in the substituted clause 9A (32. This provides that the minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, pay to a university council established in any province for any fiscal year commencing after April 1, 1960, for the purpose of making grants to institutions of higher learning in that province, an amount calculated by multiplying the population of the province for the calendar year ending in that fiscal year by $1.50.
In this respect this then is an amendment that proposes to qualify the Minister of Finance to make payments to a body that, in respect of the provinces, would have to be determined. It may not even exist in many of the provinces. We do not know whether there is such a body in any province. I take

it that the hon. member thought that there was such a council in one province but there is no such body specifically named. Reference is simply made to a council that might conform to certain requirements but this is not a named council in any province.
Here is a provision that would purport to authorize the Minister of Finance to make payments out of the public treasury equivalent to $1.50 per capita of population to an unnamed organization or body in any province. This is nebulous. It is out of order on that count.
It is also out of order as a motion coming from a private member of the house purporting to authorize a minister of the crown to make payments out of the public treasury. It does not lie within the competence of a private member of the house to introduce such an amendment. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, on at least five, if not six, grounds I submit to you that this amendment is clearly out of order.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I have listened closely to the remarks of the Minister of Finance and I am inclined to believe he did not examine citation 408 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
(Text):
The committee can so change the provisions of the bill that when it is reported to the house it is in substance a bill other than that which was referred. A committee can negative every clause and substitute new clauses, if relevant to the bill as read a second time.
(Translation):
As you see at the committee stage, authorities on parliamentary procedure have allowed great latitude as regards the introduction of amendments.
The minister referred to changes that could be made. There could be some doubt if the amendment involved changes in government revenue or expenditures. But the matter of the $1.50 per capita has remained exactly the same. Nothing is changed there. Therefore, all the objections raised by the Minister of Finance seem automatically inapplicable with reference to an amendment submitted in committee.
I realize that citations 390 to 402 deal especially with amendments introduced before second reading of a bill; but we are now at the committee stage and I am convinced that this simple sentence-
(Text):
A committee can negative every clause and substitute new clauses, if relevant to the bill as read a second time.

(Translation):
-applies to the present case. The rest of this citation seems to show that, if the government accepts extensive alterations it may withdraw its bill and introduce a new one. However, such is not the case here. This time, the proposal emanates from the opposition, in accordance with citation 408, and I believe this citation is sufficient to clarify the situation and allow the chairman of the committee to accept the amendment.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, there is very little I can add to what the hon. member for Hull has just said, but there are a couple of points that perhaps could reinforce it a little. On the last point made by the minister, namely that this amendment was seeking to direct the government or the minister to make an expenditure, that of course is quite incorrect. The amount of money involved in this measure is not changed in any respect whatsoever. All that would be changed, and only if it were wished by the province, would be the destination of the money in certain provinces. We do not know whether there is going to be any prescribed province at this time because that is outside the knowledge of this committee, but under the present bill the minister can, if there should be no prescribed provinces, make payments of $1.50 a head to the Canadian universities foundation for the whole of Canada.
So far as ways and means are concerned, all my hon. friend is doing in his amendment is suggesting that in any province where a provincial council is set up the minister instead may-not must but may- pay that sum of money to the provincial council rather than to the national council. That is absolutely all there is so far as the financial side of the amendment is concerned.
As for the minister's suggestion not that the amendment was nebulous-he did not say that-but that the provincial council was nebulous-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I said the amendment was nebulous too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that ground, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the amendment speaks for itself. There are those who can only see clouds of their own making, and that is what "nebulous" means, I remind the minister, but to any plain person reading plain words there is nothing nebulous about it. It is not for the Chair to decide, I submit, whether or not there are provincial university councils in existence or whether they may be set up in the future. That is for the committee to decide. That is not a point of order.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
If an amendment is offered to the house suggesting that the money may be paid - to some organism that may be set up in the future, that is perfectly within the rights of parliament and it is for the members elected by the people, not for the Chair or the Minister of Finance, to decide whether such legislation should be enacted. I am sure you will agree with that view, Mr. Chairman.
With reference to the only substantial point made by the Minister of Finance, that the amendment introduces some new principle, may I say that there are two principles in the bill before us now. There is the principle with respect to equalization payments which is not in question in this amendment. There is also another principle that university grants may be paid to the Canadian universities foundation. The principle is that university grants may be paid to a foundation. All my hon. friend is suggesting "is that they may be paid to one foundation or another foundation. He is not suggesting any new principle whatsoever. He is suggesting that the principle which has been followed before the introduction of this bill should be followed still but that instead of there being only one possible foundation as the recipient there should be two. That is a matter of detail, not of principle, and therefore it seems to me that the minister's objection completely falls to the ground.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, when we talk about principle, as the hon. member who has just taken his seat did, I think every member of the house agrees with the principle of the bill and supports and has supported in the past the granting of aid to universities. We are all agreed on that.


An hon. Member:: No.


Leon David Crestohl: Is there someone who says that grants should not be given to the universities?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why did he vote for the bill then?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: That is not the principle of the bill.


Leon David Crestohl: If there is an hon. member who does not agree that grants should be made to the universities, then my statement is not correct.


Jacques Flynn: Order; I should like to hear the hon. member as to the validity of the amendment.


Leon David Crestohl: I am speaking to the amendment. I said that we are all agreed with that; we voted for that principle. What we are now debating is the method of implementing the principle.
3824	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations
When we come to the method, one is suggested in the bill and the amendment suggests what we think is an improvement to that method. The minister raises a question and says that in order to implement the principle he suggests a payment should be made through a foundation, and he creates the foundation. He creates the instrument and defines it in his bill. The amendment says that the principle could be implemented through another instrument which, in our opinion, would make the method more constitutional. If the minister would take the position that the instrument of a provincial council is unconstitutional, I would go along with the minister. If the minister will accept the principle that the implementation of these grants can be made through a provincial council, that is basic. It is not flippant, and it is not a technical objection.
When we discuss these measures from a lofty level I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that simply substituting a provincial council for a Canadian universities foundation is not a serious change in the bill and is a change which could properly be made by amendment. I respectfully submit that we should address ourselves to the fact of whether or not this method of implementing the intentions of the whole project is an acceptable one. If it is not an acceptable one, then it should be rejected. If it is an acceptable one it should be accepted, even by the minister. I feel that if he had time to consult with the province of Quebec and the university authorities in Quebec he would find they would prefer the amended way of implementing this bill.


An hon. Member:: You are arguing the merits.


Leon David Crestohl: I am just supposing that it were possible to do this. However, I think the amendment as made has merit, and does not change the principle at all but simply offers another vehicle for implementing the principle that the house adopted.


Jacques Flynn: Before I give a definite decision on this amendment, may I draw the attention of the committee to the possibility that there might be an additional charge on the public treasury by the amendment proposed if we envisaged it in the following light. In section 9A, as it is in the bill, if I am not mistaken paragraph (1) (a) and b) (i) and (ii) would be deleted and replaced by b) of the proposed amendment.
The proposed amendment would leave as is paragraph 2 which provides that the minister, with the approval of the governor in council, may, on behalf of the government


of Canada, enter into an agreement with the foundation already defined in paragraph (a). According to this paragraph, what can be done now is to give the foundation a grant equal to the calculation of the population of the province multiplied by $1.50. There is a reference, of course, to a prescribed province in subsection (2) of section 9A.
The amendment to section 3 which has been proposed, says in part:
The minister, with the approval of the governor in council, may on behalf of the government of Canada, pay to a university council established in any province for any fiscal year commencing on or after the first day of April, 1960, for the purpose of making grants to institutions of higher learning in that province an amount calculated by multiplying the population of the province for the calendar year ending in that fiscal year by one dollar and fifty cents.
This amendment, therefore, under this new paragraph (3) would enable the Minister of Finance to pay in any of the provinces of Canada in which there existed a university council an amount based on $1.50 per head and that would be above the amount which is already provided in section 2 of the act which remains as is. It seems to me, therefore, that at first sight, without considering the other problems that may be involved, this would clearly dispose of the amendment. However, before I say anything further, if any hon. member wishes to comment on that point I would be glad to hear him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, it is conceivable that such an interpretation might be put upon the amendment. However, it does seem to me it is quite clear that the amendment, the new paragraph 3, suggested by the hon. member for Laurier is clearly intended as an alternative method and that as such it would exclude a payment in respect of the institutions of the province to the Canadian universities foundation. Certainly that was the clear intent of the amendment. It may be that the wording is not quite as precise as it should be to exclude any other possibility, but it does seem to me that in committee, in my experience with a case of this kind, if there was simply a point of drafting involved which had nothing whatever to do with the substance of the amendment it has always been recognized, particularly since members of the opposition do not have the same opportunities as members of the government have in drafting, that corrections of that kind can be made if they are required without in any way invalidating the point.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, if I may say a word, I would say that the point you have raised is well taken and the plea of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate

for mercy on this amendment is not well taken. Those who introduce amendments in committee are responsible for justifying that they are in accordance with the rules of the house, and should not say that if they were corrected in some other way they might then become conformable to the rules of the house.
I pointed out when I was making my earlier statement that the amendment does not purport to strike out paragraph (2) of clause 2, and that clause 2 of the present bill authorizes a payment by the minister in the case of all provinces, except a prescribed province, of sums equivalent to $1.50 per capita of population per annum. Now we were informed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that there was going to be only one prescribed province and, therefore, if he is right for once, there will be nine provinces that are not prescribed provinces. Then, clause 2, as it stands, will authorize the minister to make a payment of $1.50 per capita of population to the Canadian universities foundation for nine provinces and this amendment will come along and put a new clause 3 in which will authorize the minister to make a payment of $1.50 per capita of population to any provincial university council, as they have defined it, in any province.
Therefore, wherever there can be found a provincial universities council, even up to ten of them, the minister will be authorized by this amendment to make payment to that province equivalent to $1.50 per capita of population in that province per annum. We could finish up, it is quite clear now, with a charge on the treasury which will be almost double that provided for by the present bill. The hon. member attempts seriously to argue before you, Mr. Chairman, that such an amendment could be in order. It will be making new jurisprudence in this House of Commons surely if any such proposition is seriously entertained. The hon. member is a private member. He is introducing what can now be a charge on the treasury of this country amounting to something like $26 million a year. That is what he is proposing. I do not need to refer to the British North America Act in order to point out how clearly that procedure lies beyond the power of any private member in the House of Commons speaking without the assistance of a royal recommendation.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, a moment ago, I quoted citation 408, which in my view is quite clear. Now, perhaps I might be allowed to make a suggestion. We are now discussing a point of order; the discussion cannot be
Dominion-Provincial Relations allowed to go much beyond this. If the Minister of Finance accepts that the amendment be moved, then we can discuss it thoroughly, and find out the views of hon. members to the right and to the left. If the government does not want to accept it, it can call for a vote, and thus reject it in due course. Just now, however, we are simply discussing a point of order, and whatever ruling is made by the chairman of the committee, no one will be satisfied.


An hon. Member:: What standing order says
so?	.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Citation 408 is clear, as I see it. But the minister has other views. So that we may clear up the essential point, namely whether or not the amendment is in order, let us discuss it thoroughly. It could still be rejected at any time by a vote, this procedure being always permissible when a bill is being considered in committee, for instance prior to second and third reading.


An hon. Member:: What if the whole discussion is out of order?
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: May I be permitted to say a word in connection with the amendment that was proposed? When the Minister of Finance rises on a point of order and speaks coolly and calmly I am always impressed, but when he makes noises, as he has done in this case, I begin to wonder about the validity of his point. In any event, Mr. Chairman, it was you who raised the point and not the Minister of Finance. The point you have raised is whether or not there may be additional expenditure because of this amendment. My submission to you is that the bill is divided into two parts, namely the extension of equalization payments and the university grants. Then again the university grants are divided into two parts, namely the grants that are paid via the Canadian universities foundation and those within the terms of section 2.
My answer to the point raised is this. The minister has already entered into an agreement dated January 18, 1960 for a period of two years with the Canadian universities foundation and the national conference of Canadian universities. Therefore in so far as those parties are concerned, there can be no additional payment. That is why I submit that the alternative we have put forward, it seems to me, could apply only to those not taking part in the agreement dated January 18, 1960. If that is the case there can be, I submit with deference to you, Mr. Chairman, no additional expenditure. All that this

Dominion-Provincial Relations amendment does is to provide for the establishment of a provincial council by a legislature of a province, maintaining all the other features of the bill save those contained in paragraph (b)(i) and (ii). It would strike me that the points made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Hull were well founded in that this amendment deals with an alternative and does not deal with the Canadian universities foundation agreement which has already been signed betweeen the minister and the two groups therein mentioned. I would therefore suggest with deference that the amendment is in order.


Jacques Flynn: I wish to state that although I understand the appeal of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Hull I consider it the duty of the chairman to rule on the validity of any amendment which is submitted to the committee. However interesting may be the discussion as to the merit of the proposition in itself, I think it is the duty of the Chair to rule out of order any amendment which it considers to be out of order.
I have not heard any satisfactory explanation of or rebuttal to the objection I have raised. I think it is clear that if the amendment would result in an additional expenditure the initiative cannot come from other than a minister of the crown. As the situation stands, I am convinced that the amendment would permit payment to the universities foundation of an amount equal to the population of Canada multiplied by $1.50 and if there were in any province a university council the same amount could in addition be given and divided between all the university councils on the same basis. For this reason alone I think the amendment is out of order. However, I think I should add immediately, for the guidance of hon. members, that to me the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill. The principle of the bill that has been adopted as indicated by the resolution is as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act to provide certain alternative arrangements for payment, either by Canada through the Canadian universities foundation-
We know what it is.
-or directly by a province,-
That is the principle of the bill which has been approved. What the alternative of the amendment suggests is payment by Canada to a provincial university council, something which is not provided for in the principle of the bill as embodied in the resolution and as adopted. I think the bill is in conformity with the resolution as agreed to and as approved
[Mr. Chevrier.l
by the house on second reading. For those two reasons I am therefore obliged to rule the amendment out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: I must respectfully appeal your ruling, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
In committee of the whole when Bill No. C-56, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act, was being considered, Mr. Chevrier moved an amendment as follows: That all the words presently appearing in section 9A(1) (b) of clause 2 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
" (b) Provincial universities council means a corporate body established by act of the legislature of a province to receive and distribute the grants hereinafter referred to, and composed of representatives of the institutions of higher learning in that province."
That all the words presently appearing in section 9A(3) be deleted and the following words substituted therefor:
"The minister, with the approval of the governor in council, may on behalf of the government of Canada, pay to a university council established in any province for any fiscal year commencing on or after the first day of April, 1960, for the purpose of making grants to institutions of higher learning in that province an amount calculated by multiplying the population of the province for the calendar year ending in that fiscal year by one dollar and fifty cents."
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows: The question is an appeal to the house from a ruling of the Chair as follows: In committee of the whole on Bill No C-56, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act, Mr. Chevrier moved an amendment as follows: "That all the words presently appearing in section 9A(l)(b) of clause 2 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
(b) Provincial universities council means a corporate body established by act of the legislature of a province to receive and distribute the grants hereinafter referred to, and composed of representatives of the institutions of higher learning in that province.
That all the words presently appearing in section 9A (3) be deleted and the following words substituted therefor:
The minister, with the approval of the governor in council, may on behalf of the government of Canada, pay to a university council established in any province for any fiscal year commencing on or after the first day of April, 1960, for the purpose of making grants to institutions of higher learning in that province an amount calculated by multiplying the population of the province for the calendar year ending in that fiscal year by one dollar and fifty cents."
The chairman ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it proposed an additional charge over that authorized by the terms of the resolution preceding the bill and, moreover, it was irrelevant as going beyond the scope of the bill as approved on second reading thereof. Whereupon, Mr. Chevrier appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. Deschatelets:: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance has stated most emphatically at least twice in the house, namely on September 6, 1958 and again on March 18, 1960, that the federal government is not intervening in the provincial field when it makes university grants. Having this in mind, I was very surprised, to say the least, at certain terms and aspects of clause 2 of Bill No. C-56 as introduced by the Minister of Finance. I refer specifically to the word "satisfactory" in line 16 on page 2 and to the words "in the opinion of the minister" in line 17 on page 2.
If we read these words carefully in the context of clause 2 we find here a prima facie case of clear infringement and encroachment on the economy of the province. During the debate on second reading we on this side of the house repeatedly brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Finance and outlined the constitutional dangers of these terms as far as the autonomy of the province is concerned. Moreover, if we refer to the speeches delivered by our friends opposite it is evident that most of them share our views with respect to this particular matter. As found on page 3309 of Hansard of April 26, the hon. member for Bellechasse had this to say:
(Translation):
While the Minister of Finance has the right to satisfy himself that the arrangements reached between the provinces and their universities are truly consistent with the requirements of the act-
I say that in recognizing this right, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) accepts unwarranted interferences, on the part of the Minister of Finance, in a field which is outside his jurisdiction.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
According to page 3549 of Hansard, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) suggested that the minister amend section 2, and then went on to say:
Nevertheless it is distasteful that the federal minister should act as arbitrator and be the only one to have a say on the value of the said agreements. (Text):
Therefore it appears crystal clear, Mr. Chairman, that in leaving these words in clause 2 the minister will be the only judge in determining whether or not the arrangements made by the provincial government with the universities within the province are satisfactory, and it is also clear that clause 2 contradicts the statements made by the Minister of Finance referred to by me at the beginning of my remarks. In other words, according to these terms in clause 2 this whole scheme cannot operate unless the minister is of the opinion that the arrangements between the province and the universities in this province are satisfactory, and if the Minister of Finance finds in his opinion that these arrangements are not satisfactory then as a consequence the deduction for the equalization payments cannot take place. Therefore the operation of this scheme is centralized on the will and discretion of one person, the Minister of Finance. I feel that this is not only most extraordinary but also contrary to the autonomy of the provinces and one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation ever brought before this house.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 2 be amended as follows:
That the word "satisfactory" in line 16, page 2, and the words "in the opinion of the minister" in line 17 of page 2 be struck out.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the amendment carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member has supported a quite unacceptable amendment with some very strange and far fetched arguments. One would think to listen to him that he had been violently opposed to the essence of this bill. The remarks that have just now been made in this committee were made by an hon. member who did support this bill on second reading; yet he is now mouthing the same kind of contradictory statements as were made by the hon. member for Laurier when he opened the debate on this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: Do not be so rambunctious.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will speak my mind on this matter and I will not be asking the permission of the hon. member for Laurier to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: You are going out of your mind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have heard from him the same kind of contradictory


remarks in this debate. I do not wonder he is feeling most uncomfortable this afternoon; he certainly looks it.


Lionel Chevrier: You have been raising points of order all the time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You see, Mr. Chairman, he is feeling very aggrieved, apparently, that he introduced an amendment this afternoon which was ruled out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman-


Donald Methuen Fleming: He says that I have been raising points of order all the time. I am glad I raised one successfully on that occasion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order. A vote was taken in committee and the matter was disposed of, so it should not be raised again.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Therefore, the hon. member for Laurier has no business saying that I do raise points of order. I certainly did raise a point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order; I do want to tell the Minister of Finance that he has been very objectionable during the course of this whole debate, not only by his interruptions in debate but also by the points he has raised and his attempts to prohibit us from putting on Hansard our views in connection with this piece of legislation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No member of this house who has any claim to knowing anything about the rules of the house or to follow those rules faithfully could make the statement that has just now been made by the hon. member for Laurier. I have no apology to make to him for raising the point of order that has had the effect of this last point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: You should apologize for your language, though.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I see the hon. member for Laurier is losing his temper again and setting himself up as the censor of the proceedings of this house. I do not intend to submit to censorship on his part. I realize it is very difficult for him at the same time, feeling aggrieved as he does at the moment over what has just happened, to sit still and keep quiet. I do not propose to be turned aside from what I intend to say.


Lionel Chevrier: Why don't you deal with the subject?


Donald Methuen Fleming: You see, he cannot keep quiet.


Lionel Chevrier: Why don't you deal with the subject?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There it is again; he cannot keep quiet.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Get a flag.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is another hon. member who cannot keep quiet. The rules of the house mean nothing to them. They speak from their seats.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister has no right to say that the rules of the house have no meaning for members on this side. This leaves the impression we are not acting in accordance with the rules, and he should be the last one to say that when we remember 1956 at which time he had to be thrown out of this house.


Jacques Flynn: Order; I would say that some remarks made on the point of order or otherwise have not been relevant. I would ask the minister to go back to the subject matter of the amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Sometime, Mr. Chairman, the last member who interrupted on that bogus point of order will be in a position where he will understand the rules of the house but he does not now.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I could teach them to you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will not go to that source for instruction, believe me.
As I was about to say before hon. members opposite began their raucous interruptions, I was pointing out that the remarks just now made by the hon. member who introduced this amendment, like those made earlier by the hon. member for Laurier, were completely out of accord with the votes they cast on the main motion for second reading. What they are saying now is that this bill proposes something unconstitutional. If it does, if there is anything unconstitutional, that unconstitutionality is in the essence of this bill, and the hon. member has chosen to support, in its essence, the unconstitutionality according to his strange definition of it.
Why is it that this measure finds it necessary to say that certain conditions must exist before there shall be an increase in the federal abatement in respect of federal taxes in prescribed provinces? If it were not for that, there would be no way at all of giving effective definition of a prescribed province or assuring that this measure is an alternative to the present system. Otherwise it could be just a handout by the federal treasury to the taxpayers of a province and would, in that way, create discrimination and upset the whole principle of equality of treatment of federal taxpayers in all parts of Canada.
One would think there was something extraordinary about the language employed here. I wish hon. members would read their 79951-0-242J
Dominion-Provincial Relations own legislation, the legislation introduced by the government of which some of them were members at one time and see where this Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act imposes upon the minister, who under this act is the Minister of Finance, the responsibility for making certain decisions. Hon. members opposite have completely overlooked this. I am going to take a moment, not simply to jog their memories, Mr. Chairman, but I am afraid it will be to jar their complacency in this respect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Look at the act
and you will see-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds, is it understood that if the whole act is opened up by the minister it will also be open to every other hon. member to discuss the whole act? I am not seeking to stop the minister, but I want equality.


Jacques Flynn: It is obvious that the rule of strict relevancy applies here. The only point that can be discussed is the terms of the amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman; the point, however, is this, that when we are accused, in relation to a particular phrase in the amending bill, of employing language that is unconstitutional in its effect I am entitled to refer to the main act or any other legislation of this parliament as a precedent for using precisely the same language which has a similar effect. That is all I was going to do. I was not going to read the whole act. I was going to point out where the responsibilities are imposed by this act which was introduced by the former government, this act of which hon. members opposite profess to be so proud when they boast about the St. Laurent formula-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -an act which imposes upon the Minister of Finance the duty of making many decisions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: One would expect, Mr. Chairman, that a minister of the crown would at least give some example in the way in which he approaches proceedings in this House of Commons. The hon. member now has been faced with a point of order which was addressed to Your Honour. Your Honour has indicated his view in the ruling. The Minister of Finance has persisted in ignoring that ruling. I can only suggest to Your Honour that the minister ought to be asked to

Dominion-Provincial Relations observe the rules. II insistence is not going to be made that he observe the rules, this ought to be fair warning that that privilege ought to be extended to members of this committee other than the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Lambert:: That is your interpretation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The chairman has just given the ruling.


Jacques Flynn: May I draw the attention of the hon. member for Essex East to the fact that I simply referred to the rule and quoted the rule that in committee strict relevancy must apply. In the present case the subject matter of the amendment is the only one that can be discussed. However, by my ruling I did not intimate that the minister, in discussing the purport of the amendment, could not refer to other examples in legislation. Up to now I do not think the minister has done more than that. It is obvious that if other hon. members speak along the same lines they will be permitted to do so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will put this matter very briefly, Mr. Chairman, because hon. members opposite apparently have not read the act. Just let me run over these examples very briefly. In section 2 (1) (h) we find:
-the amount determined by the minister-
In section 2 (1) (f):
-the amount, as determined by the minister,-
In section 3, subsection 1:
-the minister may pay-
In section 4, subsection 1:
-the amount, if any, as determined by the minister,-
In section 5, subsection 2:
-the amount, as determined by the minister- In section 5, subsection 4:
-the amount determind by the minister-
I come now to section 9:
-the amount, as determined by the minister,-
The hon. member is therefore quite wrong in suggesting that where a duty is imposed upon the minister to make certain calculations this is something new or something unconstitutional. If that is unconstitutional, then that whole main act introduced in 1956 is completely unconstitutional. There is hardly a provision in this act that is not unconstitutional if the hon. member has any validity at all in his argument.
I go further, Mr. Chairman. We are told this bill is unconstitutional because provision is made that certain arrangements are to be satisfactory in the opinion of the minister. The words "in the opinion of the minister" are said to introduce an unconstitutional feature.

Section 8 of the main act contains the very same phrase and this phrase was one introduced by the former government in the act that is praised by hon. members opposite. There you have a comparable situation, Mr. Chairman, because there it involves a determination by the minister as to whether taxes imposed in a certain province conform to certain standards created by the section. Let me read enough of the words to indicate that this language-the same language that he attacks-is used.
8. Where a province imposes taxes on the income of individuals or corporations or both at the rate provided by the Income Tax Act for computing the amount that may be deducted from individual income tax or corporation income tax on account of such provincial taxes, under a statute that in the opinion of the minister is substantially similar to the corresponding provisions in the Income Tax Act, the Minister, with the approval of the governor in council, may-
He may do certain things. You have precisely the same language in the main act. What we have done is to carry forward into this bill a provision in precisely the same terms as those used in the main act. The effect of the language here is the same as it is in section 8 of the main act. It imposes upon the minister a certain duty just as section 8 of the main act imposes on the minister a certain duty. There is no difference in the quality of those two provisions. Therefore, the hon. member is far afield. If this is all the ground he has for mounting an attack upon the constitutionality of this measure, he has nothing whatever of substance to advance and that situation is quite clear.
As I have pointed out already, no problem is raised here about the provisions of this clause. It is crystal clear that the legislation passed by the province of Quebec at the recent session and the provision thereby made completely conform with the terms contained here so as to make the province in that event clearly a prescribed province. But we do not undertake to tell the province of Quebec what to do. The effect is this, and this is the important point which has been completely ignored by the hon. member in his remarks.
What is effected here by the question whether any province is or is not a prescribed province within the terms of this bill is to determine whether there shall be an additional abatement as against the federal tax on corporations in favour of federal taxpayers in that province. This provision does not create a result that affects in that sense the province as a province. This is something that is of consequence for federal taxpayers in that province when they come to calculate their federal tax. We are therefore clearly acting within the scope of federal jurisdiction here. We make no trespass

upon provincial jurisdiction. We have confined ourselves clearly to the exercise of federal jurisdiction and we have gone not one step further.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a few words about the points made by the Minister of Finance. All the sections he read from the main act which require the Minister of Finance to make certain decisions have relation either to disbursements out of the federal treasury or to financial arrangements made between the federal government and provincial governments on a voluntary basis. They have to do with the federal treasury which is our concern in this House of Commons. But what is being done here is for the minister to determine whether the action of a provincial government and a provincial legislature suits him and suits this government.
There is all the difference in the world between the minister's being clothed by this parliament with the power to pass judgment upon certain things that have to do with the federal treasury and giving the minister the power which he is seeking to get here to tell the province that their arrangements for providing assistance to their universities are or are not satisfactory. What this does is this. The minister says, "If I think you have the right kind of scheme to help your universities, then certain taxpayers in your province will not have to pay so much tax, but if I do not think so, they will have to pay more tax".


Donald Methuen Fleming: Rot.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister himself said that it determined their abatement on federal tax and that is quite right. It will determine whether the corporate taxpayers of Quebec pay 1 per cent more than do corporate taxpayers in other provinces and thereby put a disability upon the economy of that province. That will be determined. It is not even going to be determined by parliament. Parliament will turn over that determination not even to the governor in council but to a single minister who is going to decide whether or not these arrangements are satisfactory to him. If the words are left out, what do we have? We have this:
In which, for that fiscal year arrangements exist for the payment by the province directly to institutions of higher learning-
Of a certain amount of money.
I quite grant that if the arrangements are not there for the payment of this certain sum of money it would not be fair to the taxpayers of other parts of Canada to give this abatement in order to enable a province to raise an extra 1 per cent from its corporate taxpayers for its general revenue,
Dominion-Provincial Relations but the minister said this was an alternative to his scheme. However, as long as arrangements do exist for the payment to the universities of a sum equivalent to this abatement, what difference does it make to us in this parliament, and what right have we in this parliament to say what the character of these arrangements should be or to exercise a censorship over the character of the arrangements? That is precisely what we in our legislation and in our provision for university grants were seeking not to do. We were seeking to make sure that we did not exercise this kind of control, direction or censorship which the minister is now seeking to get parliament to arrogate to him so he can say whether or not the arrangement is satisfactory.
The minister then went on to say that we all know what the legislation is in the province of Quebec, we know they have already satisfied themselves on this point so it does not matter what we put into the law. But the minister himself says this law applies to all the provinces. How do we know that tomorrow one of the other provinces may not decide they want to become a prescribed province?


Donald Methuen Fleming: You said they would not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister would surely be the first to admit that the fact that I said they would not is not a sufficient ground for generalizing the law nor is the fact that the minister said they would not. That is what shocked me in what the minister said. He said that because this is all right for Quebec the other nine provinces do not matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say that at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is my interpretation of the plain sense of what the minister said, but what he said makes no sense at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is the hon. member's misinterpretation of what I said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister thinks that the other provinces are not going to do anything about it-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said that, I did not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -but we believe that having the law in proper form is important. We have here the principle of this parliament trying to give to the Minister of Finance- I say "trying" because I question, even if we pass this, that he will really have that power; I question that very much-the power to exercise a censorship, a veto, a dictatorship

Dominion-Provincial Relations over the form and manner in which the government of a province assists its own universities out of money collected from its own taxpayers by a tax levied by the provincial legislature. If there could be a more obvious intervention in the provincial field it would be very hard to find any way of going about it.
Moreover, it seems to me it is clothing the minister with a power that the minister should not be clothed with and that is very different from giving to the minister a determination of certain things with respect to agreements with the provinces or with respect to payments to be made out of the treasury by virtue of the fiscal arrangements between the federal and provincial governments which have to do with the proper control by this parliament of the funds that are raised from the taxpayers of Canada.
I repeat again that we are seeking here to clothe the minister with the power to determine how the government of any prescribed province will assist its universities, the power to control the method or the order. It has got to be a scheme that suits him before the taxpayers can get this abatement. As long as there is an arrangement that pays the universities that amount of money it should not have to be satisfactory to the Minister of Finance. It is for that reason and because of our regard for the rights of the provinces that we have put forward this amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 28; nays, 44.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I should like to address myself to another portion of this bill, clause 2. I hope that the minister who is an eminent lawyer will readily understand that in drafting legislation which appears rather complicated it is sometimes possible to unintentionally insert matters which he either does not intend or which other hon. members think they spot as being other than what was really intended by the legislation. I should like to draw to the attention of the minister the following words in subclause (ii), on page 2 of the bill, beginning at line 19:
-in accordance with and subject to terms and conditions not inconsistent with those contained in any agreement entered into under subsection (2) -
Subsection (2) follows further on. I address myself to those words immediately because I want to deal with them. In the first place, Quebec is a prescribed province, according to what we have been told. Second, Quebec does not form a part of the Canadian universities foundation. Clause 2 to which I have already referred begins with these words:
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
The minister, with the approval of the governor in council, may on behalf of the government of Canada enter into an agreement with the foundation, providing, for any fiscal year commencing on or after the first day of April, 1960-
-and so forth. The clause on to say that an agreement may be entered into with the province of Quebec. The clause does not contain those words but that is what it means. Subclause (ii), however, contains the following proviso, that it is:
-in accordance with and subject to terms and conditions not inconsistent with those contained in any agreement-
In other words, Quebec is being asked by this clause to be bound by a contract to which it is not a party. If that is the intention, I feel the province of Quebec is being dragged into a contract to which it is not directly a party. In my view, no damage would be done to the bill if the words were deleted as suggested; the same situation would exist, but all the authority would not be left with the minister. To accept the amendment would be to liberate the province from being pinned down by the conditions of a contract to which it was not a party. If the province of Quebec could be freed from these conditions the situation would, I believe, be acceptable to everyone, and I therefore move:
That the word "in" following the comma in line 19, page 2, and lines 20, 21 and 22, page 2, be struck out.
Under the amendment which I have just moved the province of Quebec would be free to make its own decisions with regard to university grants; it would not be bound by an agreement between two other parties. That, I believe, would leave the province of Quebec the freedom which it seeks; the province will be itself the judge of its own way of dealing with this question. I do not like to contemplate the province of Quebec being governed as it is governed in this clause. I think that constitutes an invasion of provincial autonomy-saying to that province: you will be bound by an agreement which I, the minister, will enter into with the Canadian universities foundation. I do not think it is good in law that a third party should be bound by an agreement to which it is not a party. Striking out the words as proposed would not injure the principle of the bill, but it would preserve for Quebec the autonomy for which the province has been fighting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The clause of this bill which the hon. member has sought to amend is a clause which defines a prescribed province. We are dealing here with definitions. The hon. member has advanced the proposition that the province of Quebec is somehow having its rights abridged, and

being bound by federal legislation. Such a statement is completely without foundation. There is nothing here which binds the province of Quebec in any way. Federal legislation cannot bind the province of Quebec or abridge the rights of that province. However, federal legislation can define, extend or abridge the rights of federal taxpayers, and that is all that the bill does in relation to federal taxpayers in a prescribed province as here defined.
The suggestion has been made that somehow or other we are imposing on the province of Quebec an agreement which was entered into, or is proposed to be entered into between a Canadian minister and the Canadian universities foundation. That agreement is not imposed on the province of Quebec or on any other province which may some day qualify as a prescribed province. It is not imposed on any province. That, today, is an agreement under which the payment authorized by parliament thus far in the estimates and in the Appropriation Act is paid over to the foundation as it was paid to its predecessor, the national council of Canadian universities, for distribution on certain terms outlined in that agreement.
This is not a vehicle that we have invented. This idea of having distribution made in accordance with an agreement goes back to the former government. When we came into office there was one of these agreements in existence between my predecessor, Mr. Harris, and the Canadian council of universities, and that agreement defined the basis of distribution which was to be carried out by the N.C.C.U. Similarly, since the Canadian universities federation became incorporated, it was necessary to have a new agreement with the new organization. That was done, and it is referred to in the estimates which were introduced in this house some time ago.
That does not impose anything on any province. In the case of the non-prescribed provinces, that agreement defines the terms on which distribution of that federal money may be made among universities. In relation to a prescribed province, all that is said here is that where an alternative provision is to be made, it is to be made on terms not inconsistent with this new agreement. In that way and no other can it be assured that equality across Canada is applied to all provinces. That is the reason this provision is here; it is in order to ensure equality. Otherwise, whereas distribution in the nonprescribed provinces must be on the basis of equality among the universities of the province as determined by student enrolment, if this were not applied to a prescribed province it would be open to such a province to
Dominion-Provincial Relations apply the funds in any way it saw fit, and parliament surely intends that there should be equality of treatment in all parts of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: I must tell the minister that I much prefer him in the mood in which he is now than in the mood he was earlier in the debate, because when he rises and discusses a point coolly it is far more interesting to follow him than it was earlier. That being the case-


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Lionel Chevrier: When the committee rose at six o'clock the Minister of Finance had completed his remarks on the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Cartier. The amendment proposed to remove from clause 2 of the bill the words in the eighteenth to the twenty fifth lines on page 2:
In accordance with and subject to terms and conditions not inconsistent with those contained in any agreement entered into under subsection (2).
The point made by the hon. member for Cartier was that these words would in effect be binding upon the prescribed province and he asked that they be stricken out. In his reply the minister made several points. In the first place he said that the agreement did not impose anything on the province of Quebec or on any other province which may some day qualify as a prescribed province. It is with that first statement of the minister that I should like to take issue. If I read this bill correctly, the definition of prescribed province which I find on page 2 is as follows:
"Prescribed province" means a province
(i)	that has not entered into a tax rental agreement under which . ..
(ii)	...satisfactory arrangements exist in the opinion of the minister for the payment by the province directly to institutions of higher learning in the province, in accordance with and subject to terms and conditions not inconsistent with those contained in any agreement entered into-
Between the minister and the Canadian universities foundation. This is what is contained in the bill. The minister entered into an agreement on the eighteenth day of January, 1960 with the Canadian universities foundation outlining the manner in which these grants shall be paid, and also defining certain terms such as student, university, university degree and university level. '
During the course of his remarks the minister also very properly said that when his government came into office there was one

Dominion-Provincial Relations of those agreements in existence between his predecessor, Mr. Harris, and the Canadian council of universities, and that that agreement defined the basis of distribution by the national council of Canadian universities. It is this agreement and the definitions contained therein that have been so strenuously opposed by members from the province of Quebec. It is the definitions contained in this agreement that have been declared in this house by Conservative members of parliament from the province of Quebec as being an invasion of the field of education; in fact, I believe the words which were used were "an invasion of the structural field of education". It is unquestionable that the words which are contained in this bill incorporate this agreement and make it binding upon the prescribed province.
The Minister of Finance can argue as much as he likes, but the words are there, namely that the prescribed province which has not entered into a tax rental agreement-that is Quebec-under which satisfactory arrangements exist in accordance with and subject to terms and conditions not inconsistent with those contained in any agreement entered into by the minister and the Canadian universities foundation. This is the agreement which I hold in my hand. Therefore, I submit with all the force at my command that the province of Quebec, if it becomes a prescribed province-and it has, to use the words of the minister, established itself as a prescribed province-will be bound by the terms of this agreement. Of that there can be no doubt. I have not heard anything to the contrary. Although I have challenged those members who stated during the course of this discussion that order in council P.C. 123 which was passed in 1952 and which is the same as this agreement of 1960 in* so far as the definitions are concerned-I have not heard a word from them to the effect-


An hon. Member:: You will.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend says that I will. If he intends to say something about that I hope he will make a statement and explain away the fact that if it was an invasion of the field of education in 1952 to pass order in council P.C. 123, why is it not an invasion in 1960 to pass this order in council with the same definitions.
My hon. friend from Charlevoix and those associated with him, try as they may, will not, in my opinion, ever be able to wiggle out of the strait-jacket in which their colleague, the Minister of Finance, hgs placed them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How imaginative!


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has gone a step farther in his remarks and he has given

the reason why this provision is in the bill. He explained it prior to the committee's rising at six o'clock. He said:
It is in order to ensure equality. Otherwise, whereas distribution in the non-prescribed province must be on the basis of equality among the universities of the province as determined by student enrolment, if this were not applied to the prescribed province it would be open to such a province to apply the funds in any way it saw fit.
These words are a limitation upon the province.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister himself has stated that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Lionel Chevrier: In his own words the
minister has indicated that if this were not applied to a prescribed province it would be open to such a province to apply the funds in any way it saw fit. He said, "Parliament surely intends that there should be equality of treatment in all parts of Canada". That is another difficulty in so far as this clause is concerned.
In my estimation this forces the province to distribute its grants in a certain way. It puts a penalty on the taxpayers in that province if it does not follow the agreement with the foundation, and all we are trying to do by moving this amendment, by the removal of those offensive words, is to give the province back its autonomy.
(Translation):


Mr. Dorion:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to most of the remarks made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), which were, so to speak, a second edition of what he said the other day precisely with regard to that part of the act where a change is sought in accordance with the terms of the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl).
First of all, may I be allowed-and I think now is the time to do so-to correct certain statements that were made, first by the hon. member for Laurier and then in a slightly more shaded and mitigated form by my good friend the hon. member for Cartier. Both presented as a definite fact that the principle of federal university grants had been finally consecrated because we had voted for adoption of the bill on second reading.
Mr. Chairman, either my hon. friends have taken no interest in my own statements in this house, which as a matter of fact were echoed by some of my colleagues, or they have voluntarily and deliberately ignored

those statements to make a completely baseless assertion. On that particular point with which I am directly concerned, let me simply recall the reply I made to my good friend the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) when, at the very end of the speech on the second reading of the bill, I indicated that the reason why we were in favour of the bill as a whole was that, despite its weaknesses arising from the fact that it stems from a precedent inherited from the former Liberal government-and that is the cause of its weaknesses-it brought about substantial improvement in relations between the federal government and the provinces in general and Quebec in particular, and that it was a step out of the squeeze in which the provinces had found themselves ever since the day in 1951, when they had got themselves involved in that perilous adventure.
Mr. Chairman, it is an honourable compromise, a loyal and courageous effort. And right now, by the way, I want to express our gratitude to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming)-and I am sincere in saying this; I want to tell him how grateful we are that he understood in the very first days we entered this house-we who came here to uphold rights and constitutional liberties which belong to the provinces in general and to the province of Quebec in particular-I want to tell him how grateful we are that he has understood our viewpoint when for 10 or 15 years his mind could have become beclouded by the brand of Canadianism that was being preached under the former government.
Now here is another one whom some hon. members tried to ridicule and whom I want to include in my tribute, and I confess that what hurt me most was the fact that those attempts came from some of our fellow citizens from the province of Quebec who are sitting in this house-I make an exception for several of them-a small number of those present who have made a show of disunity and who do not hesitate to throw mud on their own province as well as on the people who sent them here to represent them.
Do not be alarmed, Mr. Chairman, this closes the chapter of my praises.


Jacques Flynn: I presume the chairman can trust that the hon. member will now come to the amendment-


Noël Dorion: Certainly. Those were preliminary remarks which, I think, were necessary, in order to say how much I appreciated the work of the hon. member for
Dominion-Provincial Relations Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and more particularly when he succeeded in reaching the compromise we know.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There are two sets of standing orders in this house.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Ignoramus. Dunce


Jacques Flynn: Order. The remarks just made by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) are a reflection on the chairman, and I would ask him to withdraw his words immediately.


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman-


Jacques Flynn: Order. Just a moment. I was calling the hon. member for Gloucester to order. I asked him to withdraw his words.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I said that there were two sets of standing orders.


Jacques Flynn: If the hon. member for Gloucester does not withdraw his words, I will have to report the fact to Mr. Speaker.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Since you demand it, Mr. Chairman, I shall withdraw my words.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Anyhow, it is quite unimportant.


Noël Dorion: It's a good thing I did not understand.
Mr. Chairman, we have here an amendment whose purpose is to delete from the bill the following words:
Subject to terms and conditions not inconsistent with those contained in any agreement entered into under subsection (2).
In other words-and this is what I gathered from the statements made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier)-the hon. member for Laurier who, as everyone knows, is a staunch autonomist, the hon. member for Laurier sees there-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Has been seeing for the last three days-


Noël Dorion: ... a sort of subservience or bondage for the provinces that will resort to this new formula or method, a sort of subservience of those provinces to the federal government.
The other day I heard him, very eloquently as always, reproach me for pointing out in the speech I made on second reading, what I considered and still consider as a fantastic encroachment upon the field or existence of powers of provinces and universities, because, according to an order in council passed in 1952, which has remained in force until 1956

Dominion-Provincial Relations -something which I pointed out too, because I want to be fair to everyone-the minister had himself defined "university," a "university level," "student," and "university degree".
So, dexterous as he is, he chose and sought to show I was in contradiction with a text to which he referred in any case, saying: those definitions are to be found, word for word, in the agreement signed by the present Minister of Finance with the Canadian universities foundations.
Now, Mr. Chairman, just what is the situation? According to this text, it is required that everything be done in accordance with and subject to terms and conditions not inconsistent with the agreement referred to in paragraph (2). Now what does that mean?
I have that agreement here. It is true that the terms and definitions of those four expressions I mentioned a moment ago are practically the same. Yet there is one important difference, as I will show.
The first distinction to be made-and this was recognized by the hon. member for Laurier in his first speech on this point-is that the definition appearing in the 1952 order in council was the very definition imposed upon the universities by the Minister of Finance, while in the present case we have a contract or at least an agreement involving two organized bodies: first, the Canadian universities foundation, which as I understand was established precisely to provide for the redistribution of the money voted to it by the federal government for university purposes, and second, the national conference of Canadian universities.
It is therefore signed by those two bodies in addition to the Minister of Finance.
In other words-and let me mention here a fact on which I directed a question to my good friend the hon. member for Laurier, and failed to get a reply; I asked him whether the five Quebec universities were members of the national conference of Canadian universities, and he failed to reply.
Therefore, I will give him that answer, if I may. The answer is that Bishop, McGill, Laval, Sherbrooke and Montreal universities are members of that organization and that, consequently, in agreement with the Minister of Finance and with the Canadian universities foundation, they have accepted the definitions included in the new arrangement.
Are those definitions different from those given in 1952 by an order in council, by order of the cabinet, and in accordance with the suggestions of the Minister of Finance and
[Mr. Dorion.l
without the approval not only of the provinces about whom quite a fight is being staged now whereas at that time, far from there being any fighting on their behalf they were being by-passed without the approval of the provinces, without the assent of the universities, or even without any kind of arrangement.
What has happened in 1960? Thanks to the Minister of Finance who gave consideration to the particular situation in the province of Quebec, and for which, I repeat, we are happy to thank him, the methods have changed.
He left it to the Canadian universities foundation to define, or rather determine, whether the conditions required by the definition are met for such or such university. For instance, I read, under the word "student"-
(Text):
"student" means a full-time intramural student in personal attendance at a university who is registered in a course of university level leading to and counting year for year towards a university degree, as determined by the foundation;
(Translation):
This is not the Minister of Finance's definition, it is that of the university itself. Is this not, Mr. Chairman, an essential distinction? In other words-and that is what is to be understood from the text-this dictatorial power which could be exercised and which, in fact, has been exercised, is being taken away from the Minister of Finance and handed back to the institutions concerned. Those institutions are being freed in being given the power to define of themselves what they mean by those words and the power to determine of themselves the institutions that may benefit from federal grants to universities.
(Text):
"university" means-
(Translation):
And again I am quoting the agreement: (Text):
-an institution of higher learning in a province of Canada as determined by the foundation;
Not as determined by the minister. (Translation):
As was the case under the Liberal administration, but-
(Text):
as determined by the foundation-
(Translation):
As is the case with the present Minister of Finance.
So, it is simple, this rule being established-

(Text):
"university degree" means-
(Translation):
And you have there the meaning of the words "licentiate's degree", "bachelor", "master", "a doctor's degree":
(Text):
awarded by a university,
(Translation):
Therefore, the definition of diplomas is subordinate to the meaning of the word "university", whereas, at the time our friends opposite were in office, those powers were being exercised by the minister. He might conceivably have been someone-I am not talking about the ministers who preceded the present minister-who knew nothing of university matters who would have had to define those terms. In any case:
(Text):
a diploma awarded by a university at the end of a course for which one of the degrees mentioned in subparagraph (i) is an entrance requirement;
(Translation):
In other words, those expressions are subordinate to the demands of our institutions of higher learning, and henceforth they-and not some federal minister of finance-will define what a university is.
It has been said, Mr. Chairman-and here I want to quote my excellent friend from Lapointe (Mr. Brassard), in the best possible spirit, for he has been extremely generous to me-because of an old frienship which he still proclaims today, and I appreciate that. He said, in particular, in his speech on the very point I am dealing with, what I shall quote from page 3555, page 9 of the appendix of the official report of the house, dated May 4, 1960:
I am at a loss to understand on the basis of what sincerity the Quebec government failed to mention in its legislation the conditions imposed by the federal government in order to dispose of a grant established by a provincial legislation for a provincial purpose.
Of course, at least to some extent he was referring to the text that is being objected to today, as a text attempting to subject the provinces, and especially the province of Quebec, to the dictates of Ottawa.
There is one thing that my excellent colleagues from Lapointe and Cartier have overlooked, and it is that the present provincial legislation has been adopted.
How can it be assumed that a text established later than some already adopted legislation can be such as to impose its provisions on previous legislation?
Dominion-Provincial Relations
And that is not all. Last night the Minister of Finance told us-and we could tell that he knows the provincial legislation on that matter-that this legislation has all the required conditions for the province of Quebec to take advantage of the tax abatement provided for under the present text of the act. In other words, it is clear that this is a quarrel on words, on technicalities which, in the final analysis, are not technicalities. It is claimed that, under the terms the deletion, of which is sought, a province-and Quebec in particular-has to obey the dictates of Ottawa, whereas the province of Quebec has already adopted its own legislation, and the minister has said it meets the requirements of the definition provided in this act.
Under the circumstances, who can believe that the province of Quebec is being subordinated to the dictates of Ottawa?
There is more than that, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, it can be concluded that the province stands to benefit from the alternative policy represented by this comprise-I use the word "compromise" on purpose-which was accepted on our behalf for a two-year period. How, I ask again, could the province of Quebec be affected by this text? Such a claim shows a total misapprehension of the Quebec school system, something I do not hold against my good friend the hon. member for Laurier, because he still has something to learn about the province of Quebec. Since 1860, in fact-we happen to be celebrating the centenary this year-we have had, in the province of Quebec, a particular educational system. We have no department of education; why not? Because at that time the people of Quebec tried to remove politics and electioneering from the school system in the province-and they are still trying to abide by that rule-and, at the same time-I am pointing this out to my friends from the other provinces-the people wanted to insure the greatest degree of justice to the minority in the province.
Now, under that system, under the policy which has always been followed by all parties which succeeded each other in the administration of the province, the definition of what constituted a degree, what the conditions for getting such degree were and what a university was, has been left completely, absolutely and entirely to our universities, to our institutions of higher learning. In other words, the provincial government may not interfere in any way in the structure of our institutions of higher learning. Therefore, what is the point of the argument advanced in justification of the amendment to the effect that the province of Quebec was not a party to the agreement. If
3838	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations the province of Quebec itself has believed, for nearly a century, and under all its successive governments, Liberal, Conservative, or Union Nationale, if it has considered it a sacred principle to abstain from interfering in the structure of our institutions of higher learning, why advance such an argument, why imagine such a bogey? Why create objections out of thin air which have no weight whatsoever because of the system which is peculiar to the province of Quebec, if it is not an attempt to throw confusion into the minds of the people and to blot out the eminently patriotic character of the legislation we are now about to vote and which, I trust, Mr. Chairman, will be accepted by most of the people in Quebec, except for that small group which tries to make a political football of the issue. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Talk about the Colombo plan.


Noël Dorion: That interjection is not worth taking up.
Mr. Chairman, there are some know-alls, people who can speak about anything, on any subject. They have some general knowledge about everything but, when you try to weigh that general knowledge, it is not even worth the breath used for expressing it. It is unfortunate that the minister of finance of the day, in view of the dictatorial powers that had been given him, did not at least define the fundamental qualifications for enabling some people to sit here in this house.
Mr. Chairman, the text affected by the amendment must be judged within the context of the bill itself. To take it out of its context would be, in my humble opinion, an extremely faulty way of considering it and of passing judgment on it.
What is the object of that bill after all? A deduction of the corporation tax of 1 per cent for the provinces which will avail themselves of the alternative arrangement which is now offered them. On that score there is no possible hesitation. The fact that there will be deducted from the equalization payments the overpayment, in relation to what the federal government would have paid, will in no way affect the corporations.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Bellechasse, but he is now discussing another aspect of clause 2 which is not the subject of the amendment under consideration at present.


Noël Dorion: I shall try then, as far as
possible, to remain within the limited scope


of the amendment. In my opinion, this amendment-not the amendment but its wording rather-does not mention that the provinces will be bound or subordinate to such and such a thing. It merely says: in the appreciation of the facts in order to establish whether a province may take advantage of this alternative policy or not, those are the principles that you, as Minister of Finance must follow-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member once again, but I must tell him that his time is up.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I thank
the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) for the kind words he said about me a moment ago. I do not think he is in the habit of speaking as he did a moment ago, not so much about me as about other hon. members of this house, because, normally, he talks with great courtesy. But tonight, he slightly departed from his usual way. I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will allow me also to slightly depart from the strict wording of the law, because the hon. member, instead of sticking to the strict wording of the law, wanted to make a political speech-


An hon. Member:: That is what you are doing yourself.


Lionel Chevrier: -an essentially political speech, because he had to be called to order more than once.
The hon. member said, Mr. Chairman, that we did not understand the eminently patriotic character of this bill. Well, I should like to tell the hon. member for Bellechasse that we, from the opposition, and myself, a native of another province than the province of Quebec, have no lesson in patriotism to receive from him, because in the province where I come from we have had-


An hon. Member:: Where you still live.


Lionel Chevrier: -struggles to fight, and the patriotism of those who come from that province, like the patriotism of those who now surround me, is just as good as that of the hon. member for Bellechasse. The hon. member for Bellechasse is not consistent with himself.


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) is so much in the habit of distorting my words that he ends up by having me say things which are completely opposed to what I think. I have never suggested that patriotism is exclusive to the province of Quebec or to members from the province of Quebec; I have

never reproached the hon. member for Laurier for not having always lived in the province of Quebec, and I resent his interpretation of what I said. There are patriots everywhere in Canada, I will grant that.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the hon. member for the explanation he just gave. But, in the statement you made earlier, if I misinterpreted your words-


An hon. Member:: As usual.


Lionel Chevrier: -which I have put down here, that is to say: "We are pursuing the eminently patriotic character". Then, I accept the correction made by the hon. member.
But, Mr. Chairman, I was getting to another point showing the inconsistency of the hon. member's statement of a moment ago. He said at the beginning of his remarks: I am against federal grants to universities, but I have voted in favour of them.
What logic on the part of that member. What logic on the part of the other members from the province of Quebec who support him. They are opposed to federal grants to universities but they vote for them.


An hon. Member:: You are against the bill and you vote for it.


Lionel Chevrier: How can you, in the-


An hon. Member:: Explain your logic.


Lionel Chevrier: -circumstances, understand the logic of those people.
The hon. member for Bellechasse has questioned not only my motives, but those of every member of the opposition. He has no right to question the motives of an hon. member. He can discuss a bill or an amendment, but he has no right to make such remarks as he made a moment ago. Not only was he out of order, but it was a departure from his usual courtesy.
The hon. member for Bellechasse also said he still considered fantastic-just as he did at the time of the debate on the resolution- the definitions contained not only in the order in council passed by the former government, but also in the agreement between the Minister of Finance and the Canadian universities foundation.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: That is not true.


Lionel Chevrier: However, Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Bellechasse read the definitions contained in order in council P.C. 123, he forgot to say that the 1952 order in council had been passed only after a joint commission, of which the ministers of finance of the federal government and of the
Dominion-Provincial Relations province of Quebec were members, had designated the qualified universities. Moreover, the conference of universities acted as advisors to the minister.
Do the hon. member for Bellechasse and his colleagues forget that it was two former ministers of finance, namely Mr. Abbott and the present lieutenant governor of the province of Quebec, the Hon. Mr. Gagnon, who set up that commission and who are responsible for the definitions found in order in council P.C. 123, and also in the agreement between the Minister of Finance and the Canadian universities foundation.
The hon. member may be an expert on criminal law, but I doubt his proficiency in civil law, and I am even more doubtful as to his experience and knowledge of constitutional matters. I think we on this side of the house have just as much right as he and his colleagues to ascribe to the words of the bill the interpretation and meaning-


Louis Fortin: The meaning that suits you best.


Lionel Chevrier: -which we consider proper.
But one thing the hon. member for Bellechasse completely overlooks is the correspondence exchanged between the two Prime Ministers, and the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), from which I shall quote a portion presently, and which imposes a condition on the province of Quebec-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance says no. Let me remind him that on December 10,	1959, the Prime
Minister of Canada made a statement of which every term and condition is incorporated in the bill before us. Here is the statement, or rather the press release, issued at the time by the Prime Minister, and I quote:
(Text):
If the government of a province requests the change to be made in respect of that province, and undertakes to provide additional grants to the universities in that province on a scale equivalent to the present federal grants of $1.50 per capita, then parliament will be asked to authorize an increase of one per cent in the abatement made in the federal corporation tax in respect of that province, from 9 per cent to 10 per cent. This increased allowance for a provincial corporation tax would be in lieu of federal grants for universities in that province. It would be necessary for the provincial legislature then to impose an additional corporation tax equivalent to the reduction in the federal tax and to authorize the payment of the additional grants to the universities.

Dominion-Provincial Relations (Translation):
Does not the hon. member for Bellechasse see in that statement an interference, a condition which has been incorporated in the bill, as a result of this press release from the Prime Minister?


Louis Fortin: It is a press release; it is not the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Chairman,
how can the hon. member for Bellechasse make in this house statements such as those he made a few minutes ago?
Besides, I take time here to say that he did not reply to the assertions we made yesterday and today, because he repeated exactly what he had already said, that those definitions, and especially that about the "university level", were fantastic. He has not changed his views in the matter. Consequently, if the definition is fantastic, why is he supporting the bill? Is it because of the interim period of two years; because he hopes that in two years from now a satisfactory agreement will be reached between the federal and provincial governments? If that is his reason for supporting this legislation, he should tell us so.
However, Mr. Chairman, there is more. There is one thing the hon. member for Bellechasse has completely overlooked. I refer to a part of the bill that we cannot tell about often enough, that the bill incorporates the agreement between the Minister of Finance and the Canadian Universities Federation and, in so doing, because of those words that we want to eliminate from section 2 and, notwithstanding the claims of the hon. member for Bellechasse and his colleagues, it binds the province of Quebec to the project and to the agreement signed by the Minister of Finance and the Canadian Universities Federation, not only with regard to the terms of the agreement, but also with regard to the definitions.
So, Mr. Chairman, I say that the hon. member for Cartier was quite justified in moving his amendment, and the proof of it is in the statement the Minister of Finance made before six o'clock.
I do not know if the hon. member for Bellechasse was in his seat at that time; if not, I will remind him of the words of the hon. Minister of Finance, who, on the amendment, had this to say:
(Text):
This is the reason this provision is here.
It is in order to ensure equality. Otherwise, whereas distribution in the non-prescribed provinces must be on the basis of equality among the universities of the province on the basis of the student enrolment, if this were not applied to the prescribed province it would be open to such a province to apply the funds in any way it saw fit.


(Translation):
So, Mr. Chairman, to use the very words of the Minister of Finance, the prescribed province, according to this section, is not free. It will not be free to distribute the money as it would like to.
It seems that this is an adequate answer not only to the hon. member for Bellechasse, but also to the Minister of Finance, as I pointed out, incidentally, at the beginning of my remarks. This is why we support this amendment.
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
Amendment (Mr. Crestohl) negatived: yeas, 27; nays, 85.


Jacques Flynn: I declare the amendment lost.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising to take issue with one statement which was made by the hon. member for Bellechasse, a statement which was not in accordance with the facts. The hon. member for Bellechasse said that when universities grants were first established by the St. Laurent government the minister of finance of that day arrogated to himself the power to decide-or the governor in council gave him power to decide- what were universities, what was the definition of "students" and other matters of that kind. That is not in accordance with the facts at all, as can be shown by the correspondence of that time.
On October 25, 1951 Mr. St. Laurent addressed a letter to every one of the premiers of the provinces in which he notified them of this vote of money by parliament I do not intend to refer to any part of this letter except that which concerns the point raised by the hon. member for Bellechasse. I have a copy of one of the letters in front of me now in which Mr. St. Laurent said:
The actual method of computing the grants which the government recommended to parliament and which parliament authorized, makes available for distribution within each province a sum equal to the officially estimated population of that province multiplied by fifty cents per capita, and provides further that this sum shall be divided within the province, among the institutions of higher learning recognized by the provincial authorities in proportion to the registration at those institutions of full-time students of university level.
The letter went on to give a list of institutions as they were understood and to ask the premier of each province to make any comment or corrections on that list. I am sure the hon. member is well aware of that. An entente-which we did not mind in the

least calling an entente, and about which we told parliament-was made between the premier of Quebec of that day and Mr. St. Laurent whereby the institutions and the recipients were determined by a joint commission of the minister of finance of the federal government and the minister of finance of the provincial government, and the grants were paid in complete conformity with that joint arrangement. Accompanying the payments was a formula which the St. Laurent government accepted from Mr. Du-plessis as a suitable formula. Then, when the minister of finance wrote to Mr. Duplessis the next year to ask if this arrangement could be continued on that basis-he wrote in October and he wrote again in December- the minister never received the courtesy of any reply whatsoever. That is the truth of this matter. The St. Laurent government did everything possible; it leaned over backwards to recognize the autonomy of the province in this field. It is a shocking perversion of history to suggest the contrary. If the provincial government had been willing to carry on that joint commission, there is no reason on earth why the universities of Quebec should have lost the millions of dollars they did.
I would have said nothing about this if the hon. member for Bellechasse had not chosen to misinterpret-well, to misrepresent -what was done by the greatest French Canadian, by the greatest Canadian of our time. When any hon. member talks about "la petite politique" in this country he had better not associate it with the name of St. Laurent.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Quite the centralizer.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: We shall see after June 22 who is the centralizer.
(Text):


An hon. Member:: Why did you get rid of
him?


Mr. Pallell:: You would not even eat with him?


An hon. Member:: Why did you ditch him? (Translation):


Louis Fortin: Why did you give him the sack?


Mr. Pigeon:: Why did you not stand up for Mr. St. Laurent?


Noël Dorion: Whatever the hon. member might have just said, my feelings for him remain unchanged.


Louis Fortin: He likes that.


Noël Dorion: However, it does seem to me that the former prime minister, the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, would have liked to
Dominion-Provincial Relations receive such a chorus of praise when, at the last Liberal convention, he was simply put in the discard.


Mr. Rouleau:: Out of order.


Louis Fortin: Cry over your sins.


Maurice Bourget: What did you do to Mr. Dief-enbaker in December 1956? You shut the doors on him, you, the Quebec members. What did you do on that occasion?


Louis Fortin: You repudiated your leaders.


Maurice Bourget: No, I never repudiated my leaders.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Simmer down.


An hon. Member:: The member for Levis-


Guy Rouleau: The member for Chambly had better join his brother back in Quebec, in the natural gas business.
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: I believe the discussion has strayed a little bit in the last while. One or two words are uttered which suggest replies of all kinds. I therefore urge all hon. members to come back to the subject matter of the discussion. I know it is not easy at times. I now call on the hon. member for Bellechasse.
(Translation):


Noël Dorion: Besides, although I was improvising earlier, I think that on one occasion, -and I will check on this-I did refer to an order in council passed in 1952. I referred to the Minister of Finance, because the Minister of Finance, by the very terms of the act, is responsible for its application.


Mr. Graffley:: Very centralizing, indeed.


Noël Dorion: I will check, but I am quite convinced that I mentioned the order in council especially since some of my remarks were about that order in council when I took part in the debate on second reading.
I know very well that such a settlement is reached through an order in council and I even gave the number when I spoke on second reading. I would not want my earlier remarks to be misunderstood.
Reference has been made to the correspondence exchanged with Mr. St. Laurent and I must add that, on second reading, my sincerity was such that no one can make any unfavourable remark on that score.


Guy Rouleau: Out of order, out of order, Mr. Chairman.


Noël Dorion: During that debate, I did say-


Lionel Chevrier: It is a repetition.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Chairman, the member for Bellechasse is completely out of order, and I would ask you to call him to order.

Dominion-Provincial Relations


Mr. Asselin:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate (Mr. Pickersgill) was entirely out of order a moment ago, and he was allowed to continue and even conclude his speech. The member for Bellechasse should be treated the same way.


Guy Rouleau: If the member for Bonavista-Twillingate was out of order as the member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) is saying, it has nothing to do with the fact that the member for Bellechasse is out of order now. If the member for Bonavista-Twillingate was out of order, someone should have called the chairman's attention to that fact.


Jacques Flynn: Once more I ask the hon.
members to calm down and to be a little more pertinent in their remarks.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand the order in council in question, and point 3 of this order reads as follows:
Subject to these regulations, the minister may, on application by a university in a form prescribed by the minister and received by the minister or-
I draw the hon. members' attention to these words:
-in a province in which a joint commission has been set up as above mentioned-
The joint commission was mentioned previously; I continue:
-received by such joint commission, on or before the fifteenth day of February, 1952, or, in the special circumstances of any application, on or before such later date as may be fixed by the minister or the joint commission, make a grant to the university out of moneys provided by parliament.
This completely demolishes the argument of the hon. member for Bellechasse.


Lionel Chevrier: Before you put the clause, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Minister of Finance a question or two? They have to do with the interpretation of this clause. Is it not a fact that the provincial government will not be a party to the agreement between the minister and the Canadian foundation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is quite correct, Mr. Chairman. The provinces have not been parties to this agreement.


Lionel Chevrier: Is it not also a fact that the terms of the agreement can be changed without the approval of and without consultation with the provinces?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, of course, without the consultation of the provinces as they were not parties to it. You realize, Mr. Chairman, that any change in the agreement must conform with the provision made by parliament. This authorization has existed

up to the present time in all cases in an item in the estimates which appears in due course in the Appropriation Act.


Lionel Chevrier: May I also put this question to the minister? Is it not also a fact that under clause 2, which is under discussion, a provincial government when making an arrangement to provide for annual grants to universities in the province will have to accept the definitions contained in any agreement made by the minister with the Canadian universities foundation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, in various speeches on this subject the hon. member has slurred over some words in this clause which have real meaning. He is in effect seeking to interpret this clause as though the agreement between the minister and the Canadian universities foundation applies to all provinces.
The point here is established beyond all question. Under subclause (b) (ii) of section 2 of the bill the agreement between the minister and the Canadian universities foundation applies to the non-prescribed provinces. With respect to the prescribed provinces, you turn' to subclause (1) (b)(ii). There in the terms defining prescribed province you find words reading as follows:
-in accordance with and subject to terms and conditions not inconsistent with those contained in any agreement entered into under subsection (2).
There is a very great difference between saying that the terms and conditions must be the same and saying that they must not be inconsistent with those contained in the agreement. As I have pointed out, this is the necessary means to assure equality of treatment in all parts of Canada. Without some provision of this kind in the definition of a prescribed province there would be no way of preserving that equality. I think this is the kind of condition that will commend itself to Canadians in every part of Canada. The condition is not one that is imposed on the province in the sense of the provincial government or provincial legislature; it is one imposed by the federal authority in the sense that if this condition is not conformed with then the federal tax upon federal taxpayers in the particular province follows a different course accordingly. This brings us back to the point that has been discussed again and again, Mr. Chairman. This is federal legislation concerning federal abatement of a federal tax imposed upon federal taxpayers.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the answer the minister has given is the same as that which was given heretofore in answer to statements I have made but I submit to him that it is not an answer to the question. I should like to know whether the answer is

in the affirmative or negative. Will the province have to accept the definitions contained in the agreement made between the minister and the Canadian universities foundation in the light of the terms of the bill which the minister read, namely lines 18 to 25?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member again is slurring over the words "not inconsistent with". This legislation does not at all, as he suggests, impose the terms of the agreement with the Canadian universities foundation upon a prescribed province. It simply says that for the province to qualify as a prescribed province there must be terms and conditions not inconsistent with those contained in the agreement.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a further question? Has the premier of Quebec been consulted with reference to this particular clause, the words that have been under discussion and the question I asked earlier?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I spent some considerable time earlier reviewing all the exchanges that have occurred between the federal and provincial governments in this respect. There is nothing more I can add to that.


Lionel Chevrier: I know what the minister did and I know the minister said at one time that he did not show the bill to the premier of Quebec. I am now asking him if the premier of Quebec was consulted with reference to the words which are contained in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cartier.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think I was quite clear on this matter. We are just going over this again and again and again. We are just going around the tree in circles again and again. I made the extent of the discussions quite clear. I went into some detail, I thought, in connection with the meeting I had with Premier Barrette in February and I pointed out that the bill had not been drawn at that time. I knew what the bill was going to contain and I had a preliminary draft but there was no bill shown to the premier of Quebec at that meeting.
The hon. member for Laurier asked me later about the premier of the province reading the bill. I had to tell him that I have no control over the reading habits of the premier of Quebec. All I know, as I told him, is that the bill had not been printed when I discussed it with him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister would permit me to ask a question and also to draw his attention to the fact that the hon. member for Laurier is not asking him about the bill at all but rather about the conditions that
Dominion-Provincial Relations are in the bill. He is asking the minister whether the premier of Quebec was made acquainted by the minister with the conditions that were going to be put into this bill, not with the bill. We do not care whether he saw the bill. We want to know whether he was told what these conditions were going to be and whether he, as the Solicitor General told us he did, agreed with them or whether, as Premier Barrette says, he had no understanding of them at all.


Léon Balcer: Here we go again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what we are asking and we are entitled to know. Did the minister tell the premier of Quebec when he met him what the general conditions were going to be that were going to be put in the bill?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have already said, if not four certainly three times, that at that meeting in Quebec the premier acquainted me with the legislative intentions of the Quebec government and I acquainted him with the legislative intentions of the federal government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And no agreement was reached.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have to point out again, I guess it is now the fourth or fifth time, that this legislation does not contemplate any agreement between the federal and provincial governments. It is federal legislation dealing with federal taxation and, so far as the legislation of the province of Quebec is concerned, the legislature passed its legislation respecting support of universities in that province in the exercise of its own constitutional rights. The two jurisdictions have proceeded each in its own proper constitutional sphere, with due respect for the constitutional rights and prerogatives of the other.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, it is very interesting to hear the Minister of Finance tell us now that the Prime Minister was talking through his hat when he wrote the premier of Quebec on the second of February and had this to say in his letter. You gave me permission, Mr. Chairman, to refer to these letters on clause 2. This is what the Prime Minister, who is absent in London now, said and what the Minister of Finance says is nonsense tonight:
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-
The Prime Minister evidently did not know what was going on. He did not know that no agreement was necessary. He did not know that each was going to proceed in his own

Dominion-Provincial Relations sphere. The Prime Minister did not know what it was all about. This superior Minister of Finance changed the whole thing. But the funny thing is that Mr. Barrette also talked about an agreement in his reply. In his letter of February 5, after agreeing to have the Minister of Finance come to Quebec and talk to him, he said:
I presume-
Perhaps I had better start at the beginning of the sentence.
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.
Unless it has been made in a manner that has not been communicated to any member of the house, there never was any such announcement. There never was any announcement of any kind after the minister came back from Quebec. When the hon. member for Laurier asked the minister about this he said, "You will find out when you get the bill".


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, no, that is not what I said. I said I would be glad to go into the matter fully on the resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister now says
he would be glad to go into the matter fully.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not what I said now; that is what I said then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All right, that is what the minister said then about what he would do on the resolution stage, but when we asked for details on the resolution stage he said, "You can wait for the bill".


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, 1 did not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, you did, and when we get to the bill he says, "This was a secret meeting and you cannot know what went on".


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Solicitor General says they had an agreement and the minister says they had not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has attributed to me words I never used. He said that I said it was a secret meeting, and a number of other things. I have not said any such thing. Stick to the facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, maybe it was a public meeting to which no one was


admitted, about which no communique was issued and about which we can find out nothing when we ask questions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The kind you and Joey have.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, not the kind of meeting the Minister of Justice had with the premier of Newfoundland, and if I were the Minister of Justice I would not talk very much about my visit to Newfoundland.


Mr. Maclnnis:: You cannot talk so much about your visits to Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, this goes farther back than that. In the letters that the minister put on Hansard in order that we would have the whole record clear, the letter that the Prime Minister wrote to the premier of Quebec, at that time Mr. Sauve, on December 22 also refers to this matter. Mr. Barrette's reply of January 21 also refers to it. He says:
-your government and ours will come to an agreement on this subject.
Now, three times, in the letter of January 21, the letter from Mr. Barrette, and the letters of February 2 and February 5, all of them talk about an agreement. The Solicitor General comes in and makes a speech in this house, and he certainly gives the impression or uses words that certainly give the impression there was an agreement. Then, all of a sudden-


Léon Balcer: I have denied that about five times.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You say there is disagreement, then, do you?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: Be responsible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You know, sir, before we had this government, either a thing was something or it was not. Now we have a kind of grey world in between. I say that either there is an agreement or there is not an agreement. It is very clear that this correspondence, right up until the last letter that was written, envisaged an agreement. I am not going to attempt once more to interpret those words of the Solicitor General. They have been advertised enough for everyone to judge for himself what they mean, if indeed they mean anything. One is beginning to wonder whether they did mean anything because the Minister of Finance will not say he did not have an agreement with the premier of Quebec and he will not say that he did. He will not tell us whether he did or whether he did not.
Surely before we are called upon to pass this legislation, which was supposed to solve

the problems between the two governments, we are entitled to know whether or not both governments are satisfied.


An hon. Member:: They are.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are they satisfied? What is the evidence? The latest evidence we have on this subject is Mr. Barrette's speech of last Sunday in which he said there was no understanding, no agreement and no accord. Surely we are entitled to know what the situation is.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, during the course of the statement by the Leader of the Opposition he put a question to the Minister of Finance which was not answered. I should like to put it to him now. It was this: Does the government still advocate substituting for tax-sharing and equalization the kind of allocation of tax fields which it talked about when it was in opposition? This will be found on page 3590 of Hansard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the rule is that discussion has to be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration. This subject has nothing whatever to do with this particular clause.


An hon. Member:: You are afraid to answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is a raucous voice over there of an hon. member who is engaged in a breach of the rules of the house. Perhaps the hon. member does not know that, but it is high time he did learn.


Lionel Chevrier: I find that the chairman has been rather careful in having the rules observed this evening, so I think he should be left with that jurisdiction, not the Minister of Finance. Could I ask the minister another question? Could the minister give the house an assurance that this provision that is under discussion now is not a violation of section 93 of the constitution?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not a violation of the British North America Act at all. This bill is constitutional in all respects.


Lionel Chevrier: The question I put to the minister was whether it was a violation of a particular section, section 93.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not a violation of any provision of the constitution. The only thing it seems to violate is the sense of the hon. members opposite in trying to maintain and continue a situation of very great injustice to one province in this country.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister say, if it is not then a violation of the letter of the constitution, it is also not a violation of the spirit of the constitution?
Dominion-Provincial Relations


Donald Methuen Fleming: I consider that this measure is a fulfilment, not only of the letter of the law, of the constitution, but is a fulfilment of the spirit of the constitution. It is necessary that this should be done because the legislation that existed before certainly did violence to the spirit of the Canadian constitution.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry the minister finds it necessary to make a speech in answer to every question I ask. However, that is his privilege, and I suppose I can do the same thing. I should like to ask a number of other questions before we dispose of this clause. One of them is this: Is the minister in favour of federal grants to universities in principle or only as a temporary solution for a period of two years?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman-


Jacques Flynn: Order; I have up to now permitted an exchange of questions and answers between the hon. member for Laurier and the Minister of Finance, but I must draw the attention of the committee to the fact that these questions are not relevant to clause
2.	A discussion of the constitutionality of the bill in general was a matter for debate on second reading. Here there is no relation to any part of the clause under consideration, and I would rule that these questions and answers are out of order.
Shall clause 2 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Chairman, we would like to have a division on clause 2.
Clause 2 agreed to; yeas, 87; nays, 26.
On clause 3-Alteration of act in its application to fiscal years ending March 31, 1962.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask the minister on clause 3 the question I put to him earlier and which he said was out of order. I think it is in order here. Does the government still advocate substituting for tax-sharing and equalization the kind of allocation of tax fields which it talked about when it was in opposition?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The views of the government relevant to the subject matter of this bill are adequately expressed in the terms of the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask whether the government will continue the policy announced by the Prime Minister in Manitoba during the election of 1957, namely that the Conservative government would maintain the principle of equalization?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Conservative government has not only maintained the principle but has extended it.

Dominion-Provincial Relations


Mr. Regier:: May I ask the minister whether there is any particular reason for having decided on the year 1962 as it appears in this clause?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Because that is the date of conclusion of all agreements authorized by the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act. In other words, the amendment deals with a period co-termin-ous with the period appointed by the main act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: At the end of 1962 will the government extend the principle of equalization to the provinces?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If by any chance my hon. friend is a member of the House of Commons when this question is decided he will certainly be made aware of it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister may or may not wish to reply to the question. The question was a clear one. At the end of this period or the expiry of it will the present government, if in office-something of which I am extremely doubtful-extend the principle of equalization or is the principle of equalization to be extended to the provinces only for a limited period as previously stated by the Minister of Finance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That, of course, will depend upon the will of parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, oh. From what the minister said I take it that this government, so far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, does not wish at this time to state whether or not the principle of equalization will be extended beyond the two-year period. That is the only legitimate interpretation that can be made of the remarks, ambiguous as they are, of the Minister of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is difficult to restrain one's mirth after such a harangue from the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the situation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, no. The hon. member for Essex East is seeking to impose his interpretation on the committee. I must dissent from his attempt to impose his interpretation on me. I want to make that point very clear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But that is the situation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will say to the
hon. member for Essex East, as I have said in the chamber on a previous occasion, which he no doubt has forgotten, that the present government has nothing whatever to


learn from its predecessor about rendering effective assistance to provinces whose fiscal positions require it.


Erhart Regier: I should like to thank the minister for his answer previously. He said the reason for the date of March 31, 1962 is that it coincides with the date when other existing agreements under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act expire. I should like to ask the minister this question. Is it the intention of the government, in making these two dates coincide, that after March 31, 1962 extraordinary arrangements will no longer be made with regard to federal aid for our universities as such?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No inference should be drawn in that regard. Announcement has already been made of the calling of a plenary dominion-provincial conference for July 25, 26 and 27 next, at which there will be discussion of what shall be the fiscal relations between the federal and provincial levels of government after March 31, 1962.


Erhart Regier: I should like to ask the minister this question. In making new arrangements with the provinces for tax-sharing agreements is it the intention of the federal government to move out of the specific field of federal aid toward universities?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have already said that no inference should be drawn of the kind the hon. gentleman is proposing to draw. I have given the reason. We are now past the section dealing with university grants entirely. We are on clause 3 of the bill which deals with the increase from 10 per cent to 13 per cent in the provincial share of the yield from the personal income tax.


Erhart Regier: I will ask only one more question. Is it the policy of the government, of which the minister is the Minister of Finance, that there shall continue to be federal aid to the universities of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This bill makes provision for the continuance of the aid to universities to March 31, 1962. It puts that aid on a statutory basis. Never before has it been on that basis. It makes provision this time two years in advance, something which has never been done before. Previously this aid had always simply been on the basis of an annual vote, an item in the estimates. Under the provisions of this bill aid to the universities is assured for a longer period and on a surer basis than has ever been known previously.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: Now. Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the committee stage through which the bill has just passed, Mr. Speaker, we have made every effort we could think of-


Edmund Davie Fulton: And some you did not even bother to think about.


An hon. Member:: That is a cynical remark.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) is in one of his usually helpful moods. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we have used every device it is possible to use in the committee to record the position we take with regard to this bill-


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: How did you vote?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -namely that a substantial part of the bill is simply a continuation of Liberal legislation, but that there has been introduced into it an element which we find to be of dubious constitutionality and an undoubted invasion of the real liberty, autonomy and rights of any province which takes this alternative which the bill seeks to provide.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: How
did you vote on second reading?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member asks me how we voted on second reading. May I say that on second reading we voted for the principle of university grants and the principle of equalization, both Liberal principles. However, at the time we said we would do our best to take the objectionable features out of the bill in committee and we did so.


An hon. Member:: Or tried to do it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We were not successful, thanks to the centralizing attitude of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). I do not think there are likely to be pronounced in this House of Commons for a long time to come words that will ring around this country so much as did the words used by the Minister of Finance when he said that if he had accepted our amendment it would be open to the province to apply the funds-that is the funds that the province collected from its own taxes-in any way it saw fit. In other words, we tried to put the province in a position to spend its funds in any way it saw fit, because we believe in provincial rights; and hon. gentlemen opposite were determined to force a system of uniformity upon all the
Dominion-Provincial Relations


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member asks provinces and insist that they must conform to an agreement to which they were not a party. That is the position. I tell you, sir, it will be a long time before anyone who genuinely cares about the rights of the provinces will forget the words of the Minister of Finance, that it would be open to the province to apply the funds collected by the province from a provincial tax "in any way it saw fit". If a province cannot spend its money in any way it sees fit, where is there any autonomy?
I do not intend to engage in any tedious repetition.


John Cameron Pallett: The hon. member is tedious without repetition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope we can complete this matter tonight. However, I intend to move, seconded by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc):
That the said bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering the removal from clause 2 of the provision that the arrangements for the payment by the province directly to institutions of higher learning should be satisfactory in the opinion of the Minister of Finance and in accordance with and subject to terms and conditions not inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the agreement between the Minister of Finance and the Canadian universities foundation.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I put the motion, does any hon. member wish to comment on it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, I am encouraged by one thing. The hon. member said he wanted to see this matter disposed of tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: I was seeking comments as to the merits of the amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is my intention, Mr. Speaker. This amendment in my submission is not in order. It purports to direct the committee of the whole to reconsider the removal of clause 2 but it does not set forth the precise terms of the words that should be struck out or the precise terms of the words that should be added. This is vague and general. For those reasons it does not conform at all with the rules applicable to order as applied to amendments introduced on third reading.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If there is any doubt about the matter I would refer Your Honour to citation 415 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which reads:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.


Donald MacInnis: What is the particular?

Division


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me that that is very adequately covered by the amendment. There is no suggestion here that one has to cite the exact words in order to accomplish that purpose.


Mr. Speaker:: The citation referred to by the hon. member, citation 415 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition, seems to cover the principle of the situation at this time. The other point made was as to its vagueness. The other consideration is as to whether the amendment tends to change a principle approved on second reading. I think it does not do the latter. It has not been held that amendments are not in order because they are vague or completely unintellible even. On the whole I think this amendment is one that should be put and I will proceed to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the house prepared to deal with the main motion?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, before we vote on third reading I want to state the position of our party and I will do it briefly.


Léon Balcer: Have you changed your mind again?


Lionel Chevrier: We are taking precisely the same position as taken by our leader on second reading, namely that we do not intend to vote against the scheme of equalization established by Mr. St. Laurent, or even appear to be made to do so. We do not intend to vote against the St. Laurent formula for university grants which this government is continuing for nine out of the 10 provinces and which the Solicitor General considers unc onstitutional-


William Heward Grafftey: Why was it not accepted?


Lionel Chevrier: -but which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) says is completely constitutional.
We have used every device at our command open to an opposition to prevent this government from putting into this bill the alternative method of paying university

grants which seems to be of doubtful constitutional validity and which is certainly an invasion of the normal jurisdiction of a province. So far as we can learn from the contradictory statements of the ministers and the correspondence of the Prime Minister, this invasion of the rights of the province of Quebec seems to have been approved and accepted as satisfactory, indeed, as a magnificent solution by the present premier of Quebec.
We have done our best to remove the objectionable features in this bill and the people of Quebec will now be able to decide the question for themselves. We believe that within a year the present government will have to come back to this parliament and ask us to enact the constructive amendment we offered today. Meanwhile, we are not going to repudiate the constructive achievements of the St. Laurent government in the field of equalization of aid to universities.
On this bill the division is not in our party but on the other side of the house in the Conservative party, and that division has been reflected in the votes and the absences we have seen today. As a matter of fact, on one vote there were only 12 Quebec Conservative members from the other side of the house who voted against our amendment.


John Cameron Pallett: The hon. member cannot
count.


Lionel Chevrier: Conservative members from the province of Quebec who voted against our amendment.	,
Mr. Pallet!: That statement is completely inaccurate.


Lionel Chevrier: That division has been reflected on more than one occasion during the course of the voting.
The Minister of Finance has told us that this arrangement was perfectly satisfactory to the government of Quebec. Why, then, were most of the Conservative members from Quebec absent from the house and why did they fail to support the government on our amendments this afternoon and this evening?
I want to repeat that the division of opinion is not within our ranks, but within the ranks of the Conservative party.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister rising to speak?


Donald Methuen Fleming: To reply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, sir, the minister has spoken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Third reading is not a substantive motion and there is no right
Dominion-Provincial Relations to reply. I am afraid I cannot hear the Minister of Finance. Is the house ready for the question?


Léon Balcer: On a point of order, as a member of this house I want to protest against the words of the hon. member for Laurier with respect to the presence of the Quebec Conservative members in the house at the time of the voting.


Lionel Chevrier: There were only 12.


Léon Balcer: There were more than that.


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


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken on the motion for third reading; I moved it. If you rule I have no right to reply to what has been- said I will not press the point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the rule.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do wish to say this on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Laurier violated-


Lionel Chevrier: No; I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not recognized any point of order. The Solicitor General knows that he is entitled to rise and speak if he wishes. If the minister has a point of order-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I want to raise a similar point, Mr. Speaker. There is a rule in this house that no hon. member may reflect on the vote of any member of the house, and what-


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -the hon. member for Laurier has done has been to reflect on the vote of a number of members of this house, and he has done it in a way that he must realize is a very great injustice to hon. members of the house, which I am quite sure they will be pleased to demonstrate to him on the vote which will now take place.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think I am entitled to reply to the point of order.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What the Minister of Finance raises is a matter of privilege of members of the house, and I will hear the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to pursue the matter unduly but I submit with deference, Mr. Speaker, that it is the right of any hon. member, as it has been on more than one
3850	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations occasion, to state what the position was with reference to a vote, and I dealt with only one vote. If I had dealt with the other vote it would have been infinitely worse than the figures I gave.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is a well recognized rule of the house that a member is not to reflect on the conduct of another member in voting. The remarks of the hon. member for Laurier were in pretty general terms and not related to any specific member. He did relate them to a class, namely those from the province of Quebec, and I think he is getting very close to the line of what would be considered a breach of the privileges. But I consider that perhaps the matter might not be pursued in view of the generality of the statement. Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I will be a good deal briefer than the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) but I do not believe we should have the vote until someone has replied to his statement. I have listened with great care to the amendments to this bill offered by the opposition and the effect of each and every one of them is the same. This government has, after a great deal of discussion-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear that it is ten o'clock.


Egan Chambers: May I ask unanimous consent to reply very briefly to the hon. member for Laurier?


Lionel Chevrier: As far as I am concerned, you may have it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to dispose of this matter tonight?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker-


Norman Platt Lambert: Don't you talk about long sessions.


Hazen Robert Argue: Who is threatening whom now?


Mr. Speaker:: Ten o'clock.


Egan Chambers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Egan Chambers: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will please resume his seat. It having been called ten o'clock, there is no right to raise a point of order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire of the house leader what the business is for tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The business for tomorrow will be the third reading of the bill we were debating today, followed by the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and, if they are completed, the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. On Monday the intention is to commence with item No. 12 on today's order paper which is a motion in my name to set up a select committee to deal with research and other matters. The second item would be item No. 1 on today's order paper, Bill No. C-57, to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act. Item No. 3 for consideration on Monday or Tuesday would be No. 14 on the order paper, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources dealing with the Yukon Act. Item No. 4 would be the resolution in the name of the same minister dealing with the Northwest Territories Act. If these are completed, item No. 5 would be No. 16 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport dealing with amendments to the Railway Act.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, but I could not understand the last part of the business announced by the house leader. Did the last part refer to the business for Monday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was talking about Monday when I named five items. They might carry over to Tuesday, but I have not announced anything for the balance of the week. We will see what happens on Monday.


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

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

Mr. Boulanger: 1.	How many scholarships have been granted by Canada following the agreement between the commonwealth countries, for the years 1958 and 1959?
2.	What amount was spent for each of the years 1958 and 1959?
3.	What was the number of such scholarships granted for each one of the Canadian universities?
4.	How many students from commonwealth countries have attended each of our Canadian universities in 1958 and 1959?
Inswer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
1.	The commonwealth scholarship scheme was established after a meeting of commonwealth representatives in Oxford in July,
1959.	The first group of scholars under this scheme will come to Canada in September,
1960.
Under the Colombo plan which has been in operation since 1951 Canada provides technical aid to commonwealth and non-commonwealth countries of south and southeast Asia. The number of scholarships under this plan provided by Canada to commonwealth countries of the area in 1958-59 was 87 and in 1959-60 was 151.
2.	The amount of money spent by Canada under the Colombo plan on training programs in 1958-59 was $863,502.86 and in 195960 was $996,027.40.
3.	Scholarships granted in these two years were awarded according to the requests received and the academic programs of the students concerned. The numbers of students assigned on this basis to universities in Canada from commonwealth countries were as follows:
12, I960		3851
Question	1958-59	1959-60
U. of Alberta 			6
U. of British Columbia ...	.. 8	9
Carleton U			12
U. of Manitoba			1
U. McGill		.. 3	12
McMaster U			2
U. of New Brunswick	.. 2	3*Laval University 	. . 8	16*U. de Montreal 	. . 22	25Ontario Agri. College 	.. 0	5Ottawa U	.. 1	4Queen's U	1St. Francis Xavier U	.. 0	2Saint Mary's U	.. 1	3St. Patrick's 	1U. of Saskatchewan 	. . 0	4Toronto U	12U. of Western Ontario ....	.. 3	3
* Includes non-commonwealth Colombo plan students.
4.	The number of students from commonwealth countries who were in attendance at each Canadian university in 1958-59 by their own private arrangement or by various types of scholarships was as follows:
Acadia U., 34; U. of Alberta, 49; Assumption U., 25; Bishop's U., 2; U. of British Columbia, 416; Carleton U., 12; Dalhousie U., 71; U. of King's College, 6; U. Laval, 8; U. of Manitoba, 241; McGill U., 543; McMaster U., 29; U de Montreal, 5; Mount Allison U., 92; Mount Saint Vincent College, 11; U. of New Brunswick, 38; Nova Scotia Technical College, 13; U. d'Ottawa, 80; Queen's U., 129; St. Dun-stan's U., 11; St. Francis Xavier U., 31; U. Saint-Joseph, 5; St. Thomas' U., 1; Saint Mary's U., 17; U. of Saskatchewan, 104; Sir George Williams U., 82; U. of Toronto, 485; U. of Waterloo, 1; U. of Western Ontario, 82.
Note:
1.	Statistics are not yet available for 1959-60.
2.	The numbers include about 1,000 from the British Caribbean area, 600 from Hong Kong and 500 from the United Kingdom.
79951-0-243



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
86th Congress	S. Res. 308
2d Session
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES April 25, 1960
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the exchanges of views which took place last week between twenty four members of the Canadian parliament and twenty four members of the United States congress-
1. Served to promote further the basic understandings which exist between the peoples of Canada and the United States;
2.	Served to strengthen the bonds of friendship between these peoples; and
3.	Served to emphasize once again the unity of purpose, the unity of thought, and the unity of spirit with which Canada and the United States seek to promote peace and freedom throughout the world.
Resolved further, That the secretary of the Senate transmit this resolution to appropriate officers of the Canadian parliament.
Attest:
Felton M. Johnston,
Secretary.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 13, 1980